2020 Democrat hopefuls

[UCFKnight85]

A mess for...the Democrats??!?

I tend to think that a President who has served less than one term who has been impeached for abuse of power (and let's be honest here, incompetence) is not in the best position to win reelection.

Oh, wait, I forgot. There's going to be such a grassroots groundswell of sympathy for Trump from Rust Belt Dems and Independents that he's going to roll into a second term.

Sure, no big deal. The D's will have their socialist far-left culture warrior stuck on the sidelines during campaign season since she must participate in the ridiculous impeachment process that her own party started and stuck in DC instead of campaigning. Yep, no biggie!

 

[Boosted87]

Except it takes 20% of a workers wages and 17% contribution on top of that from the employer. Works great= ridiculously expensive .

As more evidence how out-of-whack healthcare costs are - Wages/compensation account for ~45% of GDP. Healthcare accounts for ~18% of GDP. So if you just straight up had to have a national insurance program based on current cost structure and current compensation - 40% of wages would have to go to healthcare, which is in line with Singapore based on your numbers.

I think the weakest argument against MFA is that it's expensive. Healthcare is already expensive and gets worse each year. Politically, this is not an issue that's ever going to take substantial steps backwards where you cover less people. We either optimize an Obamacare like system, develop methods to control costs, and ensure coverage becomes universal through that system - or we end up nationalizing insurance.

Personally - I don't think health insurance companies add any value. They have a perverse profit incentive. Medicare is far more efficient with overhead rates. Competition from a Public Option might help.

 

[Crazyhole]

As more evidence how out-of-whack healthcare costs are - Wages/compensation account for ~45% of GDP. Healthcare accounts for ~18% of GDP. So if you just straight up had to have a national insurance program based on current cost structure and current compensation - 40% of wages would have to go to healthcare, which is in line with Singapore based on your numbers.

I think the weakest argument against MFA is that it's expensive. Healthcare is already expensive and gets worse each year. Politically, this is not an issue that's ever going to take substantial steps backwards where you cover less people. We either optimize an Obamacare like system, develop methods to control costs, and ensure coverage becomes universal through that system - or we end up nationalizing insurance.

Personally - I don't think health insurance companies add any value. They have a perverse profit incentive. Medicare is far more efficient with overhead rates. Competition from a Public Option might help.

Your last sentence proves why MFA is a bad idea. "Competition from a public option might help." Now why on earth would anybody look at healthcare and say we need a single payer system but at the same time say that competition helps? You say that health insurance companies dont add any value, but any company by nature is there to compete in the market by providing a service for less than the other guy.

FWIW, I am all for a public option. If the government can provide, without coercion, a service or product that is better than the private sector then by all means go for it. It will sell itself. Unfortunately that isn't how government works and was never intended to work.

If the only thing that Warren and Biden are looking for is to find the most cost effective way for people to gain access to healthcare and they are dead set on single payer, then why not look at the private health insurance companies and figure out which one is most efficient and give them a national contract for all 340 million of us. That would kind of suck because a fair system would mean that each individual person has to pay about 9500 bucks a year, so the family of 5 living off of a teacher's salary has to pay about 47 grand for health insurance. Can't have that, so we're going to need the rich to pay for more than their fair share. I mean, we've already set the standard with Obamacare that it doesn't really matter if you are healthy or not based on lifestyle choices, you are entitled to healthcare just like anyone else but certainly a large family with low income can't afford it so somebody else needs to foot the bill. Isn't it obvious what the motivation behind their policies are?

 

[UCFWayne]

Lol if trump gets impeached and this goes to the Senate, buttigieg will pretty much be the only candidate who will be able to campaign for about 2 months. Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Booker are required to be there for the trial and Biden will be a witness so he'll be compelled to be there.

cocaine mitch pretty much said this the other day. if the dems want to play politics, he will certainly do that with the trial. he said he could draw that trial out as long as he absolutely wants.

we all know how this is going to end. everyone is going to vote party lines. you might get 1 or 2 that dont, but thats about it. trump is not getting impeached. this is going to last as long as the dems want it to last. if they want to drag it out, it will be a double edged sword because mitch will drag out the trial even longer. that will kill the dems chances to campaign.

i think this is over by mid dec and trump is still president.

