Who will be the Dem nominee in 20'?

[tumscalcium]

Government should absolutely provide free healthcare, taxes on highest earners were past 90% in the 1950s during a Republican Presidency. Now at 39%, even a small increase could easily provide both education and healthcare. Healthcare is a human right.

If you are saying we should just have market healthcare without requiring it, then you don't understand how healthcare works. Insured people pay for the uninsured. Many people don't want insurance until they get sick. Those people can't pick up costs when they do and that keeps rates high. If government provides care, we have better negotiating power and everyone is insured so volatility becomes a non issue.

Also, you didn't address the point I love best. Public Opinion especially among young people is trending heavily towards funding college and healthcare. You can't stop it and if you think you can I'd love to hear how and what your alternative is going to be.

This is why millennials are considered stupid and worthless.

 

[FLVOL_79]

It needs to be free college for degrees that actually matter. There are already enough sociologists working Starbucks as it is. If you are going to do it and make it worthwhile for the country you will have to limit what degrees get it. It works in Europe and elsewhere because their classes are a lot more organized and you don't get to dick around for 3 years before declaring a major your senior year.

^ This.

At UT you can get a degree in Women, Gender, and Sexuality..........and you can minor in Cinema studies!...

 

[zaqhhh]

This is why millennials are considered stupid and worthless.

You are right, God forbid we question the status quo which is working so well...

 

[zaqhhh]

No it's not.

IF you want health insurance buy it. Its pretty simple. Oh? Its expensive? Budget your money. Get a better job. Make more money. Simple things.


Its a personal responsibility issue.

Government care is the worst. Know how it works in Europe? Want that z-pak for a cold? Ok no problem. Oh you need a new liver graft? How old are you? Oh. Sorry. Have cancer? Again, how old are you? NEed to see a specialist? Ok we can pencil you in 6 months down the road and in the mean time try not to die or get worse..


Once they get jobs and start families the sane ones will finally understand why everything they stood for when younger was dumb. The younger peoples view on the world is shaped from being coddled and having zero real world experience. Toss in a healthy dose of not understanding how the world works (aka life is not fair) and you get the ideas you have mentioned/ typical democrat mentality.

What you have to understand is that there will always be the Haves..and Have Nots. No amount of social engineering is ever going to change that. Go back and brush up on the USSR for a refresher.

What if you don't want healthcare? Hospitals can't (and shouldn't) refuse care so those people who can't afford it end up raising the prices on the ones that do. Why should I have to pay for it?

If everyone has healthcare (like in literally every other first world nation) then the costs get absorbed and negotiating power drives down prices significantly.

The quality of healthcare which you seem to be so concerned about is not better in the US. We pay significantly more for less. Guess what? Profit Incentive sometimes isn't the best model when you are dealing with items like healthcare which at critical times aren't negotiable.

If your model of healthcare was working, then why would every other country have moved on (why does Canada and many other Euro nations have a near 80% approval rating on their government controlled systems?)

And typical conservative to try and make any type of socialized system a Communistic nightmare. When has libertarianism ever worked and why does it not exist in any big party or ideology outside of the US?

Sounds like you are not going to like what is coming down the road in US politics, which at the end of the day I don't care. I want the best for everyone and though you may sneer at that, you will benefit even if you don't want to

 

[LouderVol]

Government should absolutely provide free healthcare, taxes on highest earners were past 90% in the 1950s during a Republican Presidency. Now at 39%, even a small increase could easily provide both education and healthcare. Healthcare is a human right.

If you are saying we should just have market healthcare without requiring it, then you don't understand how healthcare works. Insured people pay for the uninsured. Many people don't want insurance until they get sick. Those people can't pick up costs when they do and that keeps rates high. If government provides care, we have better negotiating power and everyone is insured so volatility becomes a non issue.

Also, you didn't address the point I love best. Public Opinion especially among young people is trending heavily towards funding college and healthcare. You can't stop it and if you think you can I'd love to hear how and what your alternative is going to be.

1. if ACA was just formalizing us paying what we were already paying for why did my rates almost triple? Why did providers have to shut down? Why are there still uninsured? Why are you taxing people who don't have it?
Its not a right. its a luxury (hence the tax), always has been. Society doesn't owe the obese white trailer trash meth heads any form of care. Nothing was stopping them from getting but themselves, if it was that important they would save for it. there will always be cases where costs are too high, happens in single payer situations, which is why you see UK and other nations rejecting patients and denying them care they could otherwise get. Single payer is not any better, and is often far worse than what we have.
2. They feel that way because they are the suckers now, just wait until they have to pay for it. I am a young person and talk with my friends about this. I asked why I should have to pay for their college, not the rich. me. just because my dad dedicated his working career to making sure he could afford to send his kids to college does not mean he should be paying for someone else's kid. you are lying to yourself if you think raised taxes are actually going to pay for it. which leads me to my next point.
3. we don't have enough money as it is. Adding another program can't be fixed by raising taxes a little. The raised taxes will be covering the current deficit and this is just pouring more in.

spending HAS to be cut. There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible for caring for themselves. the government, if anything, should be a temporary safety net; and taking care of those who ACTUALLY can't take care of itself. not those too lazy to do it. not those who think they are owed something, that someone else should provide X for them.

