*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[boost]

Our allies are foes, our adversaries are strong and their word is to be taken over our own civil servants. #MAGA

[Poopadoop]

Our allies are foes, our adversaries are strong and their word is to be taken over our own civil servants. #MAGA

"The president says he knows what he's doing, so he must know what he's doing despite all evidence to the contrary."

[BananaStand]

Our allies are foes, our adversaries are strong and their word is to be taken over our own civil servants. #MAGA

Nice demagoguery, did Poop teach you that?

[Poopadoop]

1. Goofy trade war with entire world.
2. Fake treaty with NK.
3. Separating kids from parents at border.
4. Sucking on Putin's balls at presser.

Four complete fuckups in last month or so. Looking forward to those Nov. midterms and record turnout of D voters, and the tweets about 'rigged' elections to follow.

[boost]

1. Goofy trade war with entire world.
2. Fake treaty with NK.
3. Separating kids from parents at border.
4. Sucking on Putin's balls at presser.

Four complete fuckups in last month or so. Looking forward to those Nov. midterms and record turnout of D voters, and the tweets about 'rigged' elections to follow.

Honestly, the idea of a blue wave happening are kinda scary. Not because that isn't how I'll vote, but because how upsetting to the status quo that will be. So far Trump has been the teflon don. All his blunders are hand waved away-- he hasn't really suffered any concrete setbacks due to his actions. Losing congress, or losing in 2020 would be just that.

How does he react to being rejected by the electorate? I suppose you're probably right-- blaming it on illegal immigrants illegally voting by the millions or something, but that's just talk. Would he actually do anything? Is there anything he could do? How does his base react? They're dispersed and predominantly rural/suburban, so large scale demonstrations are less likely, but maybe this would be the exception?

Interesting times..

[oskar]

"The president says he knows what he's doing, so he must know what he's doing despite all evidence to the contrary."

It's the same way people make themselves believe in a religion or pick any conspiracy theory... flat earth, young earth, bigfoot... you start with a presupposition and then you reject everything that doesn't fit and make everything fit that supports it. I think it's a popular meme because the world is confusing and scary, and simple answers to complex problems are comforting.

[oskar]

Honestly, the idea of a blue wave happening are kinda scary. Not because that isn't how I'll vote, but because how upsetting to the status quo that will be. So far Trump has been the teflon don. All his blunders are hand waved away-- he hasn't really suffered any concrete setbacks due to his actions. Losing congress, or losing in 2020 would be just that.

How does he react to being rejected by the electorate? I suppose you're probably right-- blaming it on illegal immigrants illegally voting by the millions or something, but that's just talk. Would he actually do anything? Is there anything he could do? How does his base react? They're dispersed and predominantly rural/suburban, so large scale demonstrations are less likely, but maybe this would be the exception?

Interesting times..

It looks like he got scolded by the majority of his base for the Putin meeting. So much so that for the first time I can remember I saw Trump walk back on something he said. Not that I think the would/won't thing convinced anyone. It was certainly completely immaterial to his idiot voter base. This was just to thwart an immediate move to impeachment by the looks of it. Tensions are definitely high. I would imagine that even people close to him would think it's pretty likely that Putin has kompromat on him.

Wasn't one of the first things he did when he took office to lift russia sanctions, but then congress pulled the handbreaks... nothing he does makes much sense if you look at it from an economic standpoint - not even if you apply maximum wufanomics. It makes a hell of a lot more sense as seen from russia.

I know everyone has seen it but it's worth noticing how spot on Clinton was in 2016.

[Poopadoop]

So far Trump has been the teflon don. All his blunders are hand waved away-- he hasn't really suffered any concrete setbacks due to his actions.

They're only handwaved away by the 33% who think he's infallible and people who are afraid to alienate his base (i.e., Republicans who aren't quitting or retiring). Pretty much everyone else recognizes his boobery for what it is. I don't know what "concrete" setbacks he could suffer short of impeachment, but he's hardly crushing the public opinion afaik.

How does he react to being rejected by the electorate? I suppose you're probably right-- blaming it on illegal immigrants illegally voting by the millions or something, but that's just talk. Would he actually do anything? Is there anything he could do? How does his base react? They're dispersed and predominantly rural/suburban, so large scale demonstrations are less likely, but maybe this would be the exception?

Interesting times..

In the "watching a plane crash into a dump full of toxic waste" kind of way it's interesting.

Some have argued, including that guy Johnston who wrote his autobiography, that Trump would react just like one would suspect he'd react - deny any personal responsibility and put on the tinfoil hat. The extent to which his base is willing to drink the Kool Aid for him is an interesting question and open to debate, but I think there's little doubt about how he'd react himself.

I really do hope he doesn't try to foment some popular revolution or some shit.

