GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[EvilMonkey]

Whaaaat? Where did you get that idea?

 

The taxpayers are all paying now for uninsured, the working poor, the indigent, the workers whose employers will not offer that benefit. I'd like to see a better system. So far in this thread there is one proposal, making employers responsible and your snarky comments assuming my views.

You forgot to add that we are also paying for the workers who COULD afford insurance but instead prefer to gamble and takes cruises and drive new cars instead.

[kapkomet]

Whaaaat? Where did you get that idea?

 

The taxpayers are all paying now for uninsured, the working poor, the indigent, the workers whose employers will not offer that benefit. I'd like to see a better system. So far in this thread there is one proposal, making employers responsible and your snarky comments assuming my views.

Ok Tex, you almost always take the side of having government fix everything, including health care. You've implied before (not in this thread) that there's not enough done to provide health insurance for all, so the next logical leap is to have our government do it for us. Who are you kidding? Sheep in Wolves Clothing, or something like that.

 

Unless it's Tom DeLay. Now HE'S the Second Coming, not Obama.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Ok Tex, you almost always take the side of having government fix everything, including health care. You've implied before (not in this thread) that there's not enough done to provide health insurance for all, so the next logical leap is to have our government do it for us. Who are you kidding? Sheep in Wolves Clothing, or something like that.

 

Unless it's Tom DeLay. Now HE'S the Second Coming, not Obama.

 

On things that are better at a massive scale, yes, that is why the citizens on this country formed a government. So if not the government, how about employers? Or how will you have someone making $8.00 per hour afford even catastrophic insurance?

[kapkomet]

On things that are better at a massive scale, yes, that is why the citizens on this country formed a government. So if not the government, how about employers? Or how will you have someone making $8.00 per hour afford even catastrophic insurance?

It depends on how things get structured. Really, if you look at it, employer costs of health care is a hidden tax, in a sense. But, some companies choose to pay more on behalf of their employees as a "wellness" benefit.

 

If a person is making $8.00 an hour, they're going to get caught in the existing safety net anyway... and the taxpayers will pay for it anyway as it exists TODAY. (this is very generic... but generally, this is the case)... especially if you're an illegal immigrant, oddly enough.

[Texsox]

It depends on how things get structured. Really, if you look at it, employer costs of health care is a hidden tax, in a sense. But, some companies choose to pay more on behalf of their employees as a "wellness" benefit.

 

If a person is making $8.00 an hour, they're going to get caught in the existing safety net anyway... and the taxpayers will pay for it anyway as it exists TODAY. (this is very generic... but generally, this is the case)... especially if you're an illegal immigrant, oddly enough.

 

So let the government do it?

 

There are exactly three groups to pay for this.

Government

Employers

Individuals

 

Which one has the best chance to control costs, have everyone covered, and offer choices for those that can afford it? As you pointed out, everyone does have coverage of some sort via our safety net and not allowing people to just suffer and die.

[NorthSideSox72]

So let the government do it?

 

There are exactly three groups to pay for this.

Government

Employers

Individuals

 

Which one has the best chance to control costs, have everyone covered, and offer choices for those that can afford it? As you pointed out, everyone does have coverage of some sort via our safety net and not allowing people to just suffer and die.

You missed the two other big players - insurance companies, and health care companies.

 

[kapkomet]

You missed the two other big players - insurance companies, and health care companies.

And pharma companies...

 

The thing is, though, the way that pharma co.'s report, they have spent trillions on R & D - then after the products get released, only then do they get to recoup their costs.

 

 

[Texsox]

You missed the two other big players - insurance companies, and health care companies.

 

Insurance companies have to have their premiums paid by one of the three. That's what I was pointing to. Who should be paying the premiums?

[kapkomet]

Insurance companies have to have their premiums paid by one of the three. That's what I was pointing to. Who should be paying the premiums?

The government, on our behalf.

 

[Texsox]

The government, on our behalf.

 

I have always envisioned a tiered structure which allows government payed, universal coverage for everyone. Probably without choice, but utilizing care facilities that would replace needless trips to the ER. Then a second tier, probably funded optionally by employers, to allow choice and greater access to additional, non critical, care. And finally, private insurance, personally owned, that would reflect what many people have today.

