Some issues I would like to explore:

[Boris The Animal]

OK folks, remember in my thread concerning the 2016 Presidential race and my thoughts on it? I also indicated that a couple of the longstanding issues that I have held I am taking another look at. Free trade and healthcare. First on free trade. I don't see any reason why we should not open our markets BUT!!!!! I want to see that our standards are upheld and jobs preserved. When I look at the devastation caused by the massive fire in Lackawanna that destroyed the old Bethlehem Steel complex, or more likely, what's left of it, my heart breaks because my grandfather worked there until he retired from there in 1976 and every time I do pass by there, I imagine what it must have been like when it was booming. The orange sky to the south of my house at night when the slag was being dumped. I know we'll never get manufacturing back to the same level we had up into NAFTA decimated it, but we need to start somewhere. Second is healthcare. I know some of my Conservative bretheren will crucify me for this but I have a question. The ACA does have a couple of provisions that can be enacted as standalone laws (preexisting conditions, no more lifetime caps) but how can we as a nation, provide universal coverage without the exorbitant tax rates or excessive government control and allow R&D and innovation to continue?

[maineman]

Boris seems to be trying to do something other than call liberals terrible names. Perhaps changing his signature line would be a sign of good faith that would cause others to, just maybe, take him seriously. Until then.... not so much. Until then, fuck off.

[Boris The Animal]

Boris seems to be trying to do something other than call liberals terrible names. Perhaps changing his signature line would be a sign of good faith that would cause others to, just maybe, take him seriously. Until then.... not so much. Until then, $#@! off.Unfortunately, the Left have proven themselves as snivelling whiny crybabies just because the crook didn't win.

[Crepitus]

Boris seems to be trying to do something other than call liberals terrible names. Perhaps changing his signature line would be a sign of good faith that would cause others to, just maybe, take him seriously. Until then.... not so much. Until then, fuck off.

I've noticed this, but he's spent so much time calling me a "fucking commie bastard" and various other things that I just can't take him seriously.

[maineman]

Unfortunately, the Left have proven themselves as snivelling whiny crybabies just because the crook didn't win.

so have this discussion with yourself. the last phrase from my previous post still applies.

[maineman]

I've noticed this, but he's spent so much time calling me a "fucking commie bastard" and various other things that I just can't take him seriously.


precisely.

[Dr. Who]

OK folks, remember in my thread concerning the 2016 Presidential race and my thoughts on it? I also indicated that a couple of the longstanding issues that I have held I am taking another look at. Free trade and healthcare. First on free trade. I don't see any reason why we should not open our markets BUT!!!!! I want to see that our standards are upheld and jobs preserved. When I look at the devastation caused by the massive fire in Lackawanna that destroyed the old Bethlehem Steel complex, or more likely, what's left of it, my heart breaks because my grandfather worked there until he retired from there in 1976 and every time I do pass by there, I imagine what it must have been like when it was booming. The orange sky to the south of my house at night when the slag was being dumped. I know we'll never get manufacturing back to the same level we had up into NAFTA decimated it, but we need to start somewhere. Second is healthcare. I know some of my Conservative bretheren will crucify me for this but I have a question. The ACA does have a couple of provisions that can be enacted as standalone laws (preexisting conditions, no more lifetime caps) but how can we as a nation, provide universal coverage without the exorbitant tax rates or excessive government control and allow R&D and innovation to continue?
Boris, the steel industry of your grandfather's time will never come back. It can't. In the last 20 years too many advances in automation/robotics and software have happened and even if the plants come back, there won't be many people in them. Basically, just the people needed to keep the machines in good order and the software functioning. When buggies, buggy whips and whale oil lost favor, people were out of work.

Fortunately the transition, to other similar labor was not all that difficult. Assembly line work, single task jobs still needed bodies and those bodies didn't need a great deal of skill, just stamina. Things are different now. Machines have taken over most of those jobs and most of the quality control and minor analytics are being performed by software. Some people think that we will invent new jobs for people, but here's the thing, there are people who are not psychologically inclined to work with their heads, but instead like to work with their bodies. They are the people who will be shut out of the new reality.

Healthcare - I don't fundamentally understand how healthcare can ever be cheaper with a myriad of profit centers that have to be satisfied in order to deliver the product. Either healthcare is considered a fundamental right or it is a commodity but it can't be both. If it remains a private for-profit industry, benefits will eventually be hollowed out for all but those who can pay the highest premiums. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money and paying for healthcare in private hospitals with shareholders is expensive as is paying more for pharmaceuticals than any other country in the world. With private healthcare, there is no purchasing power and no leverage with big pharma. The limit to which insurance companies can compete is finite. If the cost of premiums get too high and people just can't afford them, the insurance companies will simply drop that line of business. Then what?

[Captain Obvious]

Boris, the steel industry of your grandfather's time will never come back. It can't. In the last 20 years too many advances in automation/robotics and software have happened and even if the plants come back, there won't be many people in them. Basically, just the people needed to keep the machines in good order and the software functioning. When buggies, buggy whips and whale oil lost favor, people were out of work.

