Presidential Elections

[Kenkoko]

I agree Healthcare would play a major role in this upcoming election. Biden's vague about the specifics but definitely a step in the right direction.

What happened to Obamacare?  Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises?  Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?

This reads like a not in good faith rhetorical question, but I will answer it in case I'm wrong.

Obamacare is what it is today because both parties had their hands on it. Obama had to walk back a lot of elements to get GOP on board.

I care very little for partisan politics. It doesn't matter who you blame or who you want to "trust" with healthcare. It will collapse in its current form, and Covid just sped up that collapse.

Should we wait until private insurance premium skyrocket 40% next year to come together and change? I rather not.

 

[Liar Loan]

I agree Healthcare would play a major role in this upcoming election. Biden's vague about the specifics but definitely a step in the right direction.

What happened to Obamacare?  Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises?  Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?

This reads like a not in good faith rhetorical question, but I will answer it in case I'm wrong.

Obamacare is what it is today because both parties had their hands on it. Obama had to walk back a lot of elements to get GOP on board.

I care very little for partisan politics. It doesn't matter who you blame or who you want to "trust" with healthcare. It will collapse in its current form, and Covid just sped up that collapse.

Should we wait until private insurance premium skyrocket 40% next year to come together and change? I rather not.

I disagree.  Obama did not get the GOP on board, as it was passed without any Republican votes!  They got exactly what they wanted, and it has been abandoned by the party after less than 10 years.

There's no reason to think that socialized medicine will succeed any better under Democrats.  Why should we trust them with healthcare again?

 

[eyephone]

I agree Healthcare would play a major role in this upcoming election. Biden's vague about the specifics but definitely a step in the right direction.

What happened to Obamacare?  Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises?  Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?

This reads like a not in good faith rhetorical question, but I will answer it in case I'm wrong.

Obamacare is what it is today because both parties had their hands on it. Obama had to walk back a lot of elements to get GOP on board.

I care very little for partisan politics. It doesn't matter who you blame or who you want to "trust" with healthcare. It will collapse in its current form, and Covid just sped up that collapse.

Should we wait until private insurance premium skyrocket 40% next year to come together and change? I rather not.

I disagree.  Obama did not get the GOP on board, as it was passed without any Republican votes!  They got exactly what they wanted, and it has been abandoned by the party after less than 10 years.

There's no reason to think that socialized medicine will succeed any better under Democrats.  Why should we trust them with healthcare again?

It%u2019s obvious Trump is not doing a good job with health care.
Also, he does not respond to my post. Because I am way smarter. He always runs away and loses big time against me.

 

[Kenkoko]

There's no reason to think that socialized medicine will succeed any better under Democrats.  Why should we trust them with healthcare again?

The only obvious solution to not having huge rate hikes in private insurance premiums next year is a bailout.

But you're against bailouts. So just watch the system collapse?

 

[eyephone]

There's no reason to think that socialized medicine will succeed any better under Democrats.  Why should we trust them with healthcare again?

The only obvious solution to not having huge rate hikes in private insurance premiums next year is a bailout.

But you're against bailouts. So just watch the system collapse?

The whole GOP party is circular they are against and for it. It goes in a circle.

 

[sgip]

Kenkoko, I remain confused here....

Personally, I would be a financial loser in Yang's UBI / VAT. But I agree in principle that you consume more, you should pay more. It make sense to me both environmentally and economically. We shouldn't discourage thing we want more of like income. We should discourage consumption by making people pay their fair share because their consumption has environmental impact and strain on public infrastructure.

You can't have a VAT to make people who consume more, pay more, then ask that we consume less because of the strain on infrastructure.

Anywhere VAT is in place, the prices of consumer goods go up. VAT steals from these folks.
UBI takes this stolen money and "gives it back".

In other words: May I come to your house and ransack it? I promise to return the next day to re-sell all your goods back to you at a reasonable price.

