Magox

No, but this qualifies as trolling:

No

Good, you'll get another shot to be a supporter of his in 2020. My guess is that Cruz will also make another run at it

You're kinda nutty

Scott Walker was on my short list going into this year, successful reform minded governor. Knows how to get things done, so practically speaking I think he would be a good president, however he did show himself to be a not so great campaigner. Made a lot of gaffes this year, so he'd have to straighten that out. This is a good profile of Mitch. Substantively speaking, as much as I thought Mitt would have been a really good president, but Mitch Daniels I would say may be the most qualified person to be president of the United States. Loads of experience through almost all levels of government and the private sector, wildly successful track record, he passed a number of meaningful reforms, ex head of OMB, was the president of some good think tanks. I just don't get why he didn't run in 2012.

If Trump doesn't win on the first ballot or comes within 50 or so to get him a second ballot win, I'm thinking Cruz probably gets it. But if it were to linger on to the 4th ballot and it seemed clear that neither Trump nor Cruz were going to get the delegates needed to secure the nomination, who would you like to see drafted? I think I'd like to see Mitch Daniels. Has a phenomenal record, enacted a number of meaningful and successful reforms, well-respected, always wins and my guess is that he would absolutely destroy Hillary Clinton in a general election match up.

I will say this, even though Climate change ranks near the bottom of people's priorities in most polls, it is an important issue for many leftists, specially the millennials. I see it every day in social media, it's a big issue for these people So there seems to be a disconnect between what polling data indicates and what I actually see. I've put some thought into this, not just in Climate change but also issues like immigration. If you ask Republicans where do they prioritize immigration, typically in polling data very few people list is as their #1 priority. However, the intensity of the argument and how much it dominates conversation and lines of attack in a GOP primary seem to contradict the polling data on that issue. My theory is that topics such as Climate change, immigration, gay marriage aren't things that most people say are their top priorities, but that in reality they are litmus test issues for these people. So while they may state in a poll that they aren't at the top of their list, if a candidate doesn't line up with them on these issues, they are crossed off as a potential candidate they can get behind.

The only way the Bills entertain an offer to trade Tyrod is if they are out of the playoff hunt and T.T has a relatively similar season as last year.

If the Bills really like Cardale Jones, the question is do you roll the dice and try to draft him with your 3rd round choice, or do they just select him with their 2nd round choice or some sort of a trade up in between their 2nd and 3rd?

Neither Cruz or Sanders would ever be able to get any of the significant things they propose through Congress. This doing away with the Federal Reserve, IRS, Medicare-for-all, free-education-for-all and "breaking up the big banks" is a pipe dream. Simply put, most people just don't understand the separation of powers

For years Unions dominated money and influence in politics and for years liberals stayed quiet. Now they shriek with utter contempt. Excuse me if I don't take these feigned outrages with any seriousness. Unless you were someone who decried money and influence in politics back in the 80's 90's and early 2000's when Unions were literally buying off politicians and bankrupting municipalities then please, spare the crocodile tears.

Well, considering that Rubio has already been contacted by a number of donors who have told him that they are most likely going to back him in 2020, you'd be wrong about that. And not only are you wrong, he will be one of the front runners.

I'm not blaming anyone for automation, just stating a fact.

He lost the race well before FL. When he went after Trump's hands etc. his campaign imploded. Even like I said earlier, the key moment for him were those 5 minutes in N.H.

Automation means less need for human capital which = more profits for corporations which = Bernie Sanders poo pooing on corporations and those greedy 1%er's on a future stump speech near you

Sure, if you believe in much longer waiting periods to have services performed (similar to the VA), healthcare procedures/services approved and denied by some bureaucrats and lower quality of care.

It will help fix the problem. And how do you fail to see it? There are many instances where you have one hospital that charges $4,000 for a colonoscopy only to find out that a nearby hospital less than 10 miles away charges 1/4 of that. If there was an online menu of medical services that could be found in a zip code search, it would empower patients and insurers to have more control where they could get these services done, which of course would breed even more competition. It's not that difficult of a concept.

Depends, sometimes that could be the case in others it could be much more on par with one another, which is why transparency would go a long way in reducing medical costs. It's not misstating, it's adding things that you either willfully omitted or didn't completely think through.

Immigration (for the GOP primary) and his youthful looks were two obstacles he had to overcome and although they were things that he could have overcome, it was those 5 minutes in N.H that did him in. He rebounded in S.C but the damage had been done, not because of any sort of residual effect that it had in voters mind but because he didn't knock out Kasich. Kasich staying in the race is what did Rubio in, but the blame for that lied on squarely Rubio's shoulders. I think the calculation is that having more political experience is not seen as a positive as much as it used to. From what I'm hearing, his plan is to remain visible and run again in 2020.

No doubt, if Rubio hadn't have had those fateful 5 minutes from the C.C debate, he'd be the front runner right now. That's the way it goes, he'll be back for 2020.

No it doesn't So you cut the specialist pay, which is what would happen under the Medicare-for-all plan and you cut the primary care physician pay through lower reimbursement rates but somehow the lost pay of the specialists results in higher pay for the primary care physicians who had their reimbursements cut?

Nothing you mentioned addressed how drastically reduced reimbursement rates would alleviate primary doctor shortages.

Yes, because cutting their reimbursement rates like you propose is really going to help out with that shortage. BRILLIANT!!!!!

If you think we have a doctor shortage now with the ACA, it wouldn't be nothing compared to single payor "Medicare-for-all". You still have well over 70% of the insured public that is receiving health insurance through private plans not affiliated with the government, meaning that the vast majority of doctors/medical providers receive preferable negotiated reimbursement rates. Primary care physicians make less money than their colleagues, hence the shortage. Applying simple logic dictates that the shortage has a lot to do with how much they are being paid, if they are being paid less and you cut their reimbursement rates another 15-35%, will more people want to be internists/family doctors or less?

There is no perfect system. Having said that transparency would go a long way in helping contain/drive down costs.