US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Prestor Jon**

skyth wrote:
Funny how the Koch foundation gave Emory university at least $18,000 and they come up with this...

I also love how they feel the need to increase the figures by putting it over a 10 year period and multiplying the dollar value by 10. Really dishonest if you ask me.

Only comparing premium increases for people and neglecting the part of the premium paid for by the employers.

Nope. Doesn't look like something to be taken seriously.

Do the Koch brothers also fund ThinkProgress because they also cite Thorpe's study.

https://thinkprogress.org/tough-questions-single-payer-7a5daec51693/

An analysis of the Sanders campaign’s single-payer health plan by Emory health policy professor Kenneth Thorpe, for example, finds that the “average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year,” a staggering number when you consider that the federal government spent only $3.9 trillion on everything it spent money on in 2016. After accounting for the taxes necessary to fund such a program, Thorpe estimates that “over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today.”
Thorpe’s estimates are more modest than others. The Urban Institute determined that the Sanders campaign’s plan would increase federal expenditures by $32 trillion over the course of a decade, or $3.2 trillion per year — just slightly less than the $3.3 trillion in total revenues the United States brought in in 2016.

Bernie Sanders' plan calls for $1.388 trillion in spending to cover his plan.

https://live-berniesanders-com.pantheonsite.io/issues/medicare-for-all/

How Much Will It Cost and How Do We Pay For It?
How Much Will It Cost?
This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.
The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By:
A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.
Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:

37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
Limit tax deductions for rich.
Revenue raised: $15 billion per year. Under Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
The Responsible Estate Tax.
Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
Savings from health tax expenditures.
Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

Bernie's Medicare for All plan isn't going to pass today. At best some version of it might be passed 4 years from now. The cost of the plan won't be cheaper in 4 years it will be more expensive to some degree. The $1.388 Trillion figure is dependent on Sanders' proposal be passed without alteration and for all of its revenue and cost projections to be accurate, what are the odds of all that happening? The best case scenario has a cost of $1.5 trillion annually with the cost rising depending on just how much Congress mangles Bernie's plan provided that Sanders has enough political capital in the near future to be able to push his plan.

**Vaktathi**

Xenomancers wrote:

Obamacare is trash.

Well, sort of. What it was intended to be was a transitional system that enhanced coverage, it was never intended to be a final product, it was the best thing to help the most people possible that could make it through congress.

Same thing with Obama care. Obamacare is just an insurance exchange that forces insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions.

A very good friend of mine since middle school is alive today soley because of this provision. He was born with HepC through his mother, and this cause hypertension and an issue with bleeding into his digestive tract. One of the many times he was in the hospital, because of this provision (and the one allowing people to stay on parents healthcare until 26) he was kept overnight where without insurance he would have been stabilized and sent home. Because he was kept, they caught the internal bleeding hours before it would have killed him.

Plus gives reduced rates to the poor. Reduced rates for the poor is great - but it just raises the cost on everyone else.

Only if you dont account for things like lost wages and productivity because sick/dead/injured people cant work, sick people showing up to work because they cant afford treatment and getting others sick, people turning to use monstrously expensive ER services for everything because they know they can get treated there, etc.

Society bears those costs already.

It also takes a lot of freedom out of the process we have now.

What freedom? For most people, its whatever your employer offers.

I am all for a solution. I'd really like a solution that did not work based on an "insurance model".

Well, the primary alternative would be single payer like every other developed nation.

**whembly**

feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

I'll say this... shutting down the government over this would be a yuuuuuuuuge mistake before the midterms.

**Xenomancers**

feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

Realistically - He is the president. He can in effect make mexico pay for the wall in other ways. I'm sure that was his plan all along.

"Other ways" how? Tariffs?

Ofc. Plus other policies involving US aid. Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

**Asherian Command**

Wolfblade wrote:

Just another reminder, Whem and Xeno (and a couple others I can't remember off hand) are not here to argue in good faith, don't engage them. I mean, in the last page or two, Xeno was whining about people using "anecdotal" evidence, then proceeds to cite anecdotal evidence as the basis for his claims that other country's healthcare is terrible.

