(06-17-2016 05:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Hillary has All of the Leftist Tools Fooled !

True as well. But the republicans had many options from across the entire spectrum. This is what they chose. The democrats had an 80 year old socialist and a 70 year old woman that has failed in every job and is under FBI investigation.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(06-16-2016 09:25 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Well conservatives/republicans/righties....

What option do they have?

An old, incompetent, failed, corrupt, rich, nepotistic white woman who is under federal investigation?

(06-17-2016 05:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 05:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Hillary has All of the Leftist Tools Fooled !

True as well. But the republicans had many options from across the entire spectrum. This is what they chose. The democrats had an 80 year old socialist and a 70 year old woman that has failed in every job and is under FBI investigation.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

close....

we stood up for someone with moxie that isn't a career politician.....toss in how much he sucks in front of the camera, and you have today's schema of smegma....

he's not stupid.....and he's played the game with the laws availed during his time frame.....

he knows how to make money and build things.....

what I've found most curious on this board are the really smart people that won't put their dick on the pulpit of 'that chopping block'.... we already know what stupid people do....

it's easy to be anonymous.....it's also easy for the anonymous to vote for a hill-0-lair-liar

what's not easy is to 'unspoil' li'l childrens.....

I know I sound like a broken record, but republicans are in this mess because they've been pretty much devoid of ideas for perhaps two decades at this point. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Newt put together a pretty good set of ideas with his contract, which led to landslide victory in 1994, after which republicans promptly forgot what the contract was about in their haste to pursue Monicagate. Shrub ran on two pretty good ideas in 2000--cut the size of the federal government, and get us out of the nation-building business--and then promptly did the most humongous 180 in history on both issues.

Republicans are not going to win a personality contest with democrats on the national level. The MSM will see to that. If they're going to win, they have to make it about issues. And they can't lead those issues with abortion and gay marriage, because there are too many places where they can't win on either.

So what can they do? Come up with some ideas for a change.

Obamacare sucks. But just being against it is not good enough. "Repeal Obamacare," may be enough for the hard-core base, but the rest of the people want to know, "Repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? And how does that affect me?" Come up with something better and get behind it. That's not hard. Bismarck is clearly better. All they would have to do is take the French law and hire a translator.

Balance the budget. Don't grandstand over a constitutional amendment that will probably never happen. Actually balance the f-ing budget. Yes it requires some tough choices. Yes it requires giving in on some issues. That's why it's important to have a balanced budget, so that some thought about choices and alternatives have to go into the process, instead of just voting yes because they are going to name a bridge after me. That's what the public elects politicians to do.

Tax and welfare reform. Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net than we do, at the same time that it offers a better tax deal to entrepreneurs and investors. They do it with lower and flatter income tax rate structures, elimination of almost all deduction/exclusion loopholes, and a consumption tax. That's what both Bowles-Simpson (except for the consumption tax) and Domenici-Rivlin (including the consumption tax, to reduce the deficit even further) recommended.

Broken record again. First day after retaking the house in 2011, republicans should have passed French Bismarck health care and either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin or some combination of the best of both (they are remarkably similar, indicating that when bipartisan groups look constructively at things, the answers are pretty obvious).

Follow that up with welfare reform along the lines of Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, with the current hodgepodge of focused and means-tested programs turned over to the states (if they want to fund them with the money that Bismarck saves them on Medicaid). Legalize or decriminalize marijuana and consider other drugs, and use the resources saved from that to go after gangs in a big way to reduce the homicide rate. Build a stronger military for less money by getting more bang for the buck--convert a number of active duty slots to reserves, reform procurement along the lines of a high/low mix instead of building nothing but unproved state of the art stuff, cut the bureaucracy down to no bigger than what it took to win WWII, get rid of at least half the high-priced consultants, and instead of spending 9% on combat, 14% on combat support, and 77% on BS, get things down to at least the OECD average (which is bad enough) of 14% on combat, 23% on combat support, and 63% on BS. Never fight a war that we don't intend to win. Treat our friends better than we treat our enemies.

Then let the democrats try to explain how their ideas are better.

I doubt that I would ever vote for democrats. My vote is there for republicans to get, but they have to come with some ideas worth supporting in order to get it.

As long as they don't come up with ideas on the issues, republicans are subject to Donald Trumps. Just as democrats are subject to Hillary Clintons. Not good.