 

[zaqhhh]

1. if ACA was just formalizing us paying what we were already paying for why did my rates almost triple? Why did providers have to shut down? Why are there still uninsured? Why are you taxing people who don't have it?
Its not a right. its a luxury (hence the tax), always has been. Society doesn't owe the obese white trailer trash meth heads any form of care. Nothing was stopping them from getting but themselves, if it was that important they would save for it. there will always be cases where costs are too high, happens in single payer situations, which is why you see UK and other nations rejecting patients and denying them care they could otherwise get. Single payer is not any better, and is often far worse than what we have.
2. They feel that way because they are the suckers now, just wait until they have to pay for it. I am a young person and talk with my friends about this. I asked why I should have to pay for their college, not the rich. me. just because my dad dedicated his working career to making sure he could afford to send his kids to college does not mean he should be paying for someone else's kid. you are lying to yourself if you think raised taxes are actually going to pay for it. which leads me to my next point.
3. we don't have enough money as it is. Adding another program can't be fixed by raising taxes a little. The raised taxes will be covering the current deficit and this is just pouring more in.

spending HAS to be cut. There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible for caring for themselves. the government, if anything, should be a temporary safety net; and taking care of those who ACTUALLY can't take care of itself. not those too lazy to do it. not those who think they are owed something, that someone else should provide X for them.

I am not in support of the ACA, if you had read my previous posts.

Market Healthcare fails because consumers have the least amount of negotiating power when they are most desperate as with most healthcare situations. People don't buy in until they need to which also kills the market system.

Quasi Care like Obamacare fails because placing a government option within a market system effectively does very little. The mandate tries to make everyone have care but because the system itself is still broken, it just punishes the poor.

I am all for Obamacare repeal so long as single payer is enacted.

You are talking about rationing in the UK, Nothing comes close to people literally forgoing care because they can't afford it here in the US. The US has by far the worst case of rationing in any developed nation.

We are the richest nation in the history of the world, yes we can provide healthcare like every other nation does. Yes, taxes can pay for it like they do in other nations.

I also believe we need to cut spending in certain areas. Close Tax loopholes on corporations/top earners and cut the military which we spend 400 billion more on then any other nation (Before I get hit for this, I come from a 4th generation military family and most of my family agrees).

Also, there seems to be a prevalence in calling people who can't afford it lazy. That is just unequivocally false, will there always be people who abuse the system? Yes. But calling anyone who can't afford basic care and education lazy is just... lazy.

 

[FLVOL_79]

What if you don't want healthcare? Hospitals can't (and shouldn't) refuse care so those people who can't afford it end up raising the prices on the ones that do. Why should I have to pay for it?

If everyone has healthcare (like in literally every other first world nation) then the costs get absorbed and negotiating power drives down prices significantly.

The quality of healthcare which you seem to be so concerned about is not better in the US. We pay significantly more for less. Guess what? Profit Incentive sometimes isn't the best model when you are dealing with items like healthcare which at critical times aren't negotiable.

If your model of healthcare was working, then why would every other country have moved on (why does Canada and many other Euro nations have a near 80% approval rating on their government controlled systems?)

And typical conservative to try and make any type of socialized system a Communistic nightmare. When has libertarianism ever worked and why does it not exist in any big party or ideology outside of the US?

Sounds like you are not going to like what is coming down the road in US politics, which at the end of the day I don't care. I want the best for everyone and though you may sneer at that, you will benefit even if you don't want t o

Learn the difference between healthcare and health insurance then you can come back to the grown up table.

And I will never benefit from mass helping of others because I'm not a poor dirtbag. What I will see is more of my income taken away and redistributed to help the slovenly inept and lazy masses.

To be honest by the time that happens I'll probably be sitting back sipping mai tai's as a multi millionaire and employing some millennial lost generation types to clean my pool and mow my lawn (as I already do). As I toss them their weekly earnings in coin form I'll regale them with stories of fiscal competence from "the good old days".


Oh yeah..quality of healthcare in the US is far superior than anywhere else. There is a reason people come to the USA for medical procedures and not Finland, or the UK, or etc, etc.

 

[K9Buck]

North Korea provides free housing, free medical, free secondary education, free food, has a ban on gun ownership and, best of all, religion is banned! Everyone there must like it because nobody complains. Perhaps regressive can replicate that liberal utopia here!

 

[LouderVol]

I am not in support of the ACA, if you had read my previous posts.

Market Healthcare fails because consumers have the least amount of negotiating power when they are most desperate as with most healthcare situations. People don't buy in until they need to which also kills the market system.

Quasi Care like Obamacare fails because placing a government option within a market system effectively does very little. The mandate tries to make everyone have care but because the system itself is still broken, it just punishes the poor.

I am all for Obamacare repeal so long as single payer is enacted.

You are talking about rationing in the UK, Nothing comes close to people literally forgoing care because they can't afford it here in the US. The US has by far the worst case of rationing in any developed nation.

We are the richest nation in the history of the world, yes we can provide healthcare like every other nation does. Yes, taxes can pay for it like they do in other nations.

I also believe we need to cut spending in certain areas. Close Tax loopholes on corporations/top earners and cut the military which we spend 400 billion more on then any other nation (Before I get hit for this, I come from a 4th generation military family and most of my family agrees).

Also, there seems to be a prevalence in calling people who can't afford it lazy. That is just unequivocally false, will there always be people who abuse the system? Yes. But calling anyone who can't afford basic care and education lazy is just... lazy.

no its not lazy. its looking at the facts. and this isn't lazy, like they enjoy binge watching TV. this is the type of lazy that doesn't have the will to enact long term goals and work towards it. and this isn't bashing random poor people, I see it in my family. the people don't care because the government says they dont have too.

so you are fine with rationing? Or like the UK baby, telling people you aren't allowed to try and save your babies life? I too have some military family. talk to them about the VA and see if they want that for everyone, I don't. I won't feel sorry for the people who didn't look ahead. they know people get sick, or hurt, or old. I haven't been to a doctor in five years, yet I made sure I had health insurance.

