# Medicare For All Fastest way to capitalism?



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 12, 2019)

Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.


----------



## MedfordMan (Jan 12, 2019)

What specific changes made by  Medicare for All would make the cost of health care cheaper AND better?

Why specifically would make health care administered by the federal government MORE efficient.

We have the power to require published prices and higher co-pays now. Why would need to change our entire health insurance delivery system to make these simple changes?

How specifically would Government run health lead to capitalistic price and quality controls.


----------



## caddo kid (Jan 12, 2019)

that would be like going to WalMart for a colonoscopy..

"oh, you wanna tube rammed up your ass? Isle seven bitch & get the  model glue to go wit dat."

How U gonna survive  getting a broom stick made in China shoved up your ass from WalMart?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 12, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.


Because economic history is chock-full of examples where monopolies deliver superior products at greatly reduced prices!

Oh, wait......


----------



## dblack (Jan 13, 2019)

*"Medicare For All Fascist way to capitalism?"*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> What specific changes made by  Medicare for All would make the cost of health care cheaper AND better?



very very simple. published prices and higher copays


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> What specific changes made by  Medicare for All would make the cost of health care cheaper AND better?
> Why specifically would make health care administered by the federal government MORE efficient.



capitalism!! Didn't you read OP????


----------



## Anathema (Jan 13, 2019)

Medicare for All leaves me dead in less than 36 months. Sorry, not interested.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.



* Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better.*

You're lying.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> We have the power to require published prices and higher co-pays now..



Sure in some areas insurance pays or ER pays or companies, state govt pays so it would hard to make sweeping changes with medicare for all you could make sweeping changs and quickly to establish a few national prices and copays.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.
> ...



Medicare for all as a prelude to capitalism is only way to go.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

Anathema said:


> Medicare for All leaves me dead in less than 36 months. Sorry, not interested.



op is about Medicare for all as prelude to capitalism. Make sense?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



When has government ever totally taken something over and then given up that power?

Give me your top 5 examples.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

Oddball said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.
> ...



capitalism is not  monopolistic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


didn't say it had, merely that medicare for all as prelude to capitalism would lover prices 70% like in Europe and capitalism( published prices/higher and higher copays would lower  prices still further.


----------



## Anathema (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> op is about Medicare for all as prelude to capitalism. Make sense?



Medicare for All is a non-starter for me, no matter what it leads to because it means I’m dead within 36 months.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> very very simple. published prices and higher copays



Price controls and removing market controls from an industry is the fastest way to Capitalism?

Who knew?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

Anathema said:


> Price controls and removing market controls from an industry is the fastest way to Capitalism?
> Who knew?



what market controls?? Our prices are 3 times higher because there are no free market controls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



* medicare for all as prelude to capitalism would lover prices 70% like in Europe *

You're full of shit.

Give me some examples where a government takeover dropped prices 70%.
Be sure to include the drop in availability and quality as well as the increase in wait times 
when you give me your many examples.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Give me some examples where a government takeover dropped prices 70%.
> .


I just did Europe has prices 70%
of ours


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Give me some examples where a government takeover dropped prices 70%.
> ...



You forgot to include the  drop in availability and quality as well as the increase in wait times.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jan 13, 2019)

Doctors would be salaried with the government fixing their take home pay.  Of course medical malpractice lawsuits would be a thing of the past.  Doctors could not afford insurance on what the government pays them.

The way single payer health care works is when medical care is rationed and the very sick euthanized.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 14, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Doctors would be salaried with the government fixing their take home pay.  Of course medical malpractice lawsuits would be a thing of the past.  Doctors could not afford insurance on what the government pays them.
> 
> The way single payer health care works is when medical care is rationed and the very sick euthanized.



You have been reading trash from socialized medicine articles. 

Family Doctors are being replaced by NP's and PA's with Doctors overseeing them. There will still be specialists.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Medicare, Medicaid, Chip, Hud and Food Stamps.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You forgot to include the  drop in availability and quality as well as the increase in wait times.



if they exists they are trivial. Plenty of people live on USA Canadian border and  prefer Canadian availability and quality. You seem to love our system even when you have to look with a microscope to find any capitalistic elements?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The way single payer health care works is when medical care is rationed and the very sick euthanized.



single payer with increasing copays and published prices could be turned into Republican capitalism quickly


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > The way single payer health care works is when medical care is rationed and the very sick euthanized.
> ...



WTF is "Republican capitalism"? It sure as hell isn't free markets - you clearly want government calling the shots.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

dblack said:


> WTF is "Republican capitalism"?



capitalism is  Republican now because only Republicans support it while Democrats support socialism obamacare Sanders etc. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

dblack said:


> you clearly want government calling the shots.



if you have evidence I"ll pay you $10,000. BEt?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.


Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis and letting markets find their own equilibrium is as market friendly as it gets.


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > you clearly want government calling the shots.
> ...



This thread. IM me for the address where you can send the check.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


if you have evidence I"ll pay you $10,000. BEt?


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



This thread. Make it a cashier's check please.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


silly liberal clown without IQ for substance


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


You gonna pay up, or what?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


if you have evidence I"ll pay you $10,000. BEt?


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I've posted it three times, nimrod. This thread is the evidence. Send me my money!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to include the  drop in availability and quality as well as the increase in wait times.
> ...



*if they exists they are trivial.*

Hey, I saw a trivial video about a trivial wait time that resulted in the amputation of two trivial legs.

Check it out.


The fun starts at about 10:19


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



plenty of horror stories in America too. You did not say why you  defend our system when it has next to no capitalism???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



As bad as you feel our system is, putting the government 100% in charge will make it 100% worse. At least.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As bad as you feel our system is, putting the government 100% in charge will make it 100% worse. At least.



REally? 

Then why do we trail in EVERY LAST metric. 

We spend more per capita than any country in the world.
But we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.
The Lowest life expectancy
the largest number of uninsured.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The fun starts at about 10:19



You can find just as many horror stories in the US. 

