Quantcast
Senator John McCain casts deciding vote against "Skinny Repeal"

Forums - Politics Discussion - Senator John McCain casts deciding vote against "Skinny Repeal"

Healthcare you want for the US

Single Payer (All taxes) 83 57.24%
 
Multi-Payer (Government option) 24 16.55%
 
Heavy regulations (Capita... 6 4.14%
 
Moderate regulation 14 9.66%
 
No regulation 14 9.66%
 
Alternative Medicine 4 2.76%
 
Total:145
Hiku said:
sethnintendo said:

If you find one of those then let me know.  I don't believe they exist.

Bernie Sanders has never accepted a corporate check in his 30+ year long career in politics. That's basically his thing. It's what he has been fighting for all his life.
He has an extensive list of personal donors instead, which the corporate democrats tried to get from him.

There's a group called Justice Democrats that are gaining traction. Their one single requirement is: Do not take corporate or pac money. https://justicedemocrats.com/

They have a few members in congress already, iirc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmGPcCUyug

Oh boy, you have been duped.  Bernie made over a million just by running for office. Those book deals, are from corporations, for the record. That brand new house on Lake Champlain, that he didn't have to pay for, that is shrouded in secrecy on where it came from?   Yeah, that isn't fishy.

Bernie looks out for Bernie and his wife, not you, or me.  He is a politician.  He actually is pushing communism, which is a failure, but can lead to total control of a government.  Bernie is going to have someone challenging him in a primary in Vermont, and it will be interesting to see if he can keep his job.  I've heard from my step-mom, who is from Vermont, that people there are not that thrilled with him anymore. 



Around the Network
Teeqoz said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Well I'm annoyed they haven't come up with something they all agree with, I'm glad they're avoiding passing something broken like ACA.

Yeah, if only republicans hadn't broke Obamacare to begin with, maybe you wouldn't have to deal with this shit.

Frankly, it was a broken bill when it was passed.  You can't force everyone to buy a product, that is in essence, a middle man, and not expect the people who actually determine the cost of service to not constantly jack up the prices.  The fact that the government will just keep paying, no matter the cost, and that people now have to buy the insurance (or take the penalty, which most will start doing because they will not be able to afford the exchanges anymore), that the price is just going to keep rising.  Going single payer will just make that worse in this country.



andrewclear said:
sethnintendo said:

I don't why the Democrats didn't vote for a bill they were locked out of which was drafted behind closed doors.  The nerve of them people...

Yet, the Republicans were ridiculed for not voting for the ACA in the first place, when it was crafted behind closed doors, and they were locked out.  Seems you drink the blue kool-aid a little too much.

The Republican replacement plans were just as bad as the ACA is.  The only thing they were doing right was getting rid of the individual mandate.  The individual and employer mandates make the ACA a de-facto single payer law.  As with single payer, our finances are going to be wrecked the same with the ACA is going to wreck it.  The problem isn't the insurance companies, and it never was.  The problem is the health care providers.  The prices they charge for services, and supplies, is astronimical.  They can raise them all they want to, because the government (Medicaid / Medicare) will pay, and the insurance providers will try to haggle some, but in the end, they will just pay it and raise insurance rates.  Neither party wants to mess with that system, so they just made everyone buy insurance. 

Now, I would assume that you aren't making the kind of money to where taking the penalty is a massive advantage, financially.  I was in that situation over the past two years.  I am a programmer, and I was doing contract work.  I was making 25 an hour at one job, and 30 an hour at another.  The company that placed me with the two places I worked, did offer insurance, at 400 dollars a month for me, and 800 for my wife and I.  I decided to look on the exchange to see if I could find some "Affordable" care, and hell no I didn't.  They wanted 1k fro my wife and I.  I sure the hell am not going to pay 12k a month for insurance that I do not use.  If there is an emergency, a hospital has to treat me, by law, so I am covered in that instance, and just have to hope it isn't too costly.  Also, if it isn't an emergency, then I can just fly to my wifes country, Korea, and get whatever treatment I need there, for a fraction of the price here. 