 

You must be a registered alien, at the minimum to qualify, all others will have to hope for private charities. Harsh, perhaps.

[Balta1701]

Which one has the best chance to control costs, have everyone covered, and offer choices for those that can afford it? As you pointed out, everyone does have coverage of some sort via our safety net and not allowing people to just suffer and die.

By far the biggest problem with that though is that the safety net setup is pretty much the worst, most expensive way to operate. It's more costly because:

 

1. People are unable to get preventative treatment for health problems, which can cause small problems to rapidly become big ones

2. People's backup is by far the most expensive way to treat things; going to an emergency room

3. The backup option keeps landing people in bankruptcy because it's so bloody expensive.

[mr_genius]

I do think that there needs to be changes in the health care system. Currently, it seems fairly inhumane, especially for a country with the resources of the United States. And I agree with Balta that prevention would help save a lot of money. But the solution needs to be reasonable, and we need to make sure we keep the best doctors in the world here.

[Balta1701]

I do think that there needs to be changes in the health care system. Currently, it seems fairly inhumane, especially for a country with the resources of the United States. And I agree with Balta that prevention would help save a lot of money. But the solution needs to be reasonable, and we need to make sure we keep the best doctors in the world here.

As long as we keep the educational and public research system we've developed here, I think we will almost no matter what we do. No matter how much other countries pay, if we're offering the best education in the world for that discipline here, we're going to keep a lot of them here.

[NorthSideSox72]

I do think that there needs to be changes in the health care system. Currently, it seems fairly inhumane, especially for a country with the resources of the United States. And I agree with Balta that prevention would help save a lot of money. But the solution needs to be reasonable, and we need to make sure we keep the best doctors in the world here.

Even though I agree with this post, I do want to say that I think Doctors are a major part of the problem with the current health care system (and one that isn't talked about nearly as much as insurers and hospitals). I think its become culturally acceptable in medicine to be wholly uninvolved in a patient's actual treatment, let alone prevention. 30 seconds with the Doc, here's your scrip, go home and sleep it off. Oh and try these drug samples I got at the latest Lilly gof outing.

 

Yes, some of that is the result of the way insurers work. Yes, lawsuits make things more expensive. But I think a LOT of the blame for the state of the system can fall right on the shoulders of the Doctors.

 

[mr_genius]

Even though I agree with this post, I do want to say that I think Doctors are a major part of the problem with the current health care system (and one that isn't talked about nearly as much as insurers and hospitals). I think its become culturally acceptable in medicine to be wholly uninvolved in a patient's actual treatment, let alone prevention. 30 seconds with the Doc, here's your scrip, go home and sleep it off. Oh and try these drug samples I got at the latest Lilly gof outing.

 

Yes, some of that is the result of the way insurers work. Yes, lawsuits make things more expensive. But I think a LOT of the blame for the state of the system can fall right on the shoulders of the Doctors.

 

 

A lot of doctors do act like jerks, I will agree with you on that. However, I'm not sure that a second rate doctor will treat you any better than a first rate. I know what you are getting at though. A while back I had some kidney pain and a slight fever so I went to the doctor, he basically told me I was fine and just being a baby and the pain would go away. So I was like "Ok, cool. I'll just go home and sleep it off". Well, I ended up in the Hospital a couple days later with a major kidney infection. I know that if the prick would have just given me some antibiotics things would have probably been fine. That kinda pissed me off a little . I have health insurance and everything, but I can imagine if I didn't what kind of crazy bills I would have received from the whole ordeal.

[Texsox]

And because I have a great Doctor, I want choice left into the system for those that can afford it.

 

As far as prevention and patient education, I think we need to expand the role of nurses and nurse practitioners.

[Balta1701]

It appears someone is finally going after the Thompson campaign's dirty little secret: it's a campaign.

A liberal activist today lodged a complaint (LINK HERE) with the Federal Election Commission against former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., contending that Thompson's "testing the waters" committee has long since surpassed that designation and that he, for all intents and purposes, is a candidate for president.