Doctor Who Cut Off Wrong Leg Is Defended by Colleagues

13 Disturbing Cases of Medical Malpractice 		 			| Pittsburgh Medical Malpractice Articles


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.


How many Americans would start their own businesses if they didn’t have to worry about healthcare?

Being fired wouldn’t be so scary

And people could retire earlier. A lot don’t retire at 59 because they can’t afford private insurance 

We all know companies discriminate against older people. Can’t always prove it but we know. Wouldn’t be so bad firing a 50 year old guy who’s gonna have trouble getting someone else to hire and provide him health insurance


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.
> ...



Employer provided health care was a bad idea from the start. It gives employers far too much power over their employees. We need to remove the tax and regulatory policies that prop up the practice. But removing the dependency on an employer for healthcare, only to replace it with a dependency on government, is even worse. It's going in the _wrong_ direction.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


What went wrong with the "health exchanges"?


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Shut the fuck up, danny.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Republican sabotage


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


what would have worked better, in Your opinion.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 15, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


how much subsidy does means testing for pre-existing conditions cost?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As bad as you feel our system is, putting the government 100% in charge will make it 100% worse. At least.



We could just copy the Canadians and save enough to pay off the national debt in 10 years. And, if you look at all the bureaucrats, laws, and regulations in all the spaghetti mess of the health care system we have you would be hard pressed to make the case that we have less govt now than Canada has now.  They simple have a far more efficient socialist system than our socialist system.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> only to replace it with a dependency on government, is even worse. It's going in the _wrong_ direction.



canada uses govt right next door and they pay 1/3 of what we pay. We need to copy them and then switch to capitalism by published prices and higher copays


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > As bad as you feel our system is, putting the government 100% in charge will make it 100% worse. At least.
> ...



*We could just copy the Canadians and save enough to pay off the national debt in 10 years. *

Yeah, but we'd miss the sickly whiners like you who can't pay for your own healthcare.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, but we'd miss the sickly whiners like you who can't pay for your own healthcare.



so you lost debate and switch to personal attack? Sad.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > only to replace it with a dependency on government, is even worse. It's going in the _wrong_ direction.
> ...



I really don't know what the word 'capitalism' means to you. It sure as hell isn't about free markets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but we'd miss the sickly whiners like you who can't pay for your own healthcare.
> ...



Sickly whiners will be the first to suffer when the rationing under 100% government control occurs.
And we'd miss your whining.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



wrong!! the way to get to capitalism is switch from our current socialist system to Medicare for all socialism and then to capitalism with published prices and higher copays. NOw do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'm advocating capitalism not 100% government control.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



He's under the delusion that we could give politicians complete control over 100% of our healthcare system, they'd fix it, make it cheaper and then surrender control to a new capitalist system of healthcare.

I think maybe he needs some government run mental healthcare......quickly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



But you want 100% government control....first.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No. I rarely understand your posts to be honest. You're not quite the troll daniel is, but you share his lack of clarity and fixation on "custom" terminology.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's under the delusion that we could give politicians complete control over 100% of our healthcare system,



which is about what they have now. There is no reason why the Canadian govt gives its citizens a 70% discount on health care and ours cant.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> No. I rarely understand your posts to be honest. You're not quite the troll daniel is, but you share his lack of clarity and fixation on "custom" terminology.



why not try to tell me where you are confused about OP and I will help you understand in language you can understand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He's under the delusion that we could give politicians complete control over 100% of our healthcare system,
> ...



If you want long waits, inferior equipment and old drugs, get your whiney old butt up to Canada.
We'll miss you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But you want 100% government control....first.



they have nearly 100% control now as does Canada. Medicare for all is not more control. IN fact in some ways less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



*they have nearly 100% control now*

And they haven't fixed it already? DERP!

*Medicare for all is not more control. IN fact in some ways less.*

By all means, explain your "logic".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you want long waits, inferior equipment and old drugs, get your whiney old butt up to Canada.
> We'll miss you.



they deliver equal medical care on all quality dimensions at 35% of our cost with a system that is no more socialist than ours.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If you want long waits, inferior equipment and old drugs, get your whiney old butt up to Canada.
> ...



Right. With long waits, inferior equipment and old drugs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



most here, in the big $ years, are on VA Medicare Medicaid IHC Schip, community clinics, etc which is pure socialism and the rest of us are in Obamcare and state regulation hell  to the point where you conclude Canada has a more efficient socialist system than our primarily socialist system. In America you are locked into one of the  bureaucracies whereas under single payer in Canada you are not.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. With long waits, inferior equipment and old drugs.



silly non scientific nonsense

In the Commonwealth Fund’s overall ranking of health system performance, Canada came in fifth and the U.S. came in sixth, out of six countries. On the other hand, the WHO’s 2000 World Health Report gave Canada a slightly better review, ranking it 30th for overall health system performance – above three of the other countries from the Commonwealth study (Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.) but below the other two (the U.K. and Germany). All of these countries, except the U.S., have publicly funded health care, as does every major country in the WHO’s top ten.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

I never thought it would be so easy to push the US into socialism, but that sure seems like where we're headed.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 15, 2019)

let's "blame the right wing" for having no better solutions at lower cost, merely nothing but repeal.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> let's "blame the right wing" for having no better solutions at lower cost, merely nothing but repeal.



Danny, you're out of your element.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> I never thought it would be so easy to push the US into socialism, but that sure seems like where we're headed.


we've been there forever in health care and liberal are actually so stupid that want socialism every where in our economy!!


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought it would be so easy to push the US into socialism, but that sure seems like where we're headed.
> ...



Says the 'capitalist' who wants to nationalize health insurance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > let's "blame the right wing" for having no better solutions at lower cost, merely nothing but repeal.
> ...