The comments about hillary clinton having a russian agent was evidence enough for me

The problem is people's tribalism.

That and people feel like they are being sorta of attacked. TBH its hard to defend our current administration and the republician congress when they are so easy to pick on. Consertativism as it is in its current form is dying. Membership continues to fall.

Trump won the last election barely. The next election he will lose and the democrats will regain parts of the house and senate.

Hopefully it will teach that the current republician party which is built on hate (as it is now) and all those trumpists out there will see that the need to return back to their values and that the are the less government party not the "FETH EVERTHING" party. Which it has become.

Many of its policies and creations made by previous republician presidents have been dismantled or gotten rid of (EPA regulations, FCC regulations etc) there is no way to defend the behavior of our government under this administration.

Were there bad things obama did? Yes. But that doesn't mean we let this group get by with that.

Now if people read those articles i posted it is pretty interesting what is happening with trump trying to yet again shut down the government like a child having a temper tantrum.

**Prestor Jon**

Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

Realistically - He is the president. He can in effect make mexico pay for the wall in other ways. I'm sure that was his plan all along.

"Other ways" how? Tariffs?

Ofc. Plus other policies involving US aid. Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

If we do actually build a large physical wall that spans the entire length of the US Mexican border the construction of it will take years to complete. If we started building it today it would still be unfinished when Trump's current term ends.

**feeder**

Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

Realistically - He is the president. He can in effect make mexico pay for the wall in other ways. I'm sure that was his plan all along.

"Other ways" how? Tariffs?

Ofc. Plus other policies involving US aid. Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

No, the US reaps a mighty boon from all that cheap, illegal labour. Unless you are an American that is being squeezed out of the produce picker, unskilled construction labour market, you personally benefit from illegal labour.

Unless you think a border wall will slash the budget for ICE in half then yeah, in a 12 years or so the wall will pay for itself.

**Asherian Command**

Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

What.... DIDN'T WE JUST DEBUNK THIS A FEW PAGES BACK

Oh my goodness. So the wall.... Like the china wall will pay for itself.

How can a solid object that is just placed down GENERATE income?

What the hell type of mindset is this? Most illegals don't even cross that border. Most come from planes or people who accidently overstay their visas.

/tableflip

**skyth**

Prestor Jon wrote:
skyth wrote:
Funny how the Koch foundation gave Emory university at least $18,000 and they come up with this...

I also love how they feel the need to increase the figures by putting it over a 10 year period and multiplying the dollar value by 10. Really dishonest if you ask me.

Only comparing premium increases for people and neglecting the part of the premium paid for by the employers.

Nope. Doesn't look like something to be taken seriously.

Do the Koch brothers also fund ThinkProgress because they also cite Thorpe's study.

https://thinkprogress.org/tough-questions-single-payer-7a5daec51693/

An analysis of the Sanders campaign’s single-payer health plan by Emory health policy professor Kenneth Thorpe, for example, finds that the “average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year,” a staggering number when you consider that the federal government spent only $3.9 trillion on everything it spent money on in 2016. After accounting for the taxes necessary to fund such a program, Thorpe estimates that “over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today.”
Thorpe’s estimates are more modest than others. The Urban Institute determined that the Sanders campaign’s plan would increase federal expenditures by $32 trillion over the course of a decade, or $3.2 trillion per year — just slightly less than the $3.3 trillion in total revenues the United States brought in in 2016.

It still doesn't address the elephant in the room about most of the cost of private insurance being unseen by people that have it as it's paid by their employer. Maybe the employers, getting a huge break on costs would tickle some of that savings down to the employees in the form of wage increases to cover the discrepancies...

**Xenomancers**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

Realistically - He is the president. He can in effect make mexico pay for the wall in other ways. I'm sure that was his plan all along.

"Other ways" how? Tariffs?

Ofc. Plus other policies involving US aid. Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

If we do actually build a large physical wall that spans the entire length of the US Mexican border the construction of it will take years to complete. If we started building it today it would still be unfinished when Trump's current term ends.