Fortunately the transition, to other similar labor was not all that difficult. Assembly line work, single task jobs still needed bodies and those bodies didn't need a great deal of skill, just stamina. Things are different now. Machines have taken over most of those jobs and most of the quality control and minor analytics are being performed by software. Some people think that we will invent new jobs for people, but here's the thing, there are people who are not psychologically inclined to work with their heads, but instead like to work with their bodies. They are the people who will be shut out of the new reality.

Healthcare - I don't fundamentally understand how healthcare can ever be cheaper with a myriad of profit centers that have to be satisfied in order to deliver the product. Either healthcare is considered a fundamental right or it is a commodity but it can't be both. If it remains a private for-profit industry, benefits will eventually be hollowed out for all but those who can pay the highest premiums. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money and paying for healthcare in private hospitals with shareholders is expensive as is paying more for pharmaceuticals than any other country in the world. With private healthcare, there is no purchasing power and no leverage with big pharma. The limit to which insurance companies can compete is finite. If the cost of premiums get too high and people just can't afford them, the insurance companies will simply drop that line of business. Then what?

Some good points here but healthcare isn't "for profit".

Medicare/caid is two thirds of our insured. Commercial insurance companies are governed by CMS for the most part - they follow the industry set by Medicare.

And, commercial insurances are the reason most providers are still in business. Take that element away and you have the 800lb gorilla provider systems in urban areas and that's it.

[Captain Obvious]

And, in part this is why the rural areas got the vote out.

Enough!

[Tahuyaman]

Boris seems to be trying to do something other than call liberals terrible names. Perhaps changing his signature line would be a sign of good faith that would cause others to, just maybe, take him seriously. Until then.... not so much. Until then, $#@! off.


Typical.

[Boris The Animal]

Boris, the steel industry of your grandfather's time will never come back. It can't. In the last 20 years too many advances in automation/robotics and software have happened and even if the plants come back, there won't be many people in them. Basically, just the people needed to keep the machines in good order and the software functioning. When buggies, buggy whips and whale oil lost favor, people were out of work.

Fortunately the transition, to other similar labor was not all that difficult. Assembly line work, single task jobs still needed bodies and those bodies didn't need a great deal of skill, just stamina. Things are different now. Machines have taken over most of those jobs and most of the quality control and minor analytics are being performed by software. Some people think that we will invent new jobs for people, but here's the thing, there are people who are not psychologically inclined to work with their heads, but instead like to work with their bodies. They are the people who will be shut out of the new reality.So what needs to be done here? Because there are many who just can't hack in in college. Vocational training and building trade unions are good, but again, limited in their capacity, so what is to be done?


Healthcare - I don't fundamentally understand how healthcare can ever be cheaper with a myriad of profit centers that have to be satisfied in order to deliver the product. Either healthcare is considered a fundamental right or it is a commodity but it can't be both. If it remains a private for-profit industry, benefits will eventually be hollowed out for all but those who can pay the highest premiums. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money and paying for healthcare in private hospitals with shareholders is expensive as is paying more for pharmaceuticals than any other country in the world. With private healthcare, there is no purchasing power and no leverage with big pharma. The limit to which insurance companies can compete is finite. If the cost of premiums get too high and people just can't afford them, the insurance companies will simply drop that line of business. Then what?My biggest concern with government takeover is that R&D and innovations will be gone from the equation because healthcare would now be rationed.

[Dr. Who]

Some good points here but healthcare isn't "for profit".

Medicare/caid is two thirds of our insured. Commercial insurance companies are governed by CMS for the most part - they follow the industry set by Medicare.

And, commercial insurances are the reason most providers are still in business. Take that element away and you have the 800lb gorilla provider systems in urban areas and that's it.
I realize that healthcare is your bailiwick but insurance is mine. The bottom line rules in insurance, so if the loss ratios on the private end get too high, the insurers will drop healthcare as a general product for all but either the healthiest people or the wealthiest people or they will impose very low policy limits on the average buyer. Look at life insurance for an example. Healthy people get cheap premiums, not so healthy people pay through the nose or can't even qualify. Insurance companies are about mitigating risk.

[Dr. Who]

So what needs to be done here? Because there are many who just can't hack in in college. Vocational training and building trade unions are good, but again, limited in their capacity, so what is to be done?

That's probably the 50 trillion dollar question of the century. I don't think that there is any historical precedent that we can draw upon. There are many who are suggesting that there will have to be a minimal guaranteed annual income for people. The numbers that I have heard are pretty low. Furthermore, how would that work if corporate tax is highly reduced? Who would pay for probably 40%, at least, of the population who don't fit into the future mold? I don't know. I don't think that capitalism is prepared for this scenario.


My biggest concern with government takeover is that R&D and innovations will be gone from the equation because healthcare would now be rationed.

Fortunately on this score, I have better news. Big pharma is global and that R&D and innovation is happening all over the world. R&D is still affordable even in countries where healthcare is single payer and where governments curb the price of pharmaceuticals. America is just a wonderful cash cow.

