What, if anything, will Repubs do to insure or uninsure Americans?

Why? You sure didn't demand that of the Democrats. Let's wait until they pass it to see what is in it.

 

Quote:<<The problem is not the health care system but the payment system (and that's largely the govt).>>

But this assumes everyone has a well-paying job!! (Let's see if we can avoid these circular arguments!).

Note: in this complex modern global economy, as it currently exists, it is not good enough to simply claim that everyone who wants an above-poverty-level job can get one]

 

Democrats weren't taking away insurance from millions of Americans. Republican would do exactly that.

 

The Democrats trashed it, the Republican only pointed it out and there wasn't much good news to be downplay was there everyone knew it sucked and the spin the Democrats were attempting to put on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope they will merely give them something better and give usable insurance back to TENS of millions who lost it under Obamacare and get the cost back down.

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4608699/newt-gingrich-house-passage-nafta

What Is Its History?
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market.


In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. That gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements more freely. That's because it restricts Congressional input to the ability to approve or disapprove. Congress lost the ability to change negotiating points.

Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989. It was suspended when NAFTA was signed since it's no longer needed. (Source: "NAFTA Timeline," NaFina.)

Meanwhile, Mexican President Salinas and President Bush began negotiations for a liberalized trade agreement between the two countries. Prior to NAFTA, Mexican tariffs on U.S. imports were 250 percent higher than U.S. tariffs on Mexican imports. In 1991, Canada requested a trilateral agreement, which then led to NAFTA. In 1993, concerns about the liberalization of labor and environmental regulations led to the adoption of two addendums.

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.


It was finally signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993. It entered force January 1, 1994. Although it was signed by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: "NAFTA Signed into Law," History.com, December 8, 1993.)
https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272

It actually conceptualized from Reagan.

 

'money' is only paper. True value lies in know-how, materials and applied labour coming together to create real wealth. If overseen by a newly constituted IMF, money printing on a global basis implies no relative devaluation of currencies vis a vis one-another, and the massive increase in real global wealth would allow government compensation where or if required.

I recently read an article stating that the paper value of investment in derivatives ALONE is $US1.6 quadrillion, ie, US$1,600 trillion. A lousy additional $100 trillion is not likely to much affect the 'value' (purchasing power) of your Mum's paper dollars.

Meanwhile, the world's richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, virtually all the world's governments are broke and in debt, and needing to borrow from - mainly those 85 individuals?

Something has to give, and Trump was elected for that very reason. If he doen't deliver, he's out!
In this age of upside-down politics in which 'liberal elites' - once upon a time the party of the workers - are blamed for all the dysfunction and ills in the economy, conservatives better start delivering for the working man, and fast!

 

There is no magic wand.

We are in the situation we are in because of democratic policies with trade and focus on welfare and taxing everyone to the point they leave the country.

It will not turn around over-night, and there's nothing and no one that can do that.

The best that can be done is do the hard work to turn things around, and we have a chance to do that now.

 

Free trade from similar economies and living standards is one thing, and is absolutely fine.

However, when a US worker gets paid $15 an hour, and a Mexican worker gets paid $3 an hour, there is no way to compete with that, particularly when we allow US companies to move their plants to those countries.

Open trade with Canada is very different, because they pay their workers similarly to what a US worker would make, therefore there is no desire by US companies to relocate other than taxes and business regulation considerations. Another two things Obama has been smashing US companies with, then acting confused when they leave.

 

Yeah that's not what I said.

Besides, once the wealthy leave the country you'll die anyway.

Obamacare cannot continue under it's own weight, so they'll be dying anyway.

The task is to standardize medical pricing, reduce the monopolies, and reign in pharmaceutical costs. Something Obamacare did nothing about, and even exacerbated.

 

Quote:<<We are in the situation we are in because of democratic policies with trade and focus on welfare and taxing everyone to the point they leave the country.>>

See post #131: the *concept* of NAFTA was begun by Reagan

 

Quote:<<There is no magic wand.>>

Keynes' ideas offer a workable approach to the problem of trade between nations of widely varying resources and capabilities. Here is one economist's take on the present situation and the need to revisit Keynes:

http://www.skidelskyr.com/site/arti...nces-and-international-monetary-reform-today/

Otherwise we face the same old same old - financial dysfunction, futile partisanship, trade and currency wars, entrenched poverty - and unaffordable healthcare.

