Do republican voters even have a solution to healthcare?

[GWV5903]

Do republican voters even have a solution to healthcare?

Yes, get the Feds out of it!

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer.

Correct, hate with a passion. I have had a job since I was 10 years old and a job with HC Insurance from the age of 18. I have paid for HC Insurance while I was self employed in the late '80's to the tune of over $4,400 a year and it did not cover maternity. So yeah I have a problem paying for your HC Insurance.

Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid?

Actually it works well if you have a job, a mandate forcing you to pay for it is the part that is stupid, but apparently you have grown accustom to living off of Tax Payers...

I understand that would require "Critical Thinking" on your part and your kind of soft on the "Critical" part...

It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA.

For those who don't work it sucks, but for the vast majority of Americans who pay their Employer Sponsored HC Insurance premiums it works well, give it a try, it's never too late to make the right choice!!

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy

Says the Alfred E. Neuman of USMB, ROFLMAO!!

but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

The complete opposite of anything you and your brain dead cohorts believe is a great start...

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Since americans have such short term memories, the republican voters' solution to healthcare is to return to a pure, unrestrained, capitalist system. Unfortunately, they've already forgotten that insurance rates were increasing at an unsustainable rate before the ACA. So, they're solution would mean millions of people would go back to not seeking help for potentially serious problems, for fear of going bankrupt. And soon after that all of the republican voters would find their own insurance rates skyrocketing to levels that they can't even afford. At which point I will point, laugh, and tell them to get a better paying job.

I'm no fan of the ACA. I never believed it would accomplish much, and it set a dangerous precedent that the government can force people to buy a commodity under penalty of taxes. But every plan that the Republicans have offered and/or talked about have been demonstrably worse.

 

[dblack]

Since americans have such short term memories, the republican voters' solution to healthcare is to return to a pure, unrestrained, capitalist system. Unfortunately, they've already forgotten that insurance rates were increasing at an unsustainable rate before the ACA.

"Before ACA" was nothing like an "unrestrained, capitalist system".

I'm no fan of the ACA. I never believed it would accomplish much, and it set a dangerous precedent that the government can force people to buy a commodity under penalty of taxes. But every plan that the Republicans have offered and/or talked about have been demonstrably worse.

How about Democrats grow a pair, and beat the Republicans to the punch - vote to abolish the mandate. Steal their thunder?

Or, keep whining about how our only hope is giving up our rights to an unholy collusion between government and corporate greed.

 

[GWV5903]

Since americans have such short term memories, the republican voters' solution to healthcare is to return to a pure, unrestrained, capitalist system.

My first job with HC benefits was just that a benefit. My premiums today are out of control, the single largest impact on my cost? The Federal Governments red tape...

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Since americans have such short term memories, the republican voters' solution to healthcare is to return to a pure, unrestrained, capitalist system. Unfortunately, they've already forgotten that insurance rates were increasing at an unsustainable rate before the ACA.

"Before ACA" was nothing like an "unrestrained, capitalist system".

Tell that to conservatives who want to go back to that system.

I'm no fan of the ACA. I never believed it would accomplish much, and it set a dangerous precedent that the government can force people to buy a commodity under penalty of taxes. But every plan that the Republicans have offered and/or talked about have been demonstrably worse.

How about Democrats grow a pair, and beat the Republicans to the punch - vote to abolish the mandate. Steal their thunder?

Or, keep whining about how our only hope is giving up our rights to an unholy collusion between government and corporate greed.

I wish they would. But, it's more politically expedient for them to sit on their assess and blame Republicans. Not that they're wrong in their criticisms, but what what they're doing is equivalent to complaining about a dumpster fire while they have a hose in their hand they're not using.

 

[dblack]

Since americans have such short term memories, the republican voters' solution to healthcare is to return to a pure, unrestrained, capitalist system. Unfortunately, they've already forgotten that insurance rates were increasing at an unsustainable rate before the ACA.

"Before ACA" was nothing like an "unrestrained, capitalist system".

Tell that to conservatives who want to go back to that system.

I'm am. I have. I do.

I'm no fan of the ACA. I never believed it would accomplish much, and it set a dangerous precedent that the government can force people to buy a commodity under penalty of taxes. But every plan that the Republicans have offered and/or talked about have been demonstrably worse.