He thought the thread title said....Medical Weed For All.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 I want to nationalize it then turn it capitalist with published prices and higher copays

How do you want propose we get it to capitalism?


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


What the fuck does that even mean? You want to force them to publish prices and have higher copays? Piss off. You have no clue what a free market is about.



> How do you want propose we get it to capitalism?



Repeal all the stupid laws regulating it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 16, 2019)

dblack said:


> You want to force them to publish prices and have higher copays? Piss off. You have no clue what a free market is about.
> .



a free market is when you have published prices and people shopping and paying (copays) with their own money. Do you understand now?


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You want to force them to publish prices and have higher copays? Piss off. You have no clue what a free market is about.
> ...



No, Ed. You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 16, 2019)

dblack said:


> Repeal all the stupid laws regulating it.



I'd agree but that's not remotely on the table in a million years and it would be hugely chaotic.

Fastest way to capitalism is universal which is certainly on the table (and would cut costs 70% anyway) .Then new laws to publish prices and then higher and higher copays until you had a capitalist system. Do you finally understand now? Reread OP


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 16, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


name calling becausee you lost debate? Sad


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 16, 2019)

dblack said:


> Says the 'capitalist' who wants to nationalize health insurance.


nationalize it as a prelude to privatizing it. Do you understand now?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> a free market is when you have published prices and people shopping and paying (copays) with their own money. Do you understand now?



Perfectly, it's why we don't have one.   People don't like being broke and dead.


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Says the 'capitalist' who wants to nationalize health insurance.
> ...



Yeah. The government is really eager to relinquish control once they've nationalized something. Take ACA - the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to repeal it even though they were elected on that promise. Do you really see Congress letting go once they have total control of our health care?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



*Do you really see Congress letting go once they have total control of our health care?*

That's why he's called special Ed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 17, 2019)

dblack said:


> Yeah. The government is really eager to relinquish control once they've nationalized something. Take ACA - the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to repeal it even though they were elected on that promise. Do you really see Congress letting go once they have total control of our health care?



Were they elected on that promise?  They only reason they "won" was because of the EC and Gerrymandering.  

The real reason they didn't repeal it is because too many of their own inbred, bible thumping voters will figure out that the ACA that gives them health care is the same thing as that ObamaCare they hate so much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The government is really eager to relinquish control once they've nationalized something. Take ACA - the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to repeal it even though they were elected on that promise. Do you really see Congress letting go once they have total control of our health care?
> ...



* They only reason they "won" was because of the EC and Gerrymandering.  *

They Gerrymandered the shit out of the EC.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Says the 'capitalist' who wants to nationalize health insurance.
> ...


simple poverty should be an externality to the private sector.  that is why we have Government; to nurture capitalism via socialism.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can make that happen in a market friendly manner.


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 17, 2019)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Make the check for $9900 or it's necessary to send a copy of the transaction to the IRS


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You do know a Canadian can purchase a separate health insurance policy that is pretty cheap, don't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

debbiedowner said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Government run healthcare and you still need another policy?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Do you really see Congress letting go once they have total control of our health care?*
> .



they have total control now. If they don't let go of single payer we're stuck paying 1/3 of what we pay now. Thats enough to pay off national debt in 10 years


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 17, 2019)

dblack said:


> Yeah. The government is really eager to relinquish control once they've nationalized something.



publishing prices is hardly relinquishing control!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Do you really see Congress letting go once they have total control of our health care?*
> ...



Baloney.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you lost again so you say, baloney!!


----------



## dblack (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The government is really eager to relinquish control once they've nationalized something.
> ...



?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You've made ridiculous claims and haven't backed up a single one. Try again?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



what was most ridiculous claim?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *They only reason they "won" was because of the EC and Gerrymandering. *
> 
> They Gerrymandered the shit out of the EC.



Sorry, I guess I was putting too many ideas in once sentence for you.  That happens when talking to someone as clearly as retarded as you are.  Did you eat paint chips as a child?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



That a complete government takeover would make things better AND cheaper.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *They only reason they "won" was because of the EC and Gerrymandering. *
> ...



*Sorry, I guess I was putting too many ideas in once sentence for you. *

Yeah, too many stupid ideas in one sentence. 
Such a glimpse into the "mind" of a liberal frightened me to the core.

Feel free to expand on your gerrymandering claim. I'll be happy to point out your errors.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, too many stupid ideas in one sentence.
> Such a glimpse into the "mind" of a liberal frightened me to the core.
> 
> Feel free to expand on your gerrymandering claim. I'll be happy to point out your errors.



That a lot of districts are drawn specifically to put Republicans in office. 

If we allocated representation on pure votes, the Democrats would have taken the house in 2012 and again in 2016.  I'm sorry you don't get this concept, but don't worry, you will after the 2020 census and Democrats are drawing the maps


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.



Insurance prior to Obamacare wasn't socialist.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, too many stupid ideas in one sentence.
> ...



If frogs has wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped.

Do you mean Democrats are going to gerrymander things in a manner they now call a bad thing.   What you lefties fail to acknowledge is that there are 23 GERRYMANDERED majority minority districts where those elected couldn't get in the Capitol without a built in guarantee.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2019)

Conservative65 said:


> Insurance prior to Obamacare wasn't socialist.



Actually it kind of was. 

Prior to Obamacare, if you were lucky enough to have insurance, there were one of two conditions. 

1) You were paying in for premiums (or your boss was) but you were healthy, so you were getting nothing back that year. 

2) You were paying in premiums, but had a serious health issue that year, far beyond what you were paying in, and other people in condition 1 were paying your way.  

That's about as fucking socialist as you get.  

A truly capitalist system is no insurance, no programs, and you only get as much health care as you can pay for... 

Most of you would be dead and bankrupt.  



Conservative65 said:


> Do you mean Democrats are going to gerrymander things in a manner they now call a bad thing. What you lefties fail to acknowledge is that there are 23 GERRYMANDERED majority minority districts where those elected couldn't get in the Capitol without a built in guarantee.



