If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[danielpalos]

A basic for all would replace almost all of the poverty programs.

Specifically how?

It is economically impossible. Something far beyond your comprehension.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States must be considered possible and lawful; and will engender a positive multiplier effect.

 

[Markle]

Do you have any idea how much a poor person qualifies for in government assistance?

I'll help you. No, you don't.

That would depend on the city and state wouldn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In terms of high school and public schools, both are woefully underfunded and the teachers are poorly paid compared to other countries.

The failure of our school systems has nothing to do with funding. In fact, many of our lowest performing school systems are the ones with the highest, per student funding. Washington DC and Chicago are just two.

Would it hurt for you to do just a tiny bit of research before posting? Consistently you just look foolish. Why do you insist on posting such misinformation?

At the extremes are:

School Budgets: The Worst Education Money Can Buy

Well then you tell us what is the most cost efficient way of educating America's children who come from poor neighborhoods, bad environments, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you have any idea how much a poor person qualifies for in government assistance?

I'll help you. No, you don't.

That would depend on the city and state wouldn't it?

Well then give us an average.

With a basic income for all, people could improve themselves without LOSING their income based benefits. You work on that concept.

 

[Markle]

One of the best examples of a program gone wrong was the federal affirmative action program, which gave tax breaks to corporations for hiring minorities. When these companies hired a black man, the could tick a box on minority hiring. But when they hired a black woman, they got a 2 for 1. They could tick the boxes for women AND minorities. Companies raced to hire black women. Black men, not so much.

Please show us your reliable source and link. Please show us the amount of that "tax break" or admit you are...making things up, again!

 

[Issa]

We can Say the same with Americans and American hospitals.....lot of Americans cross to Mexico to get medical treatments. Some even go to far countries.

In Canada, we have supplemental health insurance, usually paid for by employers, or purchased through work.

Yes, in Canada you have supplemental health insurance since the initial single payer from your government failed. Initially private medical services were not permitted and everyone was forced to use government doctors. Since then your Supreme Court overturned that provision allowing private doctors. Which is now available on a cash basis to whom? The poor or the wealthy?

In addition, you must be aware of the extraordinary, extensive waiting lists for specialists. In addition, you know that our hospitals, US hospitals along our entire Northern border are crammed with Canadians seeking immediate care. You must also be aware that women with difficult pregnancies are sent to the US for care since you don't have the facilities available. Many times the families cannot join the women because they do not have visas.

Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2015 Report

How do Canada's hospital wait times fare with other countries?

 

[Markle]

I read an article this morning in the Washington Post in regard to the fight against the Senate health bill. ONE municipal hospital in Phoenix reported that their write off for unpaid medical care for those who had no insurance or didn't pay for services was $25 million before the ACA, and $8 million last year.

Table 1: Monthly Silver Premiums and Financial Assistance
for a 40 Year Old Non-Smoker Making $30,000 / Year

State Major City ...........................................Before Tax Credit 2nd Lowest Cost Silver
..........................................................................2016....... 2017 % ....Change from 2016
Arizona Phoenix................................................$207 ......$507 .................145%

Yes, and Arizona, just this year has the highest rate of increase in our nation.

2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces

###

This was written last October 2016 so their estimate then is actually low for the state.

Arizona faces Obamacare rate hikes up to 75 percent
by Robert King | Oct 19, 2016, 12:40 PM

Arizona faces Obamacare rate hikes up to 75 percent

 

[Markle]

Well then you tell us what is the most cost efficient way of educating America's children who come from poor neighborhoods, bad environments, etc.

Vouchers have proven to be very effective as have Charter Schools. Allow students to be disciplined and those which cannot be disciplined, we return the reform schools. If they stay there, they can either graduate if their grades are acceptable or a certificate of attendance if they attended. If not, they drop out, just as they do now.

Eliminate teachers unions. Eliminate them in all public services for the good of the country.

National Education Association General Counsel Bob Chanin stated in July 2009.

