Republican Debates

[Ark]

22 hours ago, Maggyie said:

Don't forget Trump's secret interview with the New York Times... He won't release the transcript. Why do you think? Because he spent the time laughing with the Timesmen about what a bunch of gullible rubes his supporters are...

it wasn't secretive, it was off the record, this happens quite often and I imagine everyone running for president has had them. Of course Trump is getting close to winning so establishment news sources are doing whatever they can to try to stop him, including violating their own ethical standards to propagandize Trump as some phony that is doing this as a joke. It's quite the opposite, he is the most genuine person running, the most sincerely interested in helping America. Cruz reminds me of one of these slimy backwoods preachers that talk about Jesus and then steals money from the collection for women and alcohol. The man is a goldsman Sachs puppet  pretending he's fighting for the constitution and the little guy. Give us a break Ted.

[Socrates]

On 4/9/2016, 6:32:13, Ark said:

Let us not forget Heidi Cruz connections to Goldman Sachs, and teds secret loan from Goldman Sachs he failed to report twice... 

The loan was never a secret.  There was a filing error, where it was not reported to the FEC, though this was corrected.  It was reported to all the other proper authorities, which would be a strange thing to do if he was trying to keep it secret.  It was a perfectly legal and standard campaign loan which he took out of a bank, and paid back in full.

Really, if that's the best you Trump people have got, that's pathetic.  I find Trump's ongoing investigation by the IRS a bit more suspicious myself.

12 hours ago, little2add said:

```````````````````

Donald Trump

"I'm against it. I'm for defunding Planned Parenthood, very strongly. 

Source: Last Night Today, "Donald Trump Speech Holds Rally in Newton, IA 11/19/15 (Full)," www.youtube.com, Nov. 19, 2015

````````````````````````

 

Funny, he said the opposite in a debate last month.

[Ark]

9 minutes ago, Socrates said:

So for most of his life, Trump was a crooked businessman, buying politicians to get favors from them, yet we're supposed to believe he'll be honest as a politician?  Really?  And Trump often favored liberal and establishment pols over conservative contenders.   What has he actually done in his long career to actually put America first, or advance conservative causes?  Absolutely nothing.  Remember, only a few years ago, he said Hillary would make a great president.  (And if he was lying then, why should we trust him now?)

Of course, it's hard to tell where Mr. Trump actually stands on anything, since his positions on everything seem to change every week.  He's offered little in the way of concrete solutions beyond saying he'll "build a wall" and somehow make Mexico pay for it (though he held a meeting with the editorial staff of the NY Times explaining that he really didn't mean what he told voters - which time was he lying?), and levy massive tariffs which would wreck the U.S. economy (for a historical reference, google the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, one of the causes of the Great Depression).

This is also the man who suddenly declared he had become "pro-life" before running for president as a Republican, yet also insists that taxpayers should continue funding Planned Parenthood, while singing the praises of that vile baby-killing organization.

All-in-all Trump is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Unsurprisingly, you've said nothing of substance on the actual issues.  There's a reason Trump keeps refusing to debate Cruz one-on-one on the real issues, because he's out of depth in discussing anything beyond the size of his "hands."

If you want to talk actual policies and compare where the candidates stand on the real issues, you can start here:  https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

Or you can keep repeating inane slogans and look like a fool.

Too much for me to respond on an iPad... sorry to inform you but buying your own Ted Cruz is what businessmen do to make there lives easier.  You fund both sides so whoever wins is in your pocket. Its business, has nothing to do with ideology or liking people, it's so the thousands of people you hire can have a job next quarter. 

Cruz will not be the nominee. The social engineers in the establishment steering this election, or nomination rather, will not let him win. He's their lap dog and will do their bidding but he's just not liked. More probable Paul Ryan or some other hack gets in on the fourth ballot in the convention. Watch.

[Ark]

15 minutes ago, Socrates said:

The loan was never a secret.  There was a filing error, where it was not reported to the FEC, though this was corrected.  It was reported to all the other proper authorities, which would be a strange thing to do if he was trying to keep it secret.  It was a perfectly legal and standard campaign loan which he took out of a bank, and paid back in full.

Really, if that's the best you Trump people have got, that's pathetic.  I find Trump's ongoing investigation by the IRS a bit more suspicious myself.

Funny, he said the opposite in a debate last month.