Also with the "fair share", take your income and donate 10% of your net back to the Federal and State government  as I believe that's your fair share. Is this right for me to command this? No. Then please do this voluntarily.....  which isn't right either. "Fairness" is rarely something a Government is capable of determining.

 

[Kenkoko]

SGIP, I apologize for not elaborating further. VAT is highly tailor-able and is tailored in most of Asian countries and throughout Europe.

Many countries exempt VAT or have lower rates on consumer staples and jack it up high on luxury goods and environmentally non-friendly goods. For example, France has 2-5% VAT on food items, 10% on general goods, and 20% on luxury goods like Yachts.  That does discourage Yacht buying or at least forces Yacht buyers "to pay their fair share" while lowering VAT's impact on normal people.

You're not wrong in your example about money taken and given back. But it's better than taxing income and then waste a good % on bureaucracy to run mean tested welfare.

As to your 10% "fair share" argument, I am with you if it's like our current setup, taxing income.

Am I OK with it, if it's changed to 10% of my consumption instead of income ? Yes I am.

 

[Liar Loan]

There's no reason to think that socialized medicine will succeed any better under Democrats.  Why should we trust them with healthcare again?

The only obvious solution to not having huge rate hikes in private insurance premiums next year is a bailout.

But you're against bailouts. So just watch the system collapse?

Obamacare has failed in other words?

 

[sgip]

And there it is....

We as plebs do not get a say in what works and what doesn't. We're "trusting" that a benevolent government will make the right decisions here. What if they say 10% isn't "fair enough".... If you have that level of trust, hats off to you. Most people do not share that kind of confidence in the government - be they on the Right or the Left.

Am I OK with it, if it's changed to 10% of my consumption instead of income ? Yes I am.

If someone wants to radically overhaul a government system of income redistribution, please demonstrate a willingness to embrace it right now, today even, and begin paying this level of taxation all on your own. There is little if anything stopping someone from taking the initiative immediately.... Other than the usual "Do as I say, not as I do" approach - a reliable human impulse in matters of money.

That's the issue with theories like this. Most will say it looks good (Elizabeth Warren..... yes, I'm pointing at you...) but not put it into practice. Other's like Andrew Yang will call it something that it's not, His present thinking he calls UBI, but as it's known here on Planet Reality - Private Charity - a system that works just fine without government meddling.

My .02c

 

[Kenkoko]

And there it is....

We as plebs do not get a say in what works and what doesn't. We're "trusting" that a benevolent government will make the right decisions here. What if they say 10% isn't "fair enough".... If you have that level of trust, hats off to you. Most people do not share that kind of confidence in the government - be they on the Right or the Left.

Am I OK with it, if it's changed to 10% of my consumption instead of income ? Yes I am.

If someone wants to radically overhaul a government system of income redistribution, please demonstrate a willingness to embrace it right now, today even, and begin paying this level of taxation all on your own. There is little if anything stopping someone from taking the initiative immediately.... Other than the usual "Do as I say, not as I do" approach - a reliable human impulse in matters of money.

That's the issue with theories like this. Most will say it looks good (Elizabeth Warren..... yes, I'm pointing at you...) but not put it into practice. Other's like Andrew Yang will call it something that it's not, His present thinking he calls UBI, but as it's known here on Planet Reality - Private Charity - a system that works just fine without government meddling.

My .02c

I don't quite understand your disagreement. I think we ended a discussion on UBI on similar points last time too. Maybe you can elaborate a little.

I think you are talking about additional taxation without UBI. I don't support that, neither does Yang. I mean would the GOP pass any huge tax increase like a VAT without UBI? Of course not. So I don't really understand your argument.

To be clear, I don't support UBI funded by income tax. I only support UBI funded by a VAT.

Because it takes the government out of people's lives. Even conservative economist like Mankiw agrees on this specific point.

In a system with UBI, funded by VAT, your consumption dictates whether you're a net winner or a net loser. You have control how much you spend. If you spend lavishly, you will pay more in VAT than you take in from your UBI checks.

