Obamacare the worst of both worlds.

[DanieltheDragon]

Obamacare is not single payer. Obamacare is not Medicare/Medicaid for all. Obamacare is not a magic bullet that will solve our insurance woes.


There are some positives for sure:

Regulations on pre-existing conditions is widely popular.
Allowing children to stay on their parents health insurance after adulthood is huge.


Here is the nagging problem, while obamacare seeks to regulate the insurance industry like a single payer system it simultaneously tries to preserve a market profit driven approach, that also involves subsidizing insurance companies to keep rates artificially low.

Now there is more than one way to skin a cat for sure. This approach just seems to be the least efficient way to do it. Nor have we even really improved our cost of care Bloomberg has us 50 out of 55, we haven't really improved on the WHO ratings either. The only thing Obamacare really managed to accomplish is put 24 million folks on expensive ineffective health insurance.

In the end all Obamacare is, is a giant beuracratic handout to the insurance industry. Americans deserves something better.

[bluethread]

You mean the special election where the Republicans have held the seat solidly for decades; the Republicans spent more campaign funds than any other single election and they held the seat by 51 or so percent?

Yah, the one where the Hollywood lib's funded their Ossoff to the tune of nearly seven times the amount of the Republicans record spending to Handle Georgia's 6th, for a candidate that decried "the role of money in politics". That said, incumbency generally results in double digit leads, as was enjoyed by Tom Price. So, there was a little more going on here than Trump.

[Mountainmanbob]

You mean the special election where the Republicans have held the seat solidly for decades; the Republicans spent more campaign funds than any other single election and they held the seat by 51 or so percent?[/quote]


Yes that one.
The Democrats thought they were going to clean up.
Just more Fake news.
M-Bob

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 7 by DanieltheDragon]

Unfortunately until our election process is reformed to deal with fundraising only those with a vested interest in money get elected.

Amazingly, Trump turned your assertion around, spending only half of what Hillary spent. Of course his grandstanding theatrics made up the difference -- welcome to politics 401 and how to destroy Democracy 202. A Greek tragedy in the making.

But, on the other hand, Trump's interest in money far outstrips Clinton's supposed interest unless her being a public servant for over 30 years has been her route to riches. I guess the wealthier candidate wins the contest and you are right: Trump wins out (though I'd still like to see his tax returns).

[bluethread]

But, on the other hand, Trump's interest in money far outstrips Clinton's supposed interest unless her being a public servant for over 30 years has been her route to riches. I guess the wealthier candidate wins the contest and you are right: Trump wins out (though I'd still like to see his tax returns).

I don't think that Trump's interest in money outstrips Clinton's. Trump just understands the most efficient use of money, because he has used his own all his life. Since, as a "public servant", Clinton used other people's money, she never learned how to use it efficiently. She just counted on skimming it or having other people give it to her.

[koko]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]



''The only thing Obamacare really managed to accomplish is put 24 million folks on expensive ineffective health insurance.

In the end all Obamacare is, is a giant beuracratic handout to the insurance industry. Americans deserves something better.''



Ineffective?

Not so. Obamacare extended Medicaid to my state and gave me coverage that I never had before. It has been a life saver from Day One.


Bureaucratic handout?

Quite possibly so. But the Republicans in Congress gave him no other choice. He pledged to give health care coverage to millions of Americans as per the DNC convention in August 2008. He kept his word. More could be done to make the coverage less expensive but that is up to Congress and is not his fault.



Now, where is the Republican alternative?

[koko]

bluethread,


I don't think that Trump's interest in money outstrips Clinton's. Trump just understands the most efficient use of money, because he has used his own all his life. Since, as a "public servant", Clinton used other people's money, she never learned how to use it efficiently. She just counted on skimming it or having other people give it to her.


For the record, Trump went through several bankruptcies and was bailed out by taxpayers.

[bluethread]

bluethread,


I don't think that Trump's interest in money outstrips Clinton's. Trump just understands the most efficient use of money, because he has used his own all his life. Since, as a "public servant", Clinton used other people's money, she never learned how to use it efficiently. She just counted on skimming it or having other people give it to her.


For the record, Trump went through several bankruptcies and was bailed out by taxpayers.

I am not a big fan of bankruptcies and bailouts either, but Trump did not grant his own bankruptcies and bail outs. The Clinton's used their positions in government to enrich themselves.

[Rufus21]

The Clinton's used their positions in government to enrich themselves.

And now Trump is following in their footsteps.

Does anyone else wish there could be a government without politicians? LOL

[bluethread]

The Clinton's used their positions in government to enrich themselves.

And now Trump is following in their footsteps.

Does anyone else wish there could be a government without politicians? LOL

How is Trump enriching himself?

[koko]

bluethread wrote:
The Clinton's used their positions in government to enrich themselves.

Dick Cheney owns a large part of Halliburton which gained several billions worth of profits in no bid contracts thanks to Bush's imperialist wars in the Middle East.