Its life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Pursuit as you actually have to chase and work for it, not that it is given directly to you. ACA has directly impacted my pursuit of happiness, I don't want the government in it at all, single payer or not. this is the government dictating how much money you HAVE to spend on yourself. money i could better use elsewhere.

getting rid of the insurance companies and going straight single payer will not reduce costs one iota. The federal government has never run on a budget, corporations will. it will only add to the costs, while removing choices and limiting the quality of product I get. no competition will equal stagnation. we will stop bringing in the best doctors, because pay will go flat and the amount of paperwork is staggering. we have heard this from a couple of VN regulars, that them or their partner has considered closing down because of the government paperwork alone. seriously what about the DMV makes you wish the government ran more of your life?

the only thing the government should have been doing is dictating more levels of care instead of less. For those who can't afford the full thing, make insurance/hospitals offer/accept Catastrophic Coverage. Dirt cheap and only includes real life emergencies. No cancer, long term disease, or long hosipital stays. Your bone is set, wounds stitched, Epi pen applied. yes that means rejection, but we are rejecting so costs go down and people can afford to go. once you do this you aren't crapping on everyone else, no one is REQUIRED to have health insurance, no is REQUIRED to have more than they need (wasteful), the government is REQUIRED to create another bloated and wasteful department that will fail and fail again because the government is never held accountable.

 

[zaqhhh]

Learn the difference between healthcare and health insurance then you can come back to the grown up table.

And I will never benefit from mass helping of others because I'm not a poor dirtbag. What I will see is more of my income taken away and redistributed to help the slovenly inept and lazy masses.

To be honest by the time that happens I'll probably be sitting back sipping mai tai's as a multi millionaire and employing some millennial lost generation types to clean my pool and mow my lawn (as I already do). As I toss them their weekly earnings in coin form I'll regale them with stories of fiscal competence from "the good old days".


Oh yeah..quality of healthcare in the US is far superior than anywhere else. There is a reason people come to the USA for medical procedures and not Finland, or the UK, or etc, etc.

You sound like a class act... If you act like that and are in the top 1% then I will enjoy taxing you to provide healthcare for all that much more

 

[zaqhhh]

North Korea provides free housing, free medical, free secondary education, free food, has a ban on gun ownership and, best of all, religion is banned! Everyone there must like it because nobody complains. Perhaps regressive can replicate that liberal utopia here!

Though I don't support eliminating guns, seemed to work out well for Australia. And once again equating communism to social democracies seems to be a go to point to you guys.

Nordic nations providing healthcare and education because it is a right of all people. Oh the Horror!!! Let's just sit around and do nothing whilst calling people lazy instead!

 

[LLcoolDave]

Whoever it may be, they will get crushed. Trump has got this

 

[zaqhhh]

no its not lazy. its looking at the facts. and this isn't lazy, like they enjoy binge watching TV. this is the type of lazy that doesn't have the will to enact long term goals and work towards it. and this isn't bashing random poor people, I see it in my family. the people don't care because the government says they dont have too.

so you are fine with rationing? Or like the UK baby, telling people you aren't allowed to try and save your babies life? I too have some military family. talk to them about the VA and see if they want that for everyone, I don't. I won't feel sorry for the people who didn't look ahead. they know people get sick, or hurt, or old. I haven't been to a doctor in five years, yet I made sure I had health insurance.

Its life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Pursuit as you actually have to chase and work for it, not that it is given directly to you. ACA has directly impacted my pursuit of happiness, I don't want the government in it at all, single payer or not. this is the government dictating how much money you HAVE to spend on yourself. money i could better use elsewhere.

getting rid of the insurance companies and going straight single payer will not reduce costs one iota. The federal government has never run on a budget, corporations will. it will only add to the costs, while removing choices and limiting the quality of product I get. no competition will equal stagnation. we will stop bringing in the best doctors, because pay will go flat and the amount of paperwork is staggering. we have heard this from a couple of VN regulars, that them or their partner has considered closing down because of the government paperwork alone. seriously what about the DMV makes you wish the government ran more of your life?

the only thing the government should have been doing is dictating more levels of care instead of less. For those who can't afford the full thing, make insurance/hospitals offer/accept Catastrophic Coverage. Dirt cheap and only includes real life emergencies. No cancer, long term disease, or long hosipital stays. Your bone is set, wounds stitched, Epi pen applied. yes that means rejection, but we are rejecting so costs go down and people can afford to go. once you do this you aren't crapping on everyone else, no one is REQUIRED to have health insurance, no is REQUIRED to have more than they need (wasteful), the government is REQUIRED to create another bloated and wasteful department that will fail and fail again because the government is never held accountable.

Some rich people are lazy and some poor people are hard workers. As is vice-versa. Healthcare isn't optional in other countries because to not have it harms everyone. Much like auto insurance, we can't have some people going uninsured until they need it and then bankrupt themselves while driving rates up for all.

No, rationing does happen almost everywhere to some degree. The US has the worst case of it though where we literally have millions who forgo care because we allow insurance companies to create a profit margin from literal health which is insane. The UK baby did not have a shot at life, that was deemed by numerous healthcare professionals within the government and was clear to anyone with half a brain. I want everyone insured because if they aren't then you and I end up paying for it. If everyone is insured then you pay for the healthcare by taxes but there is no volatility involved, everyone is insured, and it leads to more job opportunities plus less negative externalities such as drains on other forms of welfare.

Having an assurance of health is required to pursue happiness therefore Healthcare is a right, not some Ted Cruz BS "access to care."

You don't want government healthcare, I don't want market healthcare. Oddly enough, my father (who is an avid Trump guy) supports single payer as well. In discussions with young Republicans, single payer has a groundswell of support with them as well. So this is one you are going to need to either mobilize against quickly or deal with it because it is coming down the pike.