 

[UCFKnight85]

cocaine mitch pretty much said this the other day. if the dems want to play politics, he will certainly do that with the trial. he said he could draw that trial out as long as he absolutely wants.

we all know how this is going to end. everyone is going to vote party lines. you might get 1 or 2 that dont, but thats about it. trump is not getting impeached. this is going to last as long as the dems want it to last. if they want to drag it out, it will be a double edged sword because mitch will drag out the trial even longer. that will kill the dems chances to campaign.

i think this is over by mid dec and trump is still president.

He should to pay them back for the absolute disgusting smear campaign and wrecking of a confirmation hearing process that they created with the attempted character assassination of Kavanaugh.

 

[UCFWayne]

He should to pay them back for the absolute disgusting smear campaign and wrecking of a confirmation hearing process that they created with the attempted character assassination of Kavanaugh.

i hope he does

 

[Boosted87]

Your last sentence proves why MFA is a bad idea. "Competition from a public option might help." Now why on earth would anybody look at healthcare and say we need a single payer system but at the same time say that competition helps? You say that health insurance companies dont add any value, but any company by nature is there to compete in the market by providing a service for less than the other guy.

FWIW, I am all for a public option. If the government can provide, without coercion, a service or product that is better than the private sector then by all means go for it. It will sell itself. Unfortunately that isn't how government works and was never intended to work.

If the only thing that Warren and Biden are looking for is to find the most cost effective way for people to gain access to healthcare and they are dead set on single payer, then why not look at the private health insurance companies and figure out which one is most efficient and give them a national contract for all 340 million of us. That would kind of suck because a fair system would mean that each individual person has to pay about 9500 bucks a year, so the family of 5 living off of a teacher's salary has to pay about 47 grand for health insurance. Can't have that, so we're going to need the rich to pay for more than their fair share. I mean, we've already set the standard with Obamacare that it doesn't really matter if you are healthy or not based on lifestyle choices, you are entitled to healthcare just like anyone else but certainly a large family with low income can't afford it so somebody else needs to foot the bill. Isn't it obvious what the motivation behind their policies are?

I don't think we can pretend healthcare is a normal market. It's fundamentally different than anything else. Markets are great at balancing supply and demand via price. So if 100,000 people per year are struck with a certain type of cancer, an efficient market doesn't seek to treat all 100,000 people. It seeks to balance supply and demand via price.

If I need a car, I can spend a couple hundred grand on a supercar. I can also spend $500 on Craigslist, or anywhere in between. That market has the ability to be highly efficient and meet the basic needs virtually everyone who needs a car. That sort of philosophy might apply to something like primary care, but when you need emergency open heart surgery, you're not price shopping and doing cost-benefit analysis before selecting a hospital and surgeon. It also doesn't apply to the 100,000 people who all need the same treatment - there's no $500 equivalent to chemo.

So trying to design a market-based solution to this is impossible, unless you're going to argue the position that letting 50,000 of those cancer patients die each year is OK because that's where supply balances demand and maximizes profit for the private companies involved.

But keep in mind - single payer doesn't eliminate competition in healthcare broadly, it just nationalizes the collection/payment function. Compare it to something like defense. There's a single payer (US Govt) that funds all downstream activities and the private companies that operate in that industry. The rich pay "more than their fair sure" for the common defense through coercion in that case as well.

 

[DaShuckster]

if the dems want to play politics, he will certainly do that with the trial. he said he could draw that trial out as long as he absolutely wants.

Playing politics? Duh, the process is political but the Dems are doing their job. If the veil of politics were lifted from Trump's antics and we saw some other elected official do the crap that Trump did, his butt would already be kicked out of office.

