birdog1960

just saw the clip of trump rolling his eyes at bush' attack and making fun of his polling numbers. what a d1ck...still can't believe anyone seriously supports this clown. reminds of a high school jock bully but without the sports skills.

so there's not a single republican candidate with a unique or opposing view on any of these issues? if that's true then this is one truly sad iteration of a political party.

ibid

I would strongly argue that income inequality and racial justice are national security problems even if you live in a gated community. Charleston was a terrorist attack based on racism, for example. climate change will also likely disrupt national security. nothing exists in a vacuum, especially these issues.

didn't see it but i'm confident Bernie is correct: "Fifth #GOPDebate is over. Like the first, not one word about income inequality, climate change, or racial justice. The Rs are out of touch." who is truly clueless here?

so, 67% of docs take new Medicaid (yup, the ones with healthy consciences) and somehow that's a disaster. hell, there are a significant percentage of doctors not taking any new patients because they're too busy. does that mean that no new insurance policies should be written to anyone? no, it means alternatively delivery systems need to be utilized such as midlevels for simple problems (get them out of specialists offices doing scribe and clerical work and use them to see mundane, simple conditions). how you draw the conclusion that quality of care is low for Medicaid patients from the premises presented is a mystery. from what I've seen over a long medical career, those that accept Medicaid are generally more compassionate and caring than those refusing and often provide better care.

this 10million solely addresses "marketplace" insurance. it doesn't include subsidized insured lives outside of this marketplace. and even if you look solely at that group it is 9.3 million newly insured lives. then add in 10 million more newly insured Medicaid lives. discounting anything outside the marketplace, that's a profound increase in the number of insured americans that previously had no insurance and that's the point you originally questioned. unsurprising that you attempted to confuse the issue in order to make the facts less clear. it's standard con strategy these days. oh and how do you figure that 20 million is 2% of the population? or 19.3 million if you insist on being a jerk. 50 times 20 million = 1 billion, non? are we at 1 billion population now?

Medicaid expansion was an integral part of the ACA. it was always considered part of the solution to insuring the uninsured. i'm not conflating anything. the ACA incentivized states to expand Medicaid. those 10 million newly insured lives don't happen without the ACA it compares the actual numbers 20 million, to his projections of 23 million but carry on with your obfuscation. i'm sure the rubes here are impressed.

did you look at the link for gallup? it's stale, nada, nothing. why would gallup be sourced for numbers available from the cbo? my citation is from the previous chief of the cbo. it amazes me that repugs can take even relatively straightforward numbers and pollute and convolute them.

no, 20 million people are newly insured https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/if-you-hate-obamacare--don-t-read-this-154048355.html but don't let the fact stop you from making shite up. The ACA has extended insurance coverage to about 10 million people through changes in the Medicaid program, and to another 10 million through subsidized insurance policies, Elmendorf says. That’s 20 million people with insurance who wouldn’t have had it without the ACA. When Elmendorf ran the CBO, the agency estimated the law would extend coverage to 23 million additional Americans by 2015, so the program is a bit behind projections. But it’s still in the ballpark.

the second part isn't debatable. it's true. there are 20 million more insured people today than before the ACA. most have a medical home. there'd be many more than 20 mil more insured if repug states would stop stalling on expanding Medicaid.

people who were previously followed for chronic illnesses rarely and sporadically are being seen regularly now. many patients that previously lacked a medical home, now have one because they are insured and have access to private clinics. they are generally seen more often and by better providers in this scenario than in the er's or thru charity care.

of course there will be rationing. there already is. it's economic rationing and now that copays for everything are higher those are very much in play. rationing in single payer would be more formalized - protocols, algorithms, formularies, exempted unproven treatments, strict testing intervals, less elective surgery and procedures etc. additionally we could have a single electronic health record so that everyone could access all newly entered data decreasing redundancies. no more wasted money on advertising. no more excess capacity (too many hospital beds in some areas, to much redundant imaging equipment etc), most importantly, you could remove a layer of profit taking immediately. drug prices come screaming down witrh a national formulary. and administrators get canned by the thousands as they are no longer needed. (the number of administrators has increased exponentially in the last 20 years mostly due to the corporatization of medicine and not to the benefit of patients).

the bills get a chunk of the direct tv money. right now i'm leaning towards not renewing next year. not because I resent the bills getting my money (I did when Wilson was owner) but because I don't think the value is there. I spent quite a bit on the Nashville game but that was more of an excuse for a mini vacation. i'd do that again.

i think it will eventually fail, necessarily resulting in single payer and better overall health outcomes for the entire population. but i'll admit to being an optimist. it might just as well end in 2 or 3 huge, impersonal, uncaring and not publicly represented insurance corporations running everything with worse outcomes for everyone unable to pay.

said nothing about destroying healthcare delivery. i stated i believed it is a first step towards single payer. still do and still hopeful.

but wait. what about the repug nomination?

so let's get back to the point. i've been told i'm misrepresenting the board by illuminating trump support here. yet, most recently there seems to be some impassioned predictions. so who here wants to go on record in predicting trump wins the r nomination? the presidency? i'll go on record predicting he won't win either. yes, it's common knowledge that supporting universal healthcare risks license suspension….perhaps in texas. in virginia it's ok.

stricter mental illness laws? you mean better treatment as a sworn, legitimate healer, correct?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Semi-Auto-Rifles/BI.aspx

should we wait until the next mentally ill patient with an semi automatic starts killing? it's not simple. nothing this serious ever is. but limiting access to military style weapons to potential crazies seems like common sense to me. but you go right ahead dumbing it all down. it's what you do. it's what trump is doing. it's what sells among a significant section of the population. but then again, so do cigarettes.

disingenuous would be conflating immigration law with mass murder which has occurred with alarming regularity among regular, seemingly unremarkable americans you really are slow.

i've got multiple decades of proof of reading comprehension. they're called tests. they're actually quite challenging based on pass rates. i'm still taking and passing them. you?

i know one that wouldn't disqualify a candidate based on gay marriage - that would be me. i certainly support equal treatment under the law: social securit benefits etc. it doesn't need to be called marriage. this about face. if you truly believe this he hasn't a prayer, pun intended.

you were correct the first time…that's quite an about face. citizens united was all about this circumstance. trump won't win. won't happen.