Then vote for Trump AND his buddy Vlad, Smoothy my friend, but don't whine or cry when he destroys YOUR social security, 401K, and Medicare, and enslave YOUR Euro ancestors and leave you with a big ole wall with TRUMP in huge gold letters on it you can see from space.

That and YOUR money is all the Donald wants out of this deal anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Then vote for Trump AND his buddy Vlad, Smoothy my friend, but don't whine or cry when he destroys YOUR social security, 401K, and Medicare

---

. Obama already took care of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

. Obama already took care of that.

---

Huh? Mine are all working just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Huh? Mine are all working just fine.

---

. Glad yours is. Consider yourself lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

. Glad yours is. Consider yourself lucky.

---

Please explain.

How about you explain why deleting 20,000+ emails is appropriate. Explain to me why lying to the mother of the dead Benghazi soldier is okay. Explain to me why it is appropriate to bring on Debbie Wasserman-Shutlz after she was fired As the DNC chair.

I'm waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

How about you explain why deleting 20,000+ emails is appropriate. Explain to me why lying to the mother of the dead Benghazi soldier is okay. Explain to me why it is appropriate to bring on Debbie Wasserman-Shutlz after she was fired As the DNC chair.

I'm waiting.

---

I'm a registered Republican and waiting to hear how my Medicare, etc. is screwed up.

You want me to explain why MY SS, 401K, and health care is fine and yours ISN'T?

Quote:

---

How about you explain why deleting 20,000+ emails is appropriate. Explain to me why lying to the mother of the dead Benghazi soldier is okay. Explain to me why it is appropriate to bring on Debbie Wasserman-Shutlz after she was fired As the DNC chair.

I'm waiting.

---

Right after YOU explain how Trump can spew racist and disparaging remarks against minorities and still get YOUR vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Morning Earl, those annoying Sanders fans are mostly young newbies to the political process, loud but inexperienced for sure, and no doubt once they wrap their heads around the reality that their dude LOST, as most have already, they will look at their options very differently and back the party nominee.

I doubt they jump to Trump. I have to disagree with Tom though about the third option of write ins, or even considering the other candidates of the lesser parties at this time, because a protest vote may well allow the GREATER of two evils a better chance, while other 3rd options have NO chance whatsoever.

It's an obvious choice to me, the talk loud, holler and screaming "NEWBIE" vs the experience female who has thrived and survived after more than 25 years of RELENTLESS attacks. Her enemies only wish she were NOT so qualified!

---

Experience does not equate with qualified. She failed in the only executive position she's had (not counting her role in the family $$ laundering business
). She was an unqualified disaster as Sec State ,and cannot be trusted to make executive decisions about American foreign policy. That is what we know about her .

The other known is her slavish adhence to radical progressive policies . Oh it all sounds so good ,so empathetic ,so compassionate . Then they find that it only works ,if at all ; until they run out of other people's money . Her tax increase proposals have been unveiled ,and they look like they are right out of Bolshevik Bernie's playbook.

I have read it. The Spring version at least.

An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Full Report | Tax Policy Center

So lets talk facts without the exaggerated rhetoric.

First, I don't agree that Bernie stayed in too long. I think he needed to stay to have some influence on the platform.

Second, I don't necessarily agree that she has the qualifications. But I don't see anyone who has better qualifications. I very strongly believe that a Trump presidency WILL be a disaster. A Clinton presidency has the potential to be anywhere from a disaster to a success.

So that is the choice we have been left with.

I don't agree about a lack of integrity on Hillary's part. I do feel she is a dedicated public servant, but she has made mistakes in her career.

I do find it frightening that so many people can take a Trump presidency so seriously.

The only answer I have is to pay strong attention to the local races. Vote for candidates that will counteract or support the policies you favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I have read it. The Spring version at least.

An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Full Report | Tax Policy Center

So lets talk facts without the exaggerated rhetoric.

---

Bottom line ;it is a $$$$$ TRILLION tax increase at a time when the Obamaeconomy is sputtering on fumes.

$ 350 billion will come from increases in personal tax increases .
$250 billion will come from taxing businesses
$400-$500 billion for her so-called "fairness tax " including a provision for her “fair share surcharge” ,and by jacking up the death tax.

But wait ....there's more ! There are proposals she's made including draconian increases in the cap gains tax ,a new tax on stock trade transactions that will screw everyone ,including people who have 401k plans or who's pensions are invested in stocks.

Of course she and Trump, and Sanders are of a same clueless mind when it comes to screwing companies that do business outside the country . Instead of addressing the underlying reason why companies exit (an obscene 35% fed corporate tax rate and an additional 4-5% average state corporate tax rate for about a 40% average corporate tax rate opposed to an average corporate tax rate of 25% worldwide );she plans on jamming American companies more . But at least Trump's plan ;heavily borrowed from Larry Kudlow ,is pro-growth(Trump is hopelessly wrong on all aspects of trade tax policy however ).

Some of her other tax increase plans are beyond stupid like carbon taxes ,soda taxes ,and gun purchase taxes . Her goal is the pay for all the freebies that she and Sanders promised during the campaign. Bottom line ,In an economy of less than $18 trillion ,she would in add new taxes of over a $trillion .