Just like most legislation, the ACA was designed to ensure that one party looks like they care about people, while ensuring they continue to get votes.  Also, if you are the party of big government, the bigger it gets, the more votes you get due to people voting in their best interests.  The sad reality is, government control over the economy has failed everywhere is has been implemented.  The bigger the government, the worst the economy is.  Just look at China (which started to go capitilist in the 90s), Vietnam (recently started to embrace capitialism),     Venezula (who abandoned capitialism for communism and is falling apart now), North Korea (bless their heart, they just wont let go), USSR (The old Soviet Empire for the people who were screwed by their eductional system, this one failed in the 90s, and now all those countries are capitilist), and Cuba (bless their heart too). 

The narrative of today is about socialism, except, socialism needs a viable economic model underneath.  There are only two economic models present in the modern age, capitalism and communism.  Socialism based off of capitalism is what Europe has, as well as the US, Japan, and most all other socialist countries.  Socialism based off of communism is what the Soviet Union had, North Korea has, Vietnam is transitioning from, China has transitioned from, Venezula was transitioning too, and what America seems to be trying to transition to (at least the progressives).  Communism leads to authoratarianism everywhere it is enacted.  Venezula is a democracy, but the president is working on changing that, even trying to change their constitution, due to the fact that communism has failed there and he doesn't want to give up power.  It is a mess.  In Venezula, how good is their health care now?  How good is it in Vietnamn, China, etc?  Where does most of the medical advances come from, what country?  Can we continue to make those types of advances if we gut the cost of healthcare, and people move on to other industries to work for?  This isn't a simple problem.

What I would like to see is the ACA removed, minimum insurance requirements removed as well.  Let people pick what they want, let their be actual competition within the industry.  Now, we can't actually have competition within the emergency services, you don't get to pick your ambulance or hospital in the event of an emergency.  So, for them, they should be a regulated monopoly, like many utilities are.  For regular medical services, let them compete on price.  Health care was more affordable before the ACA (sadly, it was still overpriced).  It isn't going to be getting any better now that you have to buy insurance, no matter what they charge for it.  No incentive at all to lower the cost.

Socialized medicine works in Europe, sure, but they don't have a two party system.  They are held more accountable by their voters than we hold our politicians (congress has less than a 15% approval rate, but over an 80% re-election rate, mainly due to two choices every time).  Our government wastes money like there is no tomorrow, and they will constantly pay well above market rate just to keep getting elected.  They never want to make the hard choices, and do what is needed to ensure that the government will be able to meet its obligations in the future.  The sad reality is, it is legal to bribe people for their vote, as long as you are using tax payer money.

So far, what I have noticed in the last decade, is that the Republicans are all talk, they don't do a damn thing, while the Democrats are the ones that actually write legislation that hurts people.  Some of it is good, but they have done a lot of damage to the middle class, that they so champion.  They both care about the rich, neither care about the poor.  Neither pay their fair share of taxes (gotta love the loopholes and tax breaks they put in their for themselves and their rich buddies).  Quit drinking the kool-aid.  The reality is, all governments throughout history have served the rich and powerful, ALL.  The only thing us little people can really hope for is that some of these policies actually make things better for us.

 

Now, I will leave you to ponder this.  If the ACA is so great, why did the people who crafted it, and voted for it, exempt themselves from it?  Everyone in this country has to abide by the ACA, except congress.  Bet they know something that we don't.....

You put it very well and showed the great reason of why the fight of the people shall always be to lower the power of the government not raise it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

sethnintendo said:
Hiku said:

Bernie Sanders has never accepted a corporate check in his 30+ year long career in politics. That's basically his thing. It's what he has been fighting for all his life.
He has an extensive list of personal donors instead, which the corporate democrats tried to get from him.