23?  Okay, let's look at that.  Minorities make up 30% of the population.  so by that logic, 30% of the Congress should be minority.  

that means we should have 130 minority congressmen.   We don't.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance prior to Obamacare wasn't socialist.
> ...




It wasn't a matter of luck to have insurance.  It meant you were doing what it took to provide to yourself what you should be providing to yourself.  

Capitalism involves buying what you want to buy and if you choose not to, that's also fine.  You're equating insurance with things like food stamps.   While people eat every day, they don't go to the doctor every day.  

Those are the black gerrymandered districts.   In the states where those districts exist, none have a greater than 50% black population yet districts within the states are divided.  That's how they're elected, by district.  

By your logic, only 30% of the NBA, NFL, etc. should be minority.   You and I both know they aren't.  Should be practice your concept with professional sports?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2019)

Conservative65 said:


> It wasn't a matter of luck to have insurance. It meant you were doing what it took to provide to yourself what you should be providing to yourself.



Well,t hat would be awesome and stuff, if the Insurance companies kept their promises and didn't do what they did when I busted up my knee, which was fight me tooth and nail over every treatment my doctor thought was needed.... and encourage my awful boss to get me off the payroll. 



Conservative65 said:


> Capitalism involves buying what you want to buy and if you choose not to, that's also fine. You're equating insurance with things like food stamps. While people eat every day, they don't go to the doctor every day.



No, it isn't fine. No one should die of a treatable disease because they couldn't afford insurance or their insurance company decided keeping their promises cut into the profit margin. "What, you have breast cancer? THat's a pre-existing condition because you had acne was a teen!"  



Conservative65 said:


> Those are the black gerrymandered districts. In the states where those districts exist, none have a greater than 50% black population yet districts within the states are divided. That's how they're elected, by district.



Actually, no.  Most of those districts are majority minority. In IL, we have the 1, 2 and 7 districts, which are black, and the 4th, which is Hispanic.   They are drawn very oddly to crowd all the minorities into one place.  



Conservative65 said:


> By your logic, only 30% of the NBA, NFL, etc. should be minority. You and I both know they aren't. Should be practice your concept with professional sports?



No, because the NFL doesn't purport to represent the people. The House of Representatives does.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't a matter of luck to have insurance. It meant you were doing what it took to provide to yourself what you should be providing to yourself.
> ...



Your boss should get rid of you because you're a whining little shit.     

If you think someone should get something they can't afford, pay their bill yourself.   YOU claim they deserve it.  

So gerrymandering is OK when you benefit from it but wrong when you don't like it?

There isn't but one member of the House that represents me.  It's the one from my district.   The one from yours doesn't represent me nor does that person care about me.  I do see you support a concept when you like the results and oppose it when you don't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, too many stupid ideas in one sentence.
> ...



*If we allocated representation on pure votes, the Democrats would have taken the house in 2012 and again in 2016.*






Wikipedia says you're full of shit.

2016 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

Now, if we allocated without including illegal aliens, how much power would the Dems lose?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance prior to Obamacare wasn't socialist.
> ...



*Okay, let's look at that. Minorities make up 30% of the population.*

Excellent point. Let's make more districts no more than 30% minority, see how the CBC does.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Joe has no problem applying that 30% when he likes the results but runs from it when he doesn't like it.


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance prior to Obamacare wasn't socialist.
> ...



Nope. Socialism is imposed by government. Try again.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



People like dumbass Joe Boy think anything that's done cooperatively, even if private, is socialism.


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2019)

Conservative65 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Equivocation for the win. I guess. Or not.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

dblack said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



He would think my neighbors having a block party and everyone bringing something is socialism because we cooperated.


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2019)

Conservative65 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



This is why I think conservatives err when they willingly adopt the stingy reactionary caricature. Opposing socialism doesn't mean opposing cooperation, or community. It just means we won't resort to violence to achieve it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 18, 2019)

dblack said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's because socialism and doing things cooperatively aren't the same thing.  I believe that if you want to help someone, that should be your choice not the the government's place to force it.   I also believe that if you claim to care for someone that doesn't have (fill in the blank),. it should be on that person or persons to fund it themselves.   I find that bleeding heart Liberals think claiming to care is the same as actually having done something.  More than once they've responded to that concept with "I can't afford to do it myself".   To them I say,  STFU demanding  others do something if you can't do it yourself.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> The real reason they didn't repeal it is because too many of their own inbred, bible thumping voters will figure out that the ACA that gives them health care is the same thing as that ObamaCare they hate so much.



They didn't repeal it because evil and stupid liberals have given capitalism a bad name, especially as it relates to health care.


----------



## Freiheit (Jan 18, 2019)

Socialism:  
*": *any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 *: *a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done "
Merriam Webster dictionary


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The real reason they didn't repeal it is because too many of their own inbred, bible thumping voters will figure out that the ACA that gives them health care is the same thing as that ObamaCare they hate so much.
> ...



Huh? Republicans didn't repeal ACA because of liberals??? That's exactly as stupid as liberals blaming ACA on the Republicans.


----------



## Freiheit (Jan 18, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Give me some examples where a government takeover dropped prices 70%.
> ...


Provide links my research does not indicate 70% overall lower prices in Europe while it does indicate some lower prices.  Drug prices do appear to be significantly lower,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2019)

Freiheit said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Drug prices do appear to be significantly lower*

Threatening to steal our pharma IP does get them a discount.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 18, 2019)

dblack said:


> Huh? Republicans didn't repeal ACA because of liberals??? That's exactly as stupid as liberals blaming ACA on the Republicans.



if capitalism had a good name Republicans would have switched to capitalist health care to reduce prices 80%


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 18, 2019)

Freiheit said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



 you need a link to show Europe pays 30-40% of what we do for health care???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You don't have one?