The sad thing is that all she has to do is look at the history of Bubba's Presidency to see her folly . He came in all full of progressive pretentions .He jammed high tax increases on us (two income tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, and raised the corporate tax rate to 35 percent), and the result was a stalled economy. His party suffered in the mid-term elections . Bubba knew he had blundered . So instead of doubling down like the emperor does ,Bubba embraced the economic proposals of the Gingrich Congress. He cut cap gains taxes to 20% . He reduced tariffs and embraced free trade . There was a boom in capital investment in his 2nd term as a result . The Dems call it the Clintoon good ole days .

As far as Medicare ,since the topic was raised ; Evita is moving ever closer to Bolshevik Bernie's plan of universal "Medicare for all " . It would collapse a very fragile system that has doctors bailing out by the score ,refusing to take on Medicare patients .

As for me ,the only candidate who came close to my thinking on tax reform was Ted Cruz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As far as Medicare ,since the topic was raised ; Evita is moving ever closer to Bolshevik Bernie's plan of universal "Medicare for all " . It would collapse a very fragile system that has doctors bailing out by the score ,refusing to take on Medicare patients .

---

Medicare, about 96% accept assignment, so okay. Medicare for psychiatric services, barely at all. Medicare Advantage, not so much.

Medicaid, not Medicare, is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Medicare, about 96% accept assignment, so okay. Medicare for psychiatric services, barely at all. Medicare Advantage, not so much.

Medicaid, not Medicare, is the problem.

---

21 % of doctors refuse new Medicare patients . What does that say about the future as more baby boomers become eligible ?
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/one-in-fi....Vs1LU2Tf.dpbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Medicare, about 96% accept assignment, so okay. Medicare for psychiatric services, barely at all. Medicare Advantage, not so much.

Medicaid, not Medicare, is the problem.

---

In recent years, physicians have been refusing to treat new Medicare patients or have dropped out of the program at an alarming rate all together. According to a survey conducted by the National Ambulatory Medical Care in 2011, about 17 percent of the nation's physicians were not willing to accept Medicare patients, but more alarming was the 31 percent of primary care physicians refused Medicare patients (Health Affairs, 2012). The primary reasons seems to be that Medicare does not pay enough to cover costs and overhead, reimbursements are slow, paperwork is confusing, and Medicare does not cover many tests that primary care physicians need to perform to diagnose and treat the patient's illness. In 2009, the Mayo Clinic primary care center in Arizona, announced they would no longer accept Medicare citing they had lost $120 million dollars because Medicare only covered about half of the clinic's expenses for treating the elderly (Olmos, 2009). http://www.tsrt.info/id263.html

Ah. A survey determined this. And what was the sample size?

The reality is one patient not treated is one too many, A survey only exposes the tip of the ice berg, it demonstrates that there are issues. It can be biased but is reflective of what may be happening. You must avoid the idea that it can't happen here obviously it is because you don't have a universal health care system which should be a basic right of all citizens

The Obama economy has been quite good to the upper 10%, and they have never worried about having the best doctors in the world check their butts. Raising a few trillions to finance bridges, roads, schools and create a few million good paying jobs sounds reasonable to me. If there is a few bucks left you can have your WALL!

You might even get more doctors and nurses out of the deal if more could afford med school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The Obama economy has been quite good to the upper 10%, and they have never worried about having the best doctors in the world check their butts. Raising a few trillions to finance bridges, roads, schools and create a few million good paying jobs sounds reasonable to me. If there is a few bucks left you can have your WALL!

You might even get more doctors and nurses out of the deal if more could afford med school.

---

The emperor tried your Keynesian pump priming solutions early in his term and wasted a $ trillion . But don't you worry ;because liberal Trump believes that if he is given the power ,he can build better bridges, roads, schools ,airports ...and keep the trains running on time. So either way you are going to get your bucket wish list of federally funded pork projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Ah. A survey determined this. And what was the sample size?

---

It wasn't "a survey" .It was multiple surveys . The AMA survey was over 9,000 doctors and concluded that 17% restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%. This is at a time where the largest demographic group is entering Medicare eligibility . The system is on it's way to collapse already even before any thought of universal Medicare is considered . AARP is taking notice .
Finding a New Doctor Can Be Hard for Medicare Patients - AARP

Yeah Clete if doctors are compelled to accept everyone ,and their reimbursements is strictly controlled by a central planner sitting at a desk in DC (and you can compel doctors to remain in their practice when they find that the years they spent training for their profession does not reward their efforts sufficiently ),and patients are satisfied with long waiting periods to get care and specialized treatment, then perhaps there will be adequate universal care here .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yeah Clete if doctors are compelled to accept everyone ,and their reimbursements is strictly controlled by a central planner sitting at a desk in DC (and you can compel doctors to remain in their practice when they find that the years they spent training for their profession does not reward their efforts sufficiently ),and patients are satisfied with long waiting periods to get care and specialized treatment, then perhaps there will be adequate universal care here .

---

Tom the key is how much the doctors are paid, obviously if payment is insufficient they will want to opt out. There are differences between essential or emergency surgery and surgery that is non urgent or for cosmetic reasons, just as there are differences in why people want to consult a doctor. One of the great reasons people want to consult a doctor is fear, they are unable to identify common ailments. Doctors have been trained not to rely on their judgement but to order up expensive tests, etc when most of the time these will yield a negative result. If these procedures were paid for on the basis of positive result their use would decline to essential occasions.

You see everything through the lens of a commercialised system that only works for the top 10% or those with expensive insurance