Filing error.... God you really believe that? Face it, he LIED. He intentionally failed to disclose it TWICE because it'd make him look bad. Luckily he's got people like you and Glen Beck fasting for hi and taking him at his word. Sheeple...

[Maggyie]

LOL why is Donald Trump going off the record with the New York Times? What's he telling them that he doesn't want you to know?

[Peace]

14 hours ago, Socrates said:

14 hours ago, Socrates said:

But what if pigs could fly?  What if money grew on trees and the rivers all flowed with whiskey?

All the evidence I've seen and read leads me to believe that a free economy in fact leads to the greatest prosperity and availability of goods and services for all.  And I don't believe that healthcare is immune to the basic laws of economics simply because politicians want it to.  But we've been over this all before, and unless you have some new and compelling arguments to bring to the table, I see no point in re-stating our disagreements on this for the umpteenth time.

But what if pigs could fly?  What if money grew on trees and the rivers all flowed with whiskey?

The point of the question was to probe whether you are an ideologue, and to probe whether you value your money and personal freedom more than you value the ability of other people to access basic medical care.

Because I am not an ideologue and because I value the ability of other people to access basic medical care more than money and personal freedom I can make both of these statements:

1) If a free market health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care I would support a free market health care system. 

2) If a universal health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care I would support a universal health care system. 

Both of those statements are quite easy for me to make.

A liberal ideologue would be able to make the second statement but could not bring himself to make the first.

A conservative ideologue would be able to make the first statement but could not bring himself to make the second statement.

Can you make the second statement or is it safe for me to assume that you are a conservative ideologue?

If you cannot not even make the second statement above then there truly is no reason to try to argue with you based on evidence or reason. Anyone who cares about reason or evidence would be wasting his time in interacting with you. So before I waste my time with presenting evidence I am rather interested in confirming or correcting my suspicion that you are an ideologue.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Peace

[Benedictus]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The point of the question was to probe whether you are an ideologue, and to probe whether you value your money and personal freedom more than you value the ability of other people to access basic medical care.

Because I am not an ideologue and because I value the ability of other people to access basic medical care more than money and personal freedom I can make both of these statements:

1) If a free market health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care I would support a free market health care system. 

2) If a universal health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care I would support a universal health care system. 

Both of those statements are quite easy for me to make.

A liberal ideologue would be able to make the second statement but could not bring himself to make the first.

A conservative ideologue would be able to make the first statement but could not bring himself to make the second statement.

Can you make the second statement or is it safe for me to assume that you are a conservative ideologue?

If you cannot not even make the second statement above then there truly is no reason to try to argue with you based on evidence or reason. Anyone who cares about reason or evidence would be wasting his time in interacting with you. So before I waste my time with presenting evidence I am rather interested in confirming or correcting my suspicion that you are an ideologue.

I don't think money or personal freedom are isues in the mix when considering universal access to healthcare. It adds muds to the water. A person may think a univeral system erodes their personal freedom and costs more than other types but I personally wouldn't reinforce such delusions!

Issues about largest benefit, meh. A system should seek to provide universal benefit to all the people it serves.

A universal system doesn't compromise personal freedom -  a person can access univeral coverage or choose to go private. Maybe a mix of the two and something else. A universal system may also save the individual money, it depends on the provisions and their choices.

I could, in theory, agree with both statements if they were amended. However, I don't believe the first statement is true.

[Nihil Obstat]

32 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

I don't think money or personal freedom are isues in the mix when considering universal access to healthcare. It adds muds to the water. A person may think a univeral system erodes their personal freedom and costs more than other types but I personally wouldn't reinforce such delusions!

Issues about largest benefit, meh. A system should seek to provide universal benefit to all the people it serves.

A universal system doesn't compromise personal freedom -  a person can access univeral coverage or choose to go private. Maybe a mix of the two and something else. A universal system may also save the individual money, it depends on the provisions and their choices.

I could, in theory, agree with both statements if they were amended. However, I don't believe the first statement is true.

Money is absolutely a central consideration. Healthcare, while a fairly unique industry, is absolutely affected - right to its very fundamental levels - by financial concerns. The fact is that the money has to come from somewhere, otherwise quality of care suffers. Because of this, some funding schemes are simply not possible because their funding mechanisms are insufficient.

We like to believe that there is no profit motive in health care. This is untrue. There are other issues, yes. It is not only about money. But it is literally impossible to understand and begin to address the issues in healthcare delivery without taking careful consideration of funding.

