• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Suburb Repairman said:
You cannot spend more AND cut taxes. That is basic public finance. And if they do go down that road, so help me god I will run against Representative Lamar Smith (my US Rep) myself. They spent eight years prattling on about debt ceilings and "rampant spending" with Obama, and now it is suddenly okay because an old Republican white guy is in charge? I will call bullshit on that, and do so loudly.
Click to expand...

It is the Federal Government. Does this surprise you? It does not matter if it is an R or a D behind their name, they all do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons, none of which are to benefit you or I.
 
Outside of the spend more tax less deal I got the usual we'll kill the boogieman (whatever your particular fear is) and I have a winning lottery ticket for you.
 
Jeff Sessions lied under oath - under his own definition he should resign just like Flynn did.

How many think that will actually happen though...:not:
 
Are you down with Feminism??

A general question to pose in our politics thread.

Me, I have to say I am quite content being a Man, but I dislike misogyny and am all for Women's Empowerment and Gender Equality. What I dislike however, is Rich (mostly White) Liberal Feminism that thought Hillary was the answer to all our problems. I lump Queer/Trans rights into Feminism too, because if you will put on a pussy hat and cry "keep abortion legal OMG trump is literally Hitler!!" but refuse to let Trans Women have their rightful place in the discourse, that's Whack. I also dont like Feminists who take it too far and label all Men as potential rapists, I have left political groups because of too strong of an emphasis on Identity Politics/Call Out culture.

Off this topic: Sessions should resign. An unreformed southern racist has no place being the nation's chief law enforcer.
 
I'm down with feminism. It of course has some negative stereotypes surrounding it, but I think in general feminism is being aware that our culture was created largely around assumptions about specific gender roles, and then conscientiously working to make it more equitable now that the culture has shifted/is shifting to allow more opportunities across the board to everyone.

I say all this, and I'm actually a fairly conservative Christian theologically. But I also believe that treating ANYONE as less deserving of basic and fair rights is directly contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
 
gtpeach said:
I say all this, and I'm actually a fairly conservative Christian theologically. But I also believe that treating ANYONE as less deserving of basic and fair rights is directly contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
Click to expand...

AMEN TO THAT!!
 
gtpeach said:
I'm down with feminism. It of course has some negative stereotypes surrounding it, but I think in general feminism is being aware that our culture was created largely around assumptions about specific gender roles, and then conscientiously working to make it more equitable now that the culture has shifted/is shifting to allow more opportunities across the board to everyone.

I say all this, and I'm actually a fairly conservative Christian theologically. But I also believe that treating ANYONE as less deserving of basic and fair rights is directly contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the question is what are basic and fair rights?
 
michaelskis said:
I agree, but the question is what are basic and fair rights?
Click to expand...

I think that's the first question we ask, but I don't think that's really the bottom line. Before we start asking questions about what the basic and fair rights are, I think we need to go back to look at what assumptions were made when structures were put into place. That helps us identify why certain demographics of people are unable to get ahead or have a much more challenging time navigating life in general.
 
gtpeach said:
I think that's the first question we ask, but I don't think that's really the bottom line. Before we start asking questions about what the basic and fair rights are, I think we need to go back to look at what assumptions were made when structures were put into place. That helps us identify why certain demographics of people are unable to get ahead or have a much more challenging time navigating life in general.
Click to expand...

One thing that we both agree on 100% is that there needs to be true equity in society today, and there isn't. But the difficulty for me comes about when we try to define what that looks like. For example, I think that people, regardless of race or gender, should get paid the same for the same work. However we live in a society where that does not always happen, and I think that is wrong. I also think that you bring up an interesting and appropriate point that we need need to look back and look and what assumptions were made when these structures were put into place, but we need to work to change them so things are equal. I think it begins with how we are educated and unfortunately, some social groups and cultures are taught to hate.

But in the end the point is they need to be equal and in some cases some groups are so hypersensitive that they give preferential treatment to one group or another because of past wrongs. Preferential treatment is not equal. Furthermore, I think that the question of what are basic rights is an important question at the front end because these ethical beliefs are the foundation upon what everything else is build. Equality itself is an ethical belief that is not universal. Not all religions or cultures look at all genders, homosexuals, transgenders, or members of other races and religions as equal.