How about Democrats grow a pair, and beat the Republicans to the punch - vote to abolish the mandate. Steal their thunder?

Or, keep whining about how our only hope is giving up our rights to an unholy collusion between government and corporate greed.

I wish they would. But, it's more politically expedient for them to sit on their assess and blame Republicans. Not that they're wrong in their criticisms, but what what they're doing is equivalent to complaining about a dumpster fire while they have a hose in their hand they're not using.

Especially when they threw the match in in the first place.

 

[Conservative65]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Their #1 idea is to let people die in the streets and every morning trumps horses and wagons pick up the dead

My #1 idea is if you claim to care so much for people having coverage, you should purchase it for them. If you're not willing to do what you say should be done, seems letting them die in the streets is your fault. I don't owe them anything, therefore, there is no accountability on me for not doing something that isn't my responsibility. However, since you claim you have such a responsibility, if it doesn't get done, you are accountable.

So no accountability from you means you have no dog in that fight? I pay plenty in taxes to help and don't complain I didn't like your wars but my taxes helped with them

It means I'm not responsible for the results for something it's not my place to do.

When the power of Congress to fund the military is taken out of the Constitution and the power of Congress to regulate healthcare is put in, you'll have a point. Until then, pay your fucking taxes like the Constitution specifically delegates and provide insurance coverage personally to those that don't have it because it's not my place to do it.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[Conservative65]

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

Because profit is the most honest motive. To make a profit, you need consumers. To have consumers, you need an attractive product at an attractive price, ones that are more attractive than your competitors. Naturally, however, government involvement has prevented our market from being free for decades, rendering competition near-nonexistent. A perfect example would be the system we had before Obamacare, and the system we have now, both of which are considered less than optimal due to the lack of competition. With the government in control of that industry, it would be close to the same, but even worse, it would make the government a monopoly, which forces the consumers to pay even if they don't use the product.

Of course it's because of corporate greed. Corporate greed using the government's power to strangle out competition SO the prices can be jacked up to astronomical prices. Of course, if the government had no power, that power could not be bought.

Limiting consumers results in huge profits? Last I checked, you need customers to get money from said customers. If they don't want their customers, their competition certainly does. Of course, in our previous system, regulations prevented much competition, making it little better than what we have now.

It wouldn't be adequate, it would be a system that made the government a monopoly that can force you to pay without even buying or using the product. Not only does everyone pay for those who do need it, but they would pay for those who don't, continuously, through their entire lives, and the government would STILL go even further into debt.

It's not, because to be Socialist, it requires Social control of the means of production. Without that, it's simply expanded government power. It's called Socialism because it's defined by that Social control, and without it, it's simply a pretender, if even that. By your logic, even if a government existed and had no power over anything but creating the basic laws, and was still funded by taxes, it would be Socialist. Hell, any government would be inherently Socialist, even if it did nothing. You're way oversimplifying that concept, yet overcomplicating it at well.

In that case, in your ideal world, the government would decide who gives their money to who, and would not need a reason. The government would be free to decide who could and could not help themselves, and free will would be taken out of the equation completely. Joseph Stalin had that kind of power. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump being able to make that decision? How much power over Healthcare would you like him to have?

I think you are really oversimplifying the private market as being this ideal institution. As I explained, because of the nature of the profit motive, our healthcare system is very inaccessible to the poor. These executives are less interested in making healthcare adequate and accessible and more interested in maximizing profit.

I am glad you can't admit this is corporate greed, though. Of course I'm sure you can also admit that the root of that greed isn't from the government - it's lobbyists buying our politicians. Corporate greed is the biggest source of government corruption.

I think you misunderstand "social control" in this context. "Social" refers to the public. It refers to public ownership as the means of production.

Socialism overall is a broad term. Just because past dictators had socialist style of governments, it doesn't mean I advocate for such a system. Social democratic principles is what I subscribe to. That has very little to do with Marxist socialism.

Our system isn't inaccessible to the poor. The problem is those of you who say they should have it refuse to provide it for them personally as you should.

When it comes to authoritarian socialism vs. democratic socialism, there isn't but one difference. It's not what the government does just who dictates it. It's still socialism.

