Is it time for Universal Healthcare....and can it be done?

[dblack]

Progressives have been trying to pass a healthcare system for a hundred years and more against corrupt GOP obstruction and Dupes like you... It finally got done by the skin of our teeth.

Right. And that's just not the way to implement broad social change like nationalizing health insurance. It should be done with real consensus or not at all.

And when one party is totally owned by the corrupt and greedy big health and big Pharma and their silly doops like you parrot total BS? This is the way it happens and it will be tinkered with forever, just like in every other country...

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives have been trying to pass a healthcare system for a hundred years and more against corrupt GOP obstruction and Dupes like you... It finally got done by the skin of our teeth.

Right. And that's just not the way to implement broad social change like nationalizing health insurance. It should be done with real consensus or not at all.

And when one party is totally owned by the corrupt and greedy big health and big Pharma and their silly doops like you parrot total BS? This is the way it happens and it will be tinkered with forever, just like in every other country...

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

That is why the government should have no part in health care whatsoever because of the inevitable corruption that comes along with a purely corrupt federal government...

 

[francoHFW]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

Pipe dream...
The problem with socialist Europe is that you’re forced into their system whether you want it or not. And they have not even figured out how to pay for the shit to begin with

They were fine until the GOP destroyed the world economy in 2008 and now they are fine again until the next time you idiot assholes screw the economy again, super duper.

 

[francoHFW]

Progressives have been trying to pass a healthcare system for a hundred years and more against corrupt GOP obstruction and Dupes like you... It finally got done by the skin of our teeth.

Right. And that's just not the way to implement broad social change like nationalizing health insurance. It should be done with real consensus or not at all.

And when one party is totally owned by the corrupt and greedy big health and big Pharma and their silly doops like you parrot total BS? This is the way it happens and it will be tinkered with forever, just like in every other country...

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

That is why the government should have no part in health care whatsoever because of the inevitable corruption that comes along with a purely corrupt federal government...

The federal government under Democrats at least is like a saint compared to the bought off GOP and its pals big insurance big health big Pharma etc etc. D u h.

 

[francoHFW]

Progressives have been trying to pass a healthcare system for a hundred years and more against corrupt GOP obstruction and Dupes like you... It finally got done by the skin of our teeth.

Right. And that's just not the way to implement broad social change like nationalizing health insurance. It should be done with real consensus or not at all.

And when one party is totally owned by the corrupt and greedy big health and big Pharma and their silly doops like you parrot total BS? This is the way it happens and it will be tinkered with forever, just like in every other country...

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

Every other developed country makes us look like a bunch of greedy idiotic assholes. Thanks GOP!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Want to know how Government ran health care works ask a Veteran.

 

[francoHFW]

Progressives have been trying to pass a healthcare system for a hundred years and more against corrupt GOP obstruction and Dupes like you... It finally got done by the skin of our teeth.

Right. And that's just not the way to implement broad social change like nationalizing health insurance. It should be done with real consensus or not at all.

And when one party is totally owned by the corrupt and greedy big health and big Pharma and their silly doops like you parrot total BS? This is the way it happens and it will be tinkered with forever, just like in every other country...

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

By which you mean communism... Socialism is just fair capitalism and always democratic everywhere outside your fear-mongering GOP propaganda machine. Try and remain calm as you are totally full of GOP BS... My goodness BS propaganda is so exciting, and dangerous for the country. Change the channel, super duper.

 

[francoHFW]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Want to know how Government ran health care works ask a Veteran.

Obamacare or ACA are about the government simply setting up an intelligent way of paying for healthcare, not running it. The GOP f***** up veteran care forever, the God damn assholes. With help from the dupes who only care about tax cuts, the brainwashed functional morons like you.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Want to know how Government ran health care works ask a Veteran.

Obamacare or ACA are about the government simply setting up an intelligent way of paying for healthcare, not running it. The GOP f***** up veteran care forever, the God damn assholes. With help from the dupes who only care about tax cuts, the brainwashed functional morons like you.

Care to explain how Republicans are the ones who fucked up the VA ?

 

[francoHFW]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Want to know how Government ran health care works ask a Veteran.

Obamacare or ACA are about the government simply setting up an intelligent way of paying for healthcare, not running it. The GOP f***** up veteran care forever, the God damn assholes. With help from the dupes who only care about tax cuts, the brainwashed functional morons like you.