[Captain Obvious]

I realize that healthcare is your bailiwick but insurance is mine. The bottom line rules in insurance, so if the loss ratios on the private end get too high, the insurers will drop healthcare as a general product for all but either the healthiest people or the wealthiest people or they will impose very low policy limits on the average buyer. Look at life insurance for an example. Healthy people get cheap premiums, not so healthy people pay through the nose or can't even qualify. Insurance companies are about mitigating risk.

Haven't seen that much to be honest.

The place I work at is fully insured, we're bidding out our policy and have a bid in hand from a commercial insurance plan that has committed to a roughly 15% redux in premiums. Our goal now I'm here is to self insure but we've been historically doing stuff that makes it not very attractive at this point so I'm looking to fully insure for the next year then maybe move toward a self insurance plan.

And I'm really in the middle of nowhere, probably the most remote place on the map aside from Alaska.

The ACA really makes the healthcare insurance model restrictive. Nobody is not having insurance to any material degree from what I've seen, it just costs more.

IMO, if it were an entirely a competitive market, rates would be much lower and costs would be truly contained. But that's not the case, we have special interests stuffing campaign dollars into the pockets of establishment politicians and Medicare continues to be the front-runner bloat.

[Common Sense]

I pay taxes and have a health card that covers my medical expenses.

I'm so grateful for it.

[Captain Obvious]

I pay taxes and have a health card that covers my medical expenses.

I'm so grateful for it.

Thanks for the tip, Eichmann

[Dr. Who]

Haven't seen that much to be honest.

The place I work at is fully insured, we're bidding out our policy and have a bid in hand from a commercial insurance plan that has committed to a roughly 15% redux in premiums. Our goal now I'm here is to self insure but we've been historically doing stuff that makes it not very attractive at this point so I'm looking to fully insure for the next year then maybe move toward a self insurance plan.

And I'm really in the middle of nowhere, probably the most remote place on the map aside from Alaska.

The ACA really makes the healthcare insurance model restrictive. Nobody is not having insurance to any material degree from what I've seen, it just costs more.

IMO, if it were an entirely a competitive market, rates would be much lower and costs would be truly contained. But that's not the case, we have special interests stuffing campaign dollars into the pockets of establishment politicians and Medicare continues to be the front-runner bloat.

Insurance is still currently competitive, although I still think that the costs are higher than they should be, but just wait a while. Medical costs are rising and that will be reflected in premiums. The only thing that might mitigate the problem is if medical procedures are automated. By that I mean robot surgery and software diagnostics.

[Common Sense]

Thanks for the tip, Eichmann
LOL...it's true, I do have to pledge allegiance to the fuhrer if I want bloodwork done.

[Boris The Animal]

That's probably the 50 trillion dollar question of the century. I don't think that there is any historical precedent that we can draw upon. There are many who are suggesting that there will have to be a minimal guaranteed annual income for people. The numbers that I have heard are pretty low. Furthermore, how would that work if corporate tax is highly reduced? Who would pay for probably 40%, at least, of the population who don't fit into the future mold? I don't know. I don't think that capitalism is prepared for this scenario.But where would the money come from? Because there would be incredible resentment if those with jobs were going to be forced to cough upwards of 45%-60% of their income to fund this. This is where I vehemently disagree with socialism because it doesn't work! I do think the better answer is to lower the tax burden, not do gimmicky "tax free for five years" or other crap like that, and eliminate the more onerous regulations and red tape that is a major burden for new business startups.


Fortunately on this score, I have better news. Big pharma is global and that R&D and innovation is happening all over the world. R&D is still affordable even in countries where healthcare is single payer and where governments curb the price of pharmaceuticals. America is just a wonderful cash cow.Dunno, I think the lions' share of R&D still comes fom the States. I just don't want government getting any bigger than it already is.

[Docthehun]

Excellent discussion. Kudos

[Dr. Who]

But where would the money come from? Because there would be incredible resentment if those with jobs were going to be forced to cough upwards of 45%-60% of their income to fund this. This is where I vehemently disagree with socialism because it doesn't work! I do think the better answer is to lower the tax burden, not do gimmicky "tax free for five years" or other crap like that, and eliminate the more onerous regulations and red tape that is a major burden for new business startups.

Dunno, I think the lions' share of R&D still comes fom the States. I just don't want government getting any bigger than it already is.


But where would the money come from? Because there would be incredible resentment if those with jobs were going to be forced to cough upwards of 45%-60% of their income to fund this. This is where I vehemently disagree with socialism because it doesn't work! I do think the better answer is to lower the tax burden, not do gimmicky "tax free for five years" or other crap like that, and eliminate the more onerous regulations and red tape that is a major burden for new business startups.
That's the question in a nutshell. People won't want to work to have most of their wages clawed back, but then again, what happens with all of those people who will not fit into the new reality that has no place for their type? I think that people need to think about that question. The new reality will require a different way of looking at things because the old way will obviously not work. We know that you cannot pound square pegs into round holes, so what do we do? I don`t think that people would be supportive of a vigorous government mandated eugenics program or genetic selection, which is the only other alternative to some sort of socialistic society.