[Poopadoop]

It looks like he got scolded by the majority of his base for the Putin meeting.

It's interesting though if you watch Fox's coverage you'd think he'd done a good job overall at that meeting and the MSM is waaay overreacting. My favourite is where they try to argue it actually is a good idea to let Russia help with the investigation into Russian meddling.

I know everyone has seen it but it's worth noticing how spot on Clinton was in 2016.

And now Germany is the puppet lol.

[oskar]

I watched the Fox news youtube clips right after the meeting. I'd like to claim that I do it to diversify my news sources, but really I'm just there for the comedy - same reason I primarily watch cspan. The coverage was mostly critical of Trump. I'm not super informed about Fox's program, but I think you have the Hannity/Fox&friends/ and whoever the lady in the purple dress is, who are basically doing GOP propaganda, and then you have a couple slightly more critical shows. Of course they got a vicious beating by their fans. The top voted comment on one of the videos was that Fox calling the press conference a "bad performance" was the proof that Fox has been compromised by the deep state.

So, I'm not as much worried about congress, I think even some of the more vocal Trumpians in congress will turn on Trump once the already obvious comes to light... but what I am worried about is post-Trump america outside of congress. You have people who believe Hannity, who has gone full Alex Jones - talking about the deep state. If Trump is either impeached or loses in 2020, idk how these people will react. When the infallible fails, it obviously cannot be fault of the infallible.

[BananaStand]

How does he react to being rejected by the electorate? I suppose you're probably right-- blaming it on illegal immigrants illegally voting by the millions or something, but that's just talk. Would he actually do anything? Is there anything he could do?

OMG this is too good. Remember during the repub primaries when they had candidates sign some sort of pledge promising not to wig-out if they lost. They did that FOR Trump. They were afraid he'd sue, or run as an independent, or some other such nonsense. And even though he signed, there was much consternation about what he would actually do if/when he lost. Granted, Trump did plenty to fan that fire.

BUT THEN HE STILL WON

Oh, and then remember in the fall of 2016 when everyone was losing their mind wondering what kind of outrageous stunt Trump would pull when he lost to Hillary?

BUT THEN HE STILL WON

This is getting old now folks. Trying to defame Trump because of an IMAGINED potential tantrum isn't working. Try something else.

How does his base react? They're dispersed and predominantly rural/suburban, so large scale demonstrations are less likely, but maybe this would be the exception?

It's like you don't even remember election night......

How did Hillary's base react? Did they all stand honorably in defeat? Were they all examples of decorum?

[BananaStand]

I watched the Fox news youtube clips right after the meeting. I'd like to claim that I do it to diversify my news sources, but really I'm just there for the comedy - same reason I primarily watch cspan. The coverage was mostly critical of Trump. I'm not super informed about Fox's program, but I think you have the Hannity/Fox&friends/ and whoever the lady in the purple dress is, who are basically doing GOP propaganda, and then you have a couple slightly more critical shows. Of course they got a vicious beating by their fans. The top voted comment on one of the videos was that Fox calling the press conference a "bad performance" was the proof that Fox has been compromised by the deep state.

So, I'm not as much worried about congress, I think even some of the more vocal Trumpians in congress will turn on Trump once the already obvious comes to light... but what I am worried about is post-Trump america outside of congress. You have people who believe Hannity, who has gone full Alex Jones - talking about the deep state. If Trump is either impeached or loses in 2020, idk how these people will react. When the infallible fails, it obviously cannot be fault of the infallible.

You hopelessly misunderstand the Trump voter.

This is the EXACT thinking and attitude that got Trump elected in the first place, and will result in a Dem loss in November.

Keep it up.

[Poopadoop]

I watched the Fox news youtube clips right after the meeting. I'd like to claim that I do it to diversify my news sources, but really I'm just there for the comedy - same reason I primarily watch cspan. The coverage was mostly critical of Trump.

Well I didn't watch everything from Fox, but the one bit I did see and posted above was predictably tame with the criticism. I think there are one or two guys like Shep Smith who are pretty critical and like you say, get all kinds of death threats from people whose fingers are too fat to change the channel on the remote when he comes on.

but what I am worried about is post-Trump america outside of congress. You have people who believe Hannity, who has gone full Alex Jones - talking about the deep state. If Trump is either impeached or loses in 2020, idk how these people will react. When the infallible fails, it obviously cannot be fault of the infallible.

This is my fear as well - that instead of realizing what a conman he is and how much better off they are with him out of office, they'll instead go along with whatever fantasy conspiracy explanation he and his propaganda team at Fox come up with to explain his downfall. And if even a tiny minority of them go Unabomber on the "deep state" things could potentially get ugly.