 

[eddiew37]

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

Because profit is the most honest motive. To make a profit, you need consumers. To have consumers, you need an attractive product at an attractive price, ones that are more attractive than your competitors. Naturally, however, government involvement has prevented our market from being free for decades, rendering competition near-nonexistent. A perfect example would be the system we had before Obamacare, and the system we have now, both of which are considered less than optimal due to the lack of competition. With the government in control of that industry, it would be close to the same, but even worse, it would make the government a monopoly, which forces the consumers to pay even if they don't use the product.

Of course it's because of corporate greed. Corporate greed using the government's power to strangle out competition SO the prices can be jacked up to astronomical prices. Of course, if the government had no power, that power could not be bought.

Limiting consumers results in huge profits? Last I checked, you need customers to get money from said customers. If they don't want their customers, their competition certainly does. Of course, in our previous system, regulations prevented much competition, making it little better than what we have now.

It wouldn't be adequate, it would be a system that made the government a monopoly that can force you to pay without even buying or using the product. Not only does everyone pay for those who do need it, but they would pay for those who don't, continuously, through their entire lives, and the government would STILL go even further into debt.

It's not, because to be Socialist, it requires Social control of the means of production. Without that, it's simply expanded government power. It's called Socialism because it's defined by that Social control, and without it, it's simply a pretender, if even that. By your logic, even if a government existed and had no power over anything but creating the basic laws, and was still funded by taxes, it would be Socialist. Hell, any government would be inherently Socialist, even if it did nothing. You're way oversimplifying that concept, yet overcomplicating it at well.

In that case, in your ideal world, the government would decide who gives their money to who, and would not need a reason. The government would be free to decide who could and could not help themselves, and free will would be taken out of the equation completely. Joseph Stalin had that kind of power. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump being able to make that decision? How much power over Healthcare would you like him to have?

I think you are really oversimplifying the private market as being this ideal institution. As I explained, because of the nature of the profit motive, our healthcare system is very inaccessible to the poor. These executives are less interested in making healthcare adequate and accessible and more interested in maximizing profit.

I am glad you can't admit this is corporate greed, though. Of course I'm sure you can also admit that the root of that greed isn't from the government - it's lobbyists buying our politicians. Corporate greed is the biggest source of government corruption.

I think you misunderstand "social control" in this context. "Social" refers to the public. It refers to public ownership as the means of production.

Socialism overall is a broad term. Just because past dictators had socialist style of governments, it doesn't mean I advocate for such a system. Social democratic principles is what I subscribe to. That has very little to do with Marxist socialism.

Our system isn't inaccessible to the poor. The problem is those of you who say they should have it refuse to provide it for them personally as you should.

When it comes to authoritarian socialism vs. democratic socialism, there isn't but one difference. It's not what the government does just who dictates it. It's still socialism.

YES leave the poor the homeless the destitute on the sides of the road to die and you and your republican friends can come by in the morning picking up all the dead Take them to a funeral pyres and watch them burn

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

Because profit is the most honest motive. To make a profit, you need consumers. To have consumers, you need an attractive product at an attractive price, ones that are more attractive than your competitors. Naturally, however, government involvement has prevented our market from being free for decades, rendering competition near-nonexistent. A perfect example would be the system we had before Obamacare, and the system we have now, both of which are considered less than optimal due to the lack of competition. With the government in control of that industry, it would be close to the same, but even worse, it would make the government a monopoly, which forces the consumers to pay even if they don't use the product.

Of course it's because of corporate greed. Corporate greed using the government's power to strangle out competition SO the prices can be jacked up to astronomical prices. Of course, if the government had no power, that power could not be bought.

Limiting consumers results in huge profits? Last I checked, you need customers to get money from said customers. If they don't want their customers, their competition certainly does. Of course, in our previous system, regulations prevented much competition, making it little better than what we have now.

It wouldn't be adequate, it would be a system that made the government a monopoly that can force you to pay without even buying or using the product. Not only does everyone pay for those who do need it, but they would pay for those who don't, continuously, through their entire lives, and the government would STILL go even further into debt.