On a side note, do you think that something like this is fair or equitable? (LINK)
WTVD said:
CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina (WTVD) -- Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools will be closed Wednesday, March 8 ahead of a planned nationwide women's strike. The superintendent expects high staff absences.

Superintendent Jim Causby said the day will instead be an optional teacher workday. Students will not be required to make up this day as the system is on schedule to meet the required number of instructional hours for the school year.

All athletic events will occur as scheduled.

The March 8 strike, deemed "A Day Without Women," is meant to emphasize the role of women in national life. March 8 has been deemed as International Women's Day.

"A Day Without a Woman (recognizes) the enormous value that women of all backgrounds add to our socio-economic system--while receiving lower wages and experiencing greater inequities, vulnerability to discrimination, sexual harassment, and job insecurity," stated event organizers on their website.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
One thing that we both agree on 100% is that there needs to be true equity in society today, and there isn't. But the difficulty for me comes about when we try to define what that looks like. For example, I think that people, regardless of race or gender, should get paid the same for the same work. However we live in a society where that does not always happen, and I think that is wrong. I also think that you bring up an interesting and appropriate point that we need need to look back and look and what assumptions were made when these structures were put into place, but we need to work to change them so things are equal. I think it begins with how we are educated and unfortunately, some social groups and cultures are taught to hate.

But in the end the point is they need to be equal and in some cases some groups are so hypersensitive that they give preferential treatment to one group or another because of past wrongs. Preferential treatment is not equal. Furthermore, I think that the question of what are basic rights is an important question at the front end because these ethical beliefs are the foundation upon what everything else is build. Equality itself is an ethical belief that is not universal. Not all religions or cultures look at all genders, homosexuals, transgenders, or members of other races and religions as equal.



On a side note, do you think that something like this is fair or equitable? (LINK)
Click to expand...

Wage issues are tricky in general just because no two people are necessarily going to have the same pay for the same work due to whatever external circumstances are at play. So much of it is based on your ability to negotiate and what leverage you have working in your favor. I'd be interested in seeing some studies on how starting offers differ between genders, for example. That would take some of the external factors out of the evaluation.

Regarding the schools closing, I don't know that that's really a question of fairness or equity as much as it is a pragmatic one (we won't have enough staff, so we'll close the school). I think the women's activism is a little frustrating right now because it's not for any specific outcome. For example, if they were refusing to go to work in order to protest unequal wages or a verdict regarding a light sentence for a sexual assault or something like that, it would make more sense because the activism would be to promote a less exclusionary society. As it is now, I think it's confusing and it's more for the emotional purpose of feeling powerful. I understand there are real issues that are being communicated, I just don't think there's a specific and clear outcome that the protest is meant to achieve.

That's not to say it couldn't potentially create momentum towards working for specific changes, though. So, my very unclear answer is that the protest itself isn't equitable or fair because women are in a position where they have to protest to get these issues taken seriously. I just don't think this is particularly effective without a more specific plan in place.
 
It's interesting where/how there's a popularly held perception that government at the federal level is somehow inherently.evil. Bear in mind that almost all congressional representatives first served at the state or local levels before ascending to the federal. Is there some reason these same people magically become tyrants simply because they get elected to a federal office?
 
michaelskis said:
On a side note, do you think that something like this is fair or equitable? (LINK)
Click to expand...

Stuff like this happens because our society is not equal. Yes, it's a women's march and the school might have to close, but that's what needs to happen to create equality. Once we have an equal society then it won't happen. Instead of the complaints I hear (I don't think anyone here complains) about women taking a day off, realize that they are still fighting to get rights you and I take for granted.

Maister said:
It's interesting where/how there's a popularly held perception that government at the federal level is somehow inherently.evil. Bear in mind that almost all congressional representatives first served at the state or local levels before ascending to the federal. Is there some reason these same people magically become tyrants simply because they get elected to a federal office?
Click to expand...

I look at it as a loss of focus as you go up the food chain. Your state senator should be doing everything he/she can to bring benefits for your state and while we're at it try for the best interest of the US as a whole. It depends on the issue. State officials should be doing everything for their district and maybe what's best for the state. Instead we keep playing these political games about guns, abortion, immigrants, etc that will never get solved because (pick a reason) it hasn't been done in the last 100 years. I'd like to think our state and federal reps are fighting to bring jobs to the state and making sure the military is properly supported or infrastructure is funded. You know, down to earth things that don't require a political slant or at least not much of one and they could actually make our country great. Local officials are usually the only ones focused on just their community and making laws. Getting things done instead of arguing politics. Then again, my last crew argued abortion and guns non stop.
 