There's a group called Justice Democrats that are gaining traction. Their one single requirement is: Do not take corporate or pac money. https://justicedemocrats.com/

They have a few members in congress already, iirc.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmGPcCUyug

I knew Bernie banked his campaign off small donors but assumed he might of had a pac or a pac was made by supporters of him.  Reading this article it shows that three were unofficial supporting him but he tried to distance himself from them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

I'll look into the link later.  I wish Bernie and a few others would just resurrect the Progressive Party and steam roll these two shit parties.  I'm ready to see some trust busting.

You would split the democrats, similar to what the progressives did in 1912. The electoral college victory would be massive for the GOP, so not a good idea.



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

barneystinson69 said:
sethnintendo said:

I knew Bernie banked his campaign off small donors but assumed he might of had a pac or a pac was made by supporters of him.  Reading this article it shows that three were unofficial supporting him but he tried to distance himself from them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

I'll look into the link later.  I wish Bernie and a few others would just resurrect the Progressive Party and steam roll these two shit parties.  I'm ready to see some trust busting.

You would split the democrats, similar to what the progressives did in 1912. The electoral college victory would be massive for the GOP, so not a good idea.

At this rate, the GOP could win every house and senate seat and still not get 50% of the votes to pass anything, let along 60.



Around the Network
andrewclear said:
Hiku said:

Bernie Sanders has never accepted a corporate check in his 30+ year long career in politics. That's basically his thing. It's what he has been fighting for all his life.
He has an extensive list of personal donors instead, which the corporate democrats tried to get from him.

There's a group called Justice Democrats that are gaining traction. Their one single requirement is: Do not take corporate or pac money. https://justicedemocrats.com/

They have a few members in congress already, iirc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmGPcCUyug

Oh boy, you have been duped.  Bernie made over a million just by running for office. Those book deals, are from corporations, for the record. That brand new house on Lake Champlain, that he didn't have to pay for, that is shrouded in secrecy on where it came from?   Yeah, that isn't fishy.

Bernie looks out for Bernie and his wife, not you, or me.  He is a politician.  He actually is pushing communism, which is a failure, but can lead to total control of a government.  Bernie is going to have someone challenging him in a primary in Vermont, and it will be interesting to see if he can keep his job.  I've heard from my step-mom, who is from Vermont, that people there are not that thrilled with him anymore. 

There's a big difference between a social democracy and communism. If you think that that Bernie is pushing for communism in USA and not the social democracy model in most other developed western nations, then I don't know what to say. Not that USA isn't already very socialistic with social security, public schooloing, the roads you drive on, etc. But lets pretend that one healthcare program would suddenly make all the difference and drive you to communism.
Bernie can make as much money as he wants, as long as he doesn't accepts corporate donations.

Yeah, books are made by corporations, like every other product. That's not really what "not taking coprporate money" is refering to.
When you make a book deal, the book company makes an investment, and not a donation, which they earn back from taking a part of the sales revenue.
When a pharma company donates a million to your political campaign, they expect your vote in return.

I don't know about his lake house, but I'm guessing it's about as mysterious as Barack Obama's birth cirtificate.
Why is it so hard to believe that a politician doesn't take corporate donations? That's common practice in many other countries, where corporate donations are illegal. I don't think Bernie is perfect btw as I don't agree with every decision he makes. But in this regard he seems a lot better than most politicians.



Hiku said:
andrewclear said:

Oh boy, you have been duped.  Bernie made over a million just by running for office. Those book deals, are from corporations, for the record. That brand new house on Lake Champlain, that he didn't have to pay for, that is shrouded in secrecy on where it came from?   Yeah, that isn't fishy.

Bernie looks out for Bernie and his wife, not you, or me.  He is a politician.  He actually is pushing communism, which is a failure, but can lead to total control of a government.  Bernie is going to have someone challenging him in a primary in Vermont, and it will be interesting to see if he can keep his job.  I've heard from my step-mom, who is from Vermont, that people there are not that thrilled with him anymore. 

Speaking of being duped, there's a big difference between a social democracy and communism. If you seriously think that that Bernie is pushing for communism in USA and not the social democracy model in most other developed western nations, then I don't know what to say. Not that USA isn't already very socialistic with social security, public schooloing, the roads you drive on, etc. But lets pretend that one healthcare program would suddenly make all the difference and drive you to communism.
Bernie can make as much money as he wants, as long as he doesn't accepts corporate donations.