Very good thoughts. Yes, The Republicans should try to come up with an alternate affordable plan that can co exist with Obamacare. Have competition with the two plans and eventually let the market place decide which plan better fits Their family agenda. The winner of two different model plans will be the American Public. Competition is a good thing.

(06-17-2016 07:54 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Very good thoughts. Yes, The Republicans should try to come up with an alternate affordable plan that can co exist with Obamacare. Have competition with the two plans and eventually let the market place decide which plan better fits Their family agenda. The winner of two different model plans will be the American Public. Competition is a good thing.

The plan should involve:

1. Capping liability to keep malpractice insurance costs at bay.

2. Streamlining the R&D process so that successful drugs, medical equipment, and procedures can be taken directly to the patients so that years of R&D money aren't wasted before patients can benefit. All that R&D money for test after test and federal approval gates eventually has to be recovered.

3. Allow doctors to perform and patients to sign waivers for experimental treatments that results in no liability if the procedure, drug, or treatment fails. Right now regular doctors cannot try something that has not been approved by the government and the medical establishment even if the patient is willing to take the risk.

4. Give doctors access to tests that are available to the research community. For instance, if a patient is going through depression, doctors cannot test for things like seratonin and dopamine, even though the technology is available for the research community. The only thing they can do is play whak-a-mole with SSRIs and other drugs.

5. The one thing that has been proposed... allowing insurance to cross state lines... needs to happen.

(06-17-2016 07:54 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Very good thoughts. Yes, The Republicans should try to come up with an alternate affordable plan that can co exist with Obamacare. Have competition with the two plans and eventually let the market place decide which plan better fits Their family agenda. The winner of two different model plans will be the American Public. Competition is a good thing.

I agree. When the playing field is level.


Right now it's not level. And I'm not referring to health care. I'm referring to the system. It's all predicated on money and who has it.

You can't even run for president without a $$$$$$ budget.

(06-17-2016 05:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 05:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Hillary has All of the Leftist Tools Fooled !

True as well. But the republicans had many options from across the entire spectrum. This is what they chose. The democrats had an 80 year old socialist and a 70 year old woman that has failed in every job and is under FBI investigation.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Well they also had a failed governor, a former Republican and Webb as well.

(06-17-2016 08:08 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 07:54 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Very good thoughts. Yes, The Republicans should try to come up with an alternate affordable plan that can co exist with Obamacare. Have competition with the two plans and eventually let the market place decide which plan better fits Their family agenda. The winner of two different model plans will be the American Public. Competition is a good thing.

The plan should involve:

1. Capping liability to keep malpractice insurance costs at bay.

2. Streamlining the R&D process so that successful drugs, medical equipment, and procedures can be taken directly to the patients so that years of R&D money aren't wasted before patients can benefit. All that R&D money for test after test and federal approval gates eventually has to be recovered.

3. Allow doctors to perform and patients to sign waivers for experimental treatments that results in no liability if the procedure, drug, or treatment fails. Right now regular doctors cannot try something that has not been approved by the government and the medical establishment even if the patient is willing to take the risk.

4. Give doctors access to tests that are available to the research community. For instance, if a patient is going through depression, doctors cannot test for things like seratonin and dopamine, even though the technology is available for the research community. The only thing they can do is play whak-a-mole with SSRIs and other drugs.

5. The one thing that has been proposed... allowing insurance to cross state lines... needs to happen.

Good suggestions.

There are two things driving our medical costs, liability and bureaucracy.

We need to make liability predictable and reasonable. Lawyers and doctors oppose the things that need to be done. Lawyers want their big settlements (from doctors and pharmaceutical companies) and doctors want it almost impossible to get rid of bad doctors who generate the majority of liability claims.

Bureaucracy comes from the insurance companies and the government. We need to throw some insurance company execs in jail for fraud. United Healthcare has lost a number of lawsuits. They make up imaginary "reasonable and customary" and they refuse payments without a legitimate reason. The latter is a practice common in parts of the insurance industry. Insurance companies make profits by forcing you to hire a lawyer to get paid so you spend that money and they get to use your money until things settle. That is a violation of the insurance contract and fraud and we should jail the executives that play that game. That drives up costs for providers trying to collect as well as individuals. Hospitals and providers spend an enormous amount on collections from the insurance companies.

(06-17-2016 08:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 05:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 05:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Hillary has All of the Leftist Tools Fooled !