 

This is not without precedent. Previous pre-candidates who tried the "testing the waters" committee -- including Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Rev. Pat Robertson, and Rev. Al Sharpton -- invited FEC scrutiny.

 

The rule is pretty simple. If you spend more than $5,000 on campaign activities, you're a candidate, whether or not you've officially declared. The question is what constitutes "testing the waters" activity, and what constitutes "candidate" activity.

 

In 2004 the conservative National and Legal Policy Center filed a complaint with the FEC (LINK HERE) alleging Sharpton was using the "testing the waters" committee to run an "off-the-books campaign," not declaring his candidacy officially while clearly a candidate, thus avoiding disclosure rules. The FEC investigated the matter, and arrived at a settlement with Sharpton.

 

The FEC ruled that Robertson had violated the "testing the waters" rules in 1988, fining him $25,000.

The issue/benefit for Thompson here? He has a few months after he declares to begin meeting disclosure requirements for his campaign donors. Supposedly, if he goes past Sept. 6th without officially announcing, he won't have to meet disclosure requirements until Jan 31st of next year, and thus he won't have to do so until after Iowa, NH, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, etc.

[Texsox]

It appears someone is finally going after the Thompson campaign's dirty little secret: it's a campaign.

The issue/benefit for Thompson here? He has a few months after he declares to begin meeting disclosure requirements for his campaign donors. Supposedly, if he goes past Sept. 6th without officially announcing, he won't have to meet disclosure requirements until Jan 31st of next year, and thus he won't have to do so until after Iowa, NH, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, etc.

 

I don't have a problem with a candidate working the rules as hard as he can. In fact, I don't have a problem with a President doing the same. He's surrounded, no doubt, by attorneys helping in. Bottom line for me, small procedural thing that does not matter.

[southsider2k5]

Welcome to public campaigns, over regulated-style.

[southsider2k5]

So we are in full campaign swing mode now...

 

Is it worse for a Republican to say that the Democrats are hoping for bad news in Iraq because it is good for their party, or Hillary saying that a terror attack would benefit the Republicians?

[Balta1701]

So we are in full campaign swing mode now...

 

Is it worse for a Republican to say that the Democrats are hoping for bad news in Iraq because it is good for their party, or Hillary saying that a terror attack would benefit the Republicians?

I rate both as roughly equal, and would look to context to make the determination. Don't like either.

[EvilMonkey]

I rate both as roughly equal, and would look to context to make the determination. Don't like either.

Problem is, you haven't heard republicans saying "boy, I sure how Al Quada attacks us just before the election, that woulod just seal our victory", but you do have Democrats that have publicaly said that positive things in Iraq would be bad for the party.

[NorthSideSox72]

Problem is, you haven't heard republicans saying "boy, I sure how Al Quada attacks us just before the election, that woulod just seal our victory", but you do have Democrats that have publicaly said that positive things in Iraq would be bad for the party.

Oh come on, you are not that deaf. How many times have you heard a Republican say or hint that if a Dem took their post, the country would be more likely to be attacked? Hundreds of times easily. I'm sorry but on this one, the GOP has taken the lead in slimey accusations surrounding terror.

 

[Texsox]

Oh come on, you are not that deaf. How many times have you heard a Republican say or hint that if a Dem took their post, the country would be more likely to be attacked? Hundreds of times easily. I'm sorry but on this one, the GOP has taken the lead in slimey accusations surrounding terror.

 

No matter how they say it, with safety being a major campaign theme for everyone, and something the voter is interested in, every candidate needs to address the question, how will I be safer with you in charge? So they can't duck it. Next, why is your plan better than your opponents? Any event that offers proof that the candidates statements are true will help that candidate. Slimy or not, I do not see how to avoid that.

[StrangeSox]

No matter how they say it, with safety being a major campaign theme for everyone, and something the voter is interested in, every candidate needs to address the question, how will I be safer with you in charge? So they can't duck it. Next, why is your plan better than your opponents? Any event that offers proof that the candidates statements are true will help that candidate. Slimy or not, I do not see how to avoid that.

 

Like much of politics, it's never about how good their plan is, its about how bad the other guy's is.