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

[francoHFW]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

 

[Rosy]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

I pay no federal taxes on my salary

 

[bendog]

btw, I agree though that with the death of unions and the new deal consensus of the relationship between income quintiles, we are pretty much left with nothing but the ballot to keep the Kochs of the world at bay.

And I'm not a Bernie voter. But given the direction of the country, and Trump's embrace of hate, there may not be any other option.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

I pay no federal taxes on my salary

No payroll tax LOL?

 

[Rosy]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

I pay no federal taxes on my salary

Really I am maxed in my 403 and with 4 deductions I pay zero

Pretty cool

 

[bendog]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

I pay no federal taxes on my salary

Really I am maxed in my 403 and with 4 deductions I pay zero

Pretty cool

payroll taxes?

 

[Rosy]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

I pay no federal taxes on my salary

Really I am maxed in my 403 and with 4 deductions I pay zero

Pretty cool

payroll taxes?

My federal tax deduction on non overtime wages is zero, and I make 80 g a year

 

[Cecilie1200]

How do you figure? Everyone pays 25%. The rich will pay much more than you or I. Right?

It's a stupid experiment and it does not work.
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

So pretty much the 'rich' are evil is that what you are saying?

Universal healthcare, sure but don't ask me to pay YOUR share of the cost. I tell you what, add up the total cost and divide it evenly by every man, woman, and child in America THEN ask them if they are willing to pay their share. Here I'll save you the time, the answer will be fuck no!

The reduction in costs of healthcare would more than make it profitable for everyone. If if that were calculated into your equation, the answer would be "fuck yes"!

Besides haven't you realized that for the vast majority of Americans (like 99%), the Healthcare Industry will eventually take 100% of your wealth - unless you die suddenly.

You apparently have no experience with what happens towards end of life - the healthcare industry milks everyone for every cent they have. Then when you run out of funds they pretty much discard you and let you die.

There is no doubt that fully socialized healthcare will save everyone huge amounts of money. That's the whole point of socialized healthcare.

Your discompassion for your fellow Americans is blinding to to your own best interests. Try hating a bit less!

This sounds like the typical half bake stupid shit liberal nonsense. Your socialized healthcare pipe dream depends on whether doctors and those working in the healthcare industry would be willing to accept much less money for their services which they will not, its fucking retarded.

Under socialized healthcare their salaries would be determined by the system. If they didn't like it, too bad. If they want have a license to practice then they better accept what the system gives them.

However, there is no doubt that under a socialized healthcare system, doctor would be well paid. Not as well as they are now, but by the standards of everybody else they would be top earners.

If healthcare is so bad for doctors, then why hasn't there been a mass migration of doctors from socialized countries to the U.S.?

Maybe because doctors in these countries become doctors because they want to help people and not because their a bunch of whores like we have in this country.

Under socialized medicine, those damned elitist smart people would accept their proper place as slaves of the state, or they would go into other lines of work (at least until THOSE lines of work became slaves of the state, too). Guess which one they would choose?

And never mind that your "do as you're told or else" attitude would leave the rest of us with subpar doctors. Hey, gotta break a few eggs on your way to being King of the Fucking Universe, right?

Yeah, the decision to stay in a country where you were born and raised and where all your family and friends live HAS to be all about a condemnation of other countries' economic systems. Of course it is.

If you have a horror of receiving your healthcare from a "whore" who's interested in being personally successful in his chosen field (the SWINE! How DARE he!), there are all kinds of charitable medical clinics in this country. Feel free to go to one. But stop trying to force ME to do so.

The fuck is it with leftists that they simply cannot STAND to let other people choose something different than what they have decreed is the "right" choice?

Do you really think that Doctors in every industrialized country in the world, except the U.S., consider themselves to 'Slaves'? Seriously?

Straw man. Whether you know you're a slave or not, whether you even LIKE being a slave or not, doesn't mean you aren't one. And what you're talking about is slavery.

'King of the universe'? That' s just too stupid to answer!

Well, if you were capable of seeing what an arrogant prick you are, you probably would stop doing it. So I'm not surprised you can't answer.

I trust non-American doctors a whole lot more than American doctors. Non-American doctors are motivated by a desire to cure malignancies. You can never be sure whether American doctors want to cure malignancies or if they just want to maximize billing. In most cases the AMA has set it up so that Doctors don't have a choice - they have to follow procedures that maximize billing.

And the reason why I say you're trying to be King of the Universe is that you think YOUR preferences should be imposed on everyone with no regard to THEIR preferences. You don't like American doctors? Don't go to them. But keep your choices YOUR choices; don't try to make them for everyone else in the process.