If Tricky Dick Nixon had lived in this era, he could have fought his complicity in covering up the WaterGate break-in by saying if the DOJ would only follow-up on info they stole from the DNC office, they'd discover it was really those Dems who were the evil ones all along -- the WaterGate break-in was JUSTIFIED, baby!!!!

we all know how this is going to end. everyone is going to vote party lines.

But unlike those House Dems who will vote yes, the Republicans who vote no won't be 'playing politics'???!?

Unless there is such a groundswell of public disgust with Trump during the House impeachment inquiry that the Senate Republicans fear for their seats, I doubt he will be thrown out of office.

But the notion that this will 'hurt the Dems' and help Trump's 2020 campaign is laughable. We are living with the most immoral and incompetent President in our lifetime. Yet for some reason you guys expect a 'silent majority' to magically turn out next November to say, "YES, America NEEDS four more years of this Blowhard Narcissist?" Really guys?

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't think we can pretend healthcare is a normal market. It's fundamentally different than anything else. Markets are great at balancing supply and demand via price. So if 100,000 people per year are struck with a certain type of cancer, an efficient market doesn't seek to treat all 100,000 people. It seeks to balance supply and demand via price.

If I need a car, I can spend a couple hundred grand on a supercar. I can also spend $500 on Craigslist, or anywhere in between. That market has the ability to be highly efficient and meet the basic needs virtually everyone who needs a car. That sort of philosophy might apply to something like primary care, but when you need emergency open heart surgery, you're not price shopping and doing cost-benefit analysis before selecting a hospital and surgeon. It also doesn't apply to the 100,000 people who all need the same treatment - there's no $500 equivalent to chemo.

So trying to design a market-based solution to this is impossible, unless you're going to argue the position that letting 50,000 of those cancer patients die each year is OK because that's where supply balances demand and maximizes profit for the private companies involved.

But keep in mind - single payer doesn't eliminate competition in healthcare broadly, it just nationalizes the collection/payment function. Compare it to something like defense. There's a single payer (US Govt) that funds all downstream activities and the private companies that operate in that industry. The rich pay "more than their fair sure" for the common defense through coercion in that case as well.

I understand what you are saying and on its face yes, it looks like it makes sense. That being said, the issue with healthcare costs don't revolve around emergency care. No, you obviously wouldn't do a cost-benefit analysis when you're having a heart attack, but thanks to insurance in general and group insurance specifically people don't ask what a tylenol is going to cost if they go into the clinic with a fever, or ask whether a cat scan is necessary for a kidney stone that's going to pass the same way regardless of if the doctor Bills out 100 bucks or 3000 bucks. With single payer, the only levers for keeping costs from growing out of control are either having a massive number of comptrollers in place to make decisions on a cost/benefit analysis on behalf of the market in real time or make every healthcare professional a government employee that gets paid the same amount regardless of what treatment they provide. So explain to me how either of those options are better than asking people to take personal responsibility when it comes to the service they ask for?

Insurance is just a mediator of payment and it doesn't matter if that mediator is a public or private entity, the essence of the healthcare market is still based on how much the supplier can charge and how much the buyer is willing to pay. If the problem we face is that suppliers are charging more than what suppliers in the rest of the world charge, that isn't a failure of the intermediary, it's a product of ignoring the law of supply and demand.

MFA completely takes the demand factor out of supply and demand. By compelling the purchase of a service by the buyer through force of government, the buyer loses any say in the transaction. The only logical step to take next is to compel the supplier to provide their service at a price that they might find unreasonable based on their own talent level. This is a recipe for Soviet style healthcare, which was an utter disaster.

 

[Crazyhole]

Playing politics? Duh, the process is political but the Dems are doing their job. If the veil of politics were lifted from Trump's antics and we saw some other elected official do the crap that Trump did, his butt would already be kicked out of office.

If Tricky Dick Nixon had lived in this era, he could have fought his complicity in covering up the WaterGate break-in by saying if the DOJ would only follow-up on info they stole from the DNC office, they'd discover it was really those Dems who were the evil ones all along -- the WaterGate break-in was JUSTIFIED, baby!!!!
But unlike those House Dems who will vote yes, the Republicans who vote no won't be 'playing politics'???!?