I don't understand how this equates to any private charity. I donated to Yang's Humanity Forward charity that's funding mini UBI trials. Does that count?

 

[Kenkoko]

Obamacare has failed in other words?

If you want to play the blame game, sure.

It failed to take the for profit element out of our healthcare system. It failed to rein in pharma costs that's making all of us miserable.

But I'm not going to pretend it wasn't an improvement to what we had prior to Obamacare. I never understood how anyone can justify supporting insurance companies kicking people off due to pre-existing conditions or letting people die because they hit their life time med cap.

But maybe you can enlighten me.

And frankly I am more concerned about real problems like shortages of doctors.
Even before the coronavirus pandemic, we?ve had a massive shortage of doctors due to the American Medical Association lobbying Congress for years to limit residency training spots.

The shortage of healthcare professionals during a pandemic is much more worrisome than the shortage of PPE, medications, or even ventilators.
Our graduate medical education system is completely broken.

Established doctors have benefited from the limited supply of physicians because it increases their compensation and influence. So you rarely, if ever, hear doctors complaining about the physician shortage.

 

[eyephone]

I guess I found another analysis to counter your claim.

ABC News: Did Trump try to cut the CDC's budget as Democrats claim?: ANALYSIS

An ABC News analysis of the president%u2019s budget proposals compared to the congressionally approved spending plans ultimately enacted show both claims are true.

The president introduced his fiscal year 2021 budget proposal on Feb. 10, just 11 days after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concerns. The spending plan included a 16 percent reduction in CDC funding from the 2020 spending levels.

In fact, all of Trump%u2019s budget proposals have called for cuts to CDC funding, but Congress has intervened each time by passing spending bills with year-over-year increases for the CDC that Trump then signed into law.

Asked about the criticism at a House budget hearing Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said that, %u201Cduring the president%u2019s tenure, every part of our preparedness and infectious disease program activity has been enhanced and expanded.%u201D

Azar went on the say the president%u2019s budget proposals are just the jumping-off point for budget negotiations.

%u201CBudgets are like the first move in a chess game with, I%u2019ll be honest, a fairly profligate Congress,%u201D Azar said. %u201CAnd the president starts that move with a budget knowing that we%u2019re going to get a lot higher there as we work with Congress.%u201D

As health officials gear up to confront a potential outbreak, the administration is asking Congress to authorize an additional $2.5 billion in supplemental funding for 2020 aimed at accelerating vaccine development and other containment measures. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has suggested that figure is not sufficient, and Congress should allocate an additional $8.5 billion for fighting coronavirus.

But it%u2019s not just the president%u2019s budget proposals that are under the microscope as fears of a new coronavirus outbreak mount. Bloomberg also took aim at Trump for eliminating a position from the National Security Council responsible for coordinating administration efforts to combat infectious disease.

%u201CThe president fired the pandemic specialist in this country two years ago,%u201D Bloomberg said. %u201CSo, there's nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing.%u201D

In 2018, Trump administration eliminated the position of senior director for global health security and biodefense as part of a broader downsizing of the NSC spearheaded by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. Earlier this month, 27 Democratic senators sent a letter to current National Security Adviser Robert O%u2019Brien urging him to reinstate the position and asking him to clarify how the White House plans to handle global health security threats.

The senators requested a response by Feb. 27, but the NSC did meet that deadline, nor did it respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Retired Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer held the position of senior director for global health security and biodefense on the NSC from April 2017 to July 2018. He previously coordinated the President%u2019s Malaria Initiative under President George W. Bush, and is now the senior deputy assistant administrator for the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Cutbacks at that agency under the Trump administration are also receiving new scrutiny.

