Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

Thethe is leftist populist socialist on economic issues, and extremely morally flexibile on social issues.

All of the above is flexible however depending on the whims of a dude
 
Oh noes - Sturg thinks someone is a socialist!

Surely he doens't make those accusations often!!!

I guess I'm happy I'm not aligned with peopel that don't want women to vote.
 
There ain't a problem in the world that you don't call for government to fix

We still haven't heard what team coinflips plan is for those that can't get insurance or don't have substantial savings at retirement with the ability to manage their investments throghout their lives.

What happens to these tens of millions fo people?
 
We still haven't heard what team coinflips plan is for those that can't get insurance or don't have substantial savings at retirement with the ability to manage their investments throghout their lives.

What happens to these tens of millions fo people?

What happens to them today?
 
What happens to them today?

Yes - WHat happens to them today?

They go into emergency rooms and cause massive waste in the system.

We have people homeless in our streets because they run out of money.

We have elderly people living in destitue condidtions.

So in your world - how does this get fixed?
 
Blindly and enthusiastically supporting Matt Gaetz is not what a centrist does. Elon is pretty much just a right wing guy who happens to like science (and selling electric cars) enough to believe in climate change.

Elon has vocally described himself as a socialist. He's for gun control, supports a universal basic income, and in the past (at least) has supported universal heath care. He's seems like your standard independent (or at least he did prior to 4 months ago).

But I certainly don't like the "back Trump no matter what" tone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My preference is to not have my rights taken away because idiots want the government to take care of them cradle to grave

Sucks you live in a constitutional republic where you have to defend ideas and appeal to the people.
 
We still haven't heard what team coinflips plan is for those that can't get insurance or don't have substantial savings at retirement with the ability to manage their investments throghout their lives.

What happens to these tens of millions fo people?

In an ideal world, there is no government in healthcare. That is not a world we live in today. You may have noticed that costs have exploded since the introduction of medicare and medicaid. Why do you think that is?

So sturg33 would kill these programs. Sturg33 would create a free market healthcare system, where doctors and insurance companies compete for your business. We don't need health insurance to go to the doctor for a runny nose or a broken arm. Pay the $200 it costs to get the cast and move on with your day. But the monstrous health insurance industry that has been created has created a nightmare system. And the explosion of medicare/medicaid requires doctors and hospitals to jack up the price because they don't get paid half the time from those programs. My wife's firm won't even take medicare patients because the payout is abysmal. And that is the case with most private practices.

So sturg33 would create an environment where people would be encouraged to have a major health insurance policy (think things like car accident, or unexpected surgery - BIG events) and people would pay out of pocket for everything else.

And should someone decide to risk not having that policy. That's freedom! If a young 25 year old dude doesn't want to spend $200 a month on a low outcome event, I support that person's right. His body, his choice, after all. And should that dude have a catastrophic event, requiring major health services, I would expect we would treat him the way we did in the 50's and 60's. Charities, churches, communities often would raise money to help in situations like this. Unfortunately, since the creation of major government programs, those charities and services have declined bc daddy government foots the bill instead.

And should those charities and churches decide they can't or won't pay those services, then I would anticipate the hospital/doctor to do it anyway. And I would anticipate the market would create companies to help step in for situations like this by creating payback programs and a fair market rate over years.

And should the doctor and hospital decide they won't want to take the bet on that happen, and thus, won't perform whatever services are needed, then that 25 year old person's gamble did not pay off and he would sadly die.

That's freedom, baby

The positive side of all the above, is if we did that, the costs would be astronomically lower and making these decisions would be much easier for everyone
 
Sucks you live in a constitutional republic where you have to defend ideas and appeal to the people.

Yes the founders were pretty intentional about creating a system that kept idiots from voting our rights away. That's why we have representatives. The idea was to have informed people make good choices for people who aren't informed.

But we've slowly devolved in essentially a "democracy" - which the founder abhorred but tyrants love!
 