[Jack Sawyer]

Interesting comment from that vid

This is why he gets trashed on so much. You know this was a bad look. It's not even debatable. Now if you think people are going too far in their outrage, that's another story. But to try to use the "fake news" angle again in this situation is dumb. Trump and people who support him need to be willing to admit when he does something wrong. If every time he does something that isn't good, you deflect on libs, obama, hilary, or news stations people will never want to agree with you on anything. i can guarantee that no one responding to this will listen to a word i just said. instead they are going to post about one of the things i just mentioned instead of solutions to what just happened today. If you refuse to acknowledge a problem exists, a solution can never be found.

I would never have expected that like to dislike ratio

[Jack Sawyer]

Also from that vid

You want to call out someone? Try Obama, or Bill and Hillary. Or the FBI.

[Poopadoop]

I would never have expected that like to dislike ratio

A lot of curious liberals watching that video is my guess.

[boost]

OMG this is too good. Remember during the repub primaries when they had candidates sign some sort of pledge promising not to wig-out if they lost. They did that FOR Trump. They were afraid he'd sue, or run as an independent, or some other such nonsense. And even though he signed, there was much consternation about what he would actually do if/when he lost. Granted, Trump did plenty to fan that fire.

BUT THEN HE STILL WON

Oh, and then remember in the fall of 2016 when everyone was losing their mind wondering what kind of outrageous stunt Trump would pull when he lost to Hillary?

BUT THEN HE STILL WON

This is getting old now folks. Trying to defame Trump because of an IMAGINED potential tantrum isn't working. Try something else.



It's like you don't even remember election night......

How did Hillary's base react? Did they all stand honorably in defeat? Were they all examples of decorum?

I don't understand. Is your position that he can't lose? Or that theorizing on what a blue wave would look like in regards to reactions of Trump and his base is for some reason off limits?

We have seen him take small loses, and he and his base blame the media, Obama, Clinton, the deep state, etc, and/or spin it into an intended outcome that really is a victory. It's an interesting trait to extrapolate to a bigger loss.

[BananaStand]

I don't understand. Is your position that he can't lose? Or that theorizing on what a blue wave would look like in regards to reactions of Trump and his base is for some reason off limits?.

It's my confident prediction that he won't lose.

As to theorizing on his potential reaction to a loss.....what's the point? Is it *REALLY* a source of worry? Or are folks just tossing this idea around as a way to make him looking foolish, childish, and unstable? Seems to me that they really *want* to make those accusations about Trump, but can't point anything he's actually done to support those claims. So now we're "theorizing".....what the hell for?

If the "theorizing" is solely a propaganda tactic to diminish Trump, then it's lame. It's also completely played out and tired.

Or if you're truly worried about nationwide chaos, you should take off the foil hat and calm down. It wont' be nearly as bad as it was when Hillary lost.

[BananaStand]

So remember a few weeks ago when Dems were running around with their hair on fire demanding that candidates endorse a policy for the abolition of I.C.E.

Remember that?

I almost forgot about it. Today I learned why. Apparently the republicans in congress decided to propose a legislative resolution in support of the agency. In other words, it was just a formal congressional act saying "We like I.C.E."

The basically dared democrats to go on record denouncing a completely functional, lawful agency that's just doing its job.

Guess how many dems seized this opportunity to show their constituents how strongly committed they are to the plight of illegal immigrants by voting "no" on the resolution?

And guess how many said "naaaah, I'll sit this out".

LOL

[boost]

Ha, that's a pretty shrewd move.

[BananaStand]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH DEMS IN 2018 BABY!!!

THEY'VE GOT ALL THE ENERGY, AND THE YOUTH VOTE BEHIND THEM

AMERICA IS OUTRAGED

AMERICA IS OFFENDED

AMERICA WON'T STAND FOR THIS.

TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED

I CALL OUT TO THE YOUNG, ANGRY, DISAFFECTED PEOPLE OF THIS NATION WHO WANT CHANGE!

COME, GATHER, SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR MOVEMENT!!

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/0...ew-people-show

Fucking 11 people showed up!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You gotta do better than that dems. November is just over 3 months away!

[Poopadoop]

Nice to see things are back to normal.

Starting at 4.00

[BananaStand]

Nice to see things are back to normal running optimally.

fyp

[wufwugy]

There is a very real chance that President Trump will be a failure if he doesn't put the criminals of the previous administration in prison.

[oskar]

Who would that be and how does he do it without getting cucked by the activist courts?

[BananaStand]

There is a very real chance that President Trump will be a failure if he doesn't put the criminals of the previous administration in prison.

The guy has 88% approval among republicans. He could retire today and no one would call him a failure except the people who are already calling him much worse.

[wufwugy]

Who would that be

Obama for starters.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There is a very real chance that President Trump will be a failure if he doesn't put [Obama] in prison.

No ex-POTUS is going to prison. Gimme a break.