You say single payer won't save money, yet every other developed nation has single payer or a similar government system and pays less per person. So you just are refusing facts in that aspect.

And your last paragraph is the most telling, you want to revert back to an era where hospitals can refuse care. I don't know how we can continue a debate if we have that starkly a difference in basic rights and humanity.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

CA’s budget is $180B
Single payer was estimated to cost around $400B

Roughly extrapolated countrywide that’s 3.3T. Where pray tell does that money come from?

 

[LouderVol]

Some rich people are lazy and some poor people are hard workers. As is vice-versa. Healthcare isn't optional in other countries because to not have it harms everyone. Much like auto insurance, we can't have some people going uninsured until they need it and then bankrupt themselves while driving rates up for all.

No, rationing does happen almost everywhere to some degree. The US has the worst case of it though where we literally have millions who forgo care because we allow insurance companies to create a profit margin from literal health which is insane. The UK baby did not have a shot at life, that was deemed by numerous healthcare professionals within the government and was clear to anyone with half a brain. I want everyone insured because if they aren't then you and I end up paying for it. If everyone is insured then you pay for the healthcare by taxes but there is no volatility involved, everyone is insured, and it leads to more job opportunities plus less negative externalities such as drains on other forms of welfare.

Having an assurance of health is required to pursue happiness therefore Healthcare is a right, not some Ted Cruz BS "access to care."

You don't want government healthcare, I don't want market healthcare. Oddly enough, my father (who is an avid Trump guy) supports single payer as well. In discussions with young Republicans, single payer has a groundswell of support with them as well. So this is one you are going to need to either mobilize against quickly or deal with it because it is coming down the pike.

You say single payer won't save money, yet every other developed nation has single payer or a similar government system and pays less per person. So you just are refusing facts in that aspect.

And your last paragraph is the most telling, you want to revert back to an era where hospitals can refuse care. I don't know how we can continue a debate if we have that starkly a difference in basic rights and humanity.

Kinda going backward here on my response. Its not reverting back. That is what happens with single payer. In the UK if you smoke you are extremely limited on what health services you get. same if you are diabetic and so forth. you are deemed not worth the effort. so much for your tax money giving you care if you actually need it. also a bunch of the single payer healthcare systems are broke and operating in the red. it doesn't work. Those nations even without the bloated military we have are operating at worse spending/income rates than we are.

just because something is inevitable doesn't mean its a good thing or should be accepted. We just elected Trump, and the runner up was Hilary, how smart do you really think American's actually are? they like it now because it makes it easier for them. they hear about the free bull**** and want it. they never seem to compute that their taxes are going to go up with this. it is the oft ignored fact of the matter that is never discussed until after. It continues to be DCs modus operandi to just get something, anything, passed and not fully consider the consequences, just to say you did something.

how is an assurance of health a pre-requisite to a pursuit of happiness? Were people without health insurance not capable of being happy before ACA? We are all dying, doesn't stop most of us from pursuing happiness. Go to a Children's Hospital (usually run off donations) and see some of the miracles there. those kids have no reason to be happy and yet often times they are. Health is a convenience. Happiness is what you make of it. If your ideal of happiness is living off a million dollars a month, you probably aren't going to be happy. If you appreciate what you have and operate with in the realm of reality, things will go wrong, you will be more happy. Friends and family. again its a pursuit, not that you will actually achieve it.

healthcare cost being high does not deny you the ability to seek it, medical tourism is a thing for reason. Many single payer countries have tons of people who go out to seek medical treatment outside their country. How is that happiness for them? In the case of the US and our residents leaving the country for treatment they are doing so to get treatments the government won't let them receive. Single payer doesn't fix that.

How is denying a mom and dad the right to try and save their child, allowing them happiness? To my mind that is crapping all over your idea of tying healthcare to happiness. Doesn't matter if its a forgone conclusion. there were doctors in the US willing to try, and they were told no, even on trying. treating people like a number or requiring them to have services they don't need doesn't equal happiness.

Auto insurance isn't required by law. Its required if you have a car that you plan on driving on public roads. health insurance is not similar to that at all under a single payer system. people denied basic services, people waiting months for anything besides a basic doctor visit and increased costs does not equal happiness.

Single payer makes you feel good that you did something, why in fact it often denies the very things you claim you are seeking. the math simply doesn't work out. health costs were going up before ACA, and have skyrocketed since. Adding more demand but keeping the number of payers pretty consistent is just going to increase cost.

 

[zaqhhh]

Kinda going backward here on my response. Its not reverting back. That is what happens with single payer. In the UK if you smoke you are extremely limited on what health services you get. same if you are diabetic and so forth. you are deemed not worth the effort. so much for your tax money giving you care if you actually need it. also a bunch of the single payer healthcare systems are broke and operating in the red. it doesn't work. Those nations even without the bloated military we have are operating at worse spending/income rates than we are.

just because something is inevitable doesn't mean its a good thing or should be accepted. We just elected Trump, and the runner up was Hilary, how smart do you really think American's actually are? they like it now because it makes it easier for them. they hear about the free bull**** and want it. they never seem to compute that their taxes are going to go up with this. it is the oft ignored fact of the matter that is never discussed until after. It continues to be DCs modus operandi to just get something, anything, passed and not fully consider the consequences, just to say you did something.

how is an assurance of health a pre-requisite to a pursuit of happiness? Were people without health insurance not capable of being happy before ACA? We are all dying, doesn't stop most of us from pursuing happiness. Go to a Children's Hospital (usually run off donations) and see some of the miracles there. those kids have no reason to be happy and yet often times they are. Health is a convenience. Happiness is what you make of it. If your ideal of happiness is living off a million dollars a month, you probably aren't going to be happy. If you appreciate what you have and operate with in the realm of reality, things will go wrong, you will be more happy. Friends and family. again its a pursuit, not that you will actually achieve it.

healthcare cost being high does not deny you the ability to seek it, medical tourism is a thing for reason. Many single payer countries have tons of people who go out to seek medical treatment outside their country. How is that happiness for them? In the case of the US and our residents leaving the country for treatment they are doing so to get treatments the government won't let them receive. Single payer doesn't fix that.