Walls are not very complicated structures. I imagine the entire project could be completed in 6 months or less. Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

**skyth**

Xenomancers wrote:
Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

That someone would actually believe that nonsense completely blows my mind...

**Prestor Jon**

Xenomancers wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

Realistically - He is the president. He can in effect make mexico pay for the wall in other ways. I'm sure that was his plan all along.

"Other ways" how? Tariffs?

Ofc. Plus other policies involving US aid. Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

If we do actually build a large physical wall that spans the entire length of the US Mexican border the construction of it will take years to complete. If we started building it today it would still be unfinished when Trump's current term ends.

Walls are not very complicated structures. I imagine the entire project could be completed in 6 months or less. Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

You think we can build a wall that is 2,650 miles long and capable of stopping any attempt to circumvent it and illegally enter the US, in 6 months?

**Asherian Command**

It still doesn't address the elephant in the room about most of the cost of private insurance being unseen by people that have it as it's paid by their employer. Maybe the employers, getting a huge break on costs would tickle some of that savings down to the employees in the form of wage increases to cover the discrepancies..

I can barely get my employer to pay for me buying a pen much less paying for medical insurance.

The US is in a dire strait of being driven by idiots who know nothing about governance to gross incompatent trust in companies doing the 'right' thing. Which they never do in a field where the focus should be saving peoples lives.

Walls are not very complicated structures. I imagine the entire project could be completed in 6 months or less. Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

Tells me alot about that argument actually. Yes a wall or any structure is immensely complicated based on size, cost, area, landscape, stress points, and lets not forget about weather conditions. Cause a wooden fence being placed near the rio grande river makes no bloody sense. We already have fences there. We already have a secured southern border, have you ever been to the southern border?! The most unguarded border on the planet is the dividing line between canada and the US which has more US immigrants illegally crossing for healthcare than canadians coming over here for health care.

I remember I drove a couple hundred miles to see a cheaper doctor in canada about my shoulder than stay here in the US. (dual citizenship ftw)

**whembly**

Asherian Command wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

Just another reminder, Whem and Xeno (and a couple others I can't remember off hand) are not here to argue in good faith, don't engage them. I mean, in the last page or two, Xeno was whining about people using "anecdotal" evidence, then proceeds to cite anecdotal evidence as the basis for his claims that other country's healthcare is terrible.

The comments about hillary clinton having a russian agent was evidence enough for me

Wait... do you object to this characterization?

The dossier *was* bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They took extreme care to cover their tracks by funneling the money through a law firm (Perkin Coies) who then paid Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele (an ex-spy) to cook up the dossier.

The problem is people's tribalism.

Sure, blindly following your party's spin is a problem. Where was this concern from the previous administration?

That and people feel like they are being sorta of attacked. TBH its hard to defend our current administration and the republician congress when they are so easy to pick on.

I'll give you that. The number of times the Trump administration place their foot in their mouth is appalling.

Consertativism as it is in its current form is dying. Membership continues to fall.

It's not a party where your sign up... it's a movement.

Trump won the last election barely. The next election he will lose and the democrats will regain parts of the house and senate.

Most likely true.

Hopefully it will teach that the current republician party which is built on hate (as it is now) and all those trumpists out there will see that the need to return back to their values and that the are the less government party not the "FETH EVERTHING" party. Which it has become.

Many of its policies and creations made by previous republician presidents have been dismantled or gotten rid of (EPA regulations, FCC regulations etc) there is no way to defend the behavior of our government under this administration.

Hopefully.

Were there bad things obama did? Yes. But that doesn't mean we let this group get by with that.

Of course not.

Now if people read those articles i posted it is pretty interesting what is happening with trump trying to yet again shut down the government like a child having a temper tantrum.

The politics is knarly when you want to shutdown the government. Imo, it's bad politics doing this right before the midterms.

**feeder**

Xenomancers wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

If we do actually build a large physical wall that spans the entire length of the US Mexican border the construction of it will take years to complete. If we started building it today it would still be unfinished when Trump's current term ends.

