Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[filghy2]

I live in the UK where we have single-payer health cover, but don't know if this is the right model for the US. I see the problem being huge -a Federal Tax for a Federal Service to replace most of what exists in States, that is a big admin project, but must surely collide with States Rights on taxation and even the definition of health care.

The US spends almost twice of its GDP on health care as other developed counties for worse health outcomes, so I always find the argument that it can't afford to change a bit strange. Given the rapid rise in health care costs it would be truer to say that it can't afford not to change.

Health is also a state government responsibility in Australia, but we've had a single-payer system since the 1970s. The federal government pays most of the the bills (using its financing powers), but public hospitals are run by state governments and doctors still have private practices. There are also private hospitals and private insurance for things the government does not cover. That seems similar to how it could work in the US. I think the UK system is more like nationalised health care.

One of the best arguments for single payer is that it's a simpler and more robust way to ensure most people get health cover than Obamacare, which relied on a complicated mix of tax penalties, subsidies and regulations. That has made it vulnerable to undermining by changing the components, even though Republicans have not been able to abolish it entirely.

[buttslinger]

….The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party......has no chance of winning....

[filghy2]

But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

Doesn't that point to the conundrum? If they haven't affected the outcome it's because they haven't attracted many votes and/or they affected both sides similarly. But that also means they have little influence on the political system. Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, but I can't see that he had any lasting impact on US politics. They would probably need to get 25-30% of the vote to have a real impact.

Minor parties can have an influence in other countries because they can hold the balance of power in parliament, but the US political system does not seem to give them much of a chance.

[Stavros]

The US spends almost twice of its GDP on health care as other developed counties for worse health outcomes, so I always find the argument that it can't afford to change a bit strange. Given the rapid rise in health care costs it would be truer to say that it can't afford not to change.

My view is that in the US health care is a business, where in the UK it is a service. Clearly many businesses have made handsom profits from health care, from dental products to all of the machinery used in hospitals, and the prices pharmacological companies charge is an issue in both the UK and the UK, but the moral, guiding principle of health care free at the time of need from cradle to grave is superior to an insurance based system, because insurance companies are relucant to offer health care to people with chronic illnesses and conditions. There is also the link in the UK which I assume applies in Australia between health care and education in the link between Medical Schools and General Hospitals, so that our NHS unifies training and research with health care under one system, though pressure from the doctors associations in 1947-48 meant that private health care has never been abolished in the UK.

You are also right to describe it as a 'Nationalized' health care system, the Attlee Government in 1945 used 'the Nation' many more times than it did 'Socialism' when describing its programmes (National Coal Board is a good example). And, of course, if there was a more effective health education programme in schools and after, many people might live healthier lives and not need to see a doctor at all excepting accidents and infirmities caused by old age. But yes, too, maybe the US is reaching a point where it can no longer afford to have such a mosaic of health care provision, but it needs to be clearly explained what this means in terms of costs and the structural changes to the health care that exists.

[Stavros]

I'll give you the impact that Teddy Roosevelt had on the 1912 election. But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

I think there are enough people who are fed up with both parties, that you can start to see more people clamoring for a third party candidate to run. It has to be the right person though.

If a third party candidate is to have a real chance, I think it needs to be someone who has defected from the Democrats or Republicans, who has name recognition and local support. A popular Senator from a large state with enough electoral college votes could do real damage, though having said that, if it were Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would he take the State, or is he aleady seen as too eccentric to make a difference? The more intriguing split could occur if the Republicans allowed someone to challenge the President who went on to defeat him, on the basis that the incumbent had become a liability - but that the President would stand as an independent regardless of that decision. This would surely hand the Presidency on a gold plate to the Democrats as the South would probably vote for the President...but right now the RNC is doing all it can to prevent anyone challenging the Dear Leader.

The problem with the third party candidates is that they tend to be weird people from the fringe of politics, and indeed, society, lacking money, organization, and enough popular appeal. Just as we have seen defections from the two main parties in the UK in the 1980s and again this year, I think the key lies in defections in the two main parties in the US, but they have to be well known and well financed if they are to make a difference. That said, Bernie Sanders is going in the opposite direction, an Independent seeking the Democrat nomination, I don't know how they can allow it. At least he may shape the agenda in policy terms.

[Stavros]

Remember this?

• "When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win," Trump tweets.
  
• Trump announced Thursday that he will impose 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum as early as next week.

Turns out it was bullshit from the start, but I guess you cannot expect anything less from the Republicans as their record shows. May be best to slap another $ trillion dollars on the debt, and anyway, Jared is raking in the lovely dollars for the family, and that s what matters most.

[Stavros]

That's some swamp you got there Mr Dennison! Nazdroviye, ma'salamah...

Donald Trump ally Erik Prince may have committed perjury, a congressman has said, after the former Navy Seal said for the first time he held a meeting with one of the US president’s sons to discuss “Iran policy”.
Mr Prince, founder of controversial military contractor Blackwater USA, admitted he met Donald Trump Jr and an emissary for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Trump Tower ahead of the presidential election.
The admission comes more than a year after the 49-year-old, brother of US education secretary Betsy DeVos, failed to disclose the meeting under oath to the House intelligence committee, according to a public transcript.
According to The New York Times, Mr Prince organised the August 2016 meeting with Mr Trump’s eldest son and Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, who reportedly revealed Saudi Arabia and the UAE wanted to help Mr Trump in his bid for the presidency.
The meeting also reportedly included Stephen Miller, now Mr Trump’s senior policy adviser, and an Israeli social media expert called Joel Zamel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8815446.html

[buttslinger]

Yawn, I missed Nancy Pelosi's 420-0 vote on releasing the Mueller Report NOW!!!!

Maybe it's the way Tubby Barr has been seen schmoozing it up with Trump. He's probably told Trump everything that's in it.

I'm waiting for a Democrat who admits the National Debt is the worst problem we have, after Baby Donald gets thrown out. Live by CASH, die by CASH.

[filghy2]

I'm waiting for a Democrat who admits the National Debt is the worst problem we have, after Baby Donald gets thrown out.

Really? Worse than the threat of nuclear war? Worse than climate change? Worse than the decline of democracy around the world? Worse than the rise of right-wing nationalism? Worse than rising inequality and concentration of wealth?

You can bet that when the next Democrat president is elected Republicans will suddenly discover that the national debt is the greatest problem and use it as another excuse to block their policy agenda.

[buttslinger]

…. Worse than the threat of nuclear war? Worse than climate change? Worse than the decline of democracy around the world? Worse than the rise of right-wing nationalism? Worse than rising inequality and concentration of wealth?......

YES. We owe all that money to the rich people, and you can bet they get paid with interest. They own us.