How is denying a mom and dad the right to try and save their child, allowing them happiness? To my mind that is crapping all over your idea of tying healthcare to happiness. Doesn't matter if its a forgone conclusion. there were doctors in the US willing to try, and they were told no, even on trying. treating people like a number or requiring them to have services they don't need doesn't equal happiness.

Auto insurance isn't required by law. Its required if you have a car that you plan on driving on public roads. health insurance is not similar to that at all under a single payer system. people denied basic services, people waiting months for anything besides a basic doctor visit and increased costs does not equal happiness.

Single payer makes you feel good that you did something, why in fact it often denies the very things you claim you are seeking. the math simply doesn't work out. health costs were going up before ACA, and have skyrocketed since. Adding more demand but keeping the number of payers pretty consistent is just going to increase cost.

I appreciate the length of your response, but I want to narrow this down a bit.

On Americans wanting free stuff but not realizing that their taxes will increase. I am entering graduate school in a healthcare field. Hopefully, I will be in the upper middle class. I am willing to pay more taxes if it means that healthcare is guaranteed and education becomes offered tuition free (yes there should be grade/test score qualification). Likely that would mean I would be paying for the poor and "lazy" people. I am sure there would be a few, but once again I am ok with that. In addition, single payer would probably force many healthcare costs to be negotiated down, lowering my potential salary. I would still be happy with that because society would benefit greatly.

You referenced a Children's hospital as running off donations and saying that despite their lack of health they were happy. A. Charity is a much less effective way to provide help then welfare and in many cases can be open to discrimination. B. The children in many cases are happy, but mostly because they are getting treatment which is great and that should extend to all people hence why we need single payer.

Yes there is some medical tourism. Mainly and statistically speaking, these are extremely well off individuals who in a fairer system received less of a upper hand and thus went to a place where they could exercise their financial leverage. Many poor and middle class can't receive proper coverage here so wait times mean nothing if you can't receive care in the first place.

*Doesn't matter if it is a foregone conclusion* A society has a limited amount of resources. So let's spend a large amount of resources on keeping someone in a terrible quality of "life" instead of allocating that to people who actually need it. Yeah sorry, I feel for the parents, but I also feel for whomever might be losing because they are having trouble accepting a harsh reality.

You keep pointing to problems with single payer, but are seemingly fine with people literally not receiving care and choosing death in some cases instead. Never has there been nor will there ever be rationing like we have in the US where millions don't receive care not because there aren't enough resources or wait times are too long but instead because they can't afford it.

Your last point is that more demand and same payment is going to raise costs. A. Government has way easier time negotiating prices then independent consumers do. Prices go down. B. Taxes will have to go up, just do it in the right places. Upper class and Upper middle probably have to step it up. Like I said I am all for that even if I have to foot the bill for others.

More get care, cost balances between added numbers, reduced cost, and tax revenue increase.

Also, if single payer is so terrible with wait times, etc. Why do people in those nations overwhelmingly prefer the system to ours (seeing that most transitioned from our system)? Wouldn't they be pushing to go back to our way?

 

[LouderVol]

I appreciate the length of your response, but I want to narrow this down a bit.

You didn't address the argument that happiness is directly tied to health or even access to health care. is that something you are interested in arguing or are you conceding that people can be happy without healthcare?

I will respond to the rest in a different post, just wanted to clarify that point.

 

[LouderVol]

I appreciate the length of your response, but I want to narrow this down a bit.

On Americans wanting free stuff but not realizing that their taxes will increase. I am entering graduate school in a healthcare field. Hopefully, I will be in the upper middle class. I am willing to pay more taxes if it means that healthcare is guaranteed and education becomes offered tuition free (yes there should be grade/test score qualification). Likely that would mean I would be paying for the poor and "lazy" people. I am sure there would be a few, but once again I am ok with that. In addition, single payer would probably force many healthcare costs to be negotiated down, lowering my potential salary. I would still be happy with that because society would benefit greatly.

You referenced a Children's hospital as running off donations and saying that despite their lack of health they were happy. A. Charity is a much less effective way to provide help then welfare and in many cases can be open to discrimination. B. The children in many cases are happy, but mostly because they are getting treatment which is great and that should extend to all people hence why we need single payer.

Yes there is some medical tourism. Mainly and statistically speaking, these are extremely well off individuals who in a fairer system received less of a upper hand and thus went to a place where they could exercise their financial leverage. Many poor and middle class can't receive proper coverage here so wait times mean nothing if you can't receive care in the first place.

*Doesn't matter if it is a foregone conclusion* A society has a limited amount of resources. So let's spend a large amount of resources on keeping someone in a terrible quality of "life" instead of allocating that to people who actually need it. Yeah sorry, I feel for the parents, but I also feel for whomever might be losing because they are having trouble accepting a harsh reality.

You keep pointing to problems with single payer, but are seemingly fine with people literally not receiving care and choosing death in some cases instead. Never has there been nor will there ever be rationing like we have in the US where millions don't receive care not because there aren't enough resources or wait times are too long but instead because they can't afford it.

Your last point is that more demand and same payment is going to raise costs. A. Government has way easier time negotiating prices then independent consumers do. Prices go down. B. Taxes will have to go up, just do it in the right places. Upper class and Upper middle probably have to step it up. Like I said I am all for that even if I have to foot the bill for others.