----------



## Freiheit (Jan 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Freiheit said:
> ...


Yes if you have no proof of your allegations they must be viewed as figments of a fevered imagination.


----------



## Freiheit (Jan 18, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


If you must ask you have no clue, get back under your rock.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

Conservative65 said:


> There isn't but one member of the House that represents me. It's the one from my district. The one from yours doesn't represent me nor does that person care about me. I do see you support a concept when you like the results and oppose it when you don't.



But you see, that's the problem... they shouldn't be drawing districts to disenfranchise people...  I'm sorry you don't get that.  If we had the house represent the country as it looks, we'd have 130 minority Congressmen.   We don't.  Even with the record number, it's only 95.  



Conservative65 said:


> If you think someone should get something they can't afford, pay their bill yourself. YOU claim they deserve it.



Um, that's the problem, STUPID.  They've already paid for insurance... and the insurance companies cheat them.  They are paying taxes, and often don't qualify for medicaid or medicare.  Time to stop this nonsense of making health care a lottery.  Universal health care as a right.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

dblack said:


> Nope. Socialism is imposed by government. Try again.



Nope, socialism is pooling of resources.  They had socialism in the Israeli Kibbutzes, and it worked just fine for them. 

So one more time, your insurance company is socialist.  Sorry It just is.  The only difference is that Ed Hanaway (Evil Cocksucker) lives a lot better than any Soviet Commissar would ever dream of living.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> They didn't repeal it because evil and stupid liberals have given capitalism a bad name, especially as it relates to health care.



Um, no, evil and stupid Insurance companies have given capitalism a bad name.  

You haven't lived until you've tried to get an insurance company to pay for an "elective" procedure they don't want to pay for.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

Conservative65 said:


> That's because socialism and doing things cooperatively aren't the same thing. I believe that if you want to help someone, that should be your choice not the the government's place to force it. I also believe that if you claim to care for someone that doesn't have (fill in the blank),. it should be on that person or persons to fund it themselves. I find that bleeding heart Liberals think claiming to care is the same as actually having done something. More than once they've responded to that concept with "I can't afford to do it myself". To them I say, STFU demanding others do something if you can't do it yourself.



You can say that, but once the majority us vote for it, you can STFU.  

Eventually, we'll be in the majority, no matter how many tricks with the EC and Gerrymandering you clowns pull.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > There isn't but one member of the House that represents me. It's the one from my district. The one from yours doesn't represent me nor does that person care about me. I do see you support a concept when you like the results and oppose it when you don't.
> ...



* If we had the house represent the country as it looks, we'd have 130 minority Congressmen.*

Bullshit. We don't elect our Congressmen at-large.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bullshit. We don't elect our Congressmen at-large.



No, we gerrymander the districts so badly that only about 50 of them in play at any given time...  

That's actually, kind of worse.. 

You conservatives whine all day about unresponsive government, but if they never had to worry about losing their jobs, they are pretty much going to keep doing what they are doing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. We don't elect our Congressmen at-large.
> ...



And how many of those gerrymandered districts were demanded by liberals to create majority-minority districts to guarantee minority reps?


----------



## dblack (Jan 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Socialism is imposed by government. Try again.
> ...



Well, play whatever equivocation games you like - it makes your argument about as meaningful as daniel's koans.



> So one more time, your insurance company is socialist.  Sorry It just is.  The only difference is that Ed Hanaway (Evil Cocksucker) lives a lot better than any Soviet Commissar would ever dream of living.



The difference is the Soviet Commissar is authorized to imprison or kill you if you don't obey. Insurance companies are not. Your inability to grasp this undermines your entire position.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And how many of those gerrymandered districts were demanded by liberals to create majority-minority districts to guarantee minority reps?



Not enough, given that we don't have 30% of the House being minority.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2019)

dblack said:


> The difference is the Soviet Commissar is authorized to imprison or kill you if you don't obey. Insurance companies are not. Your inability to grasp this undermines your entire position.



I think there is a young lady named Nataline Sarkisyan who would disagree that the insurance companies can't kill you.


----------



## dblack (Jan 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is the Soviet Commissar is authorized to imprison or kill you if you don't obey. Insurance companies are not. Your inability to grasp this undermines your entire position.
> ...



Are you really too dumb to recognize the difference?? I don't know what you're referring to above, but insurance companies are not legally authorized to employ violence. Governments are. Trying to pretend otherwise is just as blind and foolish as the delusions of the Trumpsters.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 19, 2019)

Freiheit said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Freiheit said:
> ...


*U.S. Health Care Spending Is Double That of Other Countries | Time*

time.com › Health › Health Care
Mar 13, 2018 - They found that spending in the U.S. far outpaces that in other nations. Health careaccounts for almost 18% of the U.S.'s GDP, compared to ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > That's because socialism and doing things cooperatively aren't the same thing. I believe that if you want to help someone, that should be your choice not the the government's place to force it. I also believe that if you claim to care for someone that doesn't have (fill in the blank),. it should be on that person or persons to fund it themselves. I find that bleeding heart Liberals think claiming to care is the same as actually having done something. More than once they've responded to that concept with "I can't afford to do it myself". To them I say, STFU demanding others do something if you can't do it yourself.
> ...


oh good then we can switch to socialism like Europe did and  see or standard of living cut in half.


----------



## Freiheit (Jan 19, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Your link does not support your claims did you read it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 19, 2019)

Freiheit said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Freiheit said:
> ...



*The United States* spends much more money on*healthcare* than *Canada*, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita *spending* for*health care* in *Canada* was *US*$3,678; in the *U.S.*,*US*$6,714. The *U.S.* spent 15.3% of GDP on *healthcare* in that year; *Canada* spent 10.0%.
*Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United ...*

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Comparison_of_the_healthcare_systems_in_Canada_and_the..