True as well. But the republicans had many options from across the entire spectrum. This is what they chose. The democrats had an 80 year old socialist and a 70 year old woman that has failed in every job and is under FBI investigation.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Well they also had a failed governor, a former Republican and Webb as well.

And they had no money and were all gone before the first vote was cast. Maybe O'Malley stuck around to Iowa, I don't remember.

(06-17-2016 06:54 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:25 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Well conservatives/republicans/righties....

What option do they have?

An old...?

Trump just turned 70. If elected, he will be the oldest ever elected as president of the US.

#fail

(06-17-2016 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 08:08 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 07:54 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Very good thoughts. Yes, The Republicans should try to come up with an alternate affordable plan that can co exist with Obamacare. Have competition with the two plans and eventually let the market place decide which plan better fits Their family agenda. The winner of two different model plans will be the American Public. Competition is a good thing.

The plan should involve:

1. Capping liability to keep malpractice insurance costs at bay.

2. Streamlining the R&D process so that successful drugs, medical equipment, and procedures can be taken directly to the patients so that years of R&D money aren't wasted before patients can benefit. All that R&D money for test after test and federal approval gates eventually has to be recovered.

3. Allow doctors to perform and patients to sign waivers for experimental treatments that results in no liability if the procedure, drug, or treatment fails. Right now regular doctors cannot try something that has not been approved by the government and the medical establishment even if the patient is willing to take the risk.

4. Give doctors access to tests that are available to the research community. For instance, if a patient is going through depression, doctors cannot test for things like seratonin and dopamine, even though the technology is available for the research community. The only thing they can do is play whak-a-mole with SSRIs and other drugs.

5. The one thing that has been proposed... allowing insurance to cross state lines... needs to happen.

We need to make liability predictable and reasonable.

Exactly. Obviously there are legitimate reasons for liability and a doctor that kills someone or causes damages due to negligence needs to be accountable; however, if the patient knows the risks and signs off on them and an unproven or experimental procedure fails... that should be allowed with no liability. Not only would that reduce costs, but it would also help to streamline R&D and innovation. These doctors are very smart people, the smartest amongst us, and if they have the ability to figure out new and innovative treatments at the deck plate level and profit off them, not only will costs go down, but technology and innovation will absolutely explode. It might take a generation because they are currently being trained the opposite way: if you want to innovate, go into research, if you want to treat, use the process we tell you.

(06-17-2016 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  There are two things driving our medical costs, liability and bureaucracy.

We need to make liability predictable and reasonable. Lawyers and doctors oppose the things that need to be done. Lawyers want their big settlements (from doctors and pharmaceutical companies) and doctors want it almost impossible to get rid of bad doctors who generate the majority of liability claims.

Bureaucracy comes from the insurance companies and the government. We need to throw some insurance company execs in jail for fraud. United Healthcare has lost a number of lawsuits. They make up imaginary "reasonable and customary" and they refuse payments without a legitimate reason. The latter is a practice common in parts of the insurance industry. Insurance companies make profits by forcing you to hire a lawyer to get paid so you spend that money and they get to use your money until things settle. That is a violation of the insurance contract and fraud and we should jail the executives that play that game. That drives up costs for providers trying to collect as well as individuals. Hospitals and providers spend an enormous amount on collections from the insurance companies.

I would argue most doctors want the bad apples in their group gone as well. The question who determines what constitutes good or bad? Patients? Lawyers? other Doctors? That ambiguity is why physicians irrationally choose to protect everyone.

I agree with you on the bureaucratic part. What I've never understood is why some HMO hasn't tried a different method. How many people would sign up for a plan that was heavily biased against smoking and falling outside of BMI standards?

(06-17-2016 09:50 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  There are two things driving our medical costs, liability and bureaucracy.

We need to make liability predictable and reasonable. Lawyers and doctors oppose the things that need to be done. Lawyers want their big settlements (from doctors and pharmaceutical companies) and doctors want it almost impossible to get rid of bad doctors who generate the majority of liability claims.

Bureaucracy comes from the insurance companies and the government. We need to throw some insurance company execs in jail for fraud. United Healthcare has lost a number of lawsuits. They make up imaginary "reasonable and customary" and they refuse payments without a legitimate reason. The latter is a practice common in parts of the insurance industry. Insurance companies make profits by forcing you to hire a lawyer to get paid so you spend that money and they get to use your money until things settle. That is a violation of the insurance contract and fraud and we should jail the executives that play that game. That drives up costs for providers trying to collect as well as individuals. Hospitals and providers spend an enormous amount on collections from the insurance companies.

