Given the USA's per capita expenditure on healthcare is already among the highest in the world, possibly less than what you're paying at the moment? Assuming you actually reform the system, rather than plaster over the litigious, price-inflated, fat-insurance-company model you currently enjoy.
The cost of this new healthcare system shouldn't be in addition to the cost of the current system.
How not? Right now the government isn't paying for everyone's healthcare because people are paying it themselves. If we're talking about the government everyone in America, that requires the government to take on the cost of insuring everyone in America.
But not while those in America that currently pay (probably ridiculous) insurance premiums are still paying them. So there would presumably be a slight tax increase to pay for it, but then no need for insurance premiums. I'm pretty sure the cost to individuals would be lower.
Then GOOD NEWS! You should expect the cost of healthcare in america to come down drastically.
I have no doubt we can also expect the quality to come down drastically.
There is a false dichotomy here, namely that there are ways of driving down the cost of healthcare that do not require socialism. It's not socialism or status quo.
Socialised healthcare isn't the only way to reduce the cost of American healthcare. It is one way, and a way that's been shown to work in many other countries. Without drastic decreases in quality. The New Zealand system has occasional flaws, but I would be surprised if the current American system did not have similar flaws in addition to the sheer cost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
But not while those in America that currently pay (probably ridiculous) insurance premiums are still paying them.
That doesn't make any sense. Right now the government isn't insuring them. Under Sanders' plan, the government will insure them. That means the government pays more money.
So there would presumably be a slight tax increase to pay for it,
"Slight"?
but then no need for insurance premiums.
The tax IS a premium.
I'm pretty sure the cost to individuals would be lower.
Depends on which individuals. Remember that almost half the country doesn't pay income tax. Sure, it'll be less expensive for them. What about the people who are now in the position where they are no longer just paying for themselves or their families, but for the entire country?
And then there's the government itself. Have you seen the National Debt? We're spending more than we make now. How much more will the government be spending when people feel that it's the government's job to provide them healthcare?
Socialised healthcare isn't the only way to reduce the cost of American healthcare.
To this, we both agree. I am much more interested in a way of reducing the cost of health care that does not involve socialism.
Given the USA's per capita expenditure on healthcare is already among the highest in the world, possibly less than what you're paying at the moment? Assuming you actually reform the system, rather than plaster over the litigious, price-inflated, fat-insurance-company model you currently enjoy.
The cost of this new healthcare system shouldn't be in addition to the cost of the current system.
How not? Right now the government isn't paying for everyone's healthcare because people are paying it themselves. If we're talking about the government providing for everyone in America, that requires the government to take on the cost of insuring everyone in America.
Then GOOD NEWS! You should expect the cost of healthcare in america to come down drastically.
I have no doubt we can also expect the quality to come down drastically.
There is a false dichotomy here, namely that there are ways of driving down the cost of healthcare that do not require socialism. It's not socialism or status quo.
The funny thing is that at the moment America pays the actual most for healthcare in the world, in exchange for which you get worse healthcare.
Socialised medicine is cheaper *and* better than what you have now.
How much is not too much for healthcare? fascinating question. I don't know the answer.
But how much America pays is provably too much. You pay too much for surgery, too much for insurance, too much for individual drugs and medicines, and then on top of all that you pay more because you just have always paid more.
And it's not that you pay more because America is richer or people get paid more; you pay more per person once balanced for incomes and strength of currency, as well.
Australia pays about 7 or 8% of its GDP on healthcare. America pays 17.6%. The next nearest modern economy is, I think, the Netherlands which pays about 11.5%.
Think of it another way.
Americas GDP is about 17.5 Trillion dollars. At the moment, you spend about 3.1 trillion of those dollars on healthcare.
You *should* be spending only about 2.1 trillion dollars.
A trillion wasted dollars is, one might suggest, too much.
I'm not entirely sure how you can claim someone pays too much if you don't have an actual basis for how much is too much, and vice versa.
Should spending on healthcare be defined purely by how much is spent relative to GDP, as you did in the quote?
To be completely honest here--Trump is basically the Republican Id running wild.
