Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The traditional first NH votes are in. Dixville Notch has 9 votes. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4745708536001/voters-in-dixville-notch-cast-first-ballots-of-nh-primary/?intcmp=hpbt1#sp=show-clips If you don't want to watch the whole video here are how the 9 votes were cast. Kasich--3 Trump--2 Sanders--4 Hillary was shut out. Yea!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
around4ever 4,139 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 But Sanders was the leading vote getter. It's hard to believe that the older population actually voted for his platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 But Sanders was the leading vote getter. It's hard to believe that the older population actually voted for his platform. Not surprised at all. They've listened to 30 years of establishment rhetoric that free trade, trickle down economics, cutting taxes on the highest earners, deregulating banks and financial institutions, giving big corporate tax breaks and so on would lead to high economic growth, great prosperity for all, and raise all boats. But instead, wages have stagnated since the 80s, virtually all the spoils from massive increases in productivity have gone to people at the top of the economic ladder while the average guy gets the crumbs. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, but they are the only ones paying the price. The rich aren't feeling the pinch at all. Their slice of the pie continues to grow exponentially. They see their health care costs continue to rise even though we still can't manage to cover everyone while other industrialized nations like Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, etc pay less per person for healthcare and everyone is covered. They see a bunch of rhetoric about abortion being wrong while virtually any effort that might have the practical effect of actually promoting keeping babies and strengthening family bonds such as paid family leave get shot down (even as those same countries above manage to have it provided for their citizens). Why wouldn't Sanders' platform appeal to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 But Sanders was the leading vote getter. It's hard to believe that the older population actually voted for his platform. Not surprised at all. They've listened to 30 years of establishment rhetoric that free trade, trickle down economics, cutting taxes on the highest earners, deregulating banks and financial institutions, giving big corporate tax breaks and so on would lead to high economic growth, great prosperity for all, and raise all boats. But instead, wages have stagnated since the 80s, virtually all the spoils from massive increases in productivity have gone to people at the top of the economic ladder while the average guy gets the crumbs. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, but they are the only ones paying the price. The rich aren't feeling the pinch at all. Their slice of the pie continues to grow exponentially. They see their health care costs continue to rise even though we still can't manage to cover everyone while other industrialized nations like Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, etc pay less per person for healthcare and everyone is covered. They see a bunch of rhetoric about abortion being wrong while virtually any effort that might have the practical effect of actually promoting keeping babies and strengthening family bonds such as paid family leave get shot down (even as those same countries above manage to have it provided for their citizens). Why wouldn't Sanders' platform appeal to them? Right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn4life 24 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 But Sanders was the leading vote getter. It's hard to believe that the older population actually voted for his platform. Not surprised at all. They've listened to 30 years of establishment rhetoric that free trade, trickle down economics, cutting taxes on the highest earners, deregulating banks and financial institutions, giving big corporate tax breaks and so on would lead to high economic growth, great prosperity for all, and raise all boats. But instead, wages have stagnated since the 80s, virtually all the spoils from massive increases in productivity have gone to people at the top of the economic ladder while the average guy gets the crumbs. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, but they are the only ones paying the price. The rich aren't feeling the pinch at all. Their slice of the pie continues to grow exponentially. They see their health care costs continue to rise even though we still can't manage to cover everyone while other industrialized nations like Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, etc pay less per person for healthcare and everyone is covered. They see a bunch of rhetoric about abortion being wrong while virtually any effort that might have the practical effect of actually promoting keeping babies and strengthening family bonds such as paid family leave get shot down (even as those same countries above manage to have it provided for their citizens). Why wouldn't Sanders' platform appeal to them? Feel free to go get your cancer treatment, Cat scan, MRI etc... at any of the following countries, I will stick with USA. The whole reason our healthcare has gotten out of hand is because the gov't got involved. It hasn't been free market for a long time. Now, if Hilary or Bernie gets Pres. they will say Obamacare isn't working and blame the private sector business as the reason, and install universal single payer. Our healthcare QUALITY will go down, sure everyone may pay less and everyone covered, but QUALITY will go