Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
blueblood

Bernie sanders vs Ted Cruz on CNN

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's fine, just as long as consumers have more choices without government restricting funding and access to health care services.

And as long as patients are protected from unscrupulous vendors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

And as long as patients are protected from unscrupulous vendors. 

 

Certainly preferable to a lack of access for all patients and consumers.   Not a good reason to limit such access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not a wonder why US health care is so over priced. People with bucks in their pockets just walk into clinics and demand procedures simply because they feel like it andthey got the money. Brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Omni said:

So it's not a wonder why US health care is so over priced. People with bucks in their pockets just walk into clinics and demand procedures simply because they feel like it andthey got the money. Brilliant!

As is ours with hypochondriacs plugging the waiting rooms for essentially nonsense.  

Yet laser eye surgery keeps dropping like a rock even though a lot of people get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, blueblood said:

As is ours with hypochondriacs plugging the waiting rooms for essentially nonsense.  

Yet laser eye surgery keeps dropping like a rock even though a lot of people get it...

 

Yes...perfect example.   Laser eye surgery is elective and the market has responded with more capacity and price competition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, blueblood said:

Yet laser eye surgery keeps dropping like a rock even though a lot of people get it...

Probably because it was way overpriced to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad that the Democrats will have find another man in 2020 as Sanders will be a bit too old to have another try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Too bad that the Democrats will have find another man in 2020 as Sanders will be a bit too old to have another try.

He really isn't a Democrat.

For that matter Trump really isn't a Republican.

 

What does that say about political parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought both represented their respective positions relatively well.  I'd give the win to Sanders. Cruz got stumbled by what to do with the poor broke people question and how do they get care.  He also stumbled heavily when Sanders pointed out his claim about everyone will have access was pointless, we all have theoretical access to ferrairis and maseratis but most of us don't have the money to buy it.  Access is just the chance to buy it, if you can afford it.  Ultimately, this was the big stumbling block that Cruz had, and republicans had back in 2008 when Obama ran promising universal healthcare.  Cruz's best point wasn't his point at all, but rather when the woman in the audience said she had 49 employees or something like that and wasn't paying health insurance for any of them.  She asked sanders what should happen and he says he thinks she should pay for them.  That was a sober reality, but Sanders worse answer.  I thought he could have spun it better.  Ie he could have said something like this

Sanders "Do your employees do a good job"

Woman:Yes

Sanders:  "Do you value your employees

Woman: Of course

Sanders: "Do you value your business"

Woman:  Yes

Sanders: Do you have a home

Woman:  Yes

Sanders: Does your business have insurance?

Woman: Yes

Sanders: Does your home have insurance

Woman: Yes

Sanders: Why?

Woman: So that if something bad happens, I don't lose everything.

Sanders: That is the reason my plan will ask that you pay money, to protect the health of your employees who create the value in your business and so that if something bad happens to those people who help make your business what it is, you and they do not lose everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Too bad that the Democrats will have find another man in 2020 as Sanders will be a bit too old to have another try.

I don't think he will be too old, he is only 4 years older than Trump, and I am pretty sure when he ran against Clinton, he wasn't running with the intention of being a one term president.  Really it is not a question of age per se, but rather health.  74 is old, but JFK was the youngest president elected ever, just 43 years old, and he was extremely ill, had he not been assassinated, he wouldn't have probably made it to 50.  As long as he can campaign, he is good.  Unless you are trying to say that 74-75 is too old to be president, in which case Trump should resign because he is going to be that age before his term is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2017 at 2:10 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

The point is that the U.S. has a huge installed base of imaging labs that would otherwise sit idle part of the time.  Sports medicine is a growing business.   Health care after all...is a business like any other.  

 

It is in the USA.  In no other G7 nation is sick care considered a business, it is a social service.  That is why the costs in the US are more than double North of 49, and the results are no where near as good.

Canadians DO have the opportunity to jump the lineup for imaging services.  Alberta has had private diagnostic imaging for years, and those services are now available in Quebec and Saskatchewan.  Where Canada is slow off of the mark is how private delivery of "insured" services co-exist with state owned or quasi-state delivery.  I frequently saw the Government of SK send worker's comp patients to AB to get MRIs that would take much longer to get in the old days before private clinics.