IMO, the reason why he is doing so well is because, like it or not, he truly represents the entire subconscious mind of the GOP paradigm and there are tons of idiots like him that feel EXACTLY the same way deep down in their minds--whether they are some back country hick with a 40 in a paper bag missing half their teeth or one of the clueless ****s running Congress.
How much is not too much for healthcare? fascinating question. I don't know the answer.
But how much America pays is provably too much. You pay too much for surgery, too much for insurance, too much for individual drugs and medicines, and then on top of all that you pay more because you just have always paid more.
And it's not that you pay more because America is richer or people get paid more; you pay more per person once balanced for incomes and strength of currency, as well.
Australia pays about 7 or 8% of its GDP on healthcare. America pays 17.6%. The next nearest modern economy is, I think, the Netherlands which pays about 11.5%.
Think of it another way.
Americas GDP is about 17.5 Trillion dollars. At the moment, you spend about 3.1 trillion of those dollars on healthcare.
You *should* be spending only about 2.1 trillion dollars.
A trillion wasted dollars is, one might suggest, too much.
I'm not entirely sure how you can claim someone pays too much if you don't have an actual basis for how much is too much, and vice versa.
Should spending on healthcare be defined purely by how much is spent relative to GDP, as you did in the quote?
No. The problem isn't just that you pay a lot for it, it's that in exchange you get high infant mortality and lower life expectancy than most of the western world. Compared to the non - Russia parts of the g8 (and maybe russia; couldn't quickly find data) you have worse Healthcare outcomes and a less healthy general population.
You pay the most for Healthcare in an absolute sense and per head of population. You pay the most compared to GDP and compared to median incomes.
So if you're paying more and getting less, it feels like a pretty common sense definition. Of too much.
Edit: it should be noticed that the best of the best of American healthcare ia extremely good; there is a reason rich dictators get surgery done in the us. But the average is worse in the us than in most modern nations.
The funny thing is that at the moment America pays the actual most for healthcare in the world, in exchange for which you get worse healthcare.
What do you mean worse healthcare?
The issue was with the Pareto Principle, in that 80/20 rule as most any business person knows. The problem in healthcare is that there are specific individuals who wrack up millions in care through repeated strokes and other such things that places a strain on prices and services. Through constant maintenance the coverage care is saving more money and time by tasking a team in specific cities to locate data pools and high cost patients. Through proper investment and treatment, they have significantly reduced costs in Chicago and a few New Jersey cities with similar programs. In PA, there's a problem similar that uses a team of specialists to visit and maintain patients so they do not have to visit the hospital.
The issue has not been so much the cost, but the model and distribution in order to prevent specific health outcomes. This can be as simple as someone without insurance not having heart medication and then being in and out of the hospital and thus work and the person gets trapped into a cycle.
The cost benefit analysis, is that while we pay for more we also get greater innovation versus the rest of the world. However, there are places such as Japan that have just as much innovation as we do with a partially socialized system. But the Japanese have a long tradition of innovation, and that is another issue with the US. That of innovation and invention.
Anyway, during the 1990's there were programs that were put into place to replace Medicare and Medicaid and none of them were scaled up.
I think the main issue is that seniors want the government in medical coverage, the issue is scaling it to be cost effective without being stupid. Equally, what needs to be done is people who have mental health issues and people who lack proper treatment and just essentially go for expensive preventable visits to the hospital. It's a start, not an end that "repeal and replace" makes me angry to be a conservative whenever we already have different answers. Screw Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, we need a Tesla or an Einstein for healthcare policy and management or rather an army of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
But not while those in America that currently pay (probably ridiculous) insurance premiums are still paying them.
That doesn't make any sense. Right now the government isn't insuring them. Under Sanders' plan, the government will insure them. That means the government pays more money.
So there would presumably be a slight tax increase to pay for it,
"Slight"?
but then no need for insurance premiums.
The tax IS a premium.
I'm pretty sure the cost to individuals would be lower.
Depends on which individuals. Remember that almost half the country doesn't pay income tax. Sure, it'll be less expensive for them. What about the people who are now in the position where they are no longer just paying for themselves or their families, but for the entire country?
