| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Change 20% to 0.0002% and change "no means to differentiate" to "substantive means to differentiate however imperfect" then we can talk.
|
I think the substantive means to differentiate is up for debate.
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Well 20% of those people aren't dangerous IRL if you're comparing percentage wise but ignoring that...
this would only make sense if all 100% are from a single area. But the thing is only the 20% is from a specific area and the other 80% are scattered yet you're ready to ban all of population X? Doesn't make any sense
Now going on Trump's Muslim ban. He doesn't want to ban just the Muslims from the terrorist hot pockets. He wants to ban ALL Muslims EVERYWHERE outside of the US, including US Muslims abroad. If that isn't the dumbest and most anti American thing I've ever heard of than idk what is
|
I agree with having stricter enforcement from certain areas, but you don't have to be from a certain area to become radicalized. The only common thing that threads all of the people together is the belief system that leads to the radicalization.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
I agree with Bernie, the Dems should just go all out for single-payer, the US is already halfway there. Obamacare is a disaster for millions of people and is becoming more unpopular by the day, why stand behind it?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,870
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
I agree with Bernie, the Dems should just go all out for single-payer, the US is already halfway there. Obamacare is a disaster for millions of people and is becoming more unpopular by the day, why stand behind it?
|
I like my $45 insurance thank you very much. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
Just a question for the thread about Trump Muslim ban. Take religion out of it.
Let's say you have a population "X". Out of the group, 20% of the group is dangerous. Let's say that the 20% is Group B, and the other 80% is Group A. If you don't have the means to differentiate between group A and group B, would it be wrong to keep out all of population X until you are able to?
|
This seems like a great argument for segregated communities 
Keep all the black people out of my neighborhood teas
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Interesting.
How is wanting to expand something that Republicans hated so much that they shut down the federal government over sounding like a Republican? No, her approach is more pragmatic in the sense that you're not having to go with something entirely new from a legislative POV. Hillary is right in that aspect, it's not even up for debate. Whether you think you should just go big first or work up to it incrementally is where the differing in politics lies. But Hillary's comments were nothing short of accurate.
|
Hilary's approach in this case is safer and easier. However, we'll be back here in 10-20 years looking for the reform again. As usual Bernie Sanders will look like a visionary yet again because he was right in the first place. It makes sense to take the pain now and get the system that people were already promised. The vast majority of people were expecting single payer. When they got Obamacare they were like WTF is this... Obamacare only cuts the growth rate in projected health care costs and doesn't cut cost. This is why Obamacare polls badly continuously. It's not what anyone wanted. People wanted single payer so they could take responsibility without going bankrupt because they needed to treat an illness. I mean Obamacare is better than what we had before but I think we need to think past the next election cycle. You can improve and replace. A president should be able to handle doing more than one thing at a time.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
I think the substantive means to differentiate is up for debate.
I agree with having stricter enforcement from certain areas, but you don't have to be from a certain area to become radicalized. The only common thing that threads all of the people together is the belief system that leads to the radicalization.
|
You also don't have to be from a certain religion to be radicalized. Not all terrorists are muslim so he is literally just banning people based on stupid fears
Not even mentioning the fact it's unconstitutional, you could lie about your religion, and you could never, ever, ban a us citizen from his or her own country. Even acts of treason can't lead to that.
I agree with the idea that we need better surveillance of who comes in and out of the country. Banning Muslims is literally the worst thing you can do next to letting everyone in whenever you want
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by that G.U.Y.
I like my $45 insurance thank you very much. |
I'm sure they guy paying $1,000 so you can have yours for less than $50 feels differently.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MAKSIM
This seems like a great argument for segregated communities
Keep all the black people out of my neighborhood teas |
I think there is a clear difference between race and ideology, I should have made that more clear in my analogy.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
When do we think O'Malley is going to drop out? 
What about Bernie? How long do you think he will keep this up if he loses every state but NH?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
You also don't have to be from a certain religion to be radicalized. Not all terrorists are muslim so he is literally just banning people based on stupid fears
Not even mentioning the fact it's unconstitutional, you could lie about your religion, and you could never, ever, ban a us citizen from his or her own country. Even acts of treason can't lead to that.
I agree with the idea that we need better surveillance of who comes in and out of the country. Banning Muslims is literally the worst thing you can do next to letting everyone in whenever you want
|
It's much more likely for someone to become radicalized from certain religions than others. Not all religions are the same, some have passages that would uniquely lead their followers to radicalization than others would.
I'm just wondering what measures do you all think would be appropriate and effective in screening out radicalization?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,870
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
I'm sure they guy paying $1,000 so you can have yours for less than $50 feels differently.
|
Your point is irrelevant.  its government subsidized its tax money from the wealthy that are making up the difference. If he is being charged $1,000 its because he makes more than enough money to pay full cost insurance.
Obamacare isnt mandatory.  I do peoples taxes for a living and there many ways to exempt yourself from Obamacare.
But please keep regurgitating what you read in the media 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
I'm sure they guy paying $1,000 so you can have yours for less than $50 feels differently.
|
Insurance doesn't work that way. It is based on age, health risks (smoke, diseases in the family, income, location relative to doctors/providers, etc). So given all of the data Insurance companies have to take into account to come up with a rate for an individual it's likely that one person paying $45 has very little to do with another paying $1000 bucks for coverage.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by that G.U.Y.
