Will you vote for the not-Trump candidate, whoever he is?

Yeah it's fine. It's healthcare, and so Obama's plan to increase coverage was mildly positive while Trump's plan to reduce Medicare payments and lower Medicaid funding could be bad if he has his way. The demand for lifesaving healthcare will be there with or without Trump. Probably fewer but more complicated cases if republicans win (less coverage, so instead of getting screened people present with horrible cancers), and more but less complicated cases if democrats win.

 

So, government subsidies to medical care are pivotal to your taking part in this economic boom? Are you in a situation where those will make or break you?

 

The most politically expedient way to reduce funding to medicare is to reduce payments to providers, and it means working for less money. For Medicaid when it gets really bad providers stop accepting it, but medicare is too big of a payer for that for most providers. It depends on how steep cuts are, really. Excessive cuts to medicare reimbursement could make private hospitals/groups go under, particularly in rural areas, but I'm not sure what the situation will be as I'm moving to a new practice this summer and it's not determined yet whether it will be a rural private practice or an urban public one. I have an offer on one of them already though.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/why-rural-hospitals-are-closing.html

 

Do you really think that there is a right way to provide medical care by force of law?

 

If Tulsi Gabbard become a potent candidate, she would be my angel.

 

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

 

Considering that at least half of our leftists are perfectly willing to vote for a known Marxist and the other half are just fine with a bigoted, racist, misogynist, oligarchy minded billionaire openly trying to buy the Dem Party's nomination, I think that the answer to your question is a resounding . . . YES!

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean. In what way and against whom?

 

Yes, from a simple citizens wish of course of having a very wonderful leader someday. It will not be easy for her as well but I have a good hunch she is also a darling of the GOP's, the obstacle is how she would represent herself for both parties.

 

Anything done by government is done by force of law. Government has a compulsory nature. Do you think that there are things that should not be done by compulsion? Do you think that there are things that cannot be done by compulsion?

 

Laura 2024

 

You just seem to want wealth redistribution because you think it will raise the standard of average Americans whose standard is already on the rise.

 

in 2016 dems lost because of the division, Bernie voters did not bother to vote

if Bernie gets the most votes and delegates and still loses the primary, Trump will win again

 

we are just tired of the wealth distribution the right wants all going to the rich

the debt is higher then it's ever been under Trump, and he still gave the mega corps a mega tax cut... the people should have got the mega tax cut

you just seem to want the rich to get richer on the backs of the working class, when the working class does better... we all do better and that includes the rich

 

Your degree of failure is no measure of what I'm responsible for,
and my degree of success is no measure of what you're entitled to.

 

I'm more libertarian on social issues such as drug use and guns. But healthcare delivery is an area suitable for government. I don't think the individual mandate is an effective method. Better to use general taxation. People can't be left to avoid having health coverage because they assumed they wouldn't need it while young, for example. Why? Because if they get sick we shouldn't let them die in the streets, but taking care of their minor problems in the ER or their neglected major problems in the ER is inefficient and it hurts the rest of us when they receive inefficient care that they can't pay for. The ER is a resource intensive setting meant for real emergencies, NOT backup care for the uninsured.

Healthcare is a right because health is required to enjoy any other rights. It wasn't relevant until about 100 years ago since healthcare wasn't effective before. The government should protect that right.

 

Trump is a dumb ******* and we could not possibly do worse. So I will vote for whoever runs against him. Hell, I even voted for Hillary last time. She may be a dumb bitch but next to Trump she's a genius.

 

Don't have an idol. I defend no one, I stated facts. Funny that you should color facts as defending someone, says a bit about you.

There are laws, and assuming someone is an illegal alien will land you in very hot water. You have to prove they are illegal. If they have ID's that pass muster, you cannot assume they are illegal.

If that is a problem for you, then you might want to rethink your career.

 

Funny way of "not defending" someone you have. Some might confuse your defense of Trump hiring illegals throughout his life with "defending" him

So you believe that the only way there is to find out if somebody is an illegal alien or not is to "assume" that they are. You accused me of not knowing how the hiring process works (of something to that effect). Here you demonstrate that you are the one who doesn't know. Next time you might want to find out. Lookup E-Verify, for example. And don't bother claiming now you knew about it. Your "assuming" sentence is the clearest indication that you had no idea.

 

Where did I 'defend' him? I stated facts, for all I know Trump's hiring people didn't follow laws. Again, stating facts is not defending someone, but you already knew that.

LOL! Don't I wish I didn't deal with it on a regular basis. I deal with e-verify, tentative non-confirmations, I-9's and visual identification process (when available). What I stated regarding 'assuming' they are or are not is for those who do not use either SSA verification, e-verify, or other methods. Just because someone doesn't speak fluent English, has a darker skin tone than a Anglo-Saxon or has a name that is culturally different than their appearance, to automatically assume they are illegal, is ILLEGAL. Apparently you aren't as sharp on certain subjects to not understand that.

Why would this be a discussion point, if he wasn't using it? (Aha! There you go, salivate, I actually said something you can put on your list as 'defending Trump!!!)
https://www.openonline.com/Resource...p-administration-calls-for-mandatory-e-verify

 

That is a fact. They didn't follow laws. But it's the first time you have said. it.

Yeah.... funny though.... How it "slipped your mind" until I mentioned it.

 

Please provide proof of that 'fact', since I've already searched and found nothing definitive as to their hiring practices in regards to e-verify or SSA validation.

Nothing on that subject 'slipped my mind'. Have I relayed what my shoe size is? After all, it may be pertinent at some point, and you might hold me accountable as it 'slipped my mind' to not have relayed it sooner....

 

Proof of which "fact". I have no idea what their "hiring practices" are in regards to e-verify. I only know they hire illegal aliens. It's what I've been saying. And what you seemed to agree with in your previous post. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Correction to your statement. Not 'hire', but 'hired'.

I did not agree that they knowingly hired illegal aliens. If you are involved in hiring as you claim you are, then you would comprehend how many ways an illegal can (and do) appear to be legal with appropriate documentation. Of course, the further you go up the socio-economic labor ladder, the less chance that an illegal alien would present themselves as a candidate.

So bottom line is, you don't know what methods were used to validate the citizenship status of the people hired, if any at all. The difference being, you automatically assume that it was intentional, which exposes your lack of experience in hiring at the baseline of businesses. I question what methods were used to verify, ask if they used those methods, and how the illegal individual presented themselves, before assessing guilt.

Do you see the difference?