When it comes to wealth and privilege, wealthy Canadians are no different from wealthy people anywhere else on earth - they can and do seek the best and travel to engage at will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthcare is not a business just like any other. You can be bankrupted or killed by unnecessary treatment. We have one body and sometimes only one chance to get our treatment right. 

There are ways to use the marketplace to increase availability of procedures and reduce costs but eternal vigilance is necessary. The whole idea of free choice is overblown. Doctors, drug companies, and hospitals have to be watched very carefully as the North American prescription opioid crisis, a largely avoidable disaster, should surely show us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-02-22 at 3:40 AM, hernanday said:

I don't think he will be too old, he is only 4 years older than Trump, and I am pretty sure when he ran against Clinton, he wasn't running with the intention of being a one term president.  Really it is not a question of age per se, but rather health.  74 is old, but JFK was the youngest president elected ever, just 43 years old, and he was extremely ill, had he not been assassinated, he wouldn't have probably made it to 50.  As long as he can campaign, he is good.  Unless you are trying to say that 74-75 is too old to be president, in which case Trump should resign because he is going to be that age before his term is over.

75 should be the max. There have been a few exceptions (Adenauer retired at 87!) but in general that should be the limit. Churchill should have retired in 1945 and FDR in 44. Under 60 is ideal for the top job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

75 should be the max. There have been a few exceptions (Adenauer retired at 87!) but in general that should be the limit. Churchill should have retired in 1945 and FDR in 44. Under 60 is ideal for the top job. 

Nah, warren buffet is older than that and runs a large business, different people age differently.  Should Trump be just a one term president because he will be 79 by the end of his second term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Nah, warren buffet is older than that and runs a large business, different people age differently.  Should Trump be just a one term president because he will be 79 by the end of his second term?

I would say yes.

Apart from Adanauer there have been very few leaders over 75 who were worth keeping. Churchill should have been put out to pasture. The leader is far more important than any company executive. 

There should at the very least be complete and ongoing disclosure of all medical records. It's quite extraordinary that an overweight septuagenerian like Trump has released so little info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

....There should at the very least be complete and ongoing disclosure of all medical records. It's quite extraordinary that an overweight septuagenerian like Trump has released so little info. 

 

Why is it extraordinary ?    Do you know what great lengths FDR went to hide his paralysis (polio) from the public ?   Secret Service agents would confiscate camera film from those who refused to abide by an unwritten agreement between the press and FDR handlers.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why is it extraordinary ?    Do you know what great lengths FDR went to hide his paralysis (polio) from the public ?   Secret Service agents would confiscate camera film from those who refused to abide by an unwritten agreement between the press and FDR handlers.

FDR? His Presidency is equidistant between us and the American Civil War. I would hope we would have moved on a bit since then, this being the Information Age and all. Potential leaders of any country should fully disclose their medical and financial records. The US is still a leader in open government but Trump has set a worrying precedent on many fronts, including such disclosure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The US is still a leader in open government

Did you read what B_C just described? Have you heard of WikiLeaks, Gulf of Tonkin, ... ?

"If you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid."

- Arthur Sylvester, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, to American journalists, 1965

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

FDR? His Presidency is equidistant between us and the American Civil War. I would hope we would have moved on a bit since then, this being the Information Age and all. Potential leaders of any country should fully disclose their medical and financial records. The US is still a leader in open government but Trump has set a worrying precedent on many fronts, including such disclosure. 

 

Yes...FDR, one of the USA's most revered presidents, and one of the most secretive and "fascist".  

The US is not required to be a leader in meeting your expectations for open access to a candidates medical or financial records.   Recent precedent is not the law or requirement for candidates...voters can make their own decisions about the absence of such disclosures.

Are such demands made of candidates in nations for office in Europe, Africa, Asia, or South America ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...FDR, one of the USA's most revered presidents, and one of the most secretive and "fascist".  

The US is not required to be a leader in meeting your expectations for open access to a candidates medical or financial records.   Recent precedent is not the law or requirement for candidates...voters can make their own decisions about the absence of such disclosures.

