Let's unpack some of the right wing's delusion and dishonesty. Is universal healthcare socialism?

[iamwhatiseem]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

All of these dream European countries you speak of, they don't have to worry about a military. They don't EVER pay their promised amount to support NATO and the U.N.
Not to mention, every freaking one of them gets money from the United States. In $Billions.
So... if the EU all got together and said they would finance, in totality, NATO and the U.N... also finance the American Military, and also give America $10's of $billions a year.... then we are on the same playing field. Then if we didn't do universal healthcare you could honestly bitch and say why not

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Anomalism
The United States government in 2019, gave France $2.3 BILLION, France spent $3.2billion in healthcare.
That means YOUR tax dollars paid for 78% of France's healthcare in 2019. Not to mention provide a free military presence for them.
What do you think of that??
DO you think we should keep that money and pay for our own healthcare?
Yes?
No?

 

[Anomalism]

Anomalism
The United States government in 2019, gave France $2.3 BILLION, France spent $3.2billion in healthcare.
That means YOUR tax dollars paid for 78% of France's healthcare in 2019. Not to mention provide a free military presence for them.
What do you think of that??
DO you think we should keep that money and pay for our own healthcare?
Yes?
No?

I think we should circle the wagons and worry about America for a while. I consider myself a nationalist.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Anomalism
The United States government in 2019, gave France $2.3 BILLION, France spent $3.2billion in healthcare.
That means YOUR tax dollars paid for 78% of France's healthcare in 2019. Not to mention provide a free military presence for them.
What do you think of that??
DO you think we should keep that money and pay for our own healthcare?
Yes?
No?

I think we should circle the wagons and worry about America for a while. I consider myself a nationalist.

Ah... so you want your cake and eat it too?
You want to compare America to European nations, but totally ignore the glaring fact we pretty much pay for that healthcare and provide them a free military protection service. But go ahead and bitch about them having it but not us??
Am I right?
If not, you will need to explain your OP

 

[dudmuck]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

Oh? So, did the Supreme Court use an Ouija board to summon the spirits of our founders to ask them to advise their interpretation of the Constitutionality of Medicare? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not dictate the course it takes with existing law. Interpretation is very different from dictation.

of course interpretation is very different from dictation.
We have three co-equal branches of government in this country.
Congress creates laws.
Executive branch approves those laws.
Supreme court comes in to reject a law if somebody contests it, and its found to be in violation of the constitution.
Nobody dictates laws in this country.

This is why we still have social security and medicare today.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

Oh? So, did the Supreme Court use an Ouija board to summon the spirits of our founders to ask them to advise their interpretation of the Constitutionality of Medicare? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not dictate the course it takes with existing law. Interpretation is very different from dictation.

of course interpretation is very different from dictation.
We have three co-equal branches of government in this country.
Congress creates laws.
Executive branch approves those laws.
Supreme court comes in to reject a law if somebody contests it, and its found to be in violation of the constitution.
Nobody dictates laws in this country.

This is why we still have social security and medicare today.

So if there are really co-equal branches of government, what gives SCOTUS the right to essentially legislate from the bench and effectively usurp the power of the other based on their so-called interpretation of the Constitution? They (should) only decide the merits of the law, or whether it is enforceable under written Constitutional law and precedent or not.

 

[Anomalism]

Ah... so you want your cake and eat it too?
You want to compare America to European nations, but totally ignore the glaring fact we pretty much pay for that healthcare and provide them a free military protection service. But go ahead and bitch about them having it but not us??
Am I right?
If not, you will need to explain your OP

`
I just agreed with you. Fuck Europe and fuck gender studies in Pakistan. Help Americans.

 

[dudmuck]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

Oh? So, did the Supreme Court use an Ouija board to summon the spirits of our founders to ask them to advise their interpretation of the Constitutionality of Medicare? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not dictate the course it takes with existing law. Interpretation is very different from dictation.

of course interpretation is very different from dictation.
We have three co-equal branches of government in this country.
Congress creates laws.
Executive branch approves those laws.
Supreme court comes in to reject a law if somebody contests it, and its found to be in violation of the constitution.
Nobody dictates laws in this country.

This is why we still have social security and medicare today.

So if there are really co-equal branches of government, what gives SCOTUS the right to essentially legislate from the bench and effectively usurp the power of the other based on their so-called interpretation of the Constitution? They (should) only decide the merits of the law, whether it is enforceable under written Constitutional law and precedent or not.

sure,

here it is described correctly:

Congress Could Fix the ACA’s Individual Mandate Without Waiting for the Supreme Court

In the coming months, the US Supreme Court will rule for the third time on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Chief Justice Roberts opined in 2011 that Congress could not force people to purchase health insurance but could tax those who fail to do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

Oh? So, did the Supreme Court use an Ouija board to summon the spirits of our founders to ask them to advise their interpretation of the Constitutionality of Medicare? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not dictate the course it takes with existing law. Interpretation is very different from dictation.

of course interpretation is very different from dictation.
We have three co-equal branches of government in this country.
Congress creates laws.
Executive branch approves those laws.
Supreme court comes in to reject a law if somebody contests it, and its found to be in violation of the constitution.
Nobody dictates laws in this country.