It's not, because to be Socialist, it requires Social control of the means of production. Without that, it's simply expanded government power. It's called Socialism because it's defined by that Social control, and without it, it's simply a pretender, if even that. By your logic, even if a government existed and had no power over anything but creating the basic laws, and was still funded by taxes, it would be Socialist. Hell, any government would be inherently Socialist, even if it did nothing. You're way oversimplifying that concept, yet overcomplicating it at well.

In that case, in your ideal world, the government would decide who gives their money to who, and would not need a reason. The government would be free to decide who could and could not help themselves, and free will would be taken out of the equation completely. Joseph Stalin had that kind of power. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump being able to make that decision? How much power over Healthcare would you like him to have?

I think you are really oversimplifying the private market as being this ideal institution. As I explained, because of the nature of the profit motive, our healthcare system is very inaccessible to the poor. These executives are less interested in making healthcare adequate and accessible and more interested in maximizing profit.

I am glad you can't admit this is corporate greed, though. Of course I'm sure you can also admit that the root of that greed isn't from the government - it's lobbyists buying our politicians. Corporate greed is the biggest source of government corruption.

I think you misunderstand "social control" in this context. "Social" refers to the public. It refers to public ownership as the means of production.

Socialism overall is a broad term. Just because past dictators had socialist style of governments, it doesn't mean I advocate for such a system. Social democratic principles is what I subscribe to. That has very little to do with Marxist socialism.

I'm not oversimplifying it at all. To be successful, you have to have customers. To have customers, you have to make them WANT to come back to you. Without customers, there's no income, and with no income, your business is not successful. Telling your customers you don't want their money does not benefit a business. We haven't had a free market in decades, and that's why we don't see that anymore. Over-regulation and big government has allowed corporations to strangle out their competition. The best way to put healthcare into its optimal form is to maximize profit. Maximizing profit is actually what makes things accessible to the poor, so long as they're actually trying to better their situation.

No, the root of that problem IS the government. If there was no power to buy, corporations wouldn't be exploiting a corrupt government.

No, Social control refers to Public, Cooperative, or Collective. Doesn't have to be "Public", but that's usually what it is.

It can be a broad term, but it's not as broad of a term as you'd like it to be.

It has plenty to do with Marxist Socialism, because every form of Socialism is Marxist Socialism. You didn't answer my question, either. How much power do you want Trump to have over Healthcare?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

Because profit is the most honest motive. To make a profit, you need consumers. To have consumers, you need an attractive product at an attractive price, ones that are more attractive than your competitors. Naturally, however, government involvement has prevented our market from being free for decades, rendering competition near-nonexistent. A perfect example would be the system we had before Obamacare, and the system we have now, both of which are considered less than optimal due to the lack of competition. With the government in control of that industry, it would be close to the same, but even worse, it would make the government a monopoly, which forces the consumers to pay even if they don't use the product.

Of course it's because of corporate greed. Corporate greed using the government's power to strangle out competition SO the prices can be jacked up to astronomical prices. Of course, if the government had no power, that power could not be bought.

Limiting consumers results in huge profits? Last I checked, you need customers to get money from said customers. If they don't want their customers, their competition certainly does. Of course, in our previous system, regulations prevented much competition, making it little better than what we have now.

It wouldn't be adequate, it would be a system that made the government a monopoly that can force you to pay without even buying or using the product. Not only does everyone pay for those who do need it, but they would pay for those who don't, continuously, through their entire lives, and the government would STILL go even further into debt.

It's not, because to be Socialist, it requires Social control of the means of production. Without that, it's simply expanded government power. It's called Socialism because it's defined by that Social control, and without it, it's simply a pretender, if even that. By your logic, even if a government existed and had no power over anything but creating the basic laws, and was still funded by taxes, it would be Socialist. Hell, any government would be inherently Socialist, even if it did nothing. You're way oversimplifying that concept, yet overcomplicating it at well.

In that case, in your ideal world, the government would decide who gives their money to who, and would not need a reason. The government would be free to decide who could and could not help themselves, and free will would be taken out of the equation completely. Joseph Stalin had that kind of power. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump being able to make that decision? How much power over Healthcare would you like him to have?

I think you are really oversimplifying the private market as being this ideal institution. As I explained, because of the nature of the profit motive, our healthcare system is very inaccessible to the poor. These executives are less interested in making healthcare adequate and accessible and more interested in maximizing profit.