Chanin: "It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues...."



Says it all does it not?

 

[Markle]

With a basic income for all, people could improve themselves without LOSING their income based benefits. You work on that concept.

If there was a minimum income, what would that accomplish? Would not anyone earning the new "minimum income" not rightly demand an increase equal to the rate of increase previously earning less? Of course, they would, and so forth and so on up the ladder ending in the same situation as today. So what is gained?

 

[Markle]

Well then give us an average.

"Bing" or "Google"

Do ‘welfare’ recipients get $35,000 in benefits a year?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With a basic income for all, people could improve themselves without LOSING their income based benefits. You work on that concept.

If there was a minimum income, what would that accomplish? Would not anyone earning the new "minimum income" not rightly demand an increase equal to the rate of increase previously earning less? Of course, they would, and so forth and so on up the ladder ending in the same situation as today. So what is gained?

I read a story about that a year or so ago; even started a thread on it. I forget the country now, but they wanted to experiment with that concept. Everybody would get (US dollar wise) like 30K every year from the government. It would replace all welfare programs and it wouldn't matter if you worked or not--how many children you had, or where you lived.

Like the US, working people complained about being on the short end of the stick supporting the non-working or low wage people. They were giving to the government while others were taking. Like the US, welfare was a disincentive to getting a job because people would lose or reduce their benefits.

A basic wage would eliminate all that. If you could live on the 30K, fine, God love you. If you wanted more than the basic, you could get a job and bring in even more money into your household. The working would then have no right to complain because they would be getting the same government money as everybody else. It would eliminate the disincentives from going to work, and all figured out, it would save the taxpayers and government money.

I'll see if I can find that post later on if interested.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In terms of high school and public schools, both are woefully underfunded and the teachers are poorly paid compared to other countries.

The failure of our school systems has nothing to do with funding. In fact, many of our lowest performing school systems are the ones with the highest, per student funding. Washington DC and Chicago are just two.

Would it hurt for you to do just a tiny bit of research before posting? Consistently you just look foolish. Why do you insist on posting such misinformation?

At the extremes are:

School Budgets: The Worst Education Money Can Buy

Well then you tell us what is the most cost efficient way of educating America's children who come from poor neighborhoods, bad environments, etc.

Government supporting and promoting two-parent families would be a good start. Where do you on the left get the idea that spending equates results? It doesn't. Like I said earlier, you can take a school full of students from upper middle-class America, have them switch schools with poverty America, and those kids would still do just as well. In the meantime, the poor students now in the better school wouldn't do any better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you have any idea how much a poor person qualifies for in government assistance?

I'll help you. No, you don't.

I do! I do!

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

http://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With a basic income for all, people could improve themselves without LOSING their income based benefits. You work on that concept.

If there was a minimum income, what would that accomplish? Would not anyone earning the new "minimum income" not rightly demand an increase equal to the rate of increase previously earning less? Of course, they would, and so forth and so on up the ladder ending in the same situation as today. So what is gained?

I read a story about that a year or so ago; even started a thread on it. I forget the country now, but they wanted to experiment with that concept. Everybody would get (US dollar wise) like 30K every year from the government. It would replace all welfare programs and it wouldn't matter if you worked or not--how many children you had, or where you lived.

Like the US, working people complained about being on the short end of the stick supporting the non-working or low wage people. They were giving to the government while others were taking. Like the US, welfare was a disincentive to getting a job because people would lose or reduce their benefits.

A basic wage would eliminate all that. If you could live on the 30K, fine, God love you. If you wanted more than the basic, you could get a job and bring in even more money into your household. The working would then have no right to complain because they would be getting the same government money as everybody else. It would eliminate the disincentives from going to work, and all figured out, it would save the taxpayers and government money.

I'll see if I can find that post later on if interested.

Okay, I found the thread. Here it is:

Could Basic Income work in the US?