Unless there is such a groundswell of public disgust with Trump during the House impeachment inquiry that the Senate Republicans fear for their seats, I doubt he will be thrown out of office.

But the notion that this will 'hurt the Dems' is laughable. We are living with the most immoral and incompetent President in our lifetime. You guys are expecting a 'silent majority' to magically turn out next November to say, "YES, America NEEDS four more years of this Blowhard Narcissist."

If richard nixon was president today, he wouldn't have hired burglars. He would have had the FBI do it.

 

[Boosted87]

I understand what you are saying and on its face yes, it looks like it makes sense. That being said, the issue with healthcare costs don't revolve around emergency care. No, you obviously wouldn't do a cost-benefit analysis when you're having a heart attack, but thanks to insurance in general and group insurance specifically people don't ask what a tylenol is going to cost if they go into the clinic with a fever, or ask whether a cat scan is necessary for a kidney stone that's going to pass the same way regardless of if the doctor Bills out 100 bucks or 3000 bucks. With single payer, the only levers for keeping costs from growing out of control are either having a massive number of comptrollers in place to make decisions on a cost/benefit analysis on behalf of the market in real time or make every healthcare professional a government employee that gets paid the same amount regardless of what treatment they provide. So explain to me how either of those options are better than asking people to take personal responsibility when it comes to the service they ask for?

Insurance is just a mediator of payment and it doesn't matter if that mediator is a public or private entity, the essence of the healthcare market is still based on how much the supplier can charge and how much the buyer is willing to pay. If the problem we face is that suppliers are charging more than what suppliers in the rest of the world charge, that isn't a failure of the intermediary, it's a product of ignoring the law of supply and demand.

MFA completely takes the demand factor out of supply and demand. By compelling the purchase of a service by the buyer through force of government, the buyer loses any say in the transaction. The only logical step to take next is to compel the supplier to provide their service at a price that they might find unreasonable based on their own talent level. This is a recipe for Soviet style healthcare, which was an utter disaster.

I wholly agree that separating consumers from costs is a huge factor in the current market failure we have today. And I'm still very sympathetic to a "new" system that addresses all those systemic market distorting factors. And if you asked 6 or 7 years ago (before I started dealing with buy my own plan), I probably would have been in lock step with you on this. The idealist in me wants to try and design that system. The pragmatist in me says that's not politically possible, and it makes way more sense to look around the world, score what other countries are doing, and try to adopt the variant that makes the most sense for the US.

I bought private plans for my family from ~2011 until 2018. If you don't qualify for a subsidy, a family of 4 was looking at ~$1,300/month with a $13k family deductible ($6.5k per person) at the end of that stretch. Even if you had a subsidy on the premium, you'd still have the deductible over your head. This creates a situation where, even if you have insurance, you forgo care because of the deductible. It's insane that you might have spent $15k plus on premiums and avoid going to the doctor because you'll have to spend another $6k before getting a benefit. If you're healthy, it makes way more sense to stash that premium money in the bank. Until someone gets cancer and you go bankrupt.

So if we de-regulated tomorrow and de-coupled employment from insurance - what happens? That would be FAR more chaotic then transitioning to single payer. If we did it, the political party responsible would lose the next election in a major landslide and the other party would be installing some kind of national system.

 

[Crazyhole]

I wholly agree that separating consumers from costs is a huge factor in the current market failure we have today. And I'm still very sympathetic to a "new" system that addresses all those systemic market distorting factors. And if you asked 6 or 7 years ago (before I started dealing with buy my own plan), I probably would have been in lock step with you on this. The idealist in me wants to try and design that system. The pragmatist in me says that's not politically possible, and it makes way more sense to look around the world, score what other countries are doing, and try to adopt the variant that makes the most sense for the US.

