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

[Jackson]

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.

If you were expecting that, comment on it.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

 

[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.

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.

Your failure to understand what I actually said is no fault of mine.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there? That you admit they don't is enough to show that "working" isn't based on one factor, cost in this case.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

 

[Conservative65]

Is that why Canadians come here for their medical needs?

Right on cue.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

 

[Arianrhod]

Right on cue.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

In other words, when sources prove what I said you ignore them because you don't agree. Got it.

 

[Jackson]

Is that why Canadians come here for their medical needs?

Right on cue.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

Well Canadian citizens come over here for their care. I am asking why. Can you answer it?

 

[Arianrhod]

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

In other words, when sources prove what I said you ignore them because you don't agree. Got it.

No sources in evidence.

 

[Arianrhod]

Right on cue.

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

Well Canadian citizens come over here for their care. I am asking why. Can you answer it?

Got stats?

 

[Conservative65]

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

In other words, when sources prove what I said you ignore them because you don't agree. Got it.

No sources in evidence.

Just like I said. Unwilling to acknowledge something you disagree with as a source. You think if you call it something other than a source it changes facts. Got it.

 

[Arianrhod]

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

In other words, when sources prove what I said you ignore them because you don't agree. Got it.

No sources in evidence.

Just like I said. Unwilling to acknowledge something you disagree with as a source. You think if you call it something other than a source it changes facts. Got it.

No source in evidence. Post it again.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

Well Canadian citizens come over here for their care. I am asking why. Can you answer it?

Got stats?

“42,000 Canadians come to the United States for care” – Really? - PNHP's Official Blog

 

[Jackson]

Are you saying U.S. citizens are going across the Canadian border for healthcare?

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

Well Canadian citizens come over here for their care. I am asking why. Can you answer it?

Got stats?

It's on his website,

 

[Conservative65]

According to many in this country, you have to be here legally to get Obamacare subsidies. You and I both know that's a lie.

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

In other words, when sources prove what I said you ignore them because you don't agree. Got it.

No sources in evidence.

Just like I said. Unwilling to acknowledge something you disagree with as a source. You think if you call it something other than a source it changes facts. Got it.

No source in evidence. Post it again.

Already posted it before. Seems someone told me a while back there was no need to post something that's already been posted. Wait, that was you.

 

[Campbell]

"would LIKELY" raise taxes???

Oh, that's rich.

He'd take it all and give us a stipend to live on. If we're lucky.

He's been there for seven years and I'll goddamned guarantee you people are better off than they were at the end of Bush's two terms.....double dog guarantee:

Labor rate participation is at a 38 year low and a majority of those new jobs are burger flipping jobs. obama is trying to prop up those who got the burger flipping jobs with yet another money-wasting job insurance plan.

Dems held the majority during the last two years of Bush's presidency. It's cute how you continue to just blame Bush though.

LOL.....Bush needs a lot of blame. The Republican party had an agenda. Ever since Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993 they were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. W. Bush became their hero when he actually did it....then announced "Mission Accomplished" before the war even started. This letter from key Republicans representing the entire party proves what they had been wanting to do for years:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Jackson]

No.

If things were so much better in Canada, wouldn't you think U.S. residents would flock there?

If you understood that you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to sign on to Canadian Health Care, you wouldn't ask that question.

Well Canadian citizens come over here for their care. I am asking why. Can you answer it?

Got stats?

“42,000 Canadians come to the United States for care” – Really? - PNHP's Official Blog

Hearing: “Access and Cost: What the U.S. Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries”

Testimony of Sally C. Pipes, President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, March 11, 2014
Those Canadians who can afford to do so have simply opted out of their healthcare system. An enormous number jump the queue for care in their native land and travel to the United States to receive medical attention. In 2012, over 42,000 Canadians crossed the border to get treated.

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pipes.pdf

 

[Jackson]

I know your side keeps claiming that, but when asked for proof you either dig up some RW blog or just go ballistic.

In other words, when sources prove what I said you ignore them because you don't agree. Got it.

No sources in evidence.

Just like I said. Unwilling to acknowledge something you disagree with as a source. You think if you call it something other than a source it changes facts. Got it.

No source in evidence. Post it again.

Already posted it before. Seems someone told me a while back there was no need to post something that's already been posted. Wait, that was you.

No.it wasn't. lol