Walls are not very complicated structures. I imagine the entire project could be completed in 6 months or less. Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

This is completely at odds with all reality. Building something? Fast, Cheap, Good Quality. Pick two.

DHS already puts your wall at 21.6 Billion. Doing a 40 ft high wall 2000 miles long in 6 months would skyrocket that cost astronomically.

**Xenomancers**

Asherian Command wrote:
Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

What.... DIDN'T WE JUST DEBUNK THIS A FEW PAGES BACK

Oh my goodness. So the wall.... Like the china wall will pay for itself.

How can a solid object that is just placed down GENERATE income?

What the hell type of mindset is this? Most illegals don't even cross that border. Most come from planes or people who accidently overstay their visas.

/tableflip

A penny saved is a penny earned.

No one is suggesting we keep letting people overstay their visas ether. Are those people really costing boarder control any money though? No - the money we are talking about is a huge boarder protection force - that could be reduced with a wall in place. Facilities for housing and transporting and caring for the apprehensions that happen each year at the boarder could be significantly reduced. A much smaller force could get the job done.

**Asherian Command**

Wait... do you object to this characterization?

The dossier *was* bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They took extreme care to cover their tracks by funneling the money through a law firm (Perkin Coies) who then paid Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele (an ex-spy) to cook up the dossier.

Except, the problem is that Christopher Steele is a BRITISH spy. Not a RUSSIAN spy. Russians are our literal former enemies.

A british informant that wrote a dossier is nothing compared to mass media misinformation campaigns paraded as fact by trumpists then mass voter suppression of minorities. Then my favorite part did you even read the thing I posted debunking what you wrote before.

Anyway this has no barring on a candidate using a secondary source LEGALLY while another did it completely illegally and conspired to do so and then trying to cover that up as well which is inexcusable at this point. That accusation only comes from one person, that was Devin Nunes who might as well be disgraced at this point.

No one is suggesting we keep letting people overstay their visas ether. Are those people really costing boarder control any money though? No - the money we are talking about is a huge boarder protection force - that could be reduced with a wall in place. Facilities for housing and transporting and caring for the apprehensions that happen each year at the boarder could be significantly reduced. A much smaller force could get the job done.

We... what nope not responding this comment literally debunks itself.

Where was this concern from the previous administration?

Cause the previous government wasn't undermining the entirety of the united states intelligence appartuses, democracy, and power and standing. Oh my favorite part is how we are currently also dealing with a president who has no idea how to govern and has been mucking up and creating what were once our allies into enemies. Then a president with an itchy finger who is currently underminding our news and has literally quoted something straight out 1984 with no joking aside.

He has made a mess of foreign relations, and our economy will head straight into another recession at this rate.

**Witzkatz**

Transplant surgeries also tend to be the absolute top priority, bump-everything-else-one-OP-slot-later surgeries, because that time planning is even more delicate than in some other critical cases.

Edit: Sorry, super late and my browser didnt show a full page of posts. can be deleted, I guess

**Xenomancers**

feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

If we do actually build a large physical wall that spans the entire length of the US Mexican border the construction of it will take years to complete. If we started building it today it would still be unfinished when Trump's current term ends.

Walls are not very complicated structures. I imagine the entire project could be completed in 6 months or less. Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

This is completely at odds with all reality. Building something? Fast, Cheap, Good Quality. Pick two.

DHS already puts your wall at 21.6 Billion. Doing a 40 ft high wall 2000 miles long in 6 months would skyrocket that cost astronomically.

Really it just depends on how the funds are distributed to the contractors. If the money is there at the end of 6 months. The job will get done in 6 months. Construction is actually very fast - the only reason it takes forever just about everywhere is because the money for the project comes in slowly.

It's pretty simple. If 20 teams can do it in 2 years 80 teams can do it in 6 months. It would cost exactly the same.

**Asherian Command**

Really it just depends on how the funds are distributed to the contractors. If the money is there at the end of 6 months. The job will get done in 6 months. Construction is actually very fast - the only reason it takes forever just about everywhere is because the money for the project comes in slowly.

It's pretty simple. If 20 teams can do it in 2 years 80 teams can do it in 6 months. It would cost exactly the same.

