Election 2020 - Page 258 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Patrickov
#15130217
maz wrote:https://twitter.com/GPIngersoll/status/1320316437035180032?s=20


It depends.

This kind of material is so prone to foreign influence that it should be dealt with exactly that way.
User avatar
By maz
#15130221
Patrickov wrote:It depends.

This kind of material is so prone to foreign influence that it should be dealt with exactly that way.


Well yes, because this is apparently the influence of anti-Communist Chinese(?), but they are saying that this is Russian influence.

There is no evidence that this is a Russian disinfo op. Maybe if they said that this was an anti-Chinese disinfo op it would be more more truthful?
By B0ycey
#15130242
Istanbuller wrote:No one would go bankrupt if there was a free market healthcare. Demand and supply forces of market would set a price which everyone can have access to healthcare.

On the other hand, Democrats wants otherwise. They want to nationalize the entire system. They pump taxpayers money into it. You call it Obamacare in America. In every 5 to 10 years, these nationalised healthcare systems go bankrupt everywhere in the world. Poeple lose their retirement savings due to it.


Fuck me. Clearly you know nothing about the US healthcare system or nationalised healthcare. What you have written is complete tripe. Drug companies monopolies their drugs and then can charge what they like for 20 YEARS!!! Because healthcare isn't regulated their isn't any regulations for what people/companies can charge you. Then there is the middle men. Yes, that's right, insurance companies. They don't offer their services for free.

Now let's look at nationalised healthcare. Government set the rules and can curb costs. Tax payers share the burden so what you pay is what you can afford. No middle men. Also NHS over 70 years old, no bankruptcies. So much for going bankrupt after 5 years. :roll:

I wish the Dems stood on a healthcare reform program. But unfortunately they too are bitches for lobbying insurance companies.
By B0ycey
#15130243
Doug64 wrote:Biden's entire campaign centers around "I'm not Trump!" with the implication that "Trump is EVIL!" Anything that undercuts that by making Biden look anything like what the Left has been insisting Trump is like ever since he won hurts Biden.


You think??? :lol:

For one Hunter isn't Biden. But in any case Biden could have done what Hunter did and the mere fact he isn't Trump means those who oppose Trump would still oppose him come the election.

This is an unusual election. This isn't about voting for the candidate you like but voting against the candidate you hate. There isn't much love for Biden on PoFo. It isn't like anyone is saying how great he is on here. But plenty are saying they will vote for him. Why? Because he isn't Trump. So no, Hunters actions means fuck all but is enough to give Trump supporters wet dreams at night I guess.
#15130251
Istanbuller wrote:No one would go bankrupt if there was a free market healthcare. Demand and supply forces of market would set a price which everyone can have access to healthcare.

On the other hand, Democrats wants otherwise. They want to nationalize the entire system. They pump taxpayers money into it. You call it Obamacare in America. In every 5 to 10 years, these nationalised healthcare systems go bankrupt everywhere in the world. Poeple lose their retirement savings due to it.


Medical bills are the #1 leading cause of bankruptcy. I don't know why you believe a free market approach to health insurance would solve this, because that's pretty much what we have in America now.

I'm going to be generous here and assume you have an understanding of insurance. Do you think state insurance boards are somehow making the market less efficient, in that approved insurance providers within a state having a base level insurance contract (before riders) is inefficient? How does a free market approach handle people with pre-existing conditions, from birth or accident?

The simple fact of the matter is that people aren't free so long as health care is privately run. You are not free if you are constantly worrying about how a small accident will leave you homeless. Roughly one third of working adults in America have no savings, and an unexpected $500 expense could ruin them. The only thing an insurance market can offer these people is shitty plans with high deductibles and high copays that are absolutely ruinous.

Insurance pools are based on risk, and that risk is taken on by private enterprise. They need large pools of insureds because they operate on the law of large numbers, not unlike a casino, in order to provide insurance. For the poor, there are simply not enough people who can buy into these insurance pools because they just can't afford it. When it comes to eating or paying rent now or mitigating potential future loss (which is literally the point of all insurance; mitigating future loss) they will choose to eat now. Insurance is simply not an option for the working poor, because they do not have losses to mitigate. Why would you pay a monthly premium for a future loss you can't afford to cover, even with insurance?

I've said this before: The ACA is great if you need prescriptions or preventative care via regular doctor's visits and whatnot. But the ACA did not solve the problem of catastrophic insurance. Even if you're of moderate means and can spring for subsidized Platinum care, you are still royally fucked if you have a $5,000 deductible and then you have a 10% copay if, for example, you get mowed down by a Chud who thinks protests are gay and that it's fine to run down protesters

Even in the most generous plan, you pay $5,000 deductible and then a 10% copay for services rendered after that deductible. Let's say you require $150,000 in surgical procedures after Karen Mc'AGA runs you down in her SUV because you were holding a BLM sign and were standing between her and the McDonald's drive-thru. Your out of pocket expenses would be (($150,000-$5,000) * 0.1) + $5,000) = $19,500. That's not something the average American can afford. That's a couple years of debt, at least, if you're a severe penny pincher operating on a median salary of $50-$60K.