More get care, cost balances between added numbers, reduced cost, and tax revenue increase.

Also, if single payer is so terrible with wait times, etc. Why do people in those nations overwhelmingly prefer the system to ours (seeing that most transitioned from our system)? Wouldn't they be pushing to go back to our way?

I am not fine with it. I finished school, got the job I wanted and I can support myself. At least in Atlanta I am still "low" class. I have spent 7200 extra dollars because of ACA. If I had that money right now (plus what else I have saved) I would be house shopping. as it is, ACA has screwed me without giving me one bit more of added value. that 7200 is on top of what I have otherwise spent. it has at least added a year of rent to what I would otherwise be operating with. it will be the same with taxes. It hurts the poor too. it only helps those on the teet.

complete and utter BS on welfare being more effective. the government spends the money on any not working. doesn't even look at their situation of why they are out of work. they are just throwing money around to please the masses. charities at least have to be responsible and have a set criteria for you to get the aid. ensuring that those in need actually get the help. They aren't happy because they are getting help. Most of them hate being there, and many, especially those that are dying, don't understand why they are there. They are happy in spite of their situation.

with the tourism thing you are admitting that single payer isn't THE answer. if it isn't THE answer why do we require everyone to do it. in the case of the tourism you don't think there are the poor and middle class who aren't also receiving the same level of care the rich weren't getting? You are screwing everyone so that everyone has something. There is no moral/ethical win there. why is healthcare different? surely we should do housing the same way. put everyone in soviet style housing to make sure everyone has something. if you could have afforded better, too bad. you have to have your soviet style housing; now you also get your soviet style health care.

In the case of the parents it wasn't societies money/resources they would have been wasting. It was their own. they could afford to send him to the US. the UK government said no. are you going to meekly sit there and let your kid die because he/she might be a waste of resources? again you aren't winning any high horse argument with results like that. private insurance and health care is at least open about what goes on. you want the government to lie to you and tell you its ok, you tried, sorta.

"US where millions don't receive care not because there aren't enough resources or wait times are too long but instead because they can't afford it.". those things are tied. the long wait times and not enough resources are tied to it being single payer and cheap. they wouldn't be dying if they could afford better care. people are also being denied cars, houses, jobs, food etc etc in this country. we the people can not support the weight of everyone else. socialist countries collapse under the weight of their programs and put their people in worse situations because of it. the US will be no different. if we had money to spare, sure this would be a good cause. instead you sink the hole boat to pull a few more people in out of the water.

government negotiating costs? LOL. aren't you the guy with family in the military? How good is the military at getting costs reduced? again you are getting incredibly socialist with the governments setting prices. this is already a government than runs a huge deficit, they have proven time and again, republican or democrat, they don't care about the bottom line. and if you want to support health care for others I suggest you donate your money. either directly to the poor or to a charity. don't depend on the government to waste your money for you.

the people prefer it because it is all they know and they have their heads stuck in the sand about the coming collapses. they are also healthier (not because of health care but lifestyles) so they require less doctoring. and there are already issues with demand. you apply that to this country and you have a train wreck.

 

[zaqhhh]

You didn't address the argument that happiness is directly tied to health or even access to health care. is that something you are interested in arguing or are you conceding that people can be happy without healthcare?

I will respond to the rest in a different post, just wanted to clarify that point.

A person can be happy without healthcare if they are healthy. As soon as they become unhealthy, if they do not have a way to seek some sort of care then I would say no. Thus why market insurance in my opinion is a failure.

 

[LouderVol]

A person can be happy without healthcare if they are healthy. As soon as they become unhealthy, if they do not have a way to seek some sort of care then I would say no. Thus why market insurance in my opinion is a failure.

so until the first country offered universal healthcare no one was capable of being happy.

I am so glad to hear that I can only be happy because I have health care. who needs friends, family, purpose? I have health care.

 

[zaqhhh]

I am not fine with it. I finished school, got the job I wanted and I can support myself. At least in Atlanta I am still "low" class. I have spent 7200 extra dollars because of ACA. If I had that money right now (plus what else I have saved) I would be house shopping. as it is, ACA has screwed me without giving me one bit more of added value. that 7200 is on top of what I have otherwise spent. it has at least added a year of rent to what I would otherwise be operating with. it will be the same with taxes. It hurts the poor too. it only helps those on the teet.

complete and utter BS on welfare being more effective. the government spends the money on any not working. doesn't even look at their situation of why they are out of work. they are just throwing money around to please the masses. charities at least have to be responsible and have a set criteria for you to get the aid. ensuring that those in need actually get the help. They aren't happy because they are getting help. Most of them hate being there, and many, especially those that are dying, don't understand why they are there. They are happy in spite of their situation.

with the tourism thing you are admitting that single payer isn't THE answer. if it isn't THE answer why do we require everyone to do it. in the case of the tourism you don't think there are the poor and middle class who aren't also receiving the same level of care the rich weren't getting? You are screwing everyone so that everyone has something. There is no moral/ethical win there. why is healthcare different? surely we should do housing the same way. put everyone in soviet style housing to make sure everyone has something. if you could have afforded better, too bad. you have to have your soviet style housing; now you also get your soviet style health care.

In the case of the parents it wasn't societies money/resources they would have been wasting. It was their own. they could afford to send him to the US. the UK government said no. are you going to meekly sit there and let your kid die because he/she might be a waste of resources? again you aren't winning any high horse argument with results like that. private insurance and health care is at least open about what goes on. you want the government to lie to you and tell you its ok, you tried, sorta.