Conjecture no evidence. Got it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/politics/senate-democrats-border-wall-cost-trump.html

The report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. An internal report by the Department of Homeland Security said the wall could cost about $21.6 billion, not including maintenance.

feth that.

**Disciple of Fate**

Nothing says quick construction like vast stretches of wilderness without infrastructure.

**whembly**

Asherian Command wrote:
Wait... do you object to this characterization?

The dossier *was* bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They took extreme care to cover their tracks by funneling the money through a law firm (Perkin Coies) who then paid Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele (an ex-spy) to cook up the dossier.

Except, the problem is that Christopher Steele is a BRITISH spy. Not a RUSSIAN spy. Russians are our literal former enemies.

Except both are foreigners.

A british informant that wrote a dossier is nothing compared to mass media misinformation campaigns paraded as fact by trumpists then mass voter suppression of minorities. Then my favorite part did you even read the thing I posted debunking what you wrote before.

Anyway this has no barring on a candidate using a secondary source LEGALLY while another did it completely illegally and conspired to do so and then trying to cover that up as well which is inexcusable at this point.

No. You cannot excuse one party getting opposition research from foreign sources, while at the same time accuse the other party for illegally breaking the law in trying to get... opposition research from foreign sources.

**feeder**

Asherian Command wrote:

No one is suggesting we keep letting people overstay their visas ether. Are those people really costing boarder control any money though? No - the money we are talking about is a huge boarder protection force - that could be reduced with a wall in place. Facilities for housing and transporting and caring for the apprehensions that happen each year at the boarder could be significantly reduced. A much smaller force could get the job done.

We... what nope not responding this comment literally debunks itself.

No, it's within the realm of possibility. They build the huge stupid 20 billion dollar wall, and then slash ICE's budget in half, laying off tens of thousands, and then in 12 years or so the cost of the wall is offset by the reduced cost of ICE.

That assumes those tens of thousands of laid off ICE workers don't then require further government assistance, or that R politicians that rely on a deeply xenophobic base are willing to reduce funding on ICE and appear soft on illegals.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Wait... do you object to this characterization?

The dossier *was* bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They took extreme care to cover their tracks by funneling the money through a law firm (Perkin Coies) who then paid Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele (an ex-spy) to cook up the dossier.

Except, the problem is that Christopher Steele is a BRITISH spy. Not a RUSSIAN spy. Russians are our literal former enemies.

Except both are foreigners.

A british informant that wrote a dossier is nothing compared to mass media misinformation campaigns paraded as fact by trumpists then mass voter suppression of minorities. Then my favorite part did you even read the thing I posted debunking what you wrote before.

Anyway this has no barring on a candidate using a secondary source LEGALLY while another did it completely illegally and conspired to do so and then trying to cover that up as well which is inexcusable at this point.

No. You cannot excuse one party getting opposition research from foreign sources, while at the same time accuse the other party for illegally breaking the law to get... opposition research from foreign sources.

Here's where Whem pretends there isn't a difference between an allied government agency and a hostile one.

**Asherian Command**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Nothing says quick construction like vast stretches of wilderness without infrastructure.

Or climates or temperatures, or being near hurricane areas, or being near flood planes. The thing is already a natural barrier as is. People who cross that border at its worst parts deserve to be in this country at that point.

No. You cannot excuse one party getting opposition research from foreign sources, while at the same time accuse the other party for illegally breaking the law to get... opposition research from foreign sources.

Except heres the other issue. Hillary had nothing to do with that private insurers were. Saying that she was directly apart of it WITH NO evidence mind you is a big claim. While we have ACTUAL indictments on trump officials who are VIOLATING the Magnisty Act and also have been arrested. That is no making excuses that is living in reality.

Trump used a foreign HOSTILE power not a friendly power. But even then it would be finger waving and at best he is negligent at worse he colluded with a foreign entity that undermined our democracy by hacking the DNC, and then hacking electoral college results.

Trump is fethed all to hell at this point, he is a candidate that no one should support or believe in for being corrupt and working with an actual hostile power.