I bought private plans for my family from ~2011 until 2018. If you don't qualify for a subsidy, a family of 4 was looking at ~$1,300/month with a $13k family deductible ($6.5k per person) at the end of that stretch. Even if you had a subsidy on the premium, you'd still have the deductible over your head. This creates a situation where, even if you have insurance, you forgo care because of the deductible. It's insane that you might have spent $15k plus on premiums and avoid going to the doctor because you'll have to spend another $6k before getting a benefit. If you're healthy, it makes way more sense to stash that premium money in the bank. Until someone gets cancer and you go bankrupt.

So if we de-regulated tomorrow and de-coupled employment from insurance - what happens? That would be FAR more chaotic then transitioning to single payer. If we did it, the political party responsible would lose the next election in a major landslide and the other party would be installing some kind of national system.

What if I told you that you could buy a health insurance plan for your family of 4 that would cost 200 dollars a month with a 10,000 dollar deductible on illness with zero indemnity on accidents? In other words, 200 bucks a month and if one of your kids breaks their leg or you fall off of a ladder and it wouldn't cost you a dime. If you get cancer or have a heart attack then your max out of pocket expense is 10,000 dollars. Would you buy that plan?

 

[UCFWayne]

Playing politics? Duh, the process is political but the Dems are doing their job. If the veil of politics were lifted from Trump's antics and we saw some other elected official do the crap that Trump did, his butt would already be kicked out of office.

If Tricky Dick Nixon had lived in this era, he could have fought his complicity in covering up the WaterGate break-in by saying if the DOJ would only follow-up on info they stole from the DNC office, they'd discover it was really those Dems who were the evil ones all along -- the WaterGate break-in was JUSTIFIED, baby!!!!
But unlike those House Dems who will vote yes, the Republicans who vote no won't be 'playing politics'???!?

Unless there is such a groundswell of public disgust with Trump during the House impeachment inquiry that the Senate Republicans fear for their seats, I doubt he will be thrown out of office.

But the notion that this will 'hurt the Dems' and help Trump's 2020 campaign is laughable. We are living with the most immoral and incompetent President in our lifetime. Yet for some reason you guys expect a 'silent majority' to magically turn out next November to say, "YES, America NEEDS four more years of this Blowhard Narcissist?" Really guys?

the dems are going to vote impeach, the reps are going to vote against. that is how its going to go. you know it and i know it.

the difference is, mitch can keep the senate trial going as long as he wants. he can cut well into 2020 campaign time. most of the dem candidates would be stuck in dc for the senate trial while trump would be free to tour the country. you know that would hurt whoever the dem candidate turns out to be.

 

[beelit47]

A mess for...the Democrats??!?

I tend to think that a President who has served less than one term who has been impeached for abuse of power (and let's be honest here, incompetence) is not in the best position to win reelection.

Oh, wait, I forgot. There's going to be such a grassroots groundswell of sympathy for Trump from Rust Belt Dems and Independents that he's going to roll into a second term.

Lol@ incompetence with these economic results.

 

[UCFWayne]

Lol@ incompetence with these economic results.

people like to point to his handful of bankruptcies as him being a terrible business man. they forget his several hundred successful ones. anyone with an actual brain would see the success rate and wish they could duplicate it themselves. tds is a bitch

 

[firm_bizzle]

people like to point to his handful of bankruptcies as him being a terrible business man. they forget his several hundred successful ones. anyone with an actual brain would see the success rate and wish they could duplicate it themselves. tds is a bitch

You can only see the successes if he will show us. The bankruptcies are public, everyone gets to see those. Let's see the taxes of the other "several hundred successful ones". Did Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have TDS when they asked the same questions?

 

[DaShuckster]

the difference is, mitch can keep the senate trial going as long as he wants. he can cut well into 2020 campaign time. most of the dem candidates would be stuck in dc for the senate trial while trump would be free to tour the country. you know that would hurt whoever the dem candidate turns out to be.

I give you credit, Wayne. This gem of yours is The Most Bizarre Rationale for why a Senate Impeachment Trial is actually good for Trump.