Are such demands made of candidates in nations for office in Europe, Africa, Asia, or South America ?

That's a pretty sad post from an American. What would Reagan think? How low do you want the bar? Remember the shining city on a hill? 

I would like to see such demands of every candidate in every country. It ain't going to happen any time soon but the US should not dumb down IMO. Trump's appointment of family members to govt positions is a retrograde step, not only for the US but for the world. It's reminiscent of current Asian and African practice.

I fear we humans are heading to a future of unemployment, oligarchy and mass surveillance. America offers some hope but that is beginning to flicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That's a pretty sad post from an American. What would Reagan think? How low do you want the bar? Remember the shining city on a hill?

 

Ronald Reagan thought it was embarrassing to have his colonoscopy and polyp removal broadcasted on national television.

The U.S. is not a shining city that requires candidates to disclose medical information or financial records.   As a matter of fact,  Reagan Medical Center was fined nearly $1 million dollars for violating U.S. federal law on medical privacy  (HIPAA regulations).  It is a crime in the U.S. to disclose medical records without authorization.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/08/local/la-me-celebrity-snooping-20110708

 

Quote

I would like to see such demands of every candidate in every country. It ain't going to happen any time soon but the US should not dumb down IMO. Trump's appointment of family members to govt positions is a retrograde step, not only for the US but for the world. It's reminiscent of current Asian and African practice.

 

Oh, so all of the sudden this is a problem because of Trump in the USA, but you were not clamouring for such disclosures in many other nations until now ?   Seems like a double standard to me.

 

Quote

I fear we humans are heading to a future of unemployment, oligarchy and mass surveillance. America offers some hope but that is beginning to flicker.

 

Are you serious ?   U.S. history laughs at your lofty expectations.   America owes nothing more and quite less, the same as any other nation.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is barred from releasing their own records and there is no good reason not to. As I have already mentioned, history is replete with dangerously ill leaders who should not have been working. This is 'suddenly' a problem with Trump because he has refused to release relevant financial and health records, unlike his predecessors from both parties. IMO both Clinton and Trump should have been more candid on the health front:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-13/do-presidential-candidates-have-right-keep-their-health-private

And then we have the issue of tax returns where Trump has failed completely. It's probably more important than with any previous candidate to see those returns, given what we know already. 

 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Nobody is barred from releasing their own records and there is no good reason not to. As I have already mentioned, history is replete with dangerously ill leaders who should not have been working. This is 'suddenly' a problem with Trump because he has refused to release relevant financial and health records, unlike his predecessors from both parties. IMO both Clinton and Trump should have been more candid on the health front:

 

American citizens' health information is private, and protected by federal law from unauthorized disclosure.   Both Trump and Clinton are American citizens.   The U.S. presidential line of succession assures that a constitutional replacement is at the ready to assume office should the president drop dead or be incapacitated for any period of time (like Reagan's surgeries).

Quote

And then we have the issue of tax returns where Trump has failed completely. It's probably more important than with any previous candidate to see those returns, given what we know already. 

 

Again...this is protected information and not required by law.   IMO, your desires in Canada do not trump U.S. federal law and regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

American citizens' health information is private, and protected by federal law from unauthorized disclosure.   Both Trump and Clinton are American citizens.   The U.S. presidential line of succession assures that a constitutional replacement is at the ready to assume office should the president drop dead or be incapacitated for any period of time (like Reagan's surgeries).

 

Again...this is protected information and not required by law.   IMO, your desires in Canada do not trump U.S. federal law and regulations.

It is clearly in the interests of the state for the public to be well informed on the health of candidates on an ongoing basis. There are numerous examples in US and foreign history of serious illnesses being concealed. We are not talking about ordinary private individuals here but people who wish to be elected to an extraordinarily stressful and responsible job that controls a vast nuclear arsenal. Such a person is too important to have any expectation of privacy. The public will get used to hearing about blood pressure and diabetes in short order. 

On financial disclosure, Senator Lindsey Graham intends to introduce a bill to ensure that this be mandatory for the next election and that nobody can pull a Trump again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...