[wufwugy]

No ex-POTUS is going to prison. Gimme a break.

I agree. It's why I question whether Trump's presidency will be a failure since he probably will not be able put in prison the person who maybe should be in prison the most

[oskar]

I'm not sure I follow. How does Obama make Trump fail as a president?

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure I follow. How does Obama make Trump fail as a president?

Are you asking in good faith?

[wufwugy]

[Jack Sawyer]

It is too expensive they said

There's no money for it they said

I really want to know how they will spin this, or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin. Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite

[oskar]

Are you asking in good faith?

lol no

why would that be a requirement

[oskar]

It is too expensive they said

There's no money for it they said

I really want to know how they will spin this, or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin. Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite

Yeah... but it still worked. Nothing matters except image to Trumps core base.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...r_30_trillion/
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...aaay_too_much/
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/3...icare-all-plan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...tudy-says.html
https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rillion-study/

[oskar]

I especially like this from the Fox Insider article

Charlie Hurt said none of those Democrats have looked at the real "moral issue" at hand, which is "the idea that people are perfectly OK with taking things from people who work and giving them to people who don't work."

So even if it's cheaper, it is bad because people might get more out of it than they pay into it. In other words: insurance is immoral.

[BananaStand]

It is too expensive they said

They were right

There's no money for it they said

Right again

I really want to know how they will spin this,

LOL, it's already soaking with "spin"

or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin

Why should it be remembered?

Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite

Only if you care about quality

This videos just steaming with resentment. Just jealous ranting about "executive compensation packages". It's the laziest, glibbest, most demagogue-esque argument you can make.

this is the kind of thinking that destroyed the soviet union. "oh look, that guy has money. He must be bad. Let's make him jobless and poor like us". Before long, everybody lives it total abject suffering. Like in Finland.

So the study says we'll save 2 trillion over 10 years. How many trillions will we save if we dropped all the bullshit regulations that came about over the last 10 years?

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs on providers and companies. They added 10's of trillions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

Serious question: How much does the study say that we will save if we slashed the government regulations preventing national exchanges, or allowed insurance companies to compete.

Find me that number. If it's less than the figures cited in Bernie's bitching above....then I'll be convinced this is a good idea.

lol....spin.

[BananaStand]

I especially like this from the Fox Insider article
So even if it's cheaper, it is bad because people might get more out of it than they pay into it. In other words: insurance is immoral.

Insolvency is bad mmmmkay

[Jack Sawyer]

They were right


Right again


LOL, it's already soaking with "spin"


Why should it be remembered?


Only if you care about quality

This videos just steaming with resentment. Just jealous ranting about "executive compensation packages". It's the laziest, glibbest, most demagogue-esque argument you can make.

this is the kind of thinking that destroyed the soviet union. "oh look, that guy has money. He must be bad. Let's make him jobless and poor like us". Before long, everybody lives it total abject suffering. Like in Finland.

So the study says we'll save 2 trillion over 10 years. How many trillions will we save if we dropped all the bullshit regulations that came about over the last 10 years?

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs providers and companies. They 10's of billions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

Serious question: How much does the study say that we will save if we slashed the government regulations preventing national exchanges, or allowed insurance companies to compete.

Dude, I'm starting to believe that your mind is about as dense as a neutron star. It's actually impressive.

Find me that number. If it's less than the figures cited in Bernie's bitching above....then I'll be convinced this is a good idea.

lol....spin.

That's the point. They found a number. A relevant one. One based in reality. And it was found by the rightest-wing of all right wing organizations. Oh the irony.

Anyway, that number is -2,000,000,000,000 over a period of 10 years.

You as a country SAVE 2,000,000,000,000 over that period. If you just continue with your course as is, you will save 0 over that period.

[Jack Sawyer]

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs providers and companies.

I see you've never heard about lobbyists. The government just did all that shit on its own, according to you. This is probably beneath your high IQ.

They 10's of billions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

Not 10's of billions. 2000 billions to be exact. Which is what proponents of healthcare reform in the US have been saying all along. Universal healthcare will save money. Now the rightest wing of all right wing organizations did a study to prove them all wrong, yet came to the exact same conclusion.

It's not the government that said this, High IQ Banana. It's the Koch Bros' Mercatus Institute that did.

[Jack Sawyer]

Donald Trump: "Single-payer will bankrupt our country, because it's more than we take in, for just health care."
In a speech – Wednesday, July 19, 2017


I wonder how you can go bankrupt with 2000 extra billion dollars lying around?

[BananaStand]

If you just continue with your course as is, you will save 0 over that period.

Are those the only two options? Stay the course as is, or have a massive government takeover of a private industry?

No other alternatives?

Demagogue

[BananaStand]

I see you've never heard about lobbyists. The government just did all that shit on its own, according to you. This is probably beneath your high IQ..