"US where millions don't receive care not because there aren't enough resources or wait times are too long but instead because they can't afford it.". those things are tied. the long wait times and not enough resources are tied to it being single payer and cheap. they wouldn't be dying if they could afford better care. people are also being denied cars, houses, jobs, food etc etc in this country. we the people can not support the weight of everyone else. socialist countries collapse under the weight of their programs and put their people in worse situations because of it. the US will be no different. if we had money to spare, sure this would be a good cause. instead you sink the hole boat to pull a few more people in out of the water.

government negotiating costs? LOL. aren't you the guy with family in the military? How good is the military at getting costs reduced? again you are getting incredibly socialist with the governments setting prices. this is already a government than runs a huge deficit, they have proven time and again, republican or democrat, they don't care about the bottom line. and if you want to support health care for others I suggest you donate your money. either directly to the poor or to a charity. don't depend on the government to waste your money for you.

the people prefer it because it is all they know and they have their heads stuck in the sand about the coming collapses. they are also healthier (not because of health care but lifestyles) so they require less doctoring. and there are already issues with demand. you apply that to this country and you have a train wreck.

1. Not arguing ACA, we both don't like it. I want the market out. You want the government out. It seems like we are trending towards the former.

2. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare... all made this country better off. I don't want to live in some libertarian nightmare where if you are born wealthy, you live a great life and if you are born poor screw you. And free market billionaires give me the illusion of freedom by saying "work hard and you might get somewhere." I would much rather live in a "socialist" (apparently any place where the government does anything) nightmare.

3. No, I am admitting that while society at large benefits more from single payer, some wealthy people would benefit more under our system and thus some level of medical tourism exists. Housing is a different issue. Some places are better to have markets, some are better to have governments decide. Capitalism has amassed the most wealth, but can't distribute it worth ****. Socialism is the fairest system, but if you go overboard then you end up with Communism which is worse. Middle ground by the specific market, Healthcare is better in a socialized system.

4. Am I going to let my kid die? No. If my kid is already dead, am I against someone intervening and stopping me? No. I'll take my high horse of that over letting poor people just die rather than have basic care.

5. Yes some of those problems are tied to single payer. The problems I mentioned are tied to market care. Other nations have happily taken the problems with single payer as opposed to our ****storm. I and a majority of other Americans are ready to as well.

6. Socialism is ****ty, Capitalism is too. I want a social democracy where government is over some sectors and markets are in others. If you want the libertarian hellscape that is market care then find some way to convince others, but I don't think you can because few people are still buying into that logic.

7. They are healthier because they can get not just reactionary care, but also preventative care. People are more like to forgo stupid behaviors which in turn leads to even less needing care. And they aren't ignorant of cost, they have higher levels of income tax to support it. The funny thing is despite paying that higher tax, there people have very few issues paying that much because they know in the end they (and society) are better off. Libertarianism has failed everywhere it has been implemented. It is the economic extreme of the right just like Communism is to the left. I will reject both every time.

 

[LouderVol]

1. Not arguing ACA, we both don't like it. I want the market out. You want the government out. It seems like we are trending towards the former.Doesn't mean its a good thing

2. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare... all made this country better off. I don't want to live in some libertarian nightmare where if you are born wealthy, you live a great life and if you are born poor screw you. And free market billionaires give me the illusion of freedom by saying "work hard and you might get somewhere." I would much rather live in a "socialist" (apparently any place where the government does anything) nightmare. I don't want the government stepping in on things that doesn't need its input. I am fine with regulation and requiring cheaper insurance options. but requiring everyone to have crappy expensive health insurance is not good. My grandfather didn't graduate high school.
My dad joined the military to pay for his college. because of their hard work I was able to go to college and afford the life I have. its not impossible, its not that crazy of an idea. simply working for yourself and your kids should be all the drive anyone needs. government giving stuff away removes any drive to better yourself.
why work hard if the government provides all from the rich.

3. No, I am admitting that while society at large benefits more from single payer, some wealthy people would benefit more under our system and thus some level of medical tourism exists. Housing is a different issue. Some places are better to have markets, some are better to have governments decide. Capitalism has amassed the most wealth, but can't distribute it worth ****. Socialism is the fairest system, but if you go overboard then you end up with Communism which is worse. Middle ground by the specific market, Healthcare is better in a socialized system. based on what? socialized health care is failing, market doesn't fail. you can either afford it or not, once socialized it doesn't matter if you can afford better stuff there isn't any out there to be had.

4. Am I going to let my kid die? No. If my kid is already dead, am I against someone intervening and stopping me? No. I'll take my high horse of that over letting poor people just die rather than have basic care.I have argued for basic care, you didn't even address it. Catastrophic Care for everyone. no coverage for diabetes, heart disease, opoid usage etc. you have life threatening injury you can get it worked on. then you are on your own.

5. Yes some of those problems are tied to single payer. The problems I mentioned are tied to market care. Other nations have happily taken the problems with single payer as opposed to our ****storm. I and a majority of other Americans are ready to as well.

6. Socialism is ****ty, Capitalism is too. I want a social democracy where government is over some sectors and markets are in others. If you want the libertarian hellscape that is market care then find some way to convince others, but I don't think you can because few people are still buying into that logic.until it all comes crashing down. or at least that one sector. socialism requires the government propping it up, we are already collapsing.

7. They are healthier because they can get not just reactionary care, but also preventative care. whats preventive care do they get to eat healthier, smaller portions? What preventive care gets them outside more?People are more like to forgo stupid behaviors which in turn leads to even less needing care.no they clearly aren't look at recreational drug use to see the lie in this(including alcohol) And they aren't ignorant of cost, they have higher levels of income tax to support it.they aren't supporting it enough, they are operating in the red The funny thing is despite paying that higher tax, there people have very few issues paying that much because they know in the end they (and society) are better off. Libertarianism has failed everywhere it has been implemented. socialism has failed as well. libertarianism has only failed if you define success based on socialsim. any socialism fails as soon as you apply the libertarian ideas to it.It is the economic extreme of the right just like Communism is to the left. I will reject both every time.