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2019)

dblack said:


> Are you really too dumb to recognize the difference?? I don't know what you're referring to above, but insurance companies are not legally authorized to employ violence. Governments are. Trying to pretend otherwise is just as blind and foolish as the delusions of the Trumpsters.



again, dead by a bullet from a government you vote for, dead by corporate bureaucracy that is answerable to no one.... you are still just as dead.  



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> oh good then we can switch to socialism like Europe did and see or standard of living cut in half.



Another white trash American who has never been to Europe.


----------



## dblack (Jan 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really too dumb to recognize the difference?? I don't know what you're referring to above, but insurance companies are not legally authorized to employ violence. Governments are. Trying to pretend otherwise is just as blind and foolish as the delusions of the Trumpsters.
> ...



Death by paperwork, eh? If corporations are killing people, prosecute those responsible and put them in jail. They aren't authorized to do that. Government is. Equating the two is idiotic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2019)

dblack said:


> Death by paperwork, eh? If corporations are killing people, prosecute those responsible and put them in jail. They aren't authorized to do that. Government is. Equating the two is idiotic.



Again, the naivette of libertarians is always a wonder to behold.  

We don't prosecute rich people in this country, where have you been?


----------



## dblack (Jan 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> We don't prosecute rich people in this country, where have you been?



Not enough, that's for sure. So what? Let's just fix it. What does that have to do with socialism?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2019)

dblack said:


> Not enough, that's for sure. So what? Let's just fix it. What does that have to do with socialism?



The fact when you have runaway capitalism, you have the situation where the rich have their own set of rules.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Another white trash American who has never been to Europe.



just got back!!. huge rioting all over France- despite libcommie govt collecting 43% of GDP in taxes, 27% for USA) because the poor and middle class can't make ends meet. Ffance has average income of Arkansas, about our poorest state. see why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> The fact when you have runaway capitalism, you have the situation where the rich have their own set of rules.



 The rule under capitalism is you have the best product in the world to raise your customers standard of living at the fastest possible rate or you go bankrupt. Socialism has no such rule. Ever heard of East/West Germany or 132 other examples?? Slow???.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The rule under capitalism is you have the best product in the world to raise your customers standard of living at the fastest possible rate or you go bankrupt. Socialism has no such rule. Ever heard of East/West Germany or 132 other examples?? Slow???.



Okay, let's look at Germany. West Germany you had a country that was propped up by Billions from the US to rebuild, they had a system of socialized medicine and social programs going back to Bismarck. German unionization is 18% compared to 10% in the US, they have six weeks of paid vacation...  

So Democratic Socialism... works just fine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The rule under capitalism is you have the best product in the world to raise your customers standard of living at the fastest possible rate or you go bankrupt. Socialism has no such rule. Ever heard of East/West Germany or 132 other examples?? Slow???.
> ...



*West Germany you had a country that was propped up by Billions from the US to rebuild, *

East Germany you had a country that was propped up by Billions from the USSR to rebuild,


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> East Germany you had a country that was propped up by Billions from the USSR to rebuild,



Except the Russians did no such thing.  IN fact, they looted Germany for everything they could, after they got done raping all the women in their zone.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Another white trash American who has never been to Europe.
> ...


no need to overtax the rich; simply raise the minimum wage.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> ..
> 
> So Democratic Socialism... works just fine.



they have democratic socialism in Europe and live at 65% of our GDP. THe french are literally rioting in the streets because huge taxes have not helped. Obama was socialist and had worst economic record in US history with not one year of 3% growth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 21, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> no need to overtax the rich; simply raise the minimum wage.



very dumb idea that would make it illegal to hire those not worth the minimum wage


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> The fact when you have runaway capitalism, you have the situation where the rich have their own set of rules.



yep, the rule is, raise the standard of living at fastest possible rate or you go bankrupt. Socialism has no such concerns which is why they just killed 120 million!


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > no need to overtax the rich; simply raise the minimum wage.
> ...


higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 21, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.


so?? those unemployed by the minimum wage pay no taxes and require welfare. You're still making kindergarten  arguments 5 years later


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.
> ...


Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, still solves that simple economic engineering problem, five years later.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 22, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> they have democratic socialism in Europe and live at 65% of our GDP. THe french are literally rioting in the streets because huge taxes have not helped. Obama was socialist and had worst economic record in US history with not one year of 3% growth.



Obama saved a bunch of big corporatoins, so he was doing a pretty shitty job as a socialist. A socialist nationalizes the corporations and sends the Execs to a re-education camp.  Which frankly, is something I owuld have liked to have seen done after the 2008 recession.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > they have democratic socialism in Europe and live at 65% of our GDP. THe french are literally rioting in the streets because huge taxes have not helped. Obama was socialist and had worst economic record in US history with not one year of 3% growth.
> ...



obviously it would have been 1000 times smarter to send the soviet bank regulators to camps for causing the crisis by interfering with capitalism. socialism killed 120 million


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 22, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


and when you are beaten you talk gibberish to cover it up. pathetic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> obviously it would have been 1000 times smarter to send the soviet bank regulators to camps for causing the crisis by interfering with capitalism. socialism killed 120 million



Okay, buddy, we are all kind of bored with your leftover Bircher propaganda... because it's boring. 

The thing was, 2008 was Capitalism at it's best. Working people got screwed, the one percent got richer.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.



Prices fixed by the government is not a Capitalistic economy.  I'd have thought you knew that by now.

Here's the minimum cost again and you know how governments first estimate work out!  

Politics
*‘Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says*
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR)
July 30, 2018, 12:43 AM EDT Updated on July 30, 2018, 1:11 PM EDT

Washington (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I an certain you are already aware that AOC's plan will cost $40 TRILLION over 10 years.  If you believe that...well you know.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> Prices fixed by the government is not a Capitalistic economy. I'd have thought you knew that by now.
> 
> Here's the minimum cost again and you know how governments first estimate work out!



which is about what we are spending now on health care... So I'm not seeing the problem.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

Penelope said:


> You have been reading trash from socialized medicine articles.
> 
> Family Doctors are being replaced by NP's and PA's with Doctors overseeing them. There will still be specialists.