The government did all that by deceiving the people. Said it's not a tax. Then beat court challenges by citing it's ability to levy taxes.

Was that all the lobbyists idea?

Not 10's of billions. 2000 billions to be exact.

I meant to say trillions. OP edited

Which is what proponents of healthcare reform in the US have been saying all along. Universal healthcare will save money

For whom? At what cost? Where's that money going now?

Now the rightest wing of all right wing organizations did a study to prove them all wrong, yet came to the exact same conclusion.

It came to *a* conclusion, that doesn't really prove anything other than you and Bern are ruled by confirmation bias.

It's not the government that said this, High IQ Banana. It's the Koch Bros' Mercatus Institute that did.

Not denying that. What's your point?

[BananaStand]

I wonder how you can go bankrupt with 2000 extra billion dollars lying around?

What if you needed to save 10,000 billion in order to avoid going bankrupt?

Or 20,000 billion?

Or 5,000 billion?

What exactly is that data point? Was that in the study?

[BananaStand]

In 2008, Healthcare cost $X

Now, it costs $X + something.

How much is that something? Quick search found this: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...tantially_2017

Only goes through 2016, but in the most recent 10 years shown, healthcare cost per capita went up roughly 40%.

So Healthcare now costs $X +.4X

This would be a good time to point out that all that stuff the government did over the last decade was supposed to reduce healthcare costs. Instead they're up 40%. Why would we give the government another shot at this? Serious question Jack. Bernie's not saying anything that folks weren't saying in 2008. There were "studies" back in those days too. People put their faith in socialized healthcare back then, and they got slapped in the cock with a 40% rate hike. Serious question....why would anyone believe it would be better a second time?

Anyway, before I embrace Medicare for all, you need to prove to me that

$2 Trillion over 10 years > .4X

https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-do...all-1533163559

Here's something from the today's WSJ that says X = 32 Trillion over 10 years. This is consistent with teh previous link that puts total healthcare spending at approx 3.2 Trillion per year. It's also consistent with other sources that cite $10K per capita annual spending (population 320 million). So there really shouldnt be any dispute here regarding the value of X. Do you disagree Jack? Do you have a different value of X that you'd like to use?

Let's convert everyhting to annual numbers in billions. Medicare for all claims to save $200B per year, according to the Koch brothers. Current annual costs (1.4x) are $3200B. So X = 2,285B

So, now let's plug those figures into the formula and see if the math checks out

On one side of the equation we have $200B

On the other side we have the 40% rate hike the government rammed up our corn holes. $3200B which is equal to 1.4X. So x = 2,285 and 40% of that would be $915B

$200B vs $915B

Which way should the alligator open its mouth?? > <

[BananaStand]

2f5h59.jpg

[BananaStand]

By the way...

How many of the top 50 hospitals in the world are outside of the U.S.? How many world-class medical facilities has socialism produced?

oh...

And what's the 5-year cancer survival rate in those socialist shitholes hmm?


I won't argue, socialized medicine is AWESOME for simple acute ailments like a broken bone, or appendectomy. But if you're more seriously ill, then you're gonna need help from the private sector. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. The data on this is irrefutable.

[CoccoBill]

And what's the 5-year cancer survival rate in those socialist shitholes hmm?


I won't argue, socialized medicine is AWESOME for simple acute ailments like a broken bone, or appendectomy. But if you're more seriously ill, then you're gonna need help from the private sector. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. The data on this is irrefutable.

"For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...326-3/abstract

[BananaStand]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#140fe9ac4b67

So with all of that said, yes, America has among the best cancer survival statistics because of an incredible abundance of high technology equipment and drugs, more extensive screening, and more aggressive treatment.

Wait a minute...you mean the extra money we spend doesn't go to greedy insurance companies? They actually spend it on more equipment. they spend it on increasing the availability of drugs. They screen more, and treat more aggressively.

You mean they spend that money on the patients???

So what happens when we cut $2 trillion out of the pie over the next 10 years????????????

[CoccoBill]

By the way...

How many of the top 50 hospitals in the world are outside of the U.S.? How many world-class medical facilities has socialism produced?

The number seems to be 22. Depends on your criteria but I'd say most of those countries qualify as socialist if you're looking at their public healthcare systems.

http://hospitals.webometrics.info/en/world

[CoccoBill]

Wait a minute...you mean the extra money we spend doesn't go to greedy insurance companies? They actually spend it on more equipment. they spend it on increasing the availability of drugs. They screen more, and treat more aggressively.

You mean they spend that money on the patients???

So what happens when we cut $2 trillion out of the pie over the next 10 years????????????

Well, you spend $10.348 per person, the world on average spends $5.169 per person, Finland seems to spend $4.415 per person. For that kind of money it'd better be good. Funnily enough it's only marginally better, not twice as good.