And then there's the government itself. Have you seen the National Debt? We're spending more than we make now. How much more will the government be spending when people feel that it's the government's job to provide them healthcare?
Socialised healthcare isn't the only way to reduce the cost of American healthcare.
To this, we both agree. I am much more interested in a way of reducing the cost of health care that does not involve socialism.
Yes, the government would pay more money, so that everyone has healthcare. And presumably would levy more taxes to cover it. But then the people paying stupidly high health insurance premiums no longer have to pay them, and so would be better off overall.
As for 'almost half the country doesn't pay income tax and the rest would have to pay for them', you could look at it that way. Or you could observe that the US already spends far more per capita for its healthcare than most nations with socialised healthcare, so for less than the current amount being spent on healthcare, everyone could be covered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Yes, the government would pay more money, so that everyone has healthcare. And presumably would levy more taxes to cover it. But then the people paying stupidly high health insurance premiums no longer have to pay them, and so would be better off overall.
Erm, of course we would have to pay them. First of all, what do you think the taxes are?
Second, it's not like people in Canada, for example, are covered under every medical expense. They do need to pay for certain procedures out of pocket.
Yes, the government would pay more money, so that everyone has healthcare. And presumably would levy more taxes to cover it. But then the people paying stupidly high health insurance premiums no longer have to pay them, and so would be better off overall.
Erm, of course we would have to pay them. First of all, what do you think the taxes are?
Second, it's not like people in Canada, for example, are covered under every medical expense. They do need to pay for certain procedures out of pocket.
I feel like we are talking past each other. I will try and explain the thinking underlying my posts.
Let:
A = current US insurance premiums
B = tax per person (yes, I know about progressive tax systems; this is a generalisation) required to run a socialised healthcare system
I am asserting:
1. That A > B, given that the current per capita US healthcare expense is (substantially) greater than that of most countries with socialised healthcare
2. That people paying B no longer have to pay A. People would pay increased tax (B), but they would no longer be paying sizable insurance premiums to insurance companies (A). And A > B, hence better off overall.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Donald Trump: 24%
Jeb Bush: 13%
Ben Carson: 9%
Marco Rubio: 8%
Scott Walker: 8%
Rand Paul: 6%
Ted Cruz: 5%
Carly Fiorina: 5%
John Kasich: 5%
Mike Huckabee: 4%
Which makes a total of 87%.
So interesting numbers. Post-debate, Fiorina has moved into the top ten while Christie has fallen from the top ten. Of the people invited to the first main debate, Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Kasich have enjoyed greater numbers, while Bush, Walker, and Paul have diminished.
So basically what I think we're seeing here results from the lack of a popular non-Trump candidate. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were the favorites going in, and Rand Paul - while controversial - was a known name. None of these performed well in the debates, leaving people disappointed with them, and leaving Trump to run away with the show.
I think as candidates are weeded out, and the lesser known GOP candidates distinguish themselves, we'll see people turning to them instead of Trump, and his status as a flash in the pan will reveal himself.
As people start dropping out of the race, they are going to tell their supports to support someone else. I don't think many will be telling their supporters to go over to Trump's camp. He pretty much alienated himself when he said he wouldn't support anyone other then himself; why should anyone support him if he will not support them? I doubt he CAN rise much past 25%, as very few will be rallying behind him.
Also, if he does run as a 3rd party, it will virtually win the election for the Democrats. One wonders if that was the plan all along...
To be completely honest here--Trump is basically the Republican Id running wild.
IMO, the reason why he is doing so well is because, like it or not, he truly represents the entire subconscious mind of the GOP paradigm and there are tons of idiots like him that feel EXACTLY the same way deep down in their minds--whether they are some back country hick with a 40 in a paper bag missing half their teeth or one of the clueless ****s running Congress.
As spammy as this is, there is a central assumption that I think needs to be dispelled: Trump may have a wide appeal to the GOP, but if you examine Trump closely, he does not fit so neatly in the extreme/radical right (I think Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz is the closest to that, but feel free to correct as such). Trump is in reality a radical centrist with his rhetoric having a much stronger appeal to conservatives.