Care to explain how Republicans are the ones who fucked up the VA ?

They keep cutting taxes on the rich and giant corporations and cut services for the non rich. Forever. That's why you vote for them, super duper. D u h.

 

[kaz]

Is it time for Universal Healthcare....and can it be done?

This word you are using, conservative. I do not think it means what you think it means ...

The answer is something we haven't had in medicine in almost a decade. Free markets.

You people are unbelievable, no matter how badly our government screws up healthcare, the only option you can think of is more government.

You're like a drunk who wants to know how much more alcohol he needs to drink to cure himself of alcoholism

 

[Natural Citizen]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Well, Judge Kavanaugh, a 'conservative' selection for the Supreme Court, had previously told the Supreme Court that Obamacare could be upheld with a tax.

So, there ya have it. Ha.

I think Trump said he wanted to drain the swamp, but decided in favor of swimming in it instead.

Technically, Kavanaugh is a Democrat's dream. I've been meaning to talk to the Dems around here, to explain just how much Trump helped em out with this pick, but just haven't been around much.

The Republicans are going to give us something far, far, more expensive than Obamacare in the form of Obamacare 2.0. Hundreds of billions more expensive unless we can get one of our guys in there to talk to him about it.

 

[francoHFW]

Is it time for Universal Healthcare....and can it be done?

This word you are using, conservative. I do not think it means what you think it means ...

The answer is something we haven't had in medicine in almost a decade. Free markets.

You people are unbelievable, no matter how badly our government screws up healthcare, the only option you can think of is more government.

You're like a drunk who wants to know how much more alcohol he needs to drink to cure himself of alcoholism

The problem with us Healthcare is the ridiculous costs after years of no government involvement.

 

[sakinago]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Even then, affordable is a very subjective term. Affordable in relation to standard of living would be a better comparison. American standard of living is definitely up there, and our ability to climb up the economic ladder blows them out of the water. In Europe that ability is pretty much static. In those countries the few rich usually stay rich and the middle and lower class stay that way too. In America, such a higher percentage/average of people have a couple thousand sq ft house with a few cars etc, vs Europe the average is squeezing a family into a 900 sq ft apartment and sharing one old tiny Fiat. And in America, you may start out meagerly, but I think some 60 or 70% of the population will at one point reach the top 20%, 50% in the top 15%, 30% top 10...something along those lines. I’ll look it up and post it.

Almost all of the Nordic countries, that folks like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez like to reference, are all economically freer than the US is. I think Norway is the one exception, and they have the advantage of vast oil resources (that their fed is merely a shareholder in, but not allowed to interfere in with policy). They are all capitalistic/free market countries, their taxes are jacked way up to pay for their social programs, but policy wise they are ranked economically freer than the US is. The US has social programs like Medicare social security, but that doesn’t make us a socialist country either. In fact, many of the Nordic countries have moved to the right in the past couple of years to shrink governments. They became wealthy before their installation of large social programs, went further and further left over the years, and are now trying to turn the ship around.

Another factor is that they are much smaller, and very culturally and racially uniform populations compared to the US. LA county alone is more heavily populated than most of these countries. LA county is an post-modern, abstract mosaic compared to the Nordic states that are just blank frames.

Of course you have no clue as to the facts... We now have the worst upward Mobility and most inequality of any developed country after the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich. Dumbass dupe.

The myth of the 1% and the 99%

Going over the numbers there. 70% will wind up in the top 20%, 56% in the top 10%, and 11% in the top 1%...those are better numbers than even I cited. Upward mobility, in terms of poor moving out of poor is a problem, and is probably what you’re referring too (almost 3/4 of the country winding up in the top 20% is outstanding). But it’s a much more nuanced problem than “35 years of GOP giving money to the rich.” A. That’s a non-sequitur. B. That’s an extremely lazy non-sequitur, that I don’t even know where to begin. If you think you can sum up such a complex problem with a simple scape goat in “GOP does xyz,” you desparetaly need critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Give that a review.