WOW, you sure haven't done any serious research on your own, have you.  Your ignorance is a bit overwhelming.

You mean we'll be like Canada, with draconian tax rates.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> plenty of horror stories in America too. You did not say why you defend our system when it has next to no capitalism???



What percentage of hospitals in the US are non-profit?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> WOW, you sure haven't done any serious research on your own, have you. Your ignorance is a bit overwhelming.
> 
> You mean we'll be like Canada, with draconian tax rates.



Doesn't look so bad to me. 







Here's the thing.  We are already paying for everyone else's health care through the cost of health care being added to every service and product created in this country.  

We spend 18% of GDP on Health Care while Canada spends 8%.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Health care for all (Medicare for all) would be cheaper and better. It would replace the convoluted socialist system we have now with a simple more efficient socialist system. Then we could require published prices and higher copays until we had capitalistic price and quality controls.
> ...



sure beats the Ceo's of insurance companies making millions a year.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> you need a link to show Europe pays 30-40% of what we do for health care???



As you know, where it is offered, the taxes in that country for income taxes alone and they all have astronomical VAT taxes which is almost everything you buy.  The Vat Tax will run 20-25 percent of whatever it is you buy.  You get a tax free allowance for groceries, medicine and such.

During your life, Americans move more than eleven times in their lifetime.  Far more than any other country who simply cannot afford to move that many times.

As you know too, health care in both Great Britain and Canada is far inferior to our own with months-long waiting lists for Specialists and many GP's.

Why do you want such a failed system?  It's like buying in last on a Ponzi Scheme.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



As you know, it would have been the IRS who collected your mandatory payment, withholding your tax return if you had not paid in full.  Then it would go to the insurance companies.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

Penelope said:


> sure beats the Ceo's of insurance companies making millions a year.




That amount would more than double our current budget, DOUBLE.  AOC was tongue-tied when asked where that money would come from and has not provided an answer.  She had no clue.  Neither do I!


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> The fact when you have runaway capitalism, you have the situation where the rich have their own set of rules.



In fact, as you know, there are two systems of healthcare in Great Britain and Canada.  The working class has their plan called NICE...I think.  Anyway, that pays for all the lower and middle-class citizens.  Then there is a private health care system paid or privately.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> no need to overtax the rich; simply raise the minimum wage.



Our slow-moving troll is back.

You and that fantasy $15.00 per hour.  DEAD before it sees the light of day!


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Prices fixed by the government is not a Capitalistic economy. I'd have thought you knew that by now.
> ...



MORE!  In addition too.


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 23, 2019)

Not in addition


Markle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Not in addition to, VA, Tricare or life and medicaid people would just transfer to the Medicare for all. It's damn near a wash. You are the one who does not do your research.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Prices fixed by the government is not a Capitalistic economy. I'd have thought you knew that by now.
> ...



Please show me your source saying that spending for ObamaCare for all would not change the cost we currently pay.

Come one, catch up.

This a copy and paste from the article.

Washington (AP) -- "Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would *boost* government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center."

Please read the first line, very carefully after the words "Sen. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan would boost the government health...."


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 23, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


in right wing fantasy, you can always win.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > you need a link to show Europe pays 30-40% of what we do for health care???
> ...



under Capitalism, the Rich can afford to insure promptness not the Poor.

Simply having social services pickup the capital slack, skews our perspective.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > no need to overtax the rich; simply raise the minimum wage.
> ...


A First World costs.  Labor must be able to afford it.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 23, 2019)

The right wing prefers an underclass for their, Metropolis.


----------



## Markle (Jan 23, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You're right, in Canada, the rich can afford to go to private physicians and pay cash or travel to the US and get prompt medical care and pay cash.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 24, 2019)

Markle said:


> In fact, as you know, there are two systems of healthcare in Great Britain and Canada. The working class has their plan called NICE...I think. Anyway, that pays for all the lower and middle-class citizens. Then there is a private health care system paid or privately.



Yes, being an entitled rich douchebag is a universal constant...  I have no problem with the rich buying their own plans, as long as they are paying their fair share and everyone else is covered.  

See how that works? 



Markle said:


> Please show me your source saying that spending for ObamaCare for all would not change the cost we currently pay.
> 
> Come one, catch up.
> 
> ...



Which, again, is what we spend now... It's just now that money goes through private insurance to pay for things like 9-figure executive salaries and shareholder payouts instead of paying doctor's and nurses.. 

Are you some kind of a retard?  Everyone else in the world has single payer, and they have much better results.


----------



## Markle (Jan 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, as you know, there are two systems of healthcare in Great Britain and Canada. The working class has their plan called NICE...I think. Anyway, that pays for all the lower and middle-class citizens. Then there is a private health care system paid or privately.
> ...



Great, then you're happy with the current system.  Everyone has basic health care and those who wish, buy additional coverage.

What part of BOOST is not clear to you?  Even whack job AOC knows her goals would cost an additional $40 TRILLION over 10 years.  She has no clue as to how to raise that amount of money.

You are grossly misinformed about our health care.  We have the finest in the world and most available.

Educating yourself about the topic would go a long way toward helping you form your arguments.  Try it, you'll like it!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Are you some kind of a retard?  Everyone else in the world has single payer, and they have much better results.



let's be honest . They have single payer and so do we with Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, schip, community clinics, etc. They are poorer and more stream lined so delivery about the same care  for 1/3 to 1/2 the price. We need to consolidate our single payer systems into one system and switch it to capitalism with published prices and increasing co pays


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 24, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > plenty of horror stories in America too. You did not say why you defend our system when it has next to no capitalism???
> ...


 66% And???????????????????


----------



## Markle (Jan 24, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Obviously, if they are non-profit, they're not soaking patients for their bottom line. It's about 82 percent.