down, also wait times will go UP. Also research and development will fall behind, so health officials won't be able to find treatments as fast as they do now to treat things that make changes like staph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 But Sanders was the leading vote getter. It's hard to believe that the older population actually voted for his platform. Not surprised at all. They've listened to 30 years of establishment rhetoric that free trade, trickle down economics, cutting taxes on the highest earners, deregulating banks and financial institutions, giving big corporate tax breaks and so on would lead to high economic growth, great prosperity for all, and raise all boats. But instead, wages have stagnated since the 80s, virtually all the spoils from massive increases in productivity have gone to people at the top of the economic ladder while the average guy gets the crumbs. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, but they are the only ones paying the price. The rich aren't feeling the pinch at all. Their slice of the pie continues to grow exponentially. They see their health care costs continue to rise even though we still can't manage to cover everyone while other industrialized nations like Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, etc pay less per person for healthcare and everyone is covered. They see a bunch of rhetoric about abortion being wrong while virtually any effort that might have the practical effect of actually promoting keeping babies and strengthening family bonds such as paid family leave get shot down (even as those same countries above manage to have it provided for their citizens). Why wouldn't Sanders' platform appeal to them? Feel free to go get your cancer treatment, Cat scan, MRI etc... at any of the following countries, I will stick with USA. The whole reason our healthcare has gotten out of hand is because the gov't got involved. It hasn't been free market for a long time. Now, if Hilary or Bernie gets Pres. they will say Obamacare isn't working and blame the private sector business as the reason, and install universal single payer. Our healthcare QUALITY will go down, sure everyone may pay less and everyone covered, but QUALITY will go down, also wait times will go UP. Also research and development will fall behind, so health officials won't be able to find treatments as fast as they do now to treat things that make changes like staph. It was "free market" prior to the ACA. I know, because I was shut out of it, presumably for being unprofitable. Many in this country had to declare bankruptcy due to injury or illness. The only thing that wasn't "free market" is that hospitals couldn't just throw the uninsured out on the street. Is that what you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn4life 24 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 It wasn't free market before ACA, not like it needed to be. Gov't still had their hand in it and states. Shouldn't be limited to state's, should be able to shop free market from anywhere in the US. Sorry your where shut out of it. And no I don't want hospitals to throw uninsured out in the street, but that's what Obama wanted everyone to think that was happening when he pushed the ACA thru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 It wasn't free market before ACA, not like it needed to be. Gov't still had their hand in it and states. Shouldn't be limited to state's, should be able to shop free market from anywhere in the US. Sorry your where shut out of it. And no I don't want hospitals to throw uninsured out in the street, but that's what Obama wanted everyone to think that was happening when he pushed the ACA thru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 But Sanders was the leading vote getter. It's hard to believe that the older population actually voted for his platform. Not surprised at all. They've listened to 30 years of establishment rhetoric that free trade, trickle down economics, cutting taxes on the highest earners, deregulating banks and financial institutions, giving big corporate tax breaks and so on would lead to high economic growth, great prosperity for all, and raise all boats. But instead, wages have stagnated since the 80s, virtually all the spoils from massive increases in productivity have gone to people at the top of the economic ladder while the average guy gets the crumbs. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, but they are the only ones paying the price. The rich aren't feeling the pinch at all. Their slice of the pie continues to grow exponentially. They see their health care costs continue to rise even though we still can't manage to cover everyone while other industrialized nations like Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, etc pay less per person for healthcare and everyone is covered. They see a bunch of rhetoric about abortion being wrong while virtually any effort that might have the practical effect of actually promoting keeping babies and strengthening family bonds such as paid family leave get shot down (even as those same countries above manage to have it provided for their citizens). Why wouldn't Sanders' platform appeal to them? Feel free to go get your cancer treatment, Cat scan, MRI etc... at any of the following countries, I will stick with USA. The whole reason our healthcare has gotten out of hand is because the gov't got involved. It hasn't been free market for a long time. Now, if Hilary or Bernie gets Pres. they will say Obamacare isn't working and blame the private sector business as the reason, and install universal single payer. Our healthcare QUALITY will go down, sure everyone may pay less and everyone covered, but QUALITY will go down, also wait times will go UP. Also research