[Anomaly]

Profits are not a bad thing.  It's motivation to build a hospital or create a new drug. 

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Profits are not a bad thing.  It's motivation to build a hospital or create a new drug. 

Or to deny an insurance claim.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not even talking about just for-profit vs. not-for-profit/non-profit healthcare providers either. I am talking about money, period. Doctors need to be paid, and better doctors cost more. Facilities need to be built and equipment needs to be purchased, and better quality will always cost more up front. The money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately it's either going to be public funds or private funds, but more correctly it will always be a mix of both. One can argue perpetually about exactly what public/private mix is ideal to ensure effective access to and quality of care, and it is unlikely that any one particular solution will prove itself to be objectively best. There are pros and cons to every system. (Although some delivery and financing systems have proven themselves to be worse than others in most respects.) But what you cannot do is remove money from the equation, because the whole subject becomes incoherent if you do.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Benedictus said:

I don't think money or personal freedom are isues in the mix when considering universal access to healthcare. It adds muds to the water. A person may think a univeral system erodes their personal freedom and costs more than other types but I personally wouldn't reinforce such delusions!

Issues about largest benefit, meh. A system should seek to provide universal benefit to all the people it serves.

A universal system doesn't compromise personal freedom -  a person can access univeral coverage or choose to go private. Maybe a mix of the two and something else. A universal system may also save the individual money, it depends on the provisions and their choices.

I could, in theory, agree with both statements if they were amended. However, I don't believe the first statement is true.

Universal Health Care infringes on personal freedom. The government takes your money in the form of tax and spends it on health care services. You can no longer use that money for things that you might otherwise have spent it on.

Universal Health Care could also cost more, because you are giving more people access to certain health care services that they might otherwise not have been able to access in a free market system.

It could also have a negative effect on things such as wait time, a decrease in top end quality, etc.

Universal Health Care is not any kind of a perfect solution, although I believe that it has proven on net balance to be much better than the US system.

[Anomaly]

43 minutes ago, Peace said:

Or to deny an insurance claim.

That is not profit's fault.  It was was done to get profit.    Why was the specific claim denied?  

Insurance and all funded health schemes are about profit.   The whole idea is to make a profit on payments from healthy people to pay for care of sick people. It's babbling platitudes and untruths to say otherwise. 

The real discussion is how much to profit on healthy people and, since it will be forced, how to figure out how big the money pool will be. 

[Nihil Obstat]

26 minutes ago, Peace said:

Universal Health Care infringes on personal freedom.

Personal freedom in the American context is only a contingent right anyway.

13 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

The real discussion is how much to profit on healthy people and, since it will be forced, how to figure out how big the money pool will be. 

I disagree. The system does not have to profit from healthy people or sick people. That is not a necessary feature of either funding or delivery. (It can, certainly, and I would not necessarily argue that it should not.) The real discussion is about what mix of private and public funds is used to finance the system, and what delivery methods are used to best allocate care.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Insurance and all funded health schemes are about profit.   The whole idea is to make a profit on payments from healthy people to pay for care of sick people. It's babbling platitudes and untruths to say otherwise. 

What definition of profit are you using? In your first post, when you wrote "Profits are not a bad thing.  It's motivation to build a hospital or create a new drug", you appear to use the term in the classical economic sense. But in your most recent post you appear to equate the term "receive money" with "make profit". But these are two entirely different things.

When I say "profit" I am using the term in the classical economic sense of the term:

Profit is a financial benefit that is realized when the amount of revenue gained from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs and taxes needed to sustain the activity. Any profit that is gained goes to the business's owners, who may or may not decide to spend it on the business.

Profit is not money that is used to pay for the care of sick people. Profit is money that is given to the owner of a business, after which the owner can then spend the money in any manner that he wishes (be it on health care for the poor, or a new Porsche).

Taking insurance and hospitals for example, you can have for profit insurance companies and for profit hospitals, but you can also have non-profit insurance systems and non-profit hospitals. These exist in many countries. So I do not think you are correct to say that the whole idea is to make profit. In some systems it is. In other systems it is not.

But if you simply mean "you need to receive money to pay for health care services" then I agree with you (but I think that is rather obvious).

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Personal freedom in the American context is only a contingent right anyway.

Personal freedom in a Catholic context is only a contingent right, is it not?