Your 'hard work', relying *solely* on an an ideology of self-interest, is unlikely to achieve the results so urgently needed.

 

Yes, I know. I said 20 yrs ago when NAFTA took hold that we were in for a painful period.
Our wages will have to fall while the rest of the world wages will have to rise, until an equalibrium is reached.
In the meantime, to not have a flat out depression, companies or gov't were going to have to supplement incomes. Which is why welfare has increased.
All that should have been known by those pushing for free trade agreements.
But mostly this was mutlinational corps for it meant greater profits.
It is the biggest reason I've been against multinational corps and how they are in our gov't hip pockets.

But it's been going on for so long, we aren't turning back globalization. We need to set ourselves up to stay and come out on top.

 

That's one thing that drives me nuts. One shows how it's not 1 party or even 1 prez responsible.
But some have to be so partisan, it doesn't matter. It's why I dislike partisans. They really don't care about America, only their party and blame the other party.

 

Obamacare is (*)(*)(*)(*), and that (*)(*)(*)(*) belongs to Obama.

 

That was a basic reduction in tariffs. It has nothing to do with American companies moving manufacturing to other countries.

- - - Updated - - -

That was a basic reduction in tariffs. It has nothing to do with American companies moving manufacturing to other countries.

 

I didn't know the discussion around free-trade was limited to NAFTA (but
Trump himself recently threatened Detroit companies with tarriffs on their returning products if they moved to Mexico).

You may need to comment on dairyair's post #138:

<<<... I said 20 yrs ago when NAFTA took hold that we were in for a painful period.
Our wages will have to fall while the rest of the world wages will have to rise, until an equalibrium is reached.
In the meantime, to not have a flat out depression, companies or gov't were going to have to supplement incomes. Which is why welfare has increased.
All that should have been known by those pushing for free trade agreements.
But mostly this was mutlinational corps for it meant greater profits.
It is the biggest reason I've been against multinational corps and how they are in our gov't hip pockets.
But it's been going on for so long, we aren't turning back globalization. We need to set ourselves up to stay and come out on top.}}}

Still don't want to look at Keynes? Still want to stick with your "hard work" policies based solely on self-interest?

 

NAFTA was signed and put into effect by Bill Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -

The rest of the world's wages have not risen and will not rise.

 

Quote:<<The rest of the world's wages have not risen and will not rise>>

Certainly wages will not rise with policies based solely on self interest; however many of us can see a better world than the one in which you apparently wish to reside.

{NAFTA signed by Clinton... but conceptualised long before him; it would be good if you read some posts other than your own}

 

i think we might see the first rise in wages in decades under Trump.

 

And that will be a very good thing.

As is Trump's stated campaign position on single-payer, universal health care; the actual position we await with baited breathe.

 

It is not so much the world I want to live in as it is the actual world we do live in. I prefer to be realistic and deal with reality than live in a fantasy world you seem to choose.

So the people who thought of genocide but never did it are worse than say Hitler? Nice logic you got there. I guess you can demonize anyone you choose.

 

It's called a loan. People get them to purchase houses and cars, what's the problem with doing this for medical. I think the biggest problem is the stuff that Americans think they need. Such as a 30,000 to 40,000 dollar vehicle. 60 inch tv, people will even pay 300 to 400 dollars on a phone. We worship at the altar of consumerism, then wonder why we can't afford healthcare. And then pawn it off on the government to take care of.

 

The desires of men!

 

He threatened tariffs on US companies that want to move their plants, not on Mexican companies.

Still want to keep making things up?

 

No, that's not correct.

First, removing the middle man - which is the insurance company and the government - in the payment process reduces medical costs by about one third in private insurance. I'll bet the reduction is even greater when the government is even more involved such as in obamacare, medicare, Medicaid, VA.

That means a huge part of the problem is not medical care itself but the process of operating in the govt and insurance payment and regulatory bureaucracy. Increasing the cost of operating a business drives up the costs for all people seeking care - rich, poor, insured, uninsured.

Second, its clear that the current model of government involvement (medicare, Medicaid, etc) is inefficient and intrusive and drives costs up. More govt involvement is moving in the wrong direction.

Third, reduce the cost of doing business and there is more room for charity - physicians who will increase their donated services.