 

[UCFWayne]

You can only see the successes if he will show us. The bankruptcies are public, everyone gets to see those. Let's see the taxes of the other "several hundred successful ones". Did Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have TDS when they asked the same questions?

jsut stop it firm. you dont like trump and that is fine. but dont let tds blind you.

pretend i went to usf and help me with the math. trump has something like 500 businesses and hes had like 5 bankruptcies. what is his success rate?

 

[UCFWayne]

I give you credit, Wayne. This gem of yours is The Most Bizarre Rationale for why a Senate Impeachment Trial is actually good for Trump.

you do realize that everyone in the dnc primary, except pete, would be tied to the senate trial. remember, it is mitch that will decide the rules of the senate trial. he can make up whatever crazy rules he wants too. he could draw this trial out well into august. that means the dnc candidate wouldnt be able to leave dc to campaign.

it would be very hard for any candidate, dem or rep to win without being able to campaign for much of the year. im just saying the dems should be careful with how they play the game. mitch will likely play it back even harder.

 

[firm_bizzle]

jsut stop it firm. you dont like trump and that is fine. but dont let tds blind you.

pretend i went to usf and help me with the math. trump has something like 500 businesses and hes had like 5 bankruptcies. what is his success rate?

I'm a businessman. I deal in numbers, not feelings. Does he have 500 businesses? We only get to see the bankruptcies.

 

[UCFWayne]

I'm a businessman. I deal in numbers, not feelings. Does he have 500 businesses? We only get to see the bankruptcies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization

look i dont know how accurate this stuff is, and it is likely over inflated anyways. because that is what trump does, he is a salesman. he always tries to make himself look better. no one really knows how much hes worth, but most people at least acknowledge hes likely a billionaire. stop letting your hate for the man get in the way of your own ability to critically think.

so lets just say he has 450 businesses that havent filed for bankruptcy. please tell me what his rate of success is for 450 and 5 failures?

 

[DaShuckster]

trump has something like 500 businesses and hes had like 5 bankruptcies. what is his success rate?

I'm curious how Trump has managed to operate his business enterprises without a financial line of credit from any American banks. (They had figured out his lying blowhard ass back in the 1990s.)

Gee, I wonder who has been financing Trump's businesses since then? It's a real mystery, isn't it?

 

[DaShuckster]

stop letting your hate for the man get in the way of your own ability to critically think.

YEAH, BIZZ!!! Become a critical thinker like our resident Trumpsters.

 

[UCFWayne]

I'm curious how Trump has managed to operate his business enterprises without a financial line of credit from any American banks. (They had figured out his lying blowhard ass back in the 1990s.)

Gee, I wonder who has been financing Trump's businesses since then? It's a real mystery, isn't it?

i dont care because it doesnt really matter. this is where you try to tie him even more to russia. i guess 2 full years worth of people who hate trump looked as hard as they possibly could and came up short wasnt enough for you. i hope this stuff doesnt keep you up at night.

 

[DaShuckster]

i dont care because it doesnt really matter.

It doesn't matter? He's the President of the United States, remember?

You don't want to engage your critical thinking skills?

 

[UCFWayne]

It doesn't matter? He's the President of the United States, remember?

You don't want to engage your critical thinking skills?

do you really know for sure, 100% that he hasnt secured loans from any us bank since the 1990s? you say that but is it really true? i dobut it.

 

[DaShuckster]

do you really know for sure, 100% that he hasnt secured loans from any us bank since the 1990s? you say that but is it really true? i dobut it.

There have been countless financial articles about Trump and his former American bank lenders....as well as numerous articles about 'the mystery' of where he's getting his line of credit from after American banks said, 'enough is enough.'

 

[Crazyhole]

There have been countless financial articles about Trump and his former American bank lenders....as well as numerous articles about 'the mystery' of where he's getting his line of credit from after American banks said, 'enough is enough.'

Is it out of the realm of possibility that he finances it himself? Or that he has private investors?