In an ideal world, there is no government in healthcare. That is not a world we live in today. You may have noticed that costs have exploded since the introduction of medicare and medicaid. Why do you think that is?

So sturg33 would kill these programs. Sturg33 would create a free market healthcare system, where doctors and insurance companies compete for your business. We don't need health insurance to go to the doctor for a runny nose or a broken arm. Pay the $200 it costs to get the cast and move on with your day. But the monstrous health insurance industry that has been created has created a nightmare system. And the explosion of medicare/medicaid requires doctors and hospitals to jack up the price because they don't get paid half the time from those programs. My wife's firm won't even take medicare patients because the payout is abysmal. And that is the case with most private practices.

So sturg33 would create an environment where people would be encouraged to have a major health insurance policy (think things like car accident, or unexpected surgery - BIG events) and people would pay out of pocket for everything else.

And should someone decide to risk not having that policy. That's freedom! If a young 25 year old dude doesn't want to spend $200 a month on a low outcome event, I support that person's right. His body, his choice, after all. And should that dude have a catastrophic event, requiring major health services, I would expect we would treat him the way we did in the 50's and 60's. Charities, churches, communities often would raise money to help in situations like this. Unfortunately, since the creation of major government programs, those charities and services have declined bc daddy government foots the bill instead.

And should those charities and churches decide they can't or won't pay those services, then I would anticipate the hospital/doctor to do it anyway. And I would anticipate the market would create companies to help step in for situations like this by creating payback programs and a fair market rate over years.

And should the doctor and hospital decide they won't want to take the bet on that happen, and thus, won't perform whatever services are needed, then that 25 year old person's gamble did not pay off and he would sadly die.

That's freedom, baby

The positive side of all the above, is if we did that, the costs would be astronomically lower and making these decisions would be much easier for everyone

people would pay out of pocket for everything else.

Pay the $200 it costs to get the cast and move on with your day.

Hmm - I think I could see a problem with this.

And should someone decide to risk not having that policy. That's freedom! If a young 25 year old dude doesn't want to spend $200 a month on a low outcome event, I support that person's right.

Agree 100% - Never stated otherwise.
 
Yes the founders were pretty intentional about creating a system that kept idiots from voting our rights away. That's why we have representatives. The idea was to have informed people make good choices for people who aren't informed.

But we've slowly devolved in essentially a "democracy" - which the founder abhorred but tyrants love!

And yet that same system requires you to appeal to the people of the country to get almost majority appeal.
 
I do find it amusing that someone who to his credit has made incredible amouints of money just scoffs at 'Just pay the 200 dollars and be on your way'

I'm sure that works for all Americans!!!
 
I do find it amusing that someone who to his credit has made incredible amouints of money just scoffs at 'Just pay the 200 dollars and be on your way'

I'm sure that works for all Americans!!!

I frankly don't know what it would cost if the system was operating effectively. It might cost $50 but a 30 min visit. But you're also not paying $300 a month for an Obamacare health insurance policy, are you?

Now there is so much bloat in the system because people DO have insurance policies and they do use them. Got a little fever? Let's go to the doctor to get checked out. That adds so much bloat and costs to the system.

Insurance isn't designed for small things. I don't have car insurance for when my headlights go out. When my headlights go out - I go and buy new headlights, out of pocket. $50 on to the next day
 
And we shouldn't being trying to make a central government program that works for "all Americans"

Here's the deal, life isn't fair. Poor people have it tougher than rich people. The answer to that is to not create a horrific bloated central system that makes everything much worse for everyone - even if it might bail out a few people
 
And we shouldn't being trying to make a central government program that works for "all Americans"

Here's the deal, life isn't fair. Poor people have it tougher than rich people. The answer to that is to not create a horrific bloated central system that makes everything much worse for everyone - even if it might bail out a few people

Well I prefer to live in a world where the divide doesn't continually grow to the point where to have a safe life you need private security.

Becuase as this ****show continues to progress that is what we will end up having to do.

Fortunately for those of us that are able to make money that is an option but it should have to be.
 
Back
Top