And then on top of that you would require long term care, which is not provided by the ACA, if you need physical therapy. Or if you need in-home care because you can't wipe your ass or cook food while you recover.

The only logical choice is Single Payer, and leveraging the buying power of the entire country to demand the best prices. And that's if you must insist that it be done under a capitalist model. One thing I have noticed with free marketeers is how they think government programs that run at a deficit operate like a business, in that they are failing if they do not generate revenue. When social programs run at a deficit that is not a loss, that is money spent on their citizenry. Every negative dollar represents an investment in the populace.
By Istanbuller
#15130261
Random American wrote:I doubt this very much. Market failures are very much a thing, and we pretty much had free market healthcare. We're not a country that had a tightly regulated economy. Enough with the right libertarian talking points, government is not what's stopping us from reaching a utopia.

There is no such thing as a market failure. Prices are being adjusted according to demand and supply curves.

In a free market healthcare, a supplier should set prices with consumer feedbacks. If not doing it, then it will be eliminated from market because of competition.

You have a mixed healthcare system in the US. That causes unrealistic pricing. Private entities cannot compete.

B0ycey wrote:Fuck me. Clearly you know nothing about the US healthcare system or nationalised healthcare. What you have written is complete tripe. Drug companies monopolies their drugs and then can charge what they like for 20 YEARS!!! Because healthcare isn't regulated their isn't any regulations for what people/companies can charge you. Then there is the middle men. Yes, that's right, insurance companies. They don't offer their services for free.

Now let's look at nationalised healthcare. Government set the rules and can curb costs. Tax payers share the burden so what you pay is what you can afford. No middle men. Also NHS over 70 years old, no bankruptcies. So much for going bankrupt after 5 years. :roll:

I wish the Dems stood on a healthcare reform program. But unfortunately they too are bitches for lobbying insurance companies.

Drug companies, monopolies and drug licenses are not problem in a free market healthcare. A genius can come to to market to compete incumbents as long as government does not favor any business more than other one.

You don't need regulations to curb costs. Regulations don't curb costs. They increase costs. Regulation means governments set up standards and favor some companies over others.

Under a nationalised and mixed healthcare systems, you will never see decreases in prices. You will always see price hikes. You don't have competition. Healthcare lobbyists can pressure government anytime they want. They can set up fake prices as they do now.

SpecialOlympian wrote:Medical bills are the #1 leading cause of bankruptcy. I don't know why you believe a free market approach to health insurance would solve this, because that's pretty much what we have in America now.

You don't have. You have a mixed system as everywhere in the world. I explained it above. Read it.
By B0ycey
#15130265
Istanbuller wrote:In a free market healthcare, a supplier should set prices with consumer feedbacks. If not doing it, then it will be eliminated from market because of competition.


the supplier has a 20 year monopoly. They set the price without feedback because there is no competition. How are you so obtuse to monopoly exploitation? The consumer either pays the price or suffers for his healthcare needs.

You have a mixed healthcare system in the US. That causes unrealistic pricing. Private entities cannot compete.


The US healthcare system is not mixed. It is 100% free market. Hence why it is so damn expensive and you are chatting shit again by calling it something it isn't.

Drug companies, monopolies and drug licenses are not problem in a free market healthcare. A genius can come to to market to compete incumbents as long as government does not favor any business more than other one.


Depends on what side of the fence you sit. Monopolies are a problem for the consumer and the price they will pay because of the restrictions within patients means you have no competition and the invisible hand doesn't apply. I cannot say it most simply than that. Except Americans pay more for health per capita than anywhere else in the world. So how have you concluded that a free market healthcare system is cheaper when we have a visual proof that it isn't? You are chatting shit because you don't know what you are talking about but simply trying to pretend you do to make your opinion seem it has value. It is valueless I am afraid.

You don't need regulations to curb costs. Regulations don't curb costs. They increase costs. Regulation means governments set up standards and favor some companies over


If I regulated the price you can charge, you cannot exceed that price. How can something then get more expensive when I do that? Do you know what the word logic means by the way? Please use some if you do.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15130272
By Doug64
#15130288
B0ycey wrote:You think??? :lol:

For one Hunter isn't Biden. But in any case Biden could have done what Hunter did and the mere fact he isn't Trump means those who oppose Trump would still oppose him come the election.

No, Hunter isn’t his father, but his father stood back and let it all happen then lied about knowing about it—I suppose he decided that looking incompetent beyond belief is better than looking like you’re on the take. So yeah, it may not be as bad as if Biden himself was taking the bribes but it still involves Biden.

This is an unusual election. This isn't about voting for the candidate you like but voting against the candidate you hate. There isn't much love for Biden on PoFo. It isn't like anyone is saying how great he is on here. But plenty are saying they will vote for him. Why? Because he isn't Trump. So no, Hunters actions means fuck all but is enough to give Trump supporters wet dreams at night I guess.