*Cue wuf coming here to talk about efficiency*

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...lth-u-s-spends

[BananaStand]

Well, you spend $10.348 per person, the world on average spends $5.169 per person,

I lay this entirely at the feet of the American Psychological Association

[BananaStand]

So what's the honest truth about Finland.

Are the teachers paid like doctors? Or are the doctors paid like teachers?

[Jack Sawyer]

Are those the only two options? Stay the course as is, or have a massive government takeover of a private industry?

No other alternatives?

Demagogue

The alternative is 2 trillion, TRILLION, dollars saved.

Your mental density prevents you from seeing this quite clear point.

[Jack Sawyer]

What if you needed to save 10,000 billion in order to avoid going bankrupt?

Or 20,000 billion?

Or 5,000 billion?

What exactly is that data point? Was that in the study?

+2T is not going to hurt in any case now, would it?

The bankruptcy thing is the Trump quote you seemed to miss

He said, quite clearly, healthcare would bankrupt the place. Check out the quote for yourself.

Now, if you save 2 TRILLION DOLLARS and still go bankrupt, then you deserve to go bankrupt. Move over and let China take over the wheel.

[Jack Sawyer]

In 2008, Healthcare cost $X

Now, it costs $X + something.

How much is that something? Quick search found this: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...tantially_2017

Only goes through 2016, but in the most recent 10 years shown, healthcare cost per capita went up roughly 40%.

So Healthcare now costs $X +.4X

This would be a good time to point out that all that stuff the government did over the last decade was supposed to reduce healthcare costs. Instead they're up 40%. Why would we give the government another shot at this? Serious question Jack. Bernie's not saying anything that folks weren't saying in 2008. There were "studies" back in those days too. People put their faith in socialized healthcare back then, and they got slapped in the cock with a 40% rate hike. Serious question....why would anyone believe it would be better a second time?

Anyway, before I embrace Medicare for all, you need to prove to me that

$2 Trillion over 10 years > .4X

https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-do...all-1533163559

Here's something from the today's WSJ that says X = 32 Trillion over 10 years. This is consistent with teh previous link that puts total healthcare spending at approx 3.2 Trillion per year. It's also consistent with other sources that cite $10K per capita annual spending (population 320 million). So there really shouldnt be any dispute here regarding the value of X. Do you disagree Jack? Do you have a different value of X that you'd like to use?

Let's convert everyhting to annual numbers in billions. Medicare for all claims to save $200B per year, according to the Koch brothers. Current annual costs (1.4x) are $3200B. So X = 2,285B

So, now let's plug those figures into the formula and see if the math checks out

On one side of the equation we have $200B

On the other side we have the 40% rate hike the government rammed up our corn holes. $3200B which is equal to 1.4X. So x = 2,285 and 40% of that would be $915B

$200B vs $915B

Which way should the alligator open its mouth?? > <

Here is the world's tiniest violin for your attempts at math

[Jack Sawyer]

So what's the honest truth about Finland.

Are the teachers paid like doctors? Or are the doctors paid like teachers?

Now that really matters now, doesn't it

[BananaStand]

The alternative is 2 trillion, TRILLION, dollars saved.

Your mental density prevents you from seeing this quite clear point.

Mental density??? Quite clear point???

Here's something that should be quite clear. Dems made these promises 10 years ago too. They broke those promises and jacked up prices by almost half. If you believe that it will be different this time, then you're mentally dense.

Here's something that should be quite clear. Even if it's true that Medicare-for-all (heretofore "MFA") would save $2T, why is that good? What if we could do something else that could save $5T? Only someone mentally dense wouldn't explore other options.

Heres's something that should be quite clear. The government regulations increased the cost of healthcare by $915B per year over the last 10 years. If we undid that, we'd save NINE TRILLION over ten years. You'd have to be mentally dense to think that Two trillion is better than 9 trillion. Even if governtment regulation is only *half* the problem...that's still FOUR FUCKING TRILLION. A person freed from mental density can see that four, is more than two. Is that not quite clear to anyone?

Here's something that should be quite clear. Socialized medicine reduces the quality of care. Is that worth $2 trillion? I'm wondering what kind of mental density disorder a person might have to have in order to believe that there is a way to just *get* two trillion dollars without any kind of tradeoff, sacrifice, or consequence.

[Jack Sawyer]

you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs on providers and companies. They added 10's of trillions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"

I see you've never heard about lobbyists. The government just did all that shit on its own, according to you. This is probably beneath your high IQ.

Not 10's of billions. 2000 billions to be exact. Which is what proponents of healthcare reform in the US have been saying all along. Universal healthcare will save money. Now the rightest wing of all right wing organizations did a study to prove them all wrong, yet came to the exact same conclusion.