I would argue most doctors want the bad apples in their group gone as well. The question who determines what constitutes good or bad? Patients? Lawyers? other Doctors? That ambiguity is why physicians irrationally choose to protect everyone.

I agree with you on the bureaucratic part. What I've never understood is why some HMO hasn't tried a different method. How many people would sign up for a plan that was heavily biased against smoking and falling outside of BMI standards?

Bad doctors rarely get removed in practice. Doctors want to make it difficult to remove a license (so that it doesn't happen because of a single mistake or lawsuit). And you have stories of bad doctors getting minor slaps on the wrist repeatedly. Wanting bad doctors removed and wanting a process that makes that easier to do are two different things.

(06-17-2016 09:50 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  There are two things driving our medical costs, liability and bureaucracy.

We need to make liability predictable and reasonable. Lawyers and doctors oppose the things that need to be done. Lawyers want their big settlements (from doctors and pharmaceutical companies) and doctors want it almost impossible to get rid of bad doctors who generate the majority of liability claims.

Bureaucracy comes from the insurance companies and the government. We need to throw some insurance company execs in jail for fraud. United Healthcare has lost a number of lawsuits. They make up imaginary "reasonable and customary" and they refuse payments without a legitimate reason. The latter is a practice common in parts of the insurance industry. Insurance companies make profits by forcing you to hire a lawyer to get paid so you spend that money and they get to use your money until things settle. That is a violation of the insurance contract and fraud and we should jail the executives that play that game. That drives up costs for providers trying to collect as well as individuals. Hospitals and providers spend an enormous amount on collections from the insurance companies.

I would argue most doctors want the bad apples in their group gone as well. The question who determines what constitutes good or bad? Patients? Lawyers? other Doctors? That ambiguity is why physicians irrationally choose to protect everyone.

I agree with you on the bureaucratic part. What I've never understood is why some HMO hasn't tried a different method. How many people would sign up for a plan that was heavily biased against smoking and falling outside of BMI standards?

The marketplace should decide. Right now they are all pretty much the same, at least when it comes to non-surgical positions. They all follow the exact same process and the exact same rules. The only differences are in personality, bedside manner, and ability to navigate the bureaucracy, but you could pick any 2 doctors out of the phonebook and your treatment plan is going to be exactly the same. It is required and those that go outside that protocol get sued and lose their license. There is 0 innovation at the deck plate level. With this system, why even require med school to be a non-surgical physician?

It has to do with expense, it has nothing to do with insurance or insurance companies, the entire process is broken. Insurance could be 0 profit and the price would still be skyrocketing. You'd just be paying $570 per month instead of $600. The costs must be addressed at the macro level.

(06-17-2016 10:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  Bad doctors rarely get removed in practice. Doctors want to make it difficult to remove a license (so that it doesn't happen because of a single mistake or lawsuit). And you have stories of bad doctors getting minor slaps on the wrist repeatedly. Wanting bad doctors removed and wanting a process that makes that easier to do are two different things.

I agree that is at the heart of docs protection of the bad apples. People want to hold physicians to a zero-defect performance when they are just as human as everyone else.

Pretty dumb to pay attention to polls this far out but I guess it makes for mindless banter between groups. I've pretty much decided I'm going 3rd party because I can't morally or ethically vote for either of two representing the R and D. Too many folks died for me not to vote so I'll still definitely vote and, as has been the case in the past, I'll take my two kids with me to keeping showing them the importance of voting.

Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

Noted that Bloomberg had Obama with a + 11 favorable rating and Clinton up by 12 with 49%.
Rasmussen had Obama with a +1 favorable rating and Clinton up by 5 two days later.

Clearly some sampling error differences between the two polls. Rasmussen is consistent with other polls on Obama's favorable rating. Reuters also showed Obama +1 and showed Clinton with 41% up 9.

Clinton has made a big ad buy in many of the battleground states. I'm beginning to see them here in NC. Some strategists contend that voting is decided in the summer, not the fall. Trumps unwillingness to cooperate with the GOP is holding back the coordinated effort needed to run a national campaign. Trump risks losing the election during the heat of summer if he doesn't start working with those that are trying to help him.