Last year, the USAID program known as PREDICT was shuttered. The initiative was launched in 2009 and designed to improve the %u201Cdetection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential.%u201D The program is credited with identifying nearly a thousand new zoonotic viruses, which are transmitted between animals and humans, and influencing the response effort currently being employed to combat the coronavirus, which is a zoonotic infection

Earlier this month, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sent a letter to the head of USAID asking him to reinstate the program in light of the spread of coronavirus.

%u201CThe current deadly viral outbreak and its quick appearance in the United States make clear that PREDICT%u2019s contributions to zoonotic disease surveillance and forecasting must continue,%u201D she wrote. %u201CWe simply cannot afford to go backwards and jeopardize the success we%u2019ve seen over the last ten years.%u201D

The president has defended his administration%u2019s response and preparedness efforts as %u201Cincredible.%u201D On Wednesday, he tapped Vice President Mike Pence to lead a coronavirus task force formed late last month that was being led by Azar. Other members of the task force include NSA O%u2019Brien, CDC Director Robert Redfield, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-cut-cdcs-budget-democrats-claim-analysis/story?id=69233170

1. The President called for cuts to the budget but congress intervened. It is a jumping point for negotiations? That%u2019s what the health and human services secretary said in front of congress. In other words, Lets make a deal? Lol

2. In 2018, Trump administration eliminated the position of senior director for global health security and biodefense as part of a broader downsizing of the NSC spearheaded by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. Sounds like downsizing to me aka eliminating a position. Yo 

I think the unemployment was inevitable.

We can%u2019t flatten the curve if we don%u2019t keep people from gathering.

What could have been done differently where places didn%u2019t have to close?

I was just saying his inaction and congratulation to China President led the this to  mass unemployment and recession.

I disagree. The pandemic and the call for social distancing caused unemployment. That was going to happen regardless of who was in office. Please don't mix the two.

Lets save money and cut the disease team budget with the CDC.  (It is not that easy)

So I'm starting to fact check these statements and I found this:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-cut-cdc-budget/?collection-id=242252

Although it%u2019s true that Trump%u2019s fiscal year 2021 budget proposal does propose a funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that budget has not been enacted.

As The Washington Post explains, those funding cuts target the CDC%u2019s chronic disease activities:

So the cuts were aimed not at pandemics but chronic diseases like diabetes etc.

HHS officials said they want the CDC to focus on its core mission of preventing and controlling infectious diseases and on other emerging public health issues, such as opioid abuse.

So not only did they want the CDC to focus on things like coronavirus but also your other hot issue of opioid abuse.

The site also states that Trump *increased" CDC funding for global disease detection:

Also in 2018, news reports circulated about an 80% reduction in the CDC%u2019s program that worked in various countries to fight epidemics. That was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding. But those budget cuts ultimately didn%u2019t happen, CDC told FactCheck.org, because Congress provided other funding. For fiscal year 2021, President Trump has requested that CDC funding for global disease detection and other programs be increased further %u2014 to $225 million total, with $175 million going directly to global health security.%u201D

Again, I don't like Trump, but I also know that people tend to just hear what they want to hear (and this goes for both sides).

 

[sgip]

I want my medical practices to profit. I want my pharma's to profit. If they don't profit, how will dividends get paid? Where's the investing value if the mob carves out all the value in a company? Many retireees depend on companies making money so they can receive dividend income. Are we asking to take that away?

We can agree that pricing of drugs isn't what it could be. That's why people go to Mexico or Canada for their pharma. Seemingly odd though that many people from Socialized Medicine nation groups tend to come here to the United States - land of money grubbing capitalism - to get their medical needs taken care of. Odd, don't you think?

The shortage of doctors has nothing to do with the AMA. Look at the hurdles it takes to get an MD:

Decades of schooling
Years of residency
Starting your medical employment with hundreds of thousands in student loans
If you decide to start your own practice, the costs and staffing associated is staggering
The ever present threat of litigation - some real, most frivilous.

Once all this is overcome you have "medicare for all" which really means a significant pay cut OR tripling your workload to achieve the same income level you had before.

