This is one of the things which was so silly about the idea of the death panels.

We already had them. We have them today. Insurance companies make calls about what is paid for. Transplant boards make decisions about who are more promising candidates for transplants. An alcoholic is less likely to get a liver transplant than someone without that addiction.

Then you’re not talking about taking responsibility for your health outcomes. You’re talking about taking responsibility for other people’s health outcomes.

Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about. When the government pays for your Healthcare, it is taking responsibility for your behavior

The debate right now, first question to Trump, Rubio, and Cruz is basically “Why are you such an asshole?”

I can’t imagine either Cruz or Rubio giving up their delegates to Romney in order to allow him to be nominated. And both of them would have to consent assuming Trump has the plurality.

If we’re getting rid of people who cost us money, i guess we should get rid of all the athletes. I know one young lady that had five knee surgeries because she played soccer in high-school. Her knees are completely shot in her 20s. She’ll probably need them replaced when she’s older. That was bad choice right… out she goes.

Curse those extreme high-school athletes! And also the ballerinas. Foot surgeries galore. But hey, one less mouth to feed is one less mouth to feed.

Agreed. He can’t lose right now. Everything is just confirmation bias.

Maybe I’m less cynical than some of you but I didn’t see it as something he was doing at the behest of the party. I thought it was a man whose political career is over speaking his conscience. Maybe that’s wishful thinking but you have to hope that at some point the floodgates open and prominent Republicans start condemning Trump. Romney will possibly be excoriated in the short term but possibly history will look favorably on him for speaking out.

Everyone forgets that the ACA is based on a Heritage Foundation proposal. The only reason conservatives turned against it was because OBAMA BAD, DEMOCRATS BAD. Which is not to say that it’s a great solution and couldn’t use tweaking or replacing with something better but, again, this was what the conservatives wanted because it protected the insurance companies and the healthcare/medical/pharmaceutical industries.

The problem in the US is that all of the healthcare related industries are run by profit driven corporations and regulatory capture insures that these business models will be preserved. Single payer works great in other places but that’s because in other places the price gouging is not quiet so obscene. (And the price gouging affects the industry as well. Most hospitals are teetering on the edge of financial ruin but that’s because everything costs 30 times what it should.)

Anyway, sorry. People finally stopped talking about healthcare and I dredged it back up. I’ll shut up now.

Wow. The letter is so fucking good:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.

His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.

Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.

Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.

His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.

He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.

His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

“there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs”

Fuck, I lost it.

Everyone keeps bringing up a brokered convention or whatever. That is a load of crap. Your party has let the circus lead to this point, you get to live with it. You either lose to the Democrats and get 4 years to lick your wounds and (try to) fix things, or Trump wins and we won’t have to worry about anything as cultured as an election cycle in 4 years because we’ll all be wondering why our gardens are dead despite our care and attention with copious quantities of Brawndo - it’s what plants crave, after all.

Fox News debate moderators are once again the best.
Wallace to Trump. You claim you’ll save $300 billion in Medicare drug cost because of negotiation, but as this graphic show the total cost of drugs in Medicare is $78 billion, where do you get the money.
Kelly (I think) to Cruz. You talk about you how stood firm with Senator Sessions to stop illegal immigration, but Sen. Sessions just endorsed Trump, if American want Sen. Sessions immigration is the message clear?
Brett to Kasich. You’ve agreed that the only way for you to win the nomination is a via brokered convention, so will you tell your Florida supporters to vote for Rubio?

Plus Wallace has managed to shut up both Rubio and Trump.

If Donald can get 1,237 delegates than he deserves the nomination. But if he continues to get about 1/3 of the vote and 40-45% of the delegates why should the preference of 2/3 of the Republican voters be subverted?

Even the current system went after the idea that people should be excluded due to pre-existing conditions. This was one of the best features of ACA, to get people often excluded from the system who use the ER as their primary source of car because it’s the only room that will take people regardless of cost. But it’s inefficient and expensive that way.

The problem in the US is that all of the healthcare related industries are run by profit driven corporations and regulatory capture insures that these business models will be preserved. Single payer works great in other places but that’s because in other places the price gouging is not quiet so obscene. (And the price gouging affects the industry as well. Most hospitals are teetering on the edge of financial ruin but that’s because everything costs 30 times what it should.)

Anyway, sorry. People finally stopped talking about healthcare and I dredged it back up. I’ll shut up now.

This isn’t only partially true. You’d be amazed at how many healthcare systems and insurance companies are not for profit. Now the suppliers, the drug companies, I’m not sure about. I’m guessing the companies that supply 600 dollar screws for implants are profitable.

 "Deserves" might not be the right word... :)   But as to your question - if 33% of the vote is > than that of the other two (er, three?), then that's still a 'majority'. Or someone(s) could drop out to shore up the votes. But I certainly don't like the idea that "well, this didn't go the way we intended so we're just going to ignore the whole democracy bit and put in whoever we want".

Exactly. If you don’t get half the delegates, you aren’t the nominee.

No, man, that isn’t what majority means.

There’s another word for that. It’s called a plurality.

In the convention it wouldn’t be throwing out democracy. It involves the delegates for those other candidates working out who best represents the wishes of THEIR voters.

Just giving it to a guy who only has a plurality disenfranchises the two thirds of the voters who don’t want Trump.

Abe Lincoln went into the 1860 election trailing William Seward,and trailed him on the 1st ballot. On the second ballot they were virtually tied. By the 3rd ballot Lincoln won. I think the result was pretty good for the party back then, so I don’t fear the process 150 years later.

Too bad there isn’t someone of Loncoln’s caliber in the Republican party these days.

I get what you’re saying but wouldn’t giving it to someone else (Kasich, Rubio) disenfranchise even more than two thirds of the vote? Perhaps people should be allowed to indicate their second choice as well when they vote.

Do the delegates come out of people that actually voted for the candidate or are they party folks? I think when 2nd choice is taken into account Trump does pretty well too. The problem isn’t Trump, the problem is what the party has become.

You are right, that people SHOULD be allowed to have a preferential ballot. It would be infinitely better.

But as it is, your primary vote is for a delegate, and after the first ballot they negotiate with the other delegates try to represent you as best as they can.