 

[UCFWayne]

There have been countless financial articles about Trump and his former American bank lenders....as well as numerous articles about 'the mystery' of where he's getting his line of credit from after American banks said, 'enough is enough.'

thats it, im completely sold. no one in the media would ever lie about trump. they are 100% honest.*

 

[Crazyhole]

You can only see the successes if he will show us. The bankruptcies are public, everyone gets to see those. Let's see the taxes of the other "several hundred successful ones". Did Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have TDS when they asked the same questions?

You can't see Trump Towers all over the world? You can't see the Miss America pageant? He had a top rated TV show. He's a best selling author. These examples are all out in the public eye.

 

[DaShuckster]

Is it out of the realm of possibility that he finances it himself? Or that he has private investors?

He was in deep financial doo-doo in the late 1990s. He got financial help from somebody, it just wasn't American banks.

 

[Crazyhole]

He was in deep financial doo-doo in the late 1990s. He got financial help from somebody, it just wasn't American banks.

That's 20 years ago. Who cares if he got a loan from an Indonesian bank in 1997? There's no evidence that banks won't loan him money today or that he even needs them.

 

[UCFWayne]

He was in deep financial doo-doo in the late 1990s. He got financial help from somebody, it just wasn't American banks.

you realize that he talks about that in the intro to his hit tv show?

 

[Boosted87]

What if I told you that you could buy a health insurance plan for your family of 4 that would cost 200 dollars a month with a 10,000 dollar deductible on illness with zero indemnity on accidents? In other words, 200 bucks a month and if one of your kids breaks their leg or you fall off of a ladder and it wouldn't cost you a dime. If you get cancer or have a heart attack then your max out of pocket expense is 10,000 dollars. Would you buy that plan?

I might - but see that's the problem. A free-market plethora of different plans and what they do or don't cover doesn't work for healthcare. People will self-select the plan that is most beneficial to them financially at that moment. That will drastically drive up the cost of healthcare for sick people. You reach a point where it's not insurance anymore.

For example, in Florida pre affordable care act there was not a single private plan that covered maternity. The reason was pretty straight forward. If there was one plan with maternity and a bunch without, you'd have a self-selecting group of people who are planning to get pregnant on that plan, and only temporarily. That's not insurance it's just a baby payment plan. If you only tack on the "diabetes" option when you get diabetes, then it's not insurance anymore. It's everyone with diabetes paying for diabetes.

And while your plan above is appealing to me in principle, to a bunch of Americans that $10k deductible is basically a prescription to avoid care. If they develop an illness that requires regular treatment, that $10k/year is simply not sustainable.

 

[firm_bizzle]

He was in deep financial doo-doo in the late 1990s. He got financial help from somebody, it just wasn't American banks.

American banks won't loan money to him. His sons brag that their money comes from Russia.

 

[firm_bizzle]

You can't see Trump Towers all over the world? You can't see the Miss America pageant? He had a top rated TV show. He's a best selling author. These examples are all out in the public eye.

P&Ls, balance sheets, taxes returns.

 

[DaShuckster]

thats it, im completely sold. no one in the media would ever lie about trump. they are 100% honest.*

...instead I'll believe Trump's bullsh*t instead. He would never ever lie to me!*

 

[UCFWayne]

...instead I'll believe Trump's bullsh*t instead. He would never ever lie to me!*

remember that time abc had all the info on epstein and clinton and they were going to air it all, and then they didnt? they buried that story for 3 years. then when it was leaked they contacted another mainstream media outlet cbs and told them to fire the reported leaker. that sounds like some collusion to me. oh and it turns out that wasnt the actual leaker...

 

[firm_bizzle]

Looks like Deval Patrick might get in. I was thinking a few weeks ago that he would be a strong candidate. I'm not sure his heart is in it.

 

[UCFWayne]

https://apnews.com/95053a997d7c4cadae475736d10dd71c
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...out-democratic-presidential-campaign-n1093811

sad news, 2 more candidates have dropped out. Steve Bullock and Joe Sestak

but really, did you even know these 2 were in the race at all?