It's important to realize that because appealing to the radical right and having the radical right mind set are two different things, and the difference will also contribute to Trump's eventual inability to wrap up the Republican nomination because Trump doesn't censor himself and doesn't back down. When those more moderate/progressive views start gaining more attention than they already have, he'll likely lose Republican votes for not being all across the board on conservative issues.
This does have a different impact as well that could go a ways towards explaining his polling numbers. Trump isn't just playing towards the extreme right: he can rope in other radical centrist voters. People that don't play into the Tea Party narrative of how society should work, but still... (right now, the best way to describe it I think is) openly approve racism. Feel free to offer corrections or better wording.
So basically what I think we're seeing here results from the lack of a popular non-Trump candidate. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were the favorites going in, and Rand Paul - while controversial - was a known name. None of these performed well in the debates, leaving people disappointed with them, and leaving Trump to run away with the show.
I think as candidates are weeded out, and the lesser known GOP candidates distinguish themselves, we'll see people turning to them instead of Trump, and his status as a flash in the pan will reveal himself.
Well, I hope anyway.
I agree, but I'm less certain than I was a few weeks ago. If you look at what's happening with both parties right now (basically Trump and Sanders) there's a significant anti-establishment movement going on, and it's cutting across party lines. People are sick of fake politicians and don't want the same old, who will toe the party line and be beholden to corporations and lobbyists. If that sentiment is strong enough it could be a huge factor. I still don't think he will win, but the longer he hangs around, the less certain I am.
If he is adamant about running whether or not he gets the nomination, it puts the Republicans between a rock and a hard place. If he runs as an independent, I can't see how the Republicans can possibly win, because some number of right-wingers will still vote for him.
So basically what I think we're seeing here results from the lack of a popular non-Trump candidate. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were the favorites going in, and Rand Paul - while controversial - was a known name. None of these performed well in the debates, leaving people disappointed with them, and leaving Trump to run away with the show.
I think as candidates are weeded out, and the lesser known GOP candidates distinguish themselves, we'll see people turning to them instead of Trump, and his status as a flash in the pan will reveal himself.
Well, I hope anyway.
I agree, but I'm less certain than I was a few weeks ago. If you look at what's happening with both parties right now (basically Trump and Sanders) there's a significant anti-establishment movement going on, and it's cutting across party lines. People are sick of fake politicians and don't want the same old, who will toe the party line and be beholden to corporations and lobbyists. If that sentiment is strong enough it could be a huge factor. I still don't think he will win, but the longer he hangs around, the less certain I am.
If he is adamant about running whether or not he gets the nomination, it puts the Republicans between a rock and a hard place. If he runs as an independent, I can't see how the Republicans can possibly win, because some number of right-wingers will still vote for him.
If he runs indy, it seems amazingly improbably that any republican can beat clinton. It feels (from the outside) like she's probably got a slight edge anyway, at this stage, and syphoning off even a handful of % in the crazy winner takes all electoral collage thing seems just bone crushing.
I think as candidates are weeded out, and the lesser known GOP candidates distinguish themselves, we'll see people turning to them instead of Trump, and his status as a flash in the pan will reveal himself.
Well, I hope anyway.
My wild prediction is that it'll be similar to last time - every not-Bush will have their turn at the top of the table, then Bush will win. That's how it was with Romney and the not-Romneys; the controversial, splashy candidates all polled well, briefly, and then were gone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
My wild prediction is that it'll be similar to last time - every not-Bush will have their turn at the top of the table, then Bush will win. That's how it was with Romney and the not-Romneys; the controversial, splashy candidates all polled well, briefly, and then were gone.
Except for the last three Republican primaries, there was a clear favorite. When it came down to Bush and McCain, Bush won. Then the primary following that, it was McCain vs. Romney, and McCain won handily. Then in the following primary it was Mitt Romney. There was another prominent Republican candidate waiting for his year to be the nominee.
We don't have that now. The floor is very much open.