I'm not a medical professional, but I've worked with many dozens of Doctors over the years. They aren't the riches folks on the block as one might mistakenly believe. Some specialized fields pay very well - plastic surgery for example - which is why you see so many of them instead of GP/Family Practice doctors which we need.

The shortage isn't artificially created by an employer group. It's caused by extraordinarly expensive schooling, litigation, and low pay. Yes, low pay. The solution isn't 100 percent clear on creating more Doctors, but reducing pay and increasing case load by socializing the practice of medicine is a fools bargain.

My .02c

 

[sgip]

Humanity Forward isn't UBI - a government wealth distribution scheme. Humanity Forward is a private wealth distribution system - a charity. I'm all for it, as that's what private charity has been doing for centuries.

Asking the Government to structure UBI assumes they will have your better interests at heart. If you want UBI administered by the Government, one can do that right now! Overpay your State and Federal taxes. It doesn't have to be income tax. It can be property tax. It can be a debt reduction contribution. Both the State and the Feds will take your voluntary payments at any time, for any reason. They have a version of UBI - TANF, SSI, Section 8, Earned Income Credits, SNAP, and a host of other pre-existing options that need your money now!

If one isn't ready to open their wallet and give money to the Government, it calls into question their belief that the Government is actually capable of managing it correctly - which is why I don't listen to people who refuse to take this step. Actions always speak louder than words.

We've watched and waited 200 years for the Government to perfect the simple task of mail delivery.  How is that working out? Yet we are to believe they are capable of structuring a sustainable version of UBI?

My .02c

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I shouldn't be replying to this but your own post just confirmed what I said, while they did request budget cuts to the CDC 2021 budget, which were not enacted on by Congress, and more importantly, the cuts were to the chronic disease spending, they wanted to put more focus and money on infectious/global diseases (and opioid abuse). Your own article states that the administration asked for more money for

As health officials gear up to confront a potential outbreak, the administration is asking Congress to authorize an additional $2.5 billion in supplemental funding for 2020 aimed at accelerating vaccine development and other containment measures. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has suggested that figure is not sufficient, and Congress should allocate an additional $8.5 billion for fighting coronavirus.

1. The President called for cuts to the budget but congress intervened. It is a jumping point for negotiations? That%u2019s what the health and human services secretary said in front of congress. In other words, Lets make a deal? Lol

Again, from what I read, proposed 2021 cuts were not for infectious disease and pandemics.

2. In 2018, Trump administration eliminated the position of senior director for global health security and biodefense as part of a broader downsizing of the NSC spearheaded by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. Sounds like downsizing to me aka eliminating a position. Yo 

This is true somewhat, and I mentioned this in my previous post. But while the position was eliminated after Ziemer left, they chose to try to re-organize internally than replace those positions:

Did Donald Trump fire pandemic officials, defund CDC?
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...nald-trump-fire-pandemic-officials-defund-cd/

"He fired the pandemic team two years ago"
"Fired" may be a strong word, but there have been abrupt changes to key national security posts with responsibility for global pandemics. More recently the administration has assigned new officials to take leadership roles.

In May 2018, the top White House official in charge of the U.S. response to pandemics left the administration. Rear Admiral Timothy Ziemer was the senior director of global health and biodefense on the National Security Council and oversaw global health security issues, a specialty that had been bolstered under President Barack Obama.

After Ziemer?s departure, the global health team was reorganized as part of an effort by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. Meanwhile, Tom Bossert, a homeland security adviser who recommended strong defenses against disease and biological warfare, was reportedly pushed out by Bolton in 2018. Neither White House official or their teams, which were responsible for coordinating the U.S. response to pandemic outbreaks across agencies, have been replaced during the past two years.

That article also mentions that in the past, even though Trump has been proposing lower budgets for the CDC, the spending has actually increase each year for infectious diseases (thanks to Congress... not Trump):

"He's been defunding Centers for Disease Control."
It?s not accurate to say that Trump has been "defunding" the CDC, but he has tried to make cuts in key programs. It?s just that Congress didn?t listen.