Yeah, books are made by corporations, like every other product. That's not really what "not taking coprporate money" is refering to.
When you make a book deal, the book company earns back their investment from taking a part of the sales revenue. That's what they get back.
When a pharma company donates a million to your political campaign, they expect your vote in return.

I don't know about his lake house, but I'm guessing it's about as mysterious as Barack Obama's birth cirtificate.

Because banning or not receiving corporate donations make someone honest, like they won't accept personal donations or proxy donations spread to cover corporate donations right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

Because banning or not receiving corporate donations make someone honest, like they won't accept personal donations or proxy donations spread to cover corporate donations right?

What's the point of baseless accusations?
You can say that about anyone and anything.

So that doctor that works pro-bono makes them a good person? Like they won't secretly sell organs to the black market in Thailand?

We can only judge them based on what we know.



Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

Because banning or not receiving corporate donations make someone honest, like they won't accept personal donations or proxy donations spread to cover corporate donations right?

What's the point of baseless accusations?
You can say that about anyone and anything.

So that doctor that works pro-bono makes them a good person? Like they won't secretly sell organs to the black market in Thailand?

We can only judge them based on what we know.

Yes. And we shall not decide someone is like a saint because we don't have access to more information.

But the point wasn't even talking about Bernie, whom would destroy the country if his socialistics ideas were implemented, but about thinking that banning corporate financing to politicians would make all better.

Why would you think a company donating money wants politicians to do illegal things and people donating money wouldn't want favors as well?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Hiku said:

What's the point of baseless accusations?
You can say that about anyone and anything.

So that doctor that works pro-bono makes them a good person? Like they won't secretly sell organs to the black market in Thailand?

We can only judge them based on what we know.

Yes. And we shall not decide someone is like a saint because we don't have access to more information.

But the point wasn't even talking about Bernie, whom would destroy the country if his socialistics ideas were implemented, but about thinking that banning corporate financing to politicians would make all better.

Why would you think a company donating money wants politicians to do illegal things and people donating money wouldn't want favors as well?

Not treating anyone as a saint. But there's no point in throwing baseless accusation.
The only thing politicians can do to avoid being bought by corporations is to not accept corporate or pac donations, and that's what he has been doing as far as I can tell. The point wasn't to talk about Bernie or how his socialistic ideas (single payer healthcare) would help the country like every other modern first world nation where living standards are higher than USA's. But he is the most well known example in US politics when it comes to avoiding corporate donations for over 30 years.

I don't know what you mean by illegal things? The votes the bribed politicians cast are legal in the US. But they are not in the interest of the American people. They are in the interest of the corporations finances. USA spends 2-3 times more on healthcare than the U.K. per capita/person. But they get a lot less in return. Why? If they spend 2-3 times more per person than the UK, and the UK guarantees healthcare to everyone, why isn't USA guaranteeing healthcare to their sitizens when they spend that much more per person?
Because what differs USA from pretty much every other country is that a much larger portion of those spending goes towards corporate profit, instead of to the people. And there are two reasons for this. One is because political bribes from corporations are legal in the US. And the other reason is because many years ago they passed a law that forbids the US government from negotiating drug prices with pharma companies.
Because of that, you can buy the same US manufactured medicine, from Canada (after it has been exported to Canada from USA) for up to 5 times cheaper than if you buy it in USA. That's ridiculous. Drug prices go up every year in the US, because the goverment can't negotiate the prices.

A single corporation can donate a large amount of money and expect a politician to vote in their favor.
A single small donor cannot, because there's a limit to how much a small donor can donate, and it's not going to be worth a huge favor like a vote.
However, if many small donors want the same thing and make their voices heard, the politician could grant their wish. That's not a bad thing because then you are working for the people, and the ones who voted you in, or helped to donate to your cause. But when you vote for pharma companies, they are never in the interest of the common people.