Everyone dies, life sucks. Get a helmet, get right with your God and move on. all your socialism does is deny an individuals right to choose for themselves, and it does so at a cost that goes beyond the realm of healthcare.

If it was actually a 1 to 1 trade then it would be fine. but its not.

you keep saying that ACA is not where you want to be, but it is clearly a step of the way there. Even though it didn't get as many people signed up as they wanted costs rose well beyond their projections. same happens with single payer. ACA was heralded as saving people, yet now I am supposed to believe that single payer will?

Liberty is right up there with pursuit of happiness in this country's foundation. and you have yet to tie the pursuit of happiness to healthcare, so you have no justification for limiting my liberty.

 

[zaqhhh]

Everyone dies, life sucks. Get a helmet, get right with your God and move on. all your socialism does is deny an individuals right to choose for themselves, and it does so at a cost that goes beyond the realm of healthcare.

If it was actually a 1 to 1 trade then it would be fine. but its not.

you keep saying that ACA is not where you want to be, but it is clearly a step of the way there. Even though it didn't get as many people signed up as they wanted costs rose well beyond their projections. same happens with single payer. ACA was heralded as saving people, yet now I am supposed to believe that single payer will?

Liberty is right up there with pursuit of happiness in this country's foundation. and you have yet to tie the pursuit of happiness to healthcare, so you have no justification for limiting my liberty.

If socialism is as you are describing then I will take it. Your labeling of a word to try and prevent it only does the opposite which is make that type of ideology positive as a whole which is actually counterproductive to what you want.

It is better than 1 to 1 when it comes to what society puts in and what it gets out.

Saying that the ACA is closer to what I want is completely misleading. That is like saying I would rather have a dollar cut in half than a penny. Both suck, I want the full dollar. The dollar cut in half as no real value and the penny costs more to produce then its worth.

Someone heralded an idea that wasn't true so now someone else has a completely different idea and you believe that will be untrue as well? So instead you want to revert back to the original system which failed so bad we had to change it in the first place (and every other nation)? Ok, guess that logic is inarguable.

How exactly is this infringing on your liberty? Forcing you to pay taxes as you already do? Forcing you to contribute to societal gain? Sounds like you have it rough...

 

[LouderVol]

If socialism is as you are describing then I will take it. Your labeling of a word to try and prevent it only does the opposite which is make that type of ideology positive as a whole which is actually counterproductive to what you want.

It is better than 1 to 1 when it comes to what society puts in and what it gets out.

Saying that the ACA is closer to what I want is completely misleading. That is like saying I would rather have a dollar cut in half than a penny. Both suck, I want the full dollar. The dollar cut in half as no real value and the penny costs more to produce then its worth.

Someone heralded an idea that wasn't true so now someone else has a completely different idea and you believe that will be untrue as well? So instead you want to revert back to the original system which failed so bad we had to change it in the first place (and every other nation)? Ok, guess that logic is inarguable.

How exactly is this infringing on your liberty? Forcing you to pay taxes as you already do? Forcing you to contribute to societal gain? Sounds like you have it rough...

If you want to donate to a fund that provides health care for the needy, what is stopping you? what is stopping this nation and all the willing from doing so. The government should only be taxing people on the things it should provide. they spend too much, period. adding more scope to their control for them to add taxes, its a power play for them. keep people on the government tit. make them ever more dependent on the government. tell people they can't exist outside of the government. get them to stop believing in themselves and you have stripped them of the idea that their liberty has any value. making it incredibly easy to take away. whats the quote "and so democracy ends to the sounds of thunderous applause".

ACA was designed to get us to single payer. It was designed to fail under its own weight. no public involvement, sign it to read it, website problems, underestimating its costs and overestimating the gains. Lies on just about everything.

you would have about the failures of one system not applying to another, except that those two systems have had the same champions. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

private health care and insurance wasn't supposed to provide for everyone. it provides for everyone who can afford it, just like BMW, Apple, etc. it didn't fail, the government shut it down. health care is a luxury, and just as those things listed above it is not a right. People will not start literally dying in the street if we got rid of health care. Humanity survived without for so long, thrived even. and people were happy then too, crazy I know.

 

[zaqhhh]

If you want to donate to a fund that provides health care for the needy, what is stopping you? what is stopping this nation and all the willing from doing so. The government should only be taxing people on the things it should provide. they spend too much, period. adding more scope to their control for them to add taxes, its a power play for them. keep people on the government tit. make them ever more dependent on the government. tell people they can't exist outside of the government. get them to stop believing in themselves and you have stripped them of the idea that their liberty has any value. making it incredibly easy to take away. whats the quote "and so democracy ends to the sounds of thunderous applause".

ACA was designed to get us to single payer. It was designed to fail under its own weight. no public involvement, sign it to read it, website problems, underestimating its costs and overestimating the gains. Lies on just about everything.

you would have about the failures of one system not applying to another, except that those two systems have had the same champions. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

private health care and insurance wasn't supposed to provide for everyone. it provides for everyone who can afford it, just like BMW, Apple, etc. it didn't fail, the government shut it down. health care is a luxury, and just as those things listed above it is not a right. People will not start literally dying in the street if we got rid of health care. Humanity survived without for so long, thrived even. and people were happy then too, crazy I know.

I guess that's what it really comes down to, I won't buy in to the theory that a luxury BMW is equivalent to having healthcare.
I would love to put that up to a poll in the world...heck the US...heck Tennessee...heck my part of rural east Tennessee.
Sounds like you were born about a century too late.