The Trump administration?s initial proposals for the budgets for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases at CDC ? a key player in the fight against coronavirus ? have consistently been lower than what was spent the previous year.

The administration proposed $61.7 million less in 2018 than 2017; $96.4 million less in 2019 than in 2018; $114.4 million less in 2020 than in 2019; and $85.3 million less in 2021 than 2020.

However, Congress reshapes presidential recommendations as they see fit when they craft final spending bills.

Every year since Trump has been president, lawmakers have passed bills ? bills signed by Trump ? that not only exceeded what Trump requested on emerging infections but also exceeded what had been spent the previous year.

As the chart below shows, funding increased every year from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2020. (We have not included the 2017 proposal, since that was submitted by the Obama administration. The figures for 2020 are preliminary.)

Check the link to see the image but while Trump kept proposing lower budgets, the reality is the CDC budget for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases actually increased every year (again, due to Congress).

So what Trump wanted to do, but eventually ended up doing (because he did have to sign Congress's increased proposal to enact it) was increase CDC's budget. So, yes, he did want to cut CDC spending... but no... it was not cut but actually increased.

It?s important to note that Trump has asked Congress for a $2.5 billion supplemental budget to help combat the emergence of this coronavirus. House Democrats quickly said the amount was insufficient to meet current threats, and Trump said he was willing to seek more if lawmakers were willing.

In addition, the Trump campaign pointed to consistent funding for certain budget sub-categories, such as CDC?s public health emergency preparedness, which helps states and localities deal with public health emergencies, including outbreaks. That program suffered funding losses that predate Trump.

Our ruling
Bloomberg said Trump is hampered in the fight against coronavirus because "No. 1, he fired the pandemic team two years ago. No. 2, he's been defunding Centers for Disease Control."

On the first point, it?s hard to pin down whether the National Security Council staffers were "fired" in 2018, but they certainly left abruptly and have not been replaced, though other leaders in the coronavirus fight have been named in recent days.

On the second point ? funding ? there?s no question that the Trump administration sought to cut key CDC budget categories that would be involved in emerging infections like coronavirus. But Bloomberg overlooks that, thanks to Congress, that funding was restored and even increased in bills that were ultimately signed by Trump.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.

This is what I mean by it's important to know all the nuances rather than just a blanket statement. Now, hopefully what Politifact says is true (who fact checks the fact checkers?), as I question whether the pandemic team "left" or were forced out. I tend to side with the latter because if someone says they are cutting your budget... wouldn't you find another position?

But my focus was initially on the claim of cut CDC spending, which seems is not true. In the past, they proposed cuts, but Congress actually increased them. For 2021, Trump tried to cut chronic disease budgets (not infectious), but that has not happened either.

 

[Kenkoko]

I want my medical practices to profit. I want my pharma's to profit. If they don't profit, how will dividends get paid? Where's the investing value if the mob carves out all the value in a company? Many retireees depend on companies making money so they can receive dividend income. Are we asking to take that away?

We can agree that pricing of drugs isn't what it could be. That's why people go to Mexico or Canada for their pharma. Seemingly odd though that many people from Socialized Medicine nation groups tend to come here to the United States - land of money grubbing capitalism - to get their medical needs taken care of. Odd, don't you think?

The shortage of doctors has nothing to do with the AMA. Look at the hurdles it takes to get an MD:

Decades of schooling
Years of residency
Starting your medical employment with hundreds of thousands in student loans
If you decide to start your own practice, the costs and staffing associated is staggering
The ever present threat of litigation - some real, most frivilous.

Once all this is overcome you have "medicare for all" which really means a significant pay cut OR tripling your workload to achieve the same income level you had before.