**Vaktathi**

Xenomancers wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
From “Mexico will pay for the wall” to “I will shut down everything if the US doesn’t pay for my wall”.

What a shock.

Any Trump supporters want to go to bat for this one? Mr 'Art of the Deal' now throwing another temper tantrum over his inability to "make Mexico pay for it", or even persuade his own government to pay.

Even I feel some secondhand embarrassment over this spectacular failure..

Realistically - He is the president. He can in effect make mexico pay for the wall in other ways. I'm sure that was his plan all along.

"Other ways" how? Tariffs?

Ofc. Plus other policies involving US aid. Illegal Mexican Immigration costs the US a lot of money. The wall will pay for itself in a few years anyways.

If we do actually build a large physical wall that spans the entire length of the US Mexican border the construction of it will take years to complete. If we started building it today it would still be unfinished when Trump's current term ends.

Walls are not very complicated structures.

Simple walls sure.

An international border wall several thousand miles long over vastly different terrain types, much of which is currently private land that must be seized through long and expensive court battles (including land to just get to the border with all the equipment since much of it is otherwise empty wilderness), that is expected to vigilantly guard against any attempted crossing with monitored surveillance and on-hand rapid response by borders guards is an extremely complicated and expensive *system*.

The cost of the Berlin Wall, less than a hundred miles long, was about a quarter billion dollars after inflation. The cost of less than 700 miles of US border fencing, not a wall or a major obstacle, just fences, was over 2 billion in 2006.

I imagine the entire project could be completed in 6 months or less.

If you wanted an 8ft cinderblock wall and all other prep work was done....sure. I dont think thats going to solve anything however.

Building something quickly doesn't cost any more money than building it slowly really.

Huh, thats news to literally every construction and manufacturing project ever.

**Xenomancers**

Asherian Command wrote:
Really it just depends on how the funds are distributed to the contractors. If the money is there at the end of 6 months. The job will get done in 6 months. Construction is actually very fast - the only reason it takes forever just about everywhere is because the money for the project comes in slowly.

It's pretty simple. If 20 teams can do it in 2 years 80 teams can do it in 6 months. It would cost exactly the same.

Conjecture no evidence. Got it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/politics/senate-democrats-border-wall-cost-trump.html

The report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. An internal report by the Department of Homeland Security said the wall could cost about $21.6 billion, not including maintenance.

feth that.

Actually it's a simple inference out of personal experience. You ever see a construction project on the side of the road where no one is working at like 12 Noon on a monday? It's because they havn't been paid to do the rest of the work yet - (most of the time).

**Spetulhu**

Xenomancers wrote:
I assume that it is common knowledge that people come to the US to get surgeries. Mainly based on the fact that I see it happen everyday. I am not denying it happens just that it is news to me.

What you didn't see is that they don't come to the US for surgery because it's cheap. They come because the US actually does have some of the hottest surgeons in several fields, willing to do the job for cold hard cash - and moving the patient up the list if there's more cash. A rich American (or foreigner with cash) can indeed receive the best possible care on the planet! No one can deny that you have experts in many fields that are deemed top of their speciality, for example neurosurgery, but very few take pro bono cases. That would be communism!

And granted, even in our more socialist systems you might not get the best surgeon. If I managed to smash my knee I would receive surgery for it, eventually, but if I didn't have a private insurance it might only be good enough to get me walking again, not dancing. The point is that I would still receive it without jumping through a busload of hoops, arguing with several different programs about who is going to pay.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
skyth wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I have heard horror stories about people dying in other countries waiting to get life saving procedures. Hospitals being extremely understaffed. Ect. I have heard specifically bad stories about healthcare in England. Waiting lists for surgeries are upwards of 6 months plus. Is that true? or False?

I am asking here - is there a model that the US should follow here? Because from what I see - I see a lot of the same problems no matter where you look - it's just that in the US we pay more for healthcare to cover the fact that it's not a complete cluster fck + the fact that insurance blows everything way out of proportion.

What's the waiting time for a surgery in the US if you're poor and don't have health insurance?