We’ve spent around 24 trillion in the war on poverty, the situation has only gotten worse, despite that ridiculous amount of injected capital. Maybe it’s more than just a “throw money at the poor problem” as you imply (it definitely is). There at least 30 other major factors to inject into that equation outside of money (which is an important factor, but not at all the only one). And everyone of those factors have their own nuances built in, nothing resembling any sort of one step solution, and most certainly many problems government isn't capable at taking on.

Can you actually give a nuanced response that’s required with such a complicated subject?

Also you’ve merely objected to ONE of my points, that I feel as though I defended. What else did I say that’s makes me a “dumbass dupe” in you’re opinion (seriously grow up).

 

[francoHFW]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Even then, affordable is a very subjective term. Affordable in relation to standard of living would be a better comparison. American standard of living is definitely up there, and our ability to climb up the economic ladder blows them out of the water. In Europe that ability is pretty much static. In those countries the few rich usually stay rich and the middle and lower class stay that way too. In America, such a higher percentage/average of people have a couple thousand sq ft house with a few cars etc, vs Europe the average is squeezing a family into a 900 sq ft apartment and sharing one old tiny Fiat. And in America, you may start out meagerly, but I think some 60 or 70% of the population will at one point reach the top 20%, 50% in the top 15%, 30% top 10...something along those lines. I’ll look it up and post it.

Almost all of the Nordic countries, that folks like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez like to reference, are all economically freer than the US is. I think Norway is the one exception, and they have the advantage of vast oil resources (that their fed is merely a shareholder in, but not allowed to interfere in with policy). They are all capitalistic/free market countries, their taxes are jacked way up to pay for their social programs, but policy wise they are ranked economically freer than the US is. The US has social programs like Medicare social security, but that doesn’t make us a socialist country either. In fact, many of the Nordic countries have moved to the right in the past couple of years to shrink governments. They became wealthy before their installation of large social programs, went further and further left over the years, and are now trying to turn the ship around.

Another factor is that they are much smaller, and very culturally and racially uniform populations compared to the US. LA county alone is more heavily populated than most of these countries. LA county is an post-modern, abstract mosaic compared to the Nordic states that are just blank frames.

Of course you have no clue as to the facts... We now have the worst upward Mobility and most inequality of any developed country after the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich. Dumbass dupe.

The myth of the 1% and the 99%

Going over the numbers there. 70% will wind up in the top 20%, 56% in the top 10%, and 11% in the top 1%...those are better numbers than even I cited. Upward mobility, in terms of poor moving out of poor is a problem, and is probably what you’re referring too (almost 3/4 of the country winding up in the top 20% is outstanding). But it’s a much more nuanced problem than “35 years of GOP giving money to the rich.” A. That’s a non-sequitur. B. That’s an extremely lazy non-sequitur, that I don’t even know where to begin. If you think you can sum up such a complex problem with a simple scape goat in “GOP does xyz,” you desparetaly need critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Give that a review.

We’ve spent around 24 trillion in the war on poverty, the situation has only gotten worse, despite that ridiculous amount of injected capital. Maybe it’s more than just a “throw money at the poor problem” as you imply (it definitely is). There at least 30 other major factors to inject into that equation outside of money (which is an important factor, but not at all the only one). And everyone of those factors have their own nuances built in, nothing resembling any sort of one step solution, and most certainly many problems government isn't capable at taking on.

Can you actually give a nuanced response that’s required with such a complicated subject?

Also you’ve merely objected to ONE of my points, that I feel as though I defended. What else did I say that’s makes me a “dumbass dupe” in you’re opinion (seriously grow up).

Wake up and smell the coffee..
Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[francoHFW]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Even then, affordable is a very subjective term. Affordable in relation to standard of living would be a better comparison. American standard of living is definitely up there, and our ability to climb up the economic ladder blows them out of the water. In Europe that ability is pretty much static. In those countries the few rich usually stay rich and the middle and lower class stay that way too. In America, such a higher percentage/average of people have a couple thousand sq ft house with a few cars etc, vs Europe the average is squeezing a family into a 900 sq ft apartment and sharing one old tiny Fiat. And in America, you may start out meagerly, but I think some 60 or 70% of the population will at one point reach the top 20%, 50% in the top 15%, 30% top 10...something along those lines. I’ll look it up and post it.