According to the AHA, about 18 percent of U.S. hospitals are private, for-profit hospitals, while 23 percent are owned by state and local governments. The rest are private, nonprofit facilities. This means they’re exempt from federal income tax—and often other taxes as well. It also means tax-exempt bonds may be issued on their behalf.

Did You Know: For-Profit Versus Nonprofit Hospitals


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 24, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Show me any hospital profit or non profit not soaking their patients for their bottom line.


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 24, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you some kind of a retard?  Everyone else in the world has single payer, and they have much better results.
> ...



You combine them all into Medicare for all you actually save some money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2019)

debbiedowner said:


> You combine them all into Medicare for all you actually save some money.


 yes, we  could eliminate all the other huge liberal bureaucracies. What a waste of money! But, it would have to be down with a firm commitment to then switch it to capitalism with published prices and rising copays


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> Obviously, if they are non-profit, they're not soaking patients for their bottom line. It's about 82 percent.



so then why do they charge 3 to 4 times more than Canada Europe Japan etc??


----------



## Markle (Jan 25, 2019)

debbiedowner said:


> You combine them all into Medicare for all you actually save some money.



Combine "all" what to actually save some money and how?


----------



## boedicca (Jan 25, 2019)

Medicare for all will just hasten the collapse of our system of government and civil society.  It's not going to be pretty when what's left of our civil order collapses.


----------



## Markle (Jan 25, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, if they are non-profit, they're not soaking patients for their bottom line. It's about 82 percent.
> ...



Much is due to three things.  One, they are required to provide care for anyone who comes to their door.  Meaning that everyone else pays for those who do not pay.

Two, neither of those two countries have the flawed legal system we have in this country.

Three, both those countries have tax rates far and away higher than we have in the US.  Americans will never tolerate such draconian, punishing tax rate.  We just will not.


----------



## Markle (Jan 25, 2019)

boedicca said:


> Medicare for all will just hasten the collapse of our system of government and civil society.  It's not going to be pretty when what's left of our civil order collapses.



You're right, Progressives are following, to the letter, the Cloward-Piven Strategy!


----------



## debbiedowner (Jan 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > You combine them all into Medicare for all you actually save some money.
> ...



Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, schip, community clinics, etc.


----------



## Markle (Jan 25, 2019)

debbiedowner said:


> Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, schip, community clinics, etc.



Does the state no longer fund their part of the programs?  Where does all that money come from for the state?  Where is the cutoff point for "community clinics"?  Who pays for all the patients who are unable to pay at all the hospitals?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare for all will just hasten the collapse of our system of government and civil society.  It's not going to be pretty when what's left of our civil order collapses.
> ...


There is no Chaos authorized in our Constitution, only Order.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> Combine "all" what to actually save some money and how?



madicare, medicaid VA Schip, community clinics. Do you understand?


----------



## Markle (Jan 26, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Combine "all" what to actually save some money and how?
> ...



How, and who pays?

Right now, Medicare and VA are federally funded programs.  Medicaid and CHIP are programs with shared funding between federal and the various states.  Community clinics are funded by the...ta da...community with help from the state.

What about all the people treated at hospitals who are unable to pay?


----------



## BlueGin (Jan 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, schip, community clinics, etc.
> ...


The hospitals eat the charges.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 27, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



total bill would be 1/3 of current so it would be easy to pay for. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 27, 2019)

Markle said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, schip, community clinics, etc.
> ...



these are silly questions. if we can pay now we can certainly pay 2/3 less later. then even less when we transition to capitalism. Certainly you understand now??


----------



## boedicca (Jan 27, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




You are such a card!  That is so funny!


----------



## Markle (Jan 27, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Please show us the reliable source and link to your humorous claim.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 27, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



It's from the Underpants Gnomes School of Economics:

1.  Give Federal Bureaucrats complete control of all healthcare resources.
2.  ???
3.  Free health care for all!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 28, 2019)

Markle said:


> Please show us the reliable source and link to your humorous claim.



you want a link to learn that Europe and Canada pay about 1/3 of what we do for health care?


----------



## Markle (Jan 28, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Please show us the reliable source and link to your humorous claim.
> ...



When you include the TAXES they pay, we spend less on health care and receive far superior care.

I put this together a couple years ago so our taxes have decreased since then.  It will still spell out the differences.  We end up with more money in our pockets.  Something you already knew!


----------



## dblack (Jan 28, 2019)

boedicca said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The underpants gnomes will save us. They're gonna pay for the wall too.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 28, 2019)

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...




Nyeahhhhh...El Chapo is going to pay for it..Hyugely!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 30, 2019)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


 no idea what point your chart is making?? Canada pays 1/3 what we do for health care and much more for taxes in general. Great Britain NHS budget is $125Billion for 65 million people or $2500 per person versus $10,000 in USA. Ask every man woman and child in American if they'd like to get a check for $7500 each year


----------



## Markle (Jan 30, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> no idea what point your chart is making?? Canada pays 1/3 what we do for health care and much more for taxes in general. Great Britain NHS budget is $125Billion for 65 million people or $2500 per person versus $10,000 in USA. Ask every man woman and child in American if they'd like to get a check for $7500 each year



I am not surprised in the least that the information I provided is far beyond your ability to comprehend.

It shows that Canadians pay far more for their "FREE" health care than we do.

Do you think that American's would respond favorably to the rationing of health care in Canada along with their massive waiting lists for health care?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2019)

Markle said:


> It shows that Canadians pay far more for their "FREE" health care than we do.


it shows they pay more in taxes but shows nothing about what they pay for health care. Over your head??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2019)

Markle said:


> Do you think that American's would respond favorably to the rationing of health care in Canada along with their massive waiting lists for health care?



of course they'd take a no worries  single payer system like NHS and a $7500 check over our multi single payer rip off socialist system


----------

