Bernie Sanders would likely raise taxes to pay for universal health care

[the_human_being]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

 

[Arianrhod]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

 

[Anathema]

Why would someone refuse Medicare ... a program that they've been paying into their whole working life?

That's like saying "no thanks, I don't want any of my SS ... that I've been paying into my whole working life".

Those two programs ARE entitlements .... we actually ARE entitled to what we've paid into.

They're both unConstitutional programs. Immoral and Illegal to the core. I dint ever expect to reture and collect Social Security either. Besides, one takes more out than they put in, so you ARE NOT just getting your money back.

 

[Conservative65]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

 

[Arianrhod]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

 

[Conservative65]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working". You're the kind that would call a system where taxpayers being forced to fund food for freeloaders works. It depends on your definition of the word working. While bleeding hearts who think compassion comes from supporting someone else being forced to fund something you like and the freeloaders who get something for nothing may think it is, the rest of us don't. Since the freeloaders aren't paying the taxes that fund their handouts and you bleeding hearts wouldn't voluntarily help someone if you life depended on it, your definition is absolutely wrong.

By the way, when it comes to healthcare, prior to Obamacare, I had two surgeries. The total out of pocket for both was just over $1000. Are you going to tell me that what you support would costs me less? Prove it.

 

[Arianrhod]

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

 

[Conservative65]

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

It's easy to show fault in your line of thinking. The U.S. has spent how many trillions of dollars on the war on poverty in the last 50 years. Sad part is that the percentage in poverty today is just about what it was before the trillions were spent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Then who would pay for it? The rich again????

If it came down to that, the only fair way to fund single payer would be a consumption tax, that way everybody has a horse in the race. The problem with Democrats is they always find a way to give their voters what they want at the expense of voters not likely to support them.

 

[Conservative65]

Has absolutely no bearing at all upon what I stated. I said if Sander's Socialist agenda caused the taxes to rise on the 1%, the 2%, or the 5%. I am speaking here of income taxes, not employer sponsored insurance contributions. Please read what I say and not what you wish I say.

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

Prior to Obamacare, the system worked fine for me. Why would I want to change that?

 

[Jackson]

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

It's easy to show fault in your line of thinking. The U.S. has spent how many trillions of dollars on the war on poverty in the last 50 years. Sad part is that the percentage in poverty today is just about what it was before the trillions were spent.

We need to convince people to get a job instead of living off the government.

As for Sanders, he'll raise taxes to pay for college expenses for everyone, too.

 

[Arianrhod]

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

Prior to Obamacare, the system worked fine for me. Why would I want to change that?

I'd recommend you respond to every post on every subject with "Me, ME, MEEEEEEE!" or "I've got mine and fuck everyone else!"

Save yourself some time. Because that's really all you ever say when it comes to the PPACA or anything else.

 

[Arianrhod]

I have tremendous confidence in the 1%, 2%, 5% or whatever the flavor of the day might end up being that Bernie plans upon saddling with the brunt of the taxes and expenses for his Socialist agenda. These people are not stupid and will do another work around just as they dis for Obamacare in order to maintain their own standard of living. Suppose Bernie's Socialist agenda adds $15,000 to their tax burden. They may simply terminate the least necessary employee within their business to make up for their added tax burden. It usually works out that that one employee is the least skilled but the one most likely to need his job. Were it me, I would make certain that one employee had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on his car.

You do understand that under a single-payer system employers would no longer be providing health insurance for their employees, right?

Then who would pay for it? The rich again????

If it came down to that, the only fair way to fund single payer would be a consumption tax, that way everybody has a horse in the race. The problem with Democrats is they always find a way to give their voters what they want at the expense of voters not likely to support them.

Look at the Canadian system.

 

[Arianrhod]

You were talking about employers using the excuse of "government's taxing us to death" in order to fire people. Not having the burden of offering their employees health insurance would eliminate one of those excuses.

If you want a real-life example, see if you can find out how many Canadian employers have used this excuse under their health system.

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

True, but given your dismissal of complexities, I thought we'd start slowly.

So if "the Canadian system - not to mention every system in the rest of the industrialized world - can deliver patient care for much less than the U.S. system" doesn't interest or confuses you, there's no need to challenge you with anything more complex.

 

[Conservative65]

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

True, but given your dismissal of complexities, I thought we'd start slowly.

So if "the Canadian system - not to mention every system in the rest of the industrialized world - can deliver patient care for much less than the U.S. system" doesn't interest or confuses you, there's no need to challenge you with anything more complex.

As I said, there's more to a healthcare system than costs. That you think that's the deciding factor means understanding the process is above your cognitive ability.

Also, as I've said, the cost to ME prior to Obamacare was just fine. No need to change for your or anyone else's sake.

 

[Jackson]

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

True, but given your dismissal of complexities, I thought we'd start slowly.

So if "the Canadian system - not to mention every system in the rest of the industrialized world - can deliver patient care for much less than the U.S. system" doesn't interest or confuses you, there's no need to challenge you with anything more complex.

Is that why Canadians come here for their medical needs?

 

[Conservative65]

Who gives a rat's ass what those moose fuckers in Canada do? I thought what other countries did was none of our business.

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

Prior to Obamacare, the system worked fine for me. Why would I want to change that?

I'd recommend you respond to every post on every subject with "Me, ME, MEEEEEEE!" or "I've got mine and fuck everyone else!"

Save yourself some time. Because that's really all you ever say when it comes to the PPACA or anything else.

Since those who can't afford their own food, own housing, own clothing, own healthcare, etc. constantly expect the rest of us to provide it to them, who the hell do you think they care about? Don't waste your time responding because there is only one answer. They think only of themselves. They don't give a damn that the rest of us are forced to fund it. If you believe so, you're an idiot and a liar.

 

[Arianrhod]

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

True, but given your dismissal of complexities, I thought we'd start slowly.

So if "the Canadian system - not to mention every system in the rest of the industrialized world - can deliver patient care for much less than the U.S. system" doesn't interest or confuses you, there's no need to challenge you with anything more complex.

As I said, there's more to a healthcare system than costs.

And I agree. This is usually where your side cops out by saying "Millions and millions of Canadians are fleeing across the border to get health care in the U.S. because their system sucks so badly."

With no supporting evidence, of course.

Go for it.

 

[Conservative65]

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

True, but given your dismissal of complexities, I thought we'd start slowly.

So if "the Canadian system - not to mention every system in the rest of the industrialized world - can deliver patient care for much less than the U.S. system" doesn't interest or confuses you, there's no need to challenge you with anything more complex.

Is that why Canadians come here for their medical needs?

That's the point I'm trying to make that the Arianrhod can't grasp. Whether something is working can't be considered by one factor alone.

 

[Arianrhod]

Scared to find out their system works? Not surprising.

Depends on what you call "working".

Let's start here:

All that shows is spending. Lots of other factors in the definition of "working".

True, but given your dismissal of complexities, I thought we'd start slowly.

So if "the Canadian system - not to mention every system in the rest of the industrialized world - can deliver patient care for much less than the U.S. system" doesn't interest or confuses you, there's no need to challenge you with anything more complex.

Is that why Canadians come here for their medical needs?

Right on cue.