Do you have specifics?

I donated a kidney to my inlaw.

She was 26 at the time and was on Medicaid.

She qualified for medicaid because she was "poor" and didn't have employer healthcare insurance.

She was dealing with renal failure and was mere weeks (not months) away from doing full-on dialysis. During those weeks, me and family members got compatibility tested and received full physical (hey, donating solid organs is a mondo surgery!).

Once I found out I was a match, little more than a week... the transplant was scheduled.

The potential roadblock here wasn't money, nor skilled surgeons, nor lack of facilities. It was about finding a donor match.

While she was poor and had to apply for medicaid, she had her gak together. There ARE severe problems in educating the public how to get public-assistance like this as filing for medicaid can be a bureaucratic adventure.

Kidney transplant recipient here, donated by my father, 11 years back and zero problems since. From the initial decision to undergo transplantation (have had chronic kidney disease from birth and my function was getting to the point where dialysis might be needed in the near future) to surgery was around 2 months. That included all of the tests (physical and mental health checks), vaccinations, meeting the surgical team, meeting the nursing staff etc. I was a non-emergency case, my kidneys would have held out for probably another year or maybe two (puberty and growth spurts puts them under strain). Was on the ward for a week and then in a Ronald McDonald House (seriously folks, drop some change in those collection slots when you're getting a Maccy-D's, those houses do a lot of good) for 5 weeks whilst I was still undergoing daily visits to the transplant clinic. Couple of biopsies in that time and later when blood test results seemed high, add in tacrolimus induced diabetes necessitating insulin for a while. Didn't cost a penny.

Don't have to pay anything for my prescriptions or follow up checks, which are currently every 3-4 months.

We did not need to apply for anything or even think that we might not be able to afford the surgery.

**Asherian Command**

Actually it's a simple inference out of personal experience. You ever see a construction project on the side of the road where no one is working at like 12 Noon on a monday? It's because they havn't been paid to do the rest of the work yet - (most of the time).

So a government that can't get a working budget at all is going to pay for a wall with what money exactly? Insurers papers? Or maybe the tooth fairy will be mugged by ICE from all those children in cages? Sorry thats a bit harsh will just take it from the migrant families or the non existent middle class that is continuing to shrink with each passing year.

Or maybe we should i don't know... Tax the rich?

**Iron_Captain**

skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
skyth wrote:
Funny how the Koch foundation gave Emory university at least $18,000 and they come up with this...

I also love how they feel the need to increase the figures by putting it over a 10 year period and multiplying the dollar value by 10. Really dishonest if you ask me.

Only comparing premium increases for people and neglecting the part of the premium paid for by the employers.

Nope. Doesn't look like something to be taken seriously.

Do the Koch brothers also fund ThinkProgress because they also cite Thorpe's study.

https://thinkprogress.org/tough-questions-single-payer-7a5daec51693/

An analysis of the Sanders campaign’s single-payer health plan by Emory health policy professor Kenneth Thorpe, for example, finds that the “average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year,” a staggering number when you consider that the federal government spent only $3.9 trillion on everything it spent money on in 2016. After accounting for the taxes necessary to fund such a program, Thorpe estimates that “over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today.”
Thorpe’s estimates are more modest than others. The Urban Institute determined that the Sanders campaign’s plan would increase federal expenditures by $32 trillion over the course of a decade, or $3.2 trillion per year — just slightly less than the $3.3 trillion in total revenues the United States brought in in 2016.

It still doesn't address the elephant in the room about most of the cost of private insurance being unseen by people that have it as it's paid by their employer. Maybe the employers, getting a huge break on costs would tickle some of that savings down to the employees in the form of wage increases to cover the discrepancies...

Why would employers 'trickle down' any of their increased profits to their employees when they can increase shareholder value instead? Or invest it back into the business to generate even more profit and value for the shareholders? "Trickle-down economics" is one of the biggest myths of the 20th century. Lower taxes, or any cut in costs for a company does not translate to higher wages for low-level employees. The 'extra' money just gets stuck in the top and never comes down.