I will agree that there are plenty of people that hate Trump so much they’ll ignore anything that might hint Biden is anything like they think Trump is so they can vote against him. But there are also plenty that don’t and those are the ones the Biden campaign and MSM(D), and the Left in general, are worried about.
By B0ycey
#15130289
@Doug64

Are you predicting a Trump victory with the scandal tipping him over the edge? I have just read that he isn't even leading in Texas :lol:

Can I expect to see you next Tuesday so I can wipe those tears for you?
User avatar
By Rancid
#15130299
colliric wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-bad-week-race-trump-liz-peek

Great write-up.


The word, sex or tape isn't in that article.
By Doug64
#15130306
B0ycey wrote:@Doug64

Are you predicting a Trump victory with the scandal tipping him over the edge? I have just read that he isn't even leading in Texas :lol:

Out of the last six polls, one has Biden leading in Texas and one has them tied, so no, Biden isn’t leading in Texas.

And no, I’m not predicting anything beyond that the race is closer than the polls seem to indicate. Whether it’s close enough for Trump to win, we’ll see.
Last edited by Doug64 on 26 Oct 2020 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#15130311
Istanbuller wrote:There is no such thing as a market failure.


Yes, there is, especially in health care.

Some of the reasons why health care often ends up with market failure is supplier induced demand, moral hazard, inelastic demand, and a lack of consumer knowledge.
By Pants-of-dog
#15130315
maz wrote:The black male vote/no vote is going to be just a crucial than the white suburban female vote.


No.

The number of suburban white females is a) much larger and b) is changing more as compared to the last election.

From the numbers I glanced at, more suburban female white voters are switching away from Trump than black urban voters are switching towards Trump.
By Istanbuller
#15130317
B0ycey wrote:the supplier has a 20 year monopoly. They set the price without feedback because there is no competition. How are you so obtuse to monopoly exploitation? The consumer either pays the price or suffers for his healthcare needs.

In a free market, monopoly would not exist. Let's take Microsoft as an example. For long years, US government claimed that Microsoft is a monopoly. Actually there was nothing keeping orher ones from competing Microsoft. After Apple's success, people understand better why Microsoft was not a monopoly.
The US healthcare system is not mixed. It is 100% free market. Hence why it is so damn expensive and you are chatting shit again by calling it something it isn't.

US healthcare system is mixed one like all other systems in the world. More than half of spending on healthcare is made up by US government. That ratio is above than %70 in many places.

It is so expensive because pricing is not made by supply and demand. It is healthcare lobbyists and government subsidies set prices.

Depends on what side of the fence you sit. Monopolies are a problem for the consumer and the price they will pay because of the restrictions within patients means you have no competition and the invisible hand doesn't apply. I cannot say it most simply than that. Except Americans pay more for health per capita than anywhere else in the world. So how have you concluded that a free market healthcare system is cheaper when we have a visual proof that it isn't? You are chatting shit because you don't know what you are talking about but simply trying to pretend you do to make your opinion seem it has value. It is valueless I am afraid.

I explained this above.
If I regulated the price you can charge, you cannot exceed that price. How can something then get more expensive when I do that? Do you know what the word logic means by the way? Please use some if you do.

I explained this above.

It will get more expensive because healthcare lobbyists will demand more government subsidies. You will end up paying more taxes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, there is, especially in health care.

Some of the reasons why health care often ends up with market failure is supplier induced demand, moral hazard, inelastic demand, and a lack of consumer knowledge.

No, there is no market failure. There isn't any example on that. But markets often fail because of regulations and socialist approaches. Venezuela's oil market, for instance.
User avatar
By maz
#15130319
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

The number of suburban white females is a) much larger and b) is changing more as compared to the last election.

From the numbers I glanced at, more suburban female white voters are switching away from Trump than black urban voters are switching towards Trump.


That is why I said that they are both crucial in terms of the vote count!
By B0ycey
#15130324
@Istanbuller

I see you want to use the absolute term for "Free Market" that An-caps and libertarians use. It is America that define themselves as a free market economy, but if you want to argue semantics then there is no such thing as a free market ever whilst a government exists. And Trump prides himself that he wants to keep his healthcare in the free market. So sure, let's both agree Trump and the anti Obamacarers were wrong. I can deal with that.

Nonetheless if you want to say the US healthcare system is BS, I am happy to agree with you. But you still haven't explained why nationalised healthcare doesn't work when clearly it does as it is free to the point of use (excluding taxes). Why would you want market forces to manipulate something that is clearly high in demand and low in supply when the government can manipulate price to something more affordable? Basically why healthcare is affordable for all in Europe.
  • 1
  • 256
  • 257
  • 258
  • 259
  • 260
  • 434
What is God?

Indeed. Perhaps that's the crux. Everyone has a […]

There is more evidence for a definite beginning o[…]

Election 2020

Also what do you think about this? It's ano[…]

Biden breaks his foot

@Verv Seeing as there are numerous indictments […]