I am glad you can't admit this is corporate greed, though. Of course I'm sure you can also admit that the root of that greed isn't from the government - it's lobbyists buying our politicians. Corporate greed is the biggest source of government corruption.

I think you misunderstand "social control" in this context. "Social" refers to the public. It refers to public ownership as the means of production.

Socialism overall is a broad term. Just because past dictators had socialist style of governments, it doesn't mean I advocate for such a system. Social democratic principles is what I subscribe to. That has very little to do with Marxist socialism.

Our system isn't inaccessible to the poor. The problem is those of you who say they should have it refuse to provide it for them personally as you should.

When it comes to authoritarian socialism vs. democratic socialism, there isn't but one difference. It's not what the government does just who dictates it. It's still socialism.

YES leave the poor the homeless the destitute on the sides of the road to die and you and your republican friends can come by in the morning picking up all the dead Take them to a funeral pyres and watch them burn

If, in a fully free market, they end up kicking the bucket SOMEHOW, they deserve to burn. Your appeal to 'feeling' over cold hard facts is noted.

 

[hunarcy]

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

Because profit is the most honest motive. To make a profit, you need consumers. To have consumers, you need an attractive product at an attractive price, ones that are more attractive than your competitors. Naturally, however, government involvement has prevented our market from being free for decades, rendering competition near-nonexistent. A perfect example would be the system we had before Obamacare, and the system we have now, both of which are considered less than optimal due to the lack of competition. With the government in control of that industry, it would be close to the same, but even worse, it would make the government a monopoly, which forces the consumers to pay even if they don't use the product.

Of course it's because of corporate greed. Corporate greed using the government's power to strangle out competition SO the prices can be jacked up to astronomical prices. Of course, if the government had no power, that power could not be bought.

Limiting consumers results in huge profits? Last I checked, you need customers to get money from said customers. If they don't want their customers, their competition certainly does. Of course, in our previous system, regulations prevented much competition, making it little better than what we have now.

It wouldn't be adequate, it would be a system that made the government a monopoly that can force you to pay without even buying or using the product. Not only does everyone pay for those who do need it, but they would pay for those who don't, continuously, through their entire lives, and the government would STILL go even further into debt.

It's not, because to be Socialist, it requires Social control of the means of production. Without that, it's simply expanded government power. It's called Socialism because it's defined by that Social control, and without it, it's simply a pretender, if even that. By your logic, even if a government existed and had no power over anything but creating the basic laws, and was still funded by taxes, it would be Socialist. Hell, any government would be inherently Socialist, even if it did nothing. You're way oversimplifying that concept, yet overcomplicating it at well.

In that case, in your ideal world, the government would decide who gives their money to who, and would not need a reason. The government would be free to decide who could and could not help themselves, and free will would be taken out of the equation completely. Joseph Stalin had that kind of power. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump being able to make that decision? How much power over Healthcare would you like him to have?

I think you are really oversimplifying the private market as being this ideal institution. As I explained, because of the nature of the profit motive, our healthcare system is very inaccessible to the poor. These executives are less interested in making healthcare adequate and accessible and more interested in maximizing profit.

I am glad you can't admit this is corporate greed, though. Of course I'm sure you can also admit that the root of that greed isn't from the government - it's lobbyists buying our politicians. Corporate greed is the biggest source of government corruption.

I think you misunderstand "social control" in this context. "Social" refers to the public. It refers to public ownership as the means of production.

Socialism overall is a broad term. Just because past dictators had socialist style of governments, it doesn't mean I advocate for such a system. Social democratic principles is what I subscribe to. That has very little to do with Marxist socialism.

Our system isn't inaccessible to the poor. The problem is those of you who say they should have it refuse to provide it for them personally as you should.

When it comes to authoritarian socialism vs. democratic socialism, there isn't but one difference. It's not what the government does just who dictates it. It's still socialism.

YES leave the poor the homeless the destitute on the sides of the road to die and you and your republican friends can come by in the morning picking up all the dead Take them to a funeral pyres and watch them burn

Hyperbolic hysteria adds nothing to the conversation and actually inhibits conversation. I'm sure your goal is to obstruct conversation and the civil exchange of ideas, which is actually pretty sad.