My wild prediction is that it'll be similar to last time - every not-Bush will have their turn at the top of the table, then Bush will win. That's how it was with Romney and the not-Romneys; the controversial, splashy candidates all polled well, briefly, and then were gone.
Except for the last three Republican primaries, there was a clear favorite. When it came down to Bush and McCain, Bush won. Then the primary following that, it was McCain vs. Romney, and McCain won handily. Then in the following primary it was Mitt Romney. There was another prominent Republican candidate waiting for his year to be the nominee.
We don't have that now. The floor is very much open.
There is a bit of difference between each of those nominations.
Bush didn't really have any competition. Nobody was looking for a not-Bush but instead Republicans were strongly lining up behind Bush.
2012 really was all about trying to find the anybody-but-Romney. The reason every candidate seemed to have his moment in the sun was because Republicans were looking for somebody who had something Romney lacked: likability. The problem was that while these not-Romney's might have had likable personalities their gaffes and inexperience eventually caused Republicans to sober up and pick who they really had to from the beginning.
The closest analogue to now is 2008 and McCain. McCain was never in a strong position until Super Tuesday. If things had gone slightly differently early on we might be talking about the time Giuliani lost to Obama.
You are correct that the floor is open, but at the same time there's a bit of anybody-but-Bush. Bush is like 2012 Romney in that he has everything he needs to be the nominee (and be a stronger nominee than somebody like Cruz) but Republican voters don't want the inevitable. They are going to give each candidate a moment in the sun (again) but I really do think that when the candidates start dropping out there will be a line forming behind Bush.
I can see, however, things shaping up more like the 2008 Democratic nomination. Walker or possibly Rubio could become the spoiler for Bush like Obama was for Hilary. If they can hit a populist enough message at the right time one of them could give Bush a run right up to Super Tuesday.
You are correct that the floor is open, but at the same time there's a bit of anybody-but-Bush.
I'm curious where you're getting this from. Bush had a name going in, and in a wide-open primary with many candidates who aren't well-known that was helpful going into the first debate, but Bush certainly isn't the favorite now. My understanding was Walker was the favorite going in, and after the debate Bush is viewed as weak.
Bush is like 2012 Romney in that he has everything he needs to be the nominee (and be a stronger nominee than somebody like Cruz)
What qualities are these? He isn't capable of holding his own in a debate or of energizing his party.
Also his name is Bush. Might not bother the Republicans, but it will hurt him among independents.
I really do think that when the candidates start dropping out there will be a line forming behind Bush.
Bush could turn it around, but I don't see that right now.
Money. Last time I looked Bush had raised more than double the amount of any other candidate.
1) If it was a matter of money then Trump wins
That assumes that Trump is willing to put up enough of his own personal wealth to exceed the combined contributions of Bush's backers. It hasn't happened yet and I don't believe it will.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But not while those in America that currently pay (probably ridiculous) insurance premiums are still paying them. So there would presumably be a slight tax increase to pay for it, but then no need for insurance premiums. I'm pretty sure the cost to individuals would be lower.
Socialised healthcare isn't the only way to reduce the cost of American healthcare. It is one way, and a way that's been shown to work in many other countries. Without drastic decreases in quality. The New Zealand system has occasional flaws, but I would be surprised if the current American system did not have similar flaws in addition to the sheer cost.
"Slight"?
The tax IS a premium.
Depends on which individuals. Remember that almost half the country doesn't pay income tax. Sure, it'll be less expensive for them. What about the people who are now in the position where they are no longer just paying for themselves or their families, but for the entire country?
And then there's the government itself. Have you seen the National Debt? We're spending more than we make now. How much more will the government be spending when people feel that it's the government's job to provide them healthcare?
To this, we both agree. I am much more interested in a way of reducing the cost of health care that does not involve socialism.
The funny thing is that at the moment America pays the actual most for healthcare in the world, in exchange for which you get worse healthcare.
Socialised medicine is cheaper *and* better than what you have now.
I'm not entirely sure how you can claim someone pays too much if you don't have an actual basis for how much is too much, and vice versa.
