Bloomberg, Sensing an Opening, Revisits a Potential White House Run
This election process is proving to be curiouser and curiouser...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
This gun grabber sucker will only suck votes from the Dem candidate.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bloomberg run as independent, if only because it would doom a Trump independent run.
Bloomberg IS considering an independent third party run.
Why would any politician in his right mind encourage third party competition?
Or any competition?
I've noticed how Trump keeps encouraging competitors in his own party (uh, not that the GOP is his party) to quit the race.
Bottom line is: violent secession is not good for anyone, but the threat of secession might be useful in convincing officials to obey the Bill of Rights... all of them.
The truly bizarre case is the story about maverick Libertarians calling for Morgan Freeman to run, with Vin Diesel as his running mate. I guess they figure the Trump support is all about celebrity. If they pull this off, Hillary can kiss the black vote goodbye.
Gary Johnson running won't make a ripple with either set of Republicans or Democrats, but it will get some who were planning on boycotting the election out to vote, and that's a good thing.
The truly bizarre case is the story about maverick Libertarians calling for Morgan Freeman to run, with Vin Diesel as his running mate. I guess they figure the Trump support is all about celebrity. If they pull this off, Hillary can kiss the black vote goodbye.
Gary Johnson running won't make a ripple with either set of Republicans or Democrats, but it will get some who were planning on boycotting the election out to vote, and that's a good thing.
I don't think it will happen. I think Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton and Republicans will find someone not radical. The parties will not risk their duopoly.
True innovative genus needs not enforced barriers against competition...therefore putting government out of business.
I'm generally an optimist but admit technology could break either way--- toward more gov't control/abuse or more individuals making gov't irrelevant.
Think health care. You can no longer barter with your doctor. Doctors can no longer give professional courtesy or make anyone an insurance accept. Nor can they change their prices. They also can't diagnose and treat you as they see fit but must follow approved medical algorithms and prescribe medication as dictated by government approved insurance company.
This is not a time for prosperity for anyone with a chronic health condition...unless they are a moocher - prosperity is relative.
Gov't gets in the way. That's a huge part of what AS is all about. People still do things for one another for money, even when the gov't doesn't want them to, but gov't is drain.
"may make working out any non-government approved medium of exchange illegal."
I hope not but would not be shocked. The world of stuff people do for one another under the table would expand.
"Nor can they change their prices. "
I don't know if we're technically breaking the law, but we work out pricing with our doctors the same way our clients work out pricing with our practice/business. I would be surprised to learn we're breaking the law but not too surprised.
As things stand presently, docs still have some leeway...but that is changing (good old incrementalism.) Docs are going to have to be more and more careful about fee schedules or run an increasing risk of medicare/medicaid fraud (without ever intending to...simply because they worked something out with the patient.) What will happen eventually (and I don't think anyone needs a crystal ball to see this coming) is an increasing risk of medical insurance fraud if there are different fee schedules for different patients. There have already been cases of lawsuits as a result of pricing not being "fair." I don't think it is a huge step to think that eventually the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight will become active in this area.
To me, it seems a short step from sanctions for non-compliance to conviction for fraud...at least at the rate OCare is affecting the health care delivery and the behavior of physicians.
I'm sure Bloomberg would be delighted with total government control of health care.