Your point is irrelevant. its government subsidized its tax money from the wealthy that are making up the difference. If he is being charged $1,000 its because he makes more than enough money to pay full cost insurance.
Obamacare isnt mandatory. I do peoples taxes for a living and there many ways to exempt yourself from Obamacare.
But please keep regurgitating what you read in the media |
What are you talking about? It's not just govt money making up the difference, it's also hiked premiums and deductibles that are making up the difference. And just b/c you think people have more than enough money to afford it doesn't mean they actually can, you don't know what people's expenses are. That's not even going into the business side of things.
Also, feel free to say how Obamacare is not mandatory, when there is literally a govt mandate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
Insurance doesn't work that way. It is based on age, health risks (smoke, diseases in the family, income, location relative to doctors/providers, etc). So given all of the data Insurance companies have to take into account to come up with a rate for an individual it's likely that one person paying $45 has very little to do with another paying $1000 bucks for coverage.
|
That's not true. When Obamacare passed millions of American had the their insurance costs raised to accommodate the new enroll-ees who A) had chronic pre-existing conditions or B) don't pay enough into the system to cover their own costs. There was not an influx people in the higher income brackets to not raise mid-tier costs, which is what the mandate was supposed to adjust for. Even now a lot of companies still can't recover the costs and are threatening to pull out of the exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,870
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
What are you talking about? It's not just govt money making up the difference, it's also hiked premiums and deductibles that are making up the difference. And just b/c you think people have more than enough money to afford it doesn't mean they actually can, you don't know what people's expenses are. That's not even going into the business side of things.
Also, feel free how Obamacare is not mandatory, when there is literally a govt mandate.
|
Sorry they choose to spend their money on frivolous materliastic things instead of healthcare? Not my fault they took mortgages they cant pay 
Obamacare was the best thing that happened to me in 2015. You choose to listen to the vocal minority...
As for your second comment
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f8965--2014.pdf
This is the tax form you fill out to claim your exemption from Obamacare. There are 3 options
1. Healthcare is unaffordable
2. Already have an existing healthcare plan
3. Not a US Citizen
I did about 50 tax returns last year and all of them received an exemption from the government, so please educate yourself. The government isnt out to get you, dear.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
That's not true. When Obamacare passed millions of American had the their insurance costs raised to accommodate the new enroll-ees who A) had chronic pre-existing conditions or B) don't pay enough into the system to cover their own costs. There was not an influx people in the higher income brackets to not raise mid-tier costs, which is what the mandate was supposed to adjust for. Even now a lot of companies still can't recover the costs and threatening to pull out of the exchanges.
|
That's not true. The costs were always projected to go up when they did way before Obamacare was even passed. We had a long discussion about this at several companies I worked at. They talked about how they had shopped around and the most affordable plan they could find cost 40% more than we were previously paying and that was before Obamacare passed. Obamacare limits the growth rates in health care costs. And it provides insurance for the uninsured by making sure everyone pays in in one for or another.
The reason health care is so expensive in America compared to other countries is the fact that people fail to plan then show up at the emergency room expecting everyone else to work a miracle when they should've been covering themselves. It also added a whole bunch of lower cost items and added competition to the insurance market which further helped to control costs as a whole. Obamacare has succeeded controlling the cost of health care as an aggregate. People who were underinsured will see an increase in their premiums. They got more service for more money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-law-cbo-says/
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
Hilary's approach in this case is safer and easier. However, we'll be back here in 10-20 years looking for the reform again. As usual Bernie Sanders will look like a visionary yet again because he was right in the first place. It makes sense to take the pain now and get the system that people were already promised. The vast majority of people were expecting single payer. When they got Obamacare they were like WTF is this... Obamacare only cuts the growth rate in projected health care costs and doesn't cut cost. This is why Obamacare polls badly continuously. It's not what anyone wanted. People wanted single payer so they could take responsibility without going bankrupt because they needed to treat an illness. I mean Obamacare is better than what we had before but I think we need to think past the next election cycle. You can improve and replace. A president should be able to handle doing more than one thing at a time.
|
Going for single-payer won't get anything accomplished, in my opinion. We have a Republican congress and they won't see it through. Further, with everything else Bernie wants to see happen, it's almost impossible for him to be able to accomplish the full extent of what he envisions. While, it's ambitious, it's unrealistic. Hillary was for single-payer for a long time and then as she got more experience, she fought for incremental change. Why? I don't know, but most likely because she realized it can't be done overnight. Obamacare was an incredible step in the right direction. It's better to build on top of that than to start all over.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Going for single-payer won't get anything accomplished, in my opinion. We have a Republican congress and they won't see it through. Further, with everything else Bernie wants to see happen, it's almost impossible for him to be able to accomplish the full extent of what he envisions. While, it's ambitious, it's unrealistic. Hillary was for single-payer for a long time and then as she got more experience, she fought for incremental change. Why? I don't know, but most likely because she realized it can't be done overnight. Obamacare was an incredible step in the right direction. It's better to build on top of that than to start all over.
|
When is anything worth doing done overnight?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
It is false to present a plan that you know is not achievable under your presidency. The democrats would need the house and senate for this type of single-payer health care system to be put in place and that is simply not happening within the next four years.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
When do we think O'Malley is going to drop out?
What about Bernie? How long do you think he will keep this up if he loses every state but NH? |
O'Malley will drop out after NH at the latest IMO. Bernie is it at least through April, but could be in until California's vote is done if he puts up a good fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