If you think that you get 'best possible care' from American doctors, I have a bridge to sell you. What you get is maximum possible costs.

If you think I want or value your input on how I view and choose doctors, I have a bridge to sell YOU. What you have is an overinflated ego.

If I had not intervened and put the doctor in a position where I could have sued the daylights out of him if he didn't do what I asked, my son's lyme disease would have spread to his nervous system. It would have taken years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to cure him. Researchers recommend treating lyme disease according to the symtoms - the tests are not reliable until the disease has infected the nervous system. The AMA has decreed that lyme disease should not be treated unless the tests are positive - in contradiction to what lyme disease expert researchers say. That's becuse they make a fortune from it once the nervous system is affected. Before that a simple course of antibiotics cures it - but they don't make much money for that.

Cool story, dude. Didn't ask, don't care, still not interested in remodeling US healthcare to suit YOUR personal whims.

This is just oneexample, that I know of, where American doctors systematically fail to treat patients in the best way possible - but opt only for what maximizes billing.

Medical care is the U.S. is rated among the worst in the industrialized world, but costs by far the most.

Then. Move.

Why is the only POSSIBLE solution for 300 million people to have their country changed to suit YOUR arrogant, self-absorbed ass, rather than your ONE, supremely unimportant and uninteresting self simply going to someplace that already IS what you want? Why do we all have to change, simply because YOU, self-appointed arbiter of How Things Should Be, have decreed that your way is the only way?

Wise up!

Translated = "Think like me!"

Answer = Fuck you.

I couldn't care less what you do, but I want access to quality healthcare at a reasonable cost - and to be able to trust that doctors are giving me the best possible treatment, not the most expensive.

"I couldn't care less what you do, because I'm going to make sure you can ONLY do what I like, because I want this, and therefore the world must change to accommodate me!"

Or you could stop being a megalomaniacal, self-centered ass worm, and just go get what YOU want where it's already available, instead of making that the only thing available anywhere, to anybody.

Yeah, I can't imagine where I got the idea you thought you were King of the Universe. I must have imagined it.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

*yawn*

Again...

1. Sales tax nation-wide on tobacco, sugar foods and booze, the nation's three #1 killers.
2. Article 1, Section 8 the bitch to legally justify the tax.
3. Relieve employers of the burden of supplying medical insurance and workman's comp; this frees them to hire more people. More people hired increases the tax base and decreases indigency...which removes a larger burden from the collective.
4. Streamlined healthcare from a general fund will reduce the ASTRONOMICAL waste in poor people using the ER as a regular health clinic.
5. Savings in staff on billing and the 3 dimensional progressive-rules chess game of red tape would probably pay for the entire system right there.
6. Get a handle on the HIV epidemic because people who get HIV quickly become indigent. Each single HIV patient, before their predictable and untimely death (after we as a nation have invested heavily in their education and upbringing), costs over $500,000. Each one. Do the math.
7. Sit down BigPharm and BigHealthInsurance and break the news to them gently "your disgusting racket is done in "x" months, reinvest your obscene profits accordingly". Start with HMOs....

 

[sakinago]

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.

What?? No we do not basically have a flat tax or anything close to a flat tax. In fact it’s gotten more progressive. That’s just silly. And I terms of INCOME taxed that may be true, but many of the rich, aren’t making INCOME like you or I. They’re gains on investment, totally different issue.

If you believe GOP propaganda that federal income tax is all taxes LOL. If you count all taxes state and local, everyone pays pays between 20 + 30%.

Nope, never said that. When people like Buffet, say things like “I pay less percentage wise than my secretary,” or folks like you make the claim you did last post, they are referring to taxable income. Problem is, the people like Buffet make most of their money through investments, such as real estate, start ups, markets etc. This money still gets taxed, in the form of property taxes, and taxes on the business or whatever they invest in, and other taxes.Thats not propaganda, that’s what happens when you start to make money, you can afford to take risks on investments and if you play your cards right, they turn into a nice source of money. The more money you get, the more you can invest with. You also spend less money on stuff, since you can buy things like houses and cars with cash, and not have to pay interest, so you basically are paying 2/3s of what everyone else getting loans to pay for their stuff making minimum payments. Again not propaganda, just simple finances stuff. Money compounds on itself when used right. It’s a discipline I am still learning, but what I’ve done so far has really paid off. For example I bought my current car with cash a couple of years ago (this is cash from me having 10% of my paycheck go directly to savings). It’s not the newest or flashiest, but it’s a perfectly fine SUV and tows my boat. I hated spending all that cash at once, but it turned out to absolutely be the right choice. Not making monthly car payments is awesome. Having 10% of my paycheck go to savings also sucks, but I’m happy that I can do things like invest with it, pay cash for cars, and work on the house without paying interest in that stuff.