Almost all of the Nordic countries, that folks like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez like to reference, are all economically freer than the US is. I think Norway is the one exception, and they have the advantage of vast oil resources (that their fed is merely a shareholder in, but not allowed to interfere in with policy). They are all capitalistic/free market countries, their taxes are jacked way up to pay for their social programs, but policy wise they are ranked economically freer than the US is. The US has social programs like Medicare social security, but that doesn’t make us a socialist country either. In fact, many of the Nordic countries have moved to the right in the past couple of years to shrink governments. They became wealthy before their installation of large social programs, went further and further left over the years, and are now trying to turn the ship around.

Another factor is that they are much smaller, and very culturally and racially uniform populations compared to the US. LA county alone is more heavily populated than most of these countries. LA county is an post-modern, abstract mosaic compared to the Nordic states that are just blank frames.

Of course you have no clue as to the facts... We now have the worst upward Mobility and most inequality of any developed country after the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich. Dumbass dupe.

The myth of the 1% and the 99%

Going over the numbers there. 70% will wind up in the top 20%, 56% in the top 10%, and 11% in the top 1%...those are better numbers than even I cited. Upward mobility, in terms of poor moving out of poor is a problem, and is probably what you’re referring too (almost 3/4 of the country winding up in the top 20% is outstanding). But it’s a much more nuanced problem than “35 years of GOP giving money to the rich.” A. That’s a non-sequitur. B. That’s an extremely lazy non-sequitur, that I don’t even know where to begin. If you think you can sum up such a complex problem with a simple scape goat in “GOP does xyz,” you desparetaly need critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Give that a review.

We’ve spent around 24 trillion in the war on poverty, the situation has only gotten worse, despite that ridiculous amount of injected capital. Maybe it’s more than just a “throw money at the poor problem” as you imply (it definitely is). There at least 30 other major factors to inject into that equation outside of money (which is an important factor, but not at all the only one). And everyone of those factors have their own nuances built in, nothing resembling any sort of one step solution, and most certainly many problems government isn't capable at taking on.

Can you actually give a nuanced response that’s required with such a complicated subject?

Also you’ve merely objected to ONE of my points, that I feel as though I defended. What else did I say that’s makes me a “dumbass dupe” in you’re opinion (seriously grow up).

I never said giving money to the rich I said giveaway to the rich. The richest now pay less than Many in the middle class in taxes percentage wise. Basically we have a flat tax now here... Guess what? Everyone figured out a long time ago that is a prescription for disaster
Except for your mega rich brainwashers, of course.

 

[dblack]

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

By which you mean communism... Socialism is just fair capitalism and always democratic everywhere
...

No, I mean socialism, your attempts to redefine it notwithstanding. And here's something else you won't get: democracy is exactly the problem with socialism, in that it attempts to control our personal, economic decisions, democratically, through the state.

 

[dblack]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Want to know how Government ran health care works ask a Veteran.

Obamacare or ACA are about the government simply setting up an intelligent way of paying for healthcare, not running it. The GOP f***** up veteran care forever, the God damn assholes. With help from the dupes who only care about tax cuts, the brainwashed functional morons like you.

This level of delusion is right up there with the Trumpsters.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Want to know how Government ran health care works ask a Veteran.

Obamacare or ACA are about the government simply setting up an intelligent way of paying for healthcare, not running it. The GOP f***** up veteran care forever, the God damn assholes. With help from the dupes who only care about tax cuts, the brainwashed functional morons like you.

Care to explain how Republicans are the ones who fucked up the VA ?

They keep cutting taxes on the rich and giant corporations and cut services for the non rich. Forever. That's why you vote for them, super duper. D u h.

But the successful still carry the largest burden in taxes why do you believe anyone has the right to take others money in ever increasing amounts ?

 

[francoHFW]

I hope we can rise above that, and avoid the mistakes of "every other country". But it seems unlikely, given that our nation is currently mulling over whether we want to give control to the socialists or the fascists. Both groups being very eager to control our health care.

By which you mean communism... Socialism is just fair capitalism and always democratic everywhere
...

No, I mean socialism, your attempts to redefine it notwithstanding. And here's something else you won't get: democracy is exactly the problem with socialism, in that it attempts to control our personal, economic decisions, democratically, through the state.

Just why Obama was right in ok not wanting a mandate. Most people don't need a mandate... How does the government in a socialist country do that? And forget the goddamn mandate LOL it's gone.