Should spending on healthcare be defined purely by how much is spent relative to GDP, as you did in the quote?
http://spiralnotes.com/donald-trump-on-meet-the-press-abortion-ok-if-mother-close-to-death/
IMO, the reason why he is doing so well is because, like it or not, he truly represents the entire subconscious mind of the GOP paradigm and there are tons of idiots like him that feel EXACTLY the same way deep down in their minds--whether they are some back country hick with a 40 in a paper bag missing half their teeth or one of the clueless ****s running Congress.
"There are no two words in the English language more harmful than 'good job'." -Terrance Fletcher, Whiplash (2014)
No. The problem isn't just that you pay a lot for it, it's that in exchange you get high infant mortality and lower life expectancy than most of the western world. Compared to the non - Russia parts of the g8 (and maybe russia; couldn't quickly find data) you have worse Healthcare outcomes and a less healthy general population.
You pay the most for Healthcare in an absolute sense and per head of population. You pay the most compared to GDP and compared to median incomes.
So if you're paying more and getting less, it feels like a pretty common sense definition. Of too much.
Edit: it should be noticed that the best of the best of American healthcare ia extremely good; there is a reason rich dictators get surgery done in the us. But the average is worse in the us than in most modern nations.
The issue was with the Pareto Principle, in that 80/20 rule as most any business person knows. The problem in healthcare is that there are specific individuals who wrack up millions in care through repeated strokes and other such things that places a strain on prices and services. Through constant maintenance the coverage care is saving more money and time by tasking a team in specific cities to locate data pools and high cost patients. Through proper investment and treatment, they have significantly reduced costs in Chicago and a few New Jersey cities with similar programs. In PA, there's a problem similar that uses a team of specialists to visit and maintain patients so they do not have to visit the hospital.
The issue has not been so much the cost, but the model and distribution in order to prevent specific health outcomes. This can be as simple as someone without insurance not having heart medication and then being in and out of the hospital and thus work and the person gets trapped into a cycle.
The cost benefit analysis, is that while we pay for more we also get greater innovation versus the rest of the world. However, there are places such as Japan that have just as much innovation as we do with a partially socialized system. But the Japanese have a long tradition of innovation, and that is another issue with the US. That of innovation and invention.
Anyway, during the 1990's there were programs that were put into place to replace Medicare and Medicaid and none of them were scaled up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/28/if-this-was-a-pill-youd-do-anything-to-get-it/
I think the main issue is that seniors want the government in medical coverage, the issue is scaling it to be cost effective without being stupid. Equally, what needs to be done is people who have mental health issues and people who lack proper treatment and just essentially go for expensive preventable visits to the hospital. It's a start, not an end that "repeal and replace" makes me angry to be a conservative whenever we already have different answers. Screw Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, we need a Tesla or an Einstein for healthcare policy and management or rather an army of them.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Yes, the government would pay more money, so that everyone has healthcare. And presumably would levy more taxes to cover it. But then the people paying stupidly high health insurance premiums no longer have to pay them, and so would be better off overall.
As for 'almost half the country doesn't pay income tax and the rest would have to pay for them', you could look at it that way. Or you could observe that the US already spends far more per capita for its healthcare than most nations with socialised healthcare, so for less than the current amount being spent on healthcare, everyone could be covered.
Second, it's not like people in Canada, for example, are covered under every medical expense. They do need to pay for certain procedures out of pocket.
I feel like we are talking past each other. I will try and explain the thinking underlying my posts.
Let:
A = current US insurance premiums
B = tax per person (yes, I know about progressive tax systems; this is a generalisation) required to run a socialised healthcare system
I am asserting:
1. That A > B, given that the current per capita US healthcare expense is (substantially) greater than that of most countries with socialised healthcare
2. That people paying B no longer have to pay A. People would pay increased tax (B), but they would no longer be paying sizable insurance premiums to insurance companies (A). And A > B, hence better off overall.
Recent CNN poll shows the current top ten of GOP candidates are:
Donald Trump: 24%
Jeb Bush: 13%
Ben Carson: 9%
Marco Rubio: 8%
Scott Walker: 8%
Rand Paul: 6%
Ted Cruz: 5%
Carly Fiorina: 5%
John Kasich: 5%
Mike Huckabee: 4%
Which makes a total of 87%.