 

[basquebromance]

Imagine if we have a party that actually had a cohesive narrative on health care and immigration. I don't know what the heck these loser candidates stand for.

 

[basquebromance]

why are our pockets only empty when we need to provide health care, housing, and education for all. how come our pockets are not empty for unlimited war and for unlimited tax cuts for the rich

 

[sakinago]

why are our pockets only empty when we need to provide health care, housing, and education for all. how come our pockets are not empty for unlimited war and for unlimited tax cuts for the rich

The estimates on the cost for Medicare for all over the next 10 years is 29-32 trillion. That’s almost double the national GDP, and is over 10 times what the government brings in tax revenue wise. The social programs we currently have make up over 60%, of the national budget and has been growing quite fast with continual increases projected into the future. Military spending which is 14%, has been stable. Medicare and social security WILL go bankrupt, SS in 10 years, Medicare in 20. Our national debt is already at 21 trillion and climbing. Medicare for all is not a problem that is going to be solved by just taxing the rich more, considering it is double the national GDP. This isn’t even getting into the problems associated with socialized healthcare. Mind you, in the 2016 fiscal year alone, the government misspent 1 trillion as in making errant payments, double payment, or just straight up loosing money billions at a time. You should do your research before just blindly quoting someone like Occasio-Cortez, who should know better having a masters in economics.

Socialized medicine, when done properly, is utilitarian at best, meaning it will do the greatest amount of good for majority, at the expense of the minority. It can only be this way since it’s resources come from a single source, government, which automatically creates limit or a threshold on what can be afforded. The majority in this case would be the relatively healthy who come down with a cold or a bug, or a broken arm, pretty much anything a general practitioner can treat. The minority are those with aggressive cancers, rare sicknesses, chronic ailments, or just run of mill deterioration that requires a good bit of treatment, pretty much anything that requires a specialist. If grandpa needs a new knee in the US, he gets one, and get it fast. In a socialized medical community, he gets a cane and some pain meds. The knee eventually gets worse until grandpa REALLY needs a new knee so he gets put on a waiting list for 4-6 months or so and gets a wheelchair. This causes muscle deterioration, loss of mobility and independence, in which overall health starts going downhill fast. By the time he gets the knee, he will probably never be at the same level of mobility and independence as he was beforehand. This is also why cancer survivor rates are higher in America. This is why babies like Charlie Gard (and the most recent that was actually saved in America, despite the brits claims it wasn’t possible) are pretty much sentenced to certain death in countries like Britain.

 

[basquebromance]

By what criteria, except socialist ideology - that is: it’s not market-based - is singe-payer “better”? Single-payer has a number of drawbacks. Its sole benefit, for those countries who care about it, is “We’re all in it together.”

 

[dblack]

By what criteria, except socialist ideology - that is: it’s not market-based - is singe-payer “better”? Single-payer has a number of drawbacks. Its sole benefit, for those countries who care about it, is “We’re all in it together.”

The trees are all kept equal.

 

[basquebromance]

Medicare for All is pro-business, pro-competition, and pro-economic growth. It’s the moral and cost-effective solution for the future of our country.

 

[sakinago]

Medicare for All is pro-business, pro-competition, and pro-economic growth. It’s the moral and cost-effective solution for the future of our country.

Not when it almost costs double the national GDP, and 10 times what the government actually takes in tax revenue wise... simply taxing the rich isn’t going to make a dent in that bill. 29-32 trillion dollars...Even if we designed the most effective single payer system in the world, it’s going to favor those whose ailments are treatable by a general practitioner, and neglect those who need specialized care. That’s why most of these countries with single payer health care still have private insurance. It’s why medical tourism is a legit industry for countries with privatized systems like Switzerland. Do you really think a government that lost track of 1 trillion dollars (a full 1/3 of what they take in annually in taxes) in the 2016 fiscal year is going to set up an effective system?

No our system is not perfect, it kind of sucks, it takes the worst of both worlds and tries to combine it. That being said, it’s still a decent system, and it’s especially good when you’re dealing with something requiring a specialist, like cancer. Switzerland does it better, we should look to them as an example, not Nordic countries with extremely high taxes and lower standards of living. The Swiss are top 3 in every category you can think of, healthcare, standard of living, overall happiness, education, safety, you name it, they’re up there. They’re obviously doing something right.