and development will fall behind, so health officials won't be able to find treatments as fast as they do now to treat things that make changes like staph. It was "free market" prior to the ACA. It was in no way, shape or form free market. We haven't had a free market in health care since employment and health care became tied to one another during WWII. What sort of free market removes price from the equation? Consumers are incapable of making rational market decisions without price signals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 There was nothing preventing insurers from offering their products in any state in the Union prior to the ACA. They simply chose not to. Getting 50 states' worth of doctor networks signed up and prices agreed upon is a serious undertaking. Doctors are in the same boat. They're already swimming in different paperwork requirements for the dozens of insurance companies sold in their states, how could they keep up with the same for every insurer in the country? Our system was/is inefficient and needs a massive overhaul, not just more choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Tiger_88 417 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 tying insurance to employment and to networks and states are the problem. There are a ton of different regulations in each state and if you buy in one state it may not work in another because of out of network etc...Why can't I be able to pay cash and get a discount. Doctors should have to advertise their prices, they should be prosecuted when they upcharge constantly as it raises the cost, trial lawyers should be taken out of the equation. There are ways to drive the cost of health care down (i.e. charging 5-10 bucks for an aspirin is criminal but ok for hospitals to do it, if other businesses pulled this crap they would be bankrupt, sued or be out of business). When you have pharma setting the prices of drugs fine but then they are allowed to keep them there for years but sell it in another country for a lot less, if they are allowed to sell it less in other countries, I should be able to buy it there and ship it here and resale it for less but since they have hands in the pocket of politicians, that is against the law because "We don't know what they put into their drugs over there" Are you kidding me it is the same drug....until we get smart people who really care about putting in an efficient system that is fair to all (not something that is determined by who pays or free health care) this system that we have and will have and has had since post WWII will be corrupt, and not efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The traditional first NH votes are in. Dixville Notch has 9 votes. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4745708536001/voters-in-dixville-notch-cast-first-ballots-of-nh-primary/?intcmp=hpbt1#sp=show-clips If you don't want to watch the whole video here are how the 9 votes were cast. Kasich--3 Trump--2 Sanders--4 Hillary was shut out. Yea!!!! "Bernie supporters are just not thinking" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 tying insurance to employment and to networks and states are the problem. It isn't tied to states. As I said, any insurance company that wants to can do business in any state in the country. They make those choices, not the states. But I agree on decoupling health insurance from employers. There are a ton of different regulations in each state and if you buy in one state it may not work in another because of out of network etc While this is a problem, how do you solve it outside of overriding all state regs with federal ones that apply to all states? Is that even constitutional? How do you decide whose regulations are best...the states with more safeguards or less? The ones with more accountability or less? ...Why can't I be able to pay cash and get a discount. Many places you can. People are just so used to paying a copay and filing with insurance they don't realize you can often negotiate a cash discount if you pay out of pocket. Doctors should have to advertise their prices, they should be prosecuted when they upcharge constantly as it raises the cost, trial lawyers should be taken out of the equation. I agree, especially hospitals, should have clearly posted and understandable price lists. Not sure what you're referring to on the latter part though. There are ways to drive the cost of health care down (i.e. charging 5-10 bucks for an aspirin is criminal but ok for hospitals to do it, if other businesses pulled this crap they would be bankrupt, sued or be out of business). When you have pharma setting the prices of drugs fine but then they are allowed to keep them there for years but sell it in another country for a lot less, if they are allowed to sell it less in other countries, I should be able to buy it there and ship it here and resale it for less but since they have hands in the pocket of politicians, that is against the law because "We don't know what they put into their drugs over there" Are you kidding me it is the same drug....until we get smart people who really care about putting in an efficient system that is fair to all (not something that is determined by who pays or free health care) this system that we have and will have and has had since post WWII will be corrupt, and not efficient. I don't disagree with any of this, but the same people who oppose single-payer health care also tend to oppose measures like purchasing prescription medications from other countries for less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 The whole system is rigged, especially on the Democratic side. In spite of getting trounced in NH, Hillary walked out with 9 more delegates than Bernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.