I'm not a medical professional, but I've worked with many dozens of Doctors over the years. They aren't the riches folks on the block as one might mistakenly believe. Some specialized fields pay very well - plastic surgery for example - which is why you see so many of them instead of GP/Family Practice doctors which we need.

The shortage isn't artificially created by an employer group. It's caused by extraordinarly expensive schooling, litigation, and low pay. Yes, low pay. The solution isn't 100 percent clear on creating more Doctors, but reducing pay and increasing case load by socializing the practice of medicine is a fools bargain.

My .02c

You are arguing for the best scenario in a for profit system. Sure, in a for profit system I'd want that too. But that is not the only way to run healthcare.

The Cleveland clinic is not a for profit system and they pays doctors a flat salary regardless of the numbers of procedures performed. Guess what? They performed less procedures and have far better patient outcome than industry norm.

When you properly aligned physicians incentives to patients health by taking away the for profit motive, we all win. Roughly 30% of what we spend in healthcare today is waste.

I agree with what you pointed out as contributing factors to why we have a doctor shortage. But those are not the most direct one.

The most direct one can be examined by simple math.

There?s a deadly pyramid scheme in America. We graduate far more medical students than there are residency positions for them. This creates a dire physician shortage because there are always others waiting in line.

I disagree with your assessment on AMA. They are not an employer group.
They are a special interest lobbying effort. They are consistently in the top 50 in term of yearly lobbying spending. They spend over 20 millions dollars lobbying Congress last year.
Even right wing media like Washington Examiner called them out on this.

 

[eyephone]

The budget that he sent to congress was to cut CDC budget.

He got rid of the position that was part of the NSC. (US National Security Council) position of senior director for global health security and biodefense as part of a broader downsizing of the NSC spearheaded by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Trump thinks he can be a secret agent, health expert, disease expert, but he is not. Like a small business owner handles the cash, host, server, and sometimes quasi cook. Lol
Trump needs to trust the people under him aka the experts. This is why we are in this position.

 

[Kenkoko]

Asking the Government to structure UBI assumes they will have your better interests at heart. If you want UBI administered by the Government, one can do that right now! Overpay your State and Federal taxes. It doesn't have to be income tax. It can be property tax. It can be a debt reduction contribution. Both the State and the Feds will take your voluntary payments at any time, for any reason. They have a version of UBI - TANF, SSI, Section 8, Earned Income Credits, SNAP, and a host of other pre-existing options that need your money now!

If one isn't ready to open their wallet and give money to the Government, it calls into question their belief that the Government is actually capable of managing it correctly - which is why I don't listen to people who refuse to take this step. Actions always speak louder than words.

We've watched and waited 200 years for the Government to perfect the simple task of mail delivery.  How is that working out? Yet we are to believe they are capable of structuring a sustainable version of UBI?

My .02c

This is where you lost me.

A government UBI funded by VAT promotes individual autonomy, significantly reduces bureaucracy. This isn't really a debate either. Conservatives like Mankiw, Ben Shapiro, and Milton Friedman acknowledged this specific point.

Your argument is really flawed because you failed to account for the change in welfare incentives.

I don't want to pay taxes for more SNAPs because these welfare programs have negative incentives attached to them. More and more people will get trapped over time.

People who opt into UBI  will have to give up their welfare programs like SNAP.  So I want my taxes (VAT) to go fund other people's UBI, so we will all be better off in the future when we can shrink welfare.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Trump thinks he can be a secret agent, health expert, disease expert, but he is not.

This I can totally agree with. He also thinks he's a stable genius.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

The Cleveland clinic is not a for profit system and they pays doctors a flat salary regardless of the numbers of procedures performed. Guess what? They performed less procedures and have far better patient outcome than industry norm.

Just one nitpick that I have with these type of counter points.

Just because it works for a particular clinic in a particular city, does not mean that will work on a broader scale the size of the US.

If I brought up an example of where the opposite works, does this invalidate your point? Just sayin'... no flack here.