The part that frustrates me is that while they are saying that they are not taking sides on the issue, these protestors are forcing the school to close for a day without any recourse.

This disruption results in a chain effect. Not all the parents will have the option to take the day off work to watch their kids. If they do, the work that they needed to get done would not get done, places might be short staffed, and regardless and yes, it will have an effect on society. Not because the protesters are women, but because they are people that other people depend on to do their job.

What would happen if we had a protest "A day without men" where all the guys in the country didn't show up to work? Would employers like this school district be as forgiving?
 
michaelskis said:
The part that frustrates me is that while they are saying that they are not taking sides on the issue, these protestors are forcing the school to close for a day without any recourse.

This disruption results in a chain effect. Not all the parents will have the option to take the day off work to watch their kids. If they do, the work that they needed to get done would not get done, places might be short staffed, and regardless and yes, it will have an effect on society. Not because the protesters are women, but because they are people that other people depend on to do their job.

What would happen if we had a protest "A day without men" where all the guys in the country didn't show up to work? Would employers like this school district be as forgiving?
Click to expand...

I imagine the disruption is the desired effect. Those protesting wish to cause a disruption so those disrupted are reminded of how crucial those protesting are to the rest of the workforce and society. If there was no disruption, the protest would not be successful. This sounds like it's already causing some disruptions so they must be getting their point across. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tactics or the desired outcome of the protesters is a different matter.

I don't think the school district is looking at as being "forgiving", they are looking at it from a practical standpoint: A high enough percentage of their workforce is made up of women and they are predicting that enough of those women will be absent that it would make it difficult enough for the district to provide services (whether its services from teachers, para-pros, transportation, administrators, food services, etc.) so they are electing to shut down that day.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I imagine the disruption is the desired effect. Those protesting wish to cause a disruption so those disrupted are reminded of how crucial those protesting are to the rest of the workforce and society. If there was no disruption, the protest would not be successful. This sounds like it's already causing some disruptions so they must be getting their point across. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tactics or the desired outcome of the protesters is a different matter.

I don't think the school district is looking at as being "forgiving", they are looking at it from a practical standpoint: A high enough percentage of their workforce is made up of women and they are predicting that enough of those women will be absent that it would make it difficult enough for the district to provide services (whether its services from teachers, para-pros, transportation, administrators, food services, etc.) so they are electing to shut down that day.
Click to expand...



Just for the record, too, not all women everywhere are going to be staying home from work. I imagine the places where it will have this big of an impact are relatively few. I'm personally planning on coming into work.

And the thing about a man staying home from work day is that it's pointless because men are already seen as being vital to society. The privileges that white men have are basically the standard that everyone else is trying to achieve.

And yes, a protest that doesn't cause disruption isn't effective. That's the point of a protest.
 
michaelskis said:
The part that frustrates me is that while they are saying that they are not taking sides on the issue, these protestors are forcing the school to close for a day without any recourse.

This disruption results in a chain effect. Not all the parents will have the option to take the day off work to watch their kids. If they do, the work that they needed to get done would not get done, places might be short staffed, and regardless and yes, it will have an effect on society. Not because the protesters are women, but because they are people that other people depend on to do their job.

What would happen if we had a protest "A day without men" where all the guys in the country didn't show up to work? Would employers like this school district be as forgiving?
Click to expand...

During the day without immigrants there were a bunch of people fired for not showing up to work. That's a risk you take for protesting, but the fact that it needs to be protested in the first place is the problem. Yes, they should have taken a day off or something.
 
From Merriam-Webster

Definition of McCarthyism: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges; broadly: defamation of character or reputation through such tactics

For the person on the Tweeter-verse that needs a clarification.
 
bizarro-03-03-17.jpg
 
How Fake News Gets Started

We had us a pair of competing rallies in town on March 4. The T one was populated by many folks who are apparently unfamiliar with the appearance of the two different areas where the events took place, and I suppose are unable to read photo captions.

fake news veloise.jpg
 
The wiretap issue is a smokescreen for the executive orders, new travel bans, & healthcare nonreplacement.