 

[hunarcy]

Oh please Ray, don't tell me this nonsense is the truth. There might be parts of the truth there, the problem is you're saying all the problems come from the Democrats and you'll ignore completely and utterly that the Republicans are a massive part of the problem too. If you don't see that, it's because you don't want to.

I'd love to see that. Tell me where the Republicans are part of the problem. Better yet, show me their political agenda about healthcare.

Obamacare, for me, was an attempt at making change, but he reality was that is wasn't the solution to any problem. But hey, you can just tell me what I think, seems to be all the rage these days.

I never tried to tell you what you think, I told you what I think and you are just in denial. I told you that Commie Care was designed for likely Democrat voters. I told you that it was designed to make as many new government dependents as possible. You have provided no counter argument to that. Obama's White House itself boasted about how they created over 20 million more new government dependents out of the program.

As for your sentence on the choices that British people have, it tires me that you'd write something so unworthy of a response.

Why? I created that response from you. You were the one that said British people had the option to buy insurance to get better and preferred care.

I was surprised to learn that New Zealand and Australia do the same...so even under those systems, private insurance brings better results

And what do you mean by this?

There is private insurance, but:

The amount paid by Medicare includes:

1. patient health costs based on the Medicare benefits schedule. Typically, Medicare covers 75% of general practitioner, 85% of specialist and 100% of public in-hospital costs.
2. patients may be entitled to other concessions or benefits[8]
3. patients may be entitled to further benefits once they have crossed a so-called safety net threshold, based on total health expenditure for the year.[8]

Health care in Australia - Wikipedia

So, most of the costs are paid for by the government.

your last sentence says it all "paid for by the government" The government never pays for anything------------WE, the taxpayers pay. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's a government of the People, dumbass.

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'd love to see that. Tell me where the Republicans are part of the problem. Better yet, show me their political agenda about healthcare.

I never tried to tell you what you think, I told you what I think and you are just in denial. I told you that Commie Care was designed for likely Democrat voters. I told you that it was designed to make as many new government dependents as possible. You have provided no counter argument to that. Obama's White House itself boasted about how they created over 20 million more new government dependents out of the program.

Why? I created that response from you. You were the one that said British people had the option to buy insurance to get better and preferred care.

I was surprised to learn that New Zealand and Australia do the same...so even under those systems, private insurance brings better results

And what do you mean by this?

There is private insurance, but:

The amount paid by Medicare includes:

1. patient health costs based on the Medicare benefits schedule. Typically, Medicare covers 75% of general practitioner, 85% of specialist and 100% of public in-hospital costs.
2. patients may be entitled to other concessions or benefits[8]
3. patients may be entitled to further benefits once they have crossed a so-called safety net threshold, based on total health expenditure for the year.[8]

Health care in Australia - Wikipedia

So, most of the costs are paid for by the government.

your last sentence says it all "paid for by the government" The government never pays for anything------------WE, the taxpayers pay. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's a government of the People, dumbass.

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

People will often vote for their own interests.

The problem is, what you've said works both ways, what with wars for the rich to make profits and the like too. Basically there isn't any accountability in govt and everyone ends up voting negatively instead of positively, which is having a massive negative effect on the US.

 

[dblack]

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

 

[Boss]

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

And here is revealed the whole entire problem with the left.

In your minds, anyone who is successful... doesn't deserve it! They screwed someone over! Nothing else need be considered... if you're well off, you must've fucked someone over. Period!

The REALITY is, most people are well off because they worked their asses off and they deserve everything they have. Two-thirds of all the "Top 1%" ...the most wealthy of the wealthy... came from humble backgrounds. They used a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and voluntary participation to earn their wealth. No one forced anyone to give them their money, they didn't steal the money, they didn't cheat anyone out of their money. They provided a service or product which consumers voluntarily purchased of their own accord.

Socialism HAS to instigate class warfare... it's the ONLY way Socialism can be sold to the masses! You have to convince people that no one can be successful unless they are cheating, stealing, taking advantage of the less fortunate. Your mind is polluted with this propaganda.

 

[dblack]

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.