 

[deanrd]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Their #1 idea is to let people die in the streets and every morning trumps horses and wagons pick up the dead

My #1 idea is if you claim to care so much for people having coverage, you should purchase it for them. If you're not willing to do what you say should be done, seems letting them die in the streets is your fault. I don't owe them anything, therefore, there is no accountability on me for not doing something that isn't my responsibility. However, since you claim you have such a responsibility, if it doesn't get done, you are accountable.

So no accountability from you means you have no dog in that fight? I pay plenty in taxes to help and don't complain I didn't like your wars but my taxes helped with them

That's the problem. Perhaps you should have complained.

Republicans complain about helping other Americans but not about wars.

Odd that.

 

[Conservative65]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Their #1 idea is to let people die in the streets and every morning trumps horses and wagons pick up the dead

My #1 idea is if you claim to care so much for people having coverage, you should purchase it for them. If you're not willing to do what you say should be done, seems letting them die in the streets is your fault. I don't owe them anything, therefore, there is no accountability on me for not doing something that isn't my responsibility. However, since you claim you have such a responsibility, if it doesn't get done, you are accountable.

So no accountability from you means you have no dog in that fight? I pay plenty in taxes to help and don't complain I didn't like your wars but my taxes helped with them

That's the problem. Perhaps you should have complained.

Republicans complain about helping other Americans but not about wars.

Odd that.

You have it all wrong. My complaint is that bleeding heart Liberals think it's their place to dictate how much and to what level others should be forced to help.

As far as the two issues you bring up, as long as the Constitution gives Congress delegated authority to raise a military/wage war when necessary, I'm OK. Until the Constitution gives Congress the delegated power to run programs like the ones you support, you have no argument.

 

[Geaux4it]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

My insurance was just fine pre-ACA and less expensive

-Geaux

 

[Conservative65]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

My insurance was just fine pre-ACA and less expensive

-Geaux

For many years, my premiums, copays, out of pocket max, prescription copay, etc. remained the same pre Obamacare. It wasn't until after Obamacare than each of them went up.

For someone reason they think I should support what Obamacare did and chastise me for not being OK with paying more so someone else can get coverage.

 

[Geaux4it]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

My insurance was just fine pre-ACA and less expensive

-Geaux

For many years, my premiums, copays, out of pocket max, prescription copay, etc. remained the same pre Obamacare. It wasn't until after Obamacare than each of them went up.

For someone reason they think I should support what Obamacare did and chastise me for not being OK with paying more so someone else can get coverage.

My plan would increase when I upgraded my plans for more coverage. That's how the system works, you work hard and pay for the level of coverage you can afford

-Geaux

 

[Conservative65]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

My insurance was just fine pre-ACA and less expensive

-Geaux

For many years, my premiums, copays, out of pocket max, prescription copay, etc. remained the same pre Obamacare. It wasn't until after Obamacare than each of them went up.

For someone reason they think I should support what Obamacare did and chastise me for not being OK with paying more so someone else can get coverage.

My plan would increase when I upgraded my plans for more coverage. That's how the system works, you work hard and pay for the level of coverage you can afford

-Geaux

Same here. When it was time for my daughter to get braces, I upped the level of dental coverage. Periodically, I would increase the level of life insurance. That's different than prices going up for the same level of coverage due to Obamacare.

 

[Cellblock2429]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

/----/ The Conservatives answer is a Free Market but it looks like the RINOs like the one size fits all Obozocare

 

[Redfish]

Pre WWII

you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.

Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.

Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.

But that's where we're headed. Uber alles.

But you have to understand that un-constructive politicking Republicans/Conservatives have undertaken over the last 8 years ACCELERATES us towards single payer?

You fellas have to learn - NO, is not a viable policy.

which party is saying NO to sitting down and working together to find solutions? Hint: Schumer and Pelosi are their leaders.

Republicans and Conservatives.

Democrats will work with Republicans if they finally drop their ridiculous REPEAL!!! shtick.

that's not true. Schumer and Pelosi have refused to attend any committee meetings to discuss solutions to the obamacare mess. If they attended they would be admitting that obamacare is a massive failure, and that the great Kenyan messiah was a failure and a fraud.

The GOP will have to do this on their own, and they have the numbers to do it once they get the idiots like McCain out of the picture.