Nothing to see here, but over there Obama wiretapped me.
 
With cuts to NOAA - National Weather Service and FEMA - another Katrina ?


The Trump administration, searching for money to build the president’s planned multibillion-dollar border wall and crack down on illegal immigration, is weighing significant cuts to the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies focused on national security threats, according to a draft plan.

The proposal, drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), also would slash the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which provides disaster relief after hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters.
.......
But the spending plan — which could cut $361 million from FEMA’s $3.5 billion budget — also eliminates or reduces the federal commitment to helping states and local governments prepare for natural disasters through training, salaries and benefits for staff, coordination and state-of the-art equipment. These grants help communities prepare for emergencies so that local and state governments can coordinate and respond quickly.
......
Homeowners in flood-prone areas of the country also would be levied a surcharge on their flood insurance, according to the document, although the OMB has been asked to come up with a plan to limit the extra payment for homeowners with “lower-value” homes.
Click to expand...

To fund border wall, Trump administration weighs cuts to Coast Guard, airport security
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.9f2cb7a4faa5
 
The Healthcare Act according to Spicer:

Obamacare - lots of pages - bad
Trumpcare - less pages - good
 
I'm not a Carolina fan, but I do like Roy Williams. Here's one of his quotes from the post-game interview:

“Now everybody’s has got social media, and we don’t need The New York Times to find out what in the dickens is going on in the country. You know, our president tweets out more bullshit than anybody I’ve ever seen. We’ve got social media. In the old days, there’s no question, because it was the media capital of the world. But I’m not sure it is now.
 
No more lewd and lascivious activities for me in the kitchen. Damn microwave. And I'm questioning the KitchenAid blender, the coffee maker, and toaster oven, too.
 
Ok. this is getting stupid. I read over a few reports on the health care law that would 'replace' Obamacare and it is as bad as Obamacare but in different ways.

That with the proposed cuts to HUD and everything else, once again I think that the Federal Government is failing the American people. It does not matter who is in office, who runs congress, or the letter behind their name. Best government is local government... and it goes downhill from there.
 
The idea that we will save money ($Billions) because we are cutting medicaid is hilarious. That says everything that is wrong with the government. We all know that they will use the Emergency Room and not pay for that care. That will pass the cost over to the hospital. That hospital will pass that cost along to the consumer.

But the Republicans can say that they lowered the national debt without raising taxes!!

Or you cost me more because you refuse to look past your feet at the world around you. Come on guys, you can do better than that......
 
My wife works in medical records as a coding auditor. Coders are the only ones I believe that completely understand the American healthcare system--every strength & every flaw. They know the games played by insurance, the pressures hospitals are under, the challenges faced by medical professionals in balancing quality care & quantity of work... everything... it all plays out in the medical record & reimbursement story.

Her comment on the Trump proposal: this is going to bankrupt hospitals, even the financially strong ones, and it is going to put doctors & nurses in a terrible position in attempting to provide responsible & responsive care to patients and also putting those doctors & medical professionals in financial jeopardy due to increased failure to pay. The only entities benefiting are insurance companies.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
My wife works in medical records as a coding auditor. Coders are the only ones I believe that completely understand the American healthcare system--every strength & every flaw. They know the games played by insurance, the pressures hospitals are under, the challenges faced by medical professionals in balancing quality care & quantity of work... everything... it all plays out in the medical record & reimbursement story.

Her comment on the Trump proposal: this is going to bankrupt hospitals, even the financially strong ones, and it is going to put doctors & nurses in a terrible position in attempting to provide responsible & responsive care to patients and also putting those doctors & medical professionals in financial jeopardy due to increased failure to pay. The only entities benefiting are insurance companies.
Click to expand...

What was her thoughts on Obamacare when it started?

And for the record, my wife and I were talking about Trump Care this morning, and she said something similar to what your wife said. She said that Obamacare made a bad situation worse, and Trump Care will make a worse situation even worse.

One thing that she suggested is to have federal programs to cover 100% of the costs for preventative health care. This would include, yearly physicals and exams, tests, basic gym memberships, and even delivery and labor costs. Then let the private insurance cover reactionary health costs like ER visits and the like. Personally, I don't think that the government should have a role in the health insurance industry, but it was an interesting approach which I think could have merit. However, we both agree that we don't think that government funded insurance should cover birth control, the morning after pill, viagra, or similar products.

What are your thoughts on government funded preventative health care and private reactionary health care?
 
I like the idea of 100% payment for preventive care. That is, typically, comparatively cheaper anyways.

But I would certainly favor the government paying for birth control, vasectomies, day after pills, etc. If the government is paying, then it is in the community interest to pay for such prevention to reduce the potential the negative costs (monetary and psychological) of unwanted pregnancies.
 
I like all the tax breaks in the bill. Oh wait, I don't make anywhere near enough to enjoy those tax breaks. All I get is taxed. Taxed big time!
 
michaelskis said:
What was her thoughts on Obamacare when it started?

And for the record, my wife and I were talking about Trump Care this morning, and she said something similar to what your wife said. She said that Obamacare made a bad situation worse, and Trump Care will make a worse situation even worse.

One thing that she suggested is to have federal programs to cover 100% of the costs for preventative health care. This would include, yearly physicals and exams, tests, basic gym memberships, and even delivery and labor costs. Then let the private insurance cover reactionary health costs like ER visits and the like. Personally, I don't think that the government should have a role in the health insurance industry, but it was an interesting approach which I think could have merit. However, we both agree that we don't think that government funded insurance should cover birth control, the morning after pill, viagra, or similar products.

What are your thoughts on government funded preventative health care and private reactionary health care?
Click to expand...

Her take on ObamaCare was that it was a step in the right direction, but that the legislation got mutilated pretty badly in the course of trying to get it through. She described it as "the problem didn't become worse, it just became different." She likened it to squeezing a balloon--the problems still exist, they just shift around like the air inside the balloon. She views the fundamental problem as the insurance industry--that their profit motivation has undermined their true purpose. Insurance companies have doctors, nurses & coders on staff whose single purpose is to find ways to deny claims & throw up procedural roadblocks.

That being said, she'll also tell you that similar tactics are employed by Medicare on their reimbursements, albeit to a lesser extent.

She laughed heartily at the "reforms" in the new legislation, particularly buying insurance across state lines. She is of the opinion it will not result in savings for most, and will primarily result in the ability for insurance companies to merge across state lines easier. I have a strong opinion on this as well, as my father came from the banking industry. This type of reform is what creates "too big to fail" situations.

She is of the opinion that single payer, while not perfect, is ultimately where we are headed and is better than pre-ObamaCare, ObamaCare and this proposed legislation. What's particularly funny is that we had a very similar conversation to you & your wife--the logical first step (perhaps only step) is to convert all preventative care and diagnostic care to single-payer, leaving treatment in the hands of insurance (for now). It is an easy, simple experiment into single-payer with minimal complexity and would not require the bureaucracy to deal with complex claims & claim denials. This would drastically cut down on ER visits and would encourage nipping issues early when treatment is cheaper rather than it getting deferred until it becomes an acute issue. Couple that up with Medicaid expansion for lower income to help address early treatment costs. If you are smart with the structure of the preventative care, then you should get resulting savings to allow Medicaid expansion close to or perhaps even meeting revenue neutrality.

You and I disagree slightly on birth control coverage, and that's okay. I like the idea of covering basic birth control (condoms, pills, IUD, etc.) but not emergency contraceptives (because "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and the goal is to get a law that will pass without a major debate about whether morning after pills are abortions). My main reason is that states like Colorado that have done this kind of thing have DRASTICALLY reduced unwanted pregnancies. If you do that, you also save money on medicaid by not paying for as many pregnancies.

Clip onto that the ability for the U.S. to negotiate better drug prices, and I think you've got a potential bipartisan winner.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
You and I disagree slightly on birth control coverage, and that's okay. I like the idea of covering basic birth control (condoms, pills, IUD, etc.) but not emergency contraceptives (because "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and the goal is to get a law that will pass without a major debate about whether morning after pills are abortions). My main reason is that states like Colorado that have done this kind of thing have DRASTICALLY reduced unwanted pregnancies. If you do that, you also save money on medicaid by not paying for as many pregnancies.

Clip onto that the ability for the U.S. to negotiate better drug prices, and I think you've got a potential bipartisan winner.
Click to expand...

I just e-mailed my congressman. I doubt it will get anywhere, but if we can all contact them encouraging a split health care system, maybe we can get rid of both Obamacare and Trumpcare and get something that will actually improve things for all Americans.

Think about it for a moment... if people had free access to preventative health care, including nutrition education, testing, screening, and even a membership to something like Planet Fitness (minus the tanning beds and pizza), imagine how much healthier we would be. Imagine how many of the health issues would be a thing of the past.

Then it goes into basic supply and demand principles for the other stuff. People would not need to use their reactive health insurance as much, thus the demand goes down... thus the costs to everyone will also decrease because of market competition. The insurance companies may even see increased profits too because in the end they would also be paying less in the way of claims.
 
michaelskis said:
I just e-mailed my congressman. I doubt it will get anywhere, but if we can all contact them encouraging a split health care system, maybe we can get rid of both Obamacare and Trumpcare and get something that will actually improve things for all Americans.

Think about it for a moment... if people had free access to preventative health care, including nutrition education, testing, screening, and even a membership to something like Planet Fitness (minus the tanning beds and pizza), imagine how much healthier we would be. Imagine how many of the health issues would be a thing of the past.

Then it goes into basic supply and demand principles for the other stuff. People would not need to use their reactive health insurance as much, thus the demand goes down... thus the costs to everyone will also decrease because of market competition. The insurance companies may even see increased profits too because in the end they would also be paying less in the way of claims.
Click to expand...

My basic requests:

1. Reform EMTALA.Without that reform, you aren't going to have people using their PCP unless they have to. Free emergency room, why go to the PCP? Push people to PCP first, then they get "free" care in the ER.
2. Fund PCP residencies, or create loan repayment programs for PCPs. We need more PCPs in the system.
3. Tort reform. Stop allowing patients to sue when general mistakes are made. There are risks with surgery / emergencies / etc. We need to make people accept those risks so we can get costs for procedures down.
4. Medicaid / medicare funding formula fixes. Medicaid pays 50% of the true cost. That means that most PCP aren't going to accept it. They need to make money to survive. Most PCP make $120k or so. When you are paying $2k+ per month in loan payments, that isn't going to work.
5. Transparency in billing. The cost for a surgery is known for the hospital. It most likely isn't for the surgeon or for the patient. Payer mix and income are important parts of the healthcare issue, and understanding billing and costs should be more transparent.
 
What's funny about this version of a healthcare plan is that it's something that the D's would probably have jumped on board with. In 2000. But then the ACA passed and that changed the view of what people are "entitled" to. We have a great history in this country of "fixing" social programs by raising taxes. That's our legacy.

Until something is done to truly reign in costs it's really not fixable. If you make coverage available to millions of people who can't afford it on their own as the ACA does then someone else has to pay for it. On the other hand if you make it less generous in its subsidies and therefore more affordable to those paying full price as the new plan suggests, then some people will lose or receive less coverage. There's no magic bullet here.
 
His "top-line" sheet (not his budget so his people sayeth) will eliminate and drastically reduce many programs we use at the municipal level. CDBG & EDA are just a couple, but his USAToday article outlines the programs, amounts a their elimination justification as written in the top-line...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/16/what-does-trump-budget-eliminate/99223182/

So the Make America Great Again and America First taglines are just that. The only thing we need to do is beef up the military, give the rich taxbreaks, corporations savings and build a wall - POOF America is great again.
 
What y'all are saying is interesting because it seems like there's some private sector forces driving towards the improvement of primary care access. I was listening to a story on NPR a few days ago about what I'm going to refer to as "primary care insurance" since I can't remember the actual name. Basically, you pay a monthly fee to reserve your access to a PCP should you need it. All the basic stuff you need to see a doctor for is going to be covered under that monthly fee. If you need extra testing or something done beyond what the PCP provides, you get billed at the wholesale rate. It's kind of a win-win, because there's not the deadweight loss of going through the insurance companies for billing, so doctors get paid more and patients get paid less for better quality service.

You'd still need additional coverage for catastrophic care, but because your insurance would not need to cover the basics, and because your access to your healthcare providers is improved as a result of your participation in this program, you do not need to rely on emergency services for urgent, but non-emergency needs. So you could get by with a higher deductible, but lower premium catastrophic care insurance.

http://www.heritage.org/health-care...ive-alternative-conventional-health-insurance
 
Back
Top