So interesting numbers. Post-debate, Fiorina has moved into the top ten while Christie has fallen from the top ten. Of the people invited to the first main debate, Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Kasich have enjoyed greater numbers, while Bush, Walker, and Paul have diminished.
So basically what I think we're seeing here results from the lack of a popular non-Trump candidate. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were the favorites going in, and Rand Paul - while controversial - was a known name. None of these performed well in the debates, leaving people disappointed with them, and leaving Trump to run away with the show.
I think as candidates are weeded out, and the lesser known GOP candidates distinguish themselves, we'll see people turning to them instead of Trump, and his status as a flash in the pan will reveal himself.
Well, I hope anyway.
As people start dropping out of the race, they are going to tell their supports to support someone else. I don't think many will be telling their supporters to go over to Trump's camp. He pretty much alienated himself when he said he wouldn't support anyone other then himself; why should anyone support him if he will not support them? I doubt he CAN rise much past 25%, as very few will be rallying behind him.
Also, if he does run as a 3rd party, it will virtually win the election for the Democrats. One wonders if that was the plan all along...
It's important to realize that because appealing to the radical right and having the radical right mind set are two different things, and the difference will also contribute to Trump's eventual inability to wrap up the Republican nomination because Trump doesn't censor himself and doesn't back down. When those more moderate/progressive views start gaining more attention than they already have, he'll likely lose Republican votes for not being all across the board on conservative issues.
This does have a different impact as well that could go a ways towards explaining his polling numbers. Trump isn't just playing towards the extreme right: he can rope in other radical centrist voters. People that don't play into the Tea Party narrative of how society should work, but still... (right now, the best way to describe it I think is) openly approve racism. Feel free to offer corrections or better wording.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I agree, but I'm less certain than I was a few weeks ago. If you look at what's happening with both parties right now (basically Trump and Sanders) there's a significant anti-establishment movement going on, and it's cutting across party lines. People are sick of fake politicians and don't want the same old, who will toe the party line and be beholden to corporations and lobbyists. If that sentiment is strong enough it could be a huge factor. I still don't think he will win, but the longer he hangs around, the less certain I am.
If he is adamant about running whether or not he gets the nomination, it puts the Republicans between a rock and a hard place. If he runs as an independent, I can't see how the Republicans can possibly win, because some number of right-wingers will still vote for him.
If he runs indy, it seems amazingly improbably that any republican can beat clinton. It feels (from the outside) like she's probably got a slight edge anyway, at this stage, and syphoning off even a handful of % in the crazy winner takes all electoral collage thing seems just bone crushing.
My wild prediction is that it'll be similar to last time - every not-Bush will have their turn at the top of the table, then Bush will win. That's how it was with Romney and the not-Romneys; the controversial, splashy candidates all polled well, briefly, and then were gone.
We don't have that now. The floor is very much open.
There is a bit of difference between each of those nominations.
The closest analogue to now is 2008 and McCain. McCain was never in a strong position until Super Tuesday. If things had gone slightly differently early on we might be talking about the time Giuliani lost to Obama.
You are correct that the floor is open, but at the same time there's a bit of anybody-but-Bush. Bush is like 2012 Romney in that he has everything he needs to be the nominee (and be a stronger nominee than somebody like Cruz) but Republican voters don't want the inevitable. They are going to give each candidate a moment in the sun (again) but I really do think that when the candidates start dropping out there will be a line forming behind Bush.
I can see, however, things shaping up more like the 2008 Democratic nomination. Walker or possibly Rubio could become the spoiler for Bush like Obama was for Hilary. If they can hit a populist enough message at the right time one of them could give Bush a run right up to Super Tuesday.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Also his name is Bush. Might not bother the Republicans, but it will hurt him among independents.
Bush could turn it around, but I don't see that right now.
1) If it was a matter of money then Trump wins
2) He is in like third or fourth place of the nominees because he too often does not stand out
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies