Hillary nearly collapses at Sep. 11th ceremony

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

But of course we can lower ourselves to spread rumors and speculations as though they are facts if it concerns Donald Trump.

I think part of it is how belligerent and mean Trump has proven to be, with all the personal insults and all. I know Hillary has offered her share of personal insults, but c'mon, Trump was known for it even within the Republican Party. lol When a man lowers himself to this kind of strategy he opens himself up to greater scrutiny and to be treated in kind.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

We can trust the Clintons will be forthright and transparent.

Of course we can. LOL

In this day and age, the American people couldn't handle a "transparent" candidate.

[n david]

Big basket of deplorables in here.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm sorry about your mother, but don't blame the GOP for her not having health insurance.

So those years the Democrats were in complete control of the WH and Congress...and did NOTHING. Obviously I'm glad they didn't, but am curious as to why they're escaping your wrath. Unless you're completely party biased.

I'm curious about what you mean by, "they did nothing".

Also, it's Medicaid expansion. Not Medicare. There's a difference. GOP blocked Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid, not Medicare. Thanks for correcting. I've talked about Medicare so much, I just kept typing Medicare. lol

The liars are in the administration. And the GOP has had healthcare plans, and plans for Medicaid. Democrats don't want it because 1) it sends Medicaid to the states instead of the feds being in control; and 2) it's their wedge and campaign issue. The very thing you loathe the GOP for, Democrats are just as guilty.

States that okayed Medicaid expansion are receiving billions in funds and medical providers are reporting that they are benefiting from the expansions while also expanding their ability to care for more citizens.

States wherein the GOP successfully blocked Medicaid expansion are losing out on receiving funds and their healthcare agencies are reporting higher costs.

Interestingly enough, those complaining about the ACA the most are arguing that they can't afford it because the price is too high. That's true, especially if you live in a state where the GOP blocked the Medicaid expansions. The GOP knew this would happen. They wanted to pinch voters in these states and then blame President Obama's plan in order to try to generate more political support to repeal the ACA. They are literally hurting people physically and financially to try to generate support.

One more correction, the states would be burdened with the cost.

Again, states that okayed Medicaid expansions are doing quite well and receiving the necessary funding, with providers even praising the move. The only states being "burdened" are those wherein the GOP blocked the expansions. Because these states aren't receiving the federal funding.

The states aren't giving billions in corporate subsidies, that's the feds. And while the Democrats were in control of Congress they did nothing about that, either.

I know the Democrats aren't innocent in this. I'm a Berniecrat. I wanted to see a hardline Democratic administration. Hillary will just be more of the same and no, I don't like this one bit. But I believe it would be worse under Trump.

Let's hear you rant and rave about the lying Democrat thugs, monsters and lapdogs. It's all politics. You're naïve if you believe only the GOP are corporate lapdogs.

I did during the Democratic Primaries. lol

"A bad plan is always better than no plan." Another liberal talking point. You must watch a lot of MSNBC and CNN. (Also, it's factually untrue.)

It was just an opinion. Jeesh.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

What is often regarded as "corporate welfare" are tax advantages given to certain corporations. there is no actual money given to these companies by the Federal Government. if you take these cuts away, then the consumer ends of absorbing them in the final cost of products at a retail level. why would you want the poor to pay more for goods

Actually, you're talking about corporate tax breaks. Corporate tax breaks can be beneficial in certain economic climates and in certain industries.

However, corporate subsidies are essentially grants from the government, subsidizing corporate business. Last year over $90 billion in corporate subsidies were given to corporations. The idea is, if the government subsidizes and props up these corporations they will stay state side and use the revenue to open more jobs. However, corporations tend to exploit the law and put the subsidies their given into foreign investments or accounts while also reporting record profits. It's basically "welfare" for corporations.

By the way, social welfare programs for the poor don't exceed $60 billion. Corporations leeching nearly 50% more tax payer dollars from the government than social welfare programs. This is why Democrats hit the roof when Republicans want to cut programs for the poor.... but increase corporate subsidies, all the while arguing that we can't afford programs that provide a social safety net. If the Republicans really wanted to save money, they'd cut funds to the welfare recipients who don't need it.... corporations.

Frankly, it's more difficult for a single mother of three to qualify for subsidized housing and food allotments than it is for a major corporation to rake in a couple billion in subsidies.

The real solution is a very low flat corporate tax rate that cannot be changed except by a 2/3 super majority of both Houses of congress. But the Dems will never agree to that as they use the current tax code to reward friends and punish enemies.

In 2013 President Obama submitted a plan that would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, with a preferred rate of 25 percent for manufacturers. It would also allow small businesses to write off $1 million in investments. The Republican Congress opposed it and falsely accused the President's program of being an increase in small business taxes if passed. Frankly, here too, the Republicans blocked measures that would relieve the corporate tax burden, but in the end blamed Obama for high corporate taxes! LOL

Rather it's corporate tax cuts or Medicaid expansions, the Republicans hurt the American people by opposing them, only to turn around and blame America's pain on President Obama.

But comparing any of that to our medicaid discussion is only a diversion. Why would you want the taxes at a State level to skyrocket to pay for all these expansions?

Do you know what I'm talking about when I mention "Medicaid expansions"? The expansions come with funding and the ACA allows the states time to take budgetary measures to prevent excessive tax hikes in the future.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The thing I've noticed is that when any politician from either side indicates that they are going to replace something with "something better" and they don't lay out solid, coherent, peer reviewed, and party supported policies.... what they are really going to do is consult their special interests in that industry and give them the power to determine what any new plan would be and to control that plan. Basically Trump is saying that he'll repeal the ACA and give the insurance companies control over the insurance market.

I have a novel idea. Why don't we just turn this matter back over the States and let them be the "laboratories of democracy" they were meant to be?

I find it interesting that Vermont voted in single payer and it failed. How do you then expect it to work for 330 million people? Liberal Oregon voted it down in a referendum.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A bad plan is better than no plan?
Not always.
You sound like a typical Democrat.

Guilty as charged.

I suppose the housing crisis was all about greedy, evil Republicans also.
The housing crisis was brought about by the compassionate, caring Democrats who wanted to make everyone a homeowner.
So, how they did this was to threaten lenders with close government examination unless they opened up their doors to people who really should not have been given loans.
I know, because I had employees who benefited from this.
And then lost their homes, because they did not know how to manage their money and should not have been given a loan in the first place.

In 1995 President Clinton pushed for the CRA as an effort to pressure banks to invest in impoverished communities. Under President Bush deregulation of the market expanded and any measure put forward to tighten regulations were resisted by both the Administration and the 107th REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. Merrill Lynch's CEO (Stan O'Neal) began creating collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which were largely made of subprime mortgage bonds. By 2006 Merrill Lynch had over $40 billion in these bonds, which they had kept on the books. When the marked began to unravel, Bank of America swooped in to buy these bonds and then began selling them internationally. Basically, they were selling the debt, nothing had any real value and raked in billions. Of course we could get into the hedge funds that were born of this blah, blah, blah.... and then the bubble burst. It all began crashing down around these idiots feet. Had the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration not fought regulatory measures like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, much of the crisis could have been prevented.

While Clinton opened the door for the crisis.... it was the deregulation of the industry championed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress that pulled the strings that unraveled the market.

This closely relates to the "healthcare crisis".
The government has driven the cost of healthcare higher by imposing costs for procedures. This has driven healthcare professionals to take advantage of "gaps" in the governments cost with certain procedures and tests.
This acts to drive real costs even higher.
Now, as I have stated before, I do believe in a healthcare safety net for all.
Which puts me at odds with many conservatives.
But, get the government out of the healthcare business and make them only responsible for distributing money per individual.
Then, let private companies take care of fighting for each persons business.
Again, look at the German model for a starting point.

Can you explain what you mean by distributing money per individual?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I have a novel idea. Why don't we just turn this matter back over the States and let them be the "laboratories of democracy" they were meant to be?

I find it interesting that Vermont voted in single payer and it failed. How do you then expect it to work for 330 million people? Liberal Oregon voted it down in a referendum.

Given the costs involved most state governments couldn't carry a single payer system based on cost being compared with revenues collected. However, the federal government is perfectly capable of funding the program. I find it interesting that Republicans argue that we can fund a $6 trillion dollar war, increase military funding, and deploy the American military all over the globe.... but they don't believe we could pay for a single payer system. Maybe we need to move from being a war dependent economy and invest those resources in the American people. Of course, that would mean increasing diplomacy and international relations, and partnering with international bodies to address regional and global crisis. We'd have stop being the world's police officer and work in a more cooperative manner.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Can you explain what you mean by distributing money per individual?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...ermany/360133/

A - this is a good read, there are some better articles out there if you search.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...ermany/360133/

A - this is a good read, there are some better articles out there if you search.

Thanks of the article. It was very interesting. I can see the appeal. I'd be interested in seeing the benefits of moving towards reforms pushing toward a system like Germany's.

If we're going to be stuck with the ACA, perhaps a system like Germany's would be a good idea.