If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[frigidweirdo]

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

You want to trust government as to what is fair? Look at government now! Do you think they would be a good judge at something like that?

Do I trust the govt with what is fair? No, not really. That's not the point. Unless I have the power I either trust these people or I fight these people. But which ever way it goes, I have to hope I can trust someone. Now, make a govt system where more trust worthy people get in, where there is more ability for people to vote those who aren't trust worthy out, and you have a more trustworthy govt. Right?

It's impossible to do because of our freedom of press.

We will never get good people into office as long as liberal media is alive and well. Nobody wants to put themselves or their families through the BS just to become a government leader. Look at what they are doing to Trump. They've attacked several members of his family including his wife, his daughter, and his son. Who wants to go through that?

We the people gave media that power by buying their papers, going to their internet sites, writing or emailing them about stories they wrote or policies. We gave them that power, and until we take that power away form them, we limit the amount and kind of people that are willing to run for office.

Come on. Trump is getting it because he started it. He deserves everything he gets.

The problem here is, the media is playing the game, and the game is fucked up. Change the game, and things change with the media too.

Look at Switzerland for example. Their executive is made up of 7 members. Far more sensible. The US executive is such a massive part of politics, that the reality is it should be made up of more people, with the potential to vote in people for different positions. But again, more parties means more oversight, which means less bullshit.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

You forgot one: SCHIPS.

 

[Norman]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Come on. Trump is getting it because he started it. He deserves everything he gets.

Is that it? Then do tell, did Romney start it when he was running? Did McCain start it when he ran? How about GW? You know, dug 20 years into his life to find an old DUI which he paid the fine for? Romney with a dog carrier on the top of his car and played a prank on a fellow high school class mate back in the 60?

The liberal media is not playing the game, they created the game, and as long as people support them, the game will continue the way it has been for decades.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Come on. Trump is getting it because he started it. He deserves everything he gets.

Is that it? Then do tell, did Romney start it when he was running? Did McCain start it when he ran? How about GW? You know, dug 20 years into his life to find an old DUI which he paid the fine for? Romney with a dog carrier on the top of his car and played a prank on a fellow high school class mate back in the 60?

The liberal media is not playing the game, they created the game, and as long as people support them, the game will continue the way it has been for decades.

If you call me an asshole, and I call you an asshole and then you cry because I called you an asshole, do you think I'd have any sympathy with you? Fuck no.

So?

 

[Norman]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

I sure didn't say it was a good idea... the current setup is a terrible idea. These programs started up much smaller and then got bloated. The "liberal" media is going to attack anyone who brings up issues. Not even Trump has the balls to mention the mess.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The right wing is no better with their policies of "right wing, hate on the poor."

 

[danielpalos]

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?

It is why the left has more than one solution, unlike the right wing, which has, nothing but repeal.

Unemployment compensation that conforms to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes, can solve simple poverty and improve the efficiency of our economy and public policies based on monetary policy.

 

[danielpalos]

Well then give us an average.

"Bing" or "Google"

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

In other words, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

That is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Super rich hold $32 trillion in offshore havens

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The right wing still believes in "fairy tales"?

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[22][23] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[24][25] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[dblack]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

 

[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.

The right wing still believes in "fairy tales"?

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[22][23] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[24][25] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

You're quoting left-wing sources and claiming I am believing a fairy tale? Nope, you are gulping cherry-flavored propaganda.

How self-made are today’s billionaires?

Yet Forbes said that wealth in America has become far more meritocratic over time. It said that in 1984, "less than half of those on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69 percent of the 400 created their own fortunes."​

 

[Mac1958]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

Well, as long as you're okay with also paying for people who can't afford it.

Including those who are sicker than they would have been if they had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

Because we definitely all are.
.

 

[dblack]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

Well, as long as you're okay with also paying for people who can't afford it.

Including those who are sicker than they would have been if they had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

Because we definitely all are.
.

Ok -- this is something that happens in almost every discussion on health care reform. You're switching from arguing for a government mandated "system", in the name of efficiency, to arguing for a safety net, in the name of compassion. But they're different issues. I don't have a big problem with "my" tax dollars going to help the poor. And I think any responsible free market reforms should include a boost to the current safety net, at least until health care prices have come back down to earth. But that has nothing to do with whether we should socialize the whole mess.

 

[Norman]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

Well, as long as you're okay with also paying for people who can't afford it.

Including those who are sicker than they would have been if they had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

Because we definitely all are.
.

Freedom means the freedom to also not pay for those people.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

Well, as long as you're okay with also paying for people who can't afford it.

Including those who are sicker than they would have been if they had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

Because we definitely all are.
.

Ok -- this is something that happens in almost every discussion on health care reform. You're switching from arguing for a government mandated "system", in the name of efficiency, to arguing for a safety net, in the name of compassion. But they're different issues. I don't have a big problem with "my" tax dollars going to help the poor. And I think any responsible free market reforms should include a boost to the current safety net, at least until health care prices have come back down to earth. But that has nothing to do with whether we should socialize the whole mess.

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

And there is room within that system for tweaks. For example, one idea you won't see anywhere else is to have it cover a lower percentage than it's current 80% for younger people, when the cost of care and the cost of Supplements and MA plans is lower. But then they'd have access to major care plus preventive and diagnostic services. Have the coverage percentage increase with age.

This actually isn't as much about compassion with me. Yes, I think an advanced civilization should be better than leaving people out of health care access, but this is economic as much as anything else to me. This current system is a ridiculous mess, fraught with insane inefficiencies that I listed.

One more thing: The way things are going, we could actually end up with true Single Payer. The GOP has blown it spectacularly. I strongly suspect you'd prefer my plan over that. At least in maintains free market competition with the Supplement and MA plans.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd still like to know how it makes sense that we have SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems, none of which seamlessly communicate with the other:

1. Individual
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

This is - and it's not a word I use often - STUPID. I've brought this up many times, with no one yet coming up with an answer.
.

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

Well, as long as you're okay with also paying for people who can't afford it.

Including those who are sicker than they would have been if they had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

Because we definitely all are.
.

Freedom means the freedom to also not pay for those people.

If you're paying premiums, you're paying for them. It's just like what raising the minimum wage would do to prices.
.