It's not the government that said this, High IQ Banana. It's the Koch Bros' Mercatus Institute that did.

Not denying that. What's your point?

You do realize that it's a private study that had that conclusion right? The conclusion proponents have been claiming all along? Or maybe not.

Your government seems to be aligned with your facts-be-damned, my-ideology-above-reality way of thinking, which, SHOCKER, is in the minority

Even on FOX & MFING FRIENDS of all places

[Jack Sawyer]

Dems made these promises 10 years ago too.

Once your mental density allows you to understand that the whole point is that it's not just the dems making promises right now, we can continue this fruitless discussion

[BananaStand]

+2T is not going to hurt in any case now, would it?

It most definitely will hurt if A) it reduces the quality of care, and B) prevents us from pursuing deregulation and free-market solutions that would generate many times more savings.

Are you dense?

The bankruptcy thing is the Trump quote you seemed to miss

I didn't miss it. I don't see how it's relevant. Are you arguing that MFA Is good, or that it's simply not totally catastrophic financially?

He said, quite clearly, healthcare would bankrupt the place. Check out the quote for yourself.

Hey..Dr. Dense....NO ONE FUCKING CARES! Trump doesn't speak for me.

Now, if you save 2 TRILLION DOLLARS and still go bankrupt, then you deserve to go bankrupt. Move over and let China take over the wheel.

This should be a Bernie 2020 bumper-sticker slogan.

[BananaStand]

Your government seems to be aligned with your facts-be-damned, my-ideology-above-reality way of thinking, which, SHOCKER, is in the minority

what facts am I damning?

I haven't disputed anything you've said. Are you dense?

I've challenged to to prove that MFA is the BEST solution. Obviously your mind is too dense to produce an answer. It's jammed in there, stuck within the densely packed liberal vitriol that you continuously suck out of Cenk Uygur's urethra.

If you have a problem with my math, say so. Your vague chortles only prove that the math checks out. You can't assail the FACTS, so you're relying on your demagogue rhetoric of "If the Koch brothers say it, how can you deny it?" Even though NO ONE IS DENYING THE STUDY. But maybe you're too dense to realize that. In fact, I'm sure that's the case because you just doubled down with "FOX poll says people like MFA"

Polls can suck my balls. Most people like the idea of free college too, and Universal Basic Income. That doesn't mean they're good ideas.

[Jack Sawyer]

Here's something that should be quite clear. Even if it's true that Medicare-for-all (heretofore "MFA") would save $2T, why is that good? What if we could do something else that could save $5T? Only someone mentally dense wouldn't explore other options.

Heres's something that should be quite clear. The government regulations increased the cost of healthcare by $915B per year over the last 10 years. If we undid that, we'd save NINE TRILLION over ten years. You'd have to be mentally dense to think that Two trillion is better than 9 trillion. Even if governtment regulation is only *half* the problem...that's still FOUR FUCKING TRILLION. A person freed from mental density can see that four, is more than two. Is that not quite clear to anyone?

Do you have a source for your information?

[BananaStand]

Do you have a source for your information?

Links were already provided dense-head

It was in TODAY's WSJ Jack.

Today.

Headline: Even if we double taxes...can't pay for MFA

It's quite clear. Unless you're fucking dense.

Are you dense?

[BananaStand]

Now that really matters now, doesn't it

It kinda does.

See, I suspect that teaching isn't really the high-status job that the Scandanavian balllickers like to suggest. I think they just pay their doctors shit. Which means that they get the shittiest doctors. And the best doctors go to countries that actually pay them for their skills.

Because only someone with dangerous levels of mental density would think that teaching, which at this point is little more than glorified karaoke, is on par with treating disease.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Here is the world's tiniest violin for your attempts at math

FYP

[BananaStand]

Still waiting to see why the math was wrong?

During the Obama ERA we added $10 Trillion in health care costs. MFA promises to reduce that by $2 Trillion.

But only if we completely surrender control of healthcare to the government. And only if we accept the real likelihood that quality of care will suffer. And only if we accept the risk that the democrats could be just as wrong as they were the first time when they promised cost reductions and instead jacked up the price by $10 Trillion.

I'm saying, that if a free market solution is more than 20% effective at undoing those changes, then it's more +EV than MFA.

Does that math not check out?

[BananaStand]

MFA explained:

Let's say you took your car to a garage for routine maintenance. Instead, they caused $10K worth of damage, and forced you to pay for it.

Now that same garage owner comes along and says if you GIVE him your car, he'll give you 20% of those repair costs back, and pinky-swear to drive you around whenever you need it. You're still out $8K and you now have to trust that he'll provide reliable service.

Great deal

[MadMojoMonkey]

Medicare is socialized, gov't healthcare, and Americans love it.
Calling out socialized, gov't healthcare as unambiguously bad seems to ignore this fact.
Expanding one of the most loved gov't programs to cover more people seems like good governance. At least, I can see why it sounds like a good suggestion, prima facie.

Huge expenses in healthcare come from the inaccessibility of preventative medicine and of early treatments to financially challenged people.
It's not uncommon for a person to get sick, but to think that it's not that bad, and they don't need to see a doctor unless they're really sick. They can't afford a $100+ doctor's bill unless it's truly a life-threatening illness. They just don't find out it's life-threatening until the cost of treatment has skyrocketted from catching it in the early stages. They couldn't afford a $100 bill and now they're inpatient at a hospital that costs over $1000 per day.

The cost of treatment at that late stage is astronomical compared to if it could have been caught early on. People whom can't afford those early visits are costing all of us $1000's more in tax dollars for treatment costs than if we'd just put up the initial capitol to make preventative check-ups a human right. Yes, it'll cost us a lot of tax dollars to make these services available to all, but it's already costing us much more in tax dollars to deal with.

[BananaStand]

Medicare is socialized, gov't healthcare, and Americans love it.
Calling out socialized, gov't healthcare as unambiguously bad seems to ignore this fact.

Two thirds of medicare spending goes to treat illnesses that end up killing the patient anyway.

FIN

[BananaStand]

My grandfather was one of those people who lived on a diet of red meat, coffee, and beer for more than half century. Guess what....docs told him his ticker was fucked. They said "We can give you seven bypasses and maybe buy you 10 more years". Medicare paid.

That was in 1991. He's still alive. I'd say he got his money's worth and then some.

Since then he's done absolutely zilch to improve his quality of life. Still eats shit. Exercises less and less. Spends more and more time sitting on his ass. So in 2014, when his heart started to shit the bed again, I personally think Medicare should have told him to fuck off. "here's some morphine, go watch The Price is Right until you croak".

Instead they dropped six figures to patch up a guy who has already had one bite at the apple.

Don't tell me Medicare is working great.

[BananaStand]

People whom can't afford those early visits are costing all of us $1000's more in tax dollars for treatment costs than if we'd just put up the initial capitol to make preventative check-ups a human right. Yes, it'll cost us a lot of tax dollars to make these services available to all, but it's already costing us much more in tax dollars to deal with.

Source?

This is truly garbage posting. You should be banned for this.

You're ignoring known patterns of human behavior. People don't take care of themselves. You have to force them. People aren't skipping checkups because they can't afford it. They're skipping checkups because they don't think they need one. Even people with insurance, whose physical exams are 100% free, don't get physical exams.

Costs become a problem when you try to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Insolvency happens when you create a system where people can pay nothing until they're really sick, and then go buy insurance. I don't see how accessibility to checkups is going to change that.

In fact, if insurance companies were allowed to deny you coverage when you show up at their door demanding coverage for your pre-existing condition....you'd probably be more motivated to get your fucking checkup.

[Jack Sawyer]

Links were already provided dense-head

It was in TODAY's WSJ Jack.

Today.

Headline: Even if we double taxes...can't pay for MFA

It's quite clear. Unless you're fucking dense.

Are you dense?

An opinion piece in the WSJ?

Is that your source?

Are you high, mr. neutron star?

[BananaStand]

An opinion piece in the WSJ?

Is that your source?

Are you high, mr. neutron star?

Just because statistics are used in a subjective analysis, doesn't meant that the statistics themselves are subjective.

Let's cut through the bullshit Dr. Dense.

Are you denying that healthcare in America currently costs $10K per capita, or $3.2 Trillion per year, or $32 Trillion over ten years?

There are MULTIPLE sources in this thread already that all cite that same figure. Including posts made by not-me.

Why don't you just stop being a dodgy dick-head and tell us what Healthcare in America actually costs then. Since you know so damn much.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're ignoring known patterns of human behavior. People don't take care of themselves. You have to force them. People aren't skipping checkups because they can't afford it. They're skipping checkups because they don't think they need one. Even people with insurance, whose physical exams are 100% free, don't get physical exams.

What you're describing is in addition to my point, not in exception to my point.

Yes, some people whom have insurance don't go schedule or attend regular check-ups. That is a cost that will not change.
Yes, some people whom are sick choose not to go see a doctor out of their own hubris that they know what's better for their own and public health than the trained professionals they've established relationships with. That cost will also not change.

There are people whom want to seek treatment at early stages of an illness, but whom can't afford to do so. When those people become grievously ill, the cost of treatment is much more expensive than if they'd received treatment earlier. The fact that you're asking me for a source on this is absurd. You wouldn't trust any source I posted, and it's simply common sense that if I wait until after I've infected other people to seek treatment, then those people now also need treatment. What's to even disagree with there?