This is why we still have social security and medicare today.

So if there are really co-equal branches of government, what gives SCOTUS the right to essentially legislate from the bench and effectively usurp the power of the other based on their so-called interpretation of the Constitution? They (should) only decide the merits of the law, whether it is enforceable under written Constitutional law and precedent or not.

sure,

here it is described correctly:

Congress Could Fix the ACA’s Individual Mandate Without Waiting for the Supreme Court

In the coming months, the US Supreme Court will rule for the third time on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Chief Justice Roberts opined in 2011 that Congress could not force people to purchase health insurance but could tax those who fail to do so.

You A) have it backward, and B) didn't answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

I USED to be a conservative. Never was a liberal. Will not associate myself with the two party system.

As to your question:

Simple. What is true socialism? If you know what true socialism is, then you will know if any social program initiated by government is in fact "socialist."

But the game of the OP is to equivocate on terminology and divert the discussion away from whether we want more socialism or not, and instead bog everything down with a semantic argument - an irrelevant debate over whether countries with some socialist policies should be considered "socialist" governments. It's shitty, but it's how they roll.

Socialism and capitalism are too broad for serious discussion. It must be about optimizing our economy through economics. We have a mixed market economy where Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy. The public sector is socialism and the private sector is the capitalism.

 

[SC Patriot]

Scandinavian countries restrict who can live in Scandinavian countries.

So do you want to have an immigration debate or will you actually address what's being discussed in the OP?

Simply said....

In an effort to maintain the constitutionality and cost of Universal Health Care, the federal government has to impose a tax on those that opt out.

So, in essence, for the first time in US history, one in America is forced to BUY something on the day they are born until the day they die, unless they want to pay a "tax" which is really a penalty.

Sure, it is easy to say "so what".....

But that is not how America has worked for hundreds of years.

Unless, of course, you want to change America.

That is the real debate.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty is more market friendly and can work with existing emergency services. Persons would rather buy insurance than not, if they are going to get billed for services due to having an income anyway.

 

[donttread]

UHC would help alleviate some of the pain of income inequality. It would be a boon to small and startup businesses. It would lower the overall cost of healthcare.

Many believe that when we give people "free stuff" that the money stops there. In reality that money circulates through our economy.

HaHaHa! Yeah, A hard working American earns wages and pays taxes. The gov't gives those taxes to a bunch of lazy parasites and they buy drugs from the local dealer. The local dealer sends 80% of those taxes to his suppliers foreign cartel. That 80% helps the foreign country's economy. The local dealer spends the other 20% at golden arches and that poor hard working schmuck gives 20% of what he earns to taxes so that 80% can go to a foreign country. Sounds like good solid democrat reasoning to me. Morons.

Actually the black market economy is both large and important. Completely disrupting it at one time would have serious consequences.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Markets don't work for health care - MarketWatch

>>> In fact, totally free markets are abysmally bad at delivering health care. That's why every advanced economy, to one degree or another, has given government a large role in providing health care to its citizens.​

>>> We've tried the market approach to health care and the result has always been the same: Poor health and poor people.​

>>> Poverty and disease go together, and the causation goes both ways. Show me a country that keeps the government out of health care and I'll show you a country that spends too much on death and not enough on life.​

>>> I'm not arguing that everything government does is good, or that everything the private sector does is bad. It's clear that government actions can have their own failures that make health care more expensive or less effective. All I'm arguing here is that relying on markets exclusively leaves us poorer and sicker.​

Straight from the spokesman of a Communist Party politburo.

If it's some kind of pill or medication, free markets are amazingly efficient at delivering it. If it's something to be forced on patients against their will, then of course there’s always a market for extortion, forced drugging, and involuntary hospitalization under the explicit blessing and protection of government.

The real healthcare market is precisely in the government intervention to enforce routine mayhem, involuntary vaccination, mass murder, and abortion-on-demand at the pleasure of street hookers for every patron of prostitutes and dead-beat dad on the block.

If healthcare is a “good” for individuals making their own decisions, then there is no reason why a free market cannot deliver it. It is when prostitutes have to be involuntarily committed for healthcare against their will and extorted and beaten for the payment of it that government must intervene.

The price of healthcare rises and rises because there is no market pressure for it to decrease.

Because of state policies that interfere with market pressure. Revoke them, and prices normalize.

Markets don't work in healthcare for obvious reasons. Counter my emergency room example if you can.

Sure, I'll "counter" it.

Your emergency room example fails to adequately account for healthcare inflation for several reasons. First, you're talking about emergencies - by definition, exceptional situations. The vast bulk of our health care spending decisions are not made in an emergency. Second, people can and do make cost-based decisions during an emergency, if they are responsible for the costs. I know, I've been there and done that. Third, your "emergency room example" only affects prices for emergency services, and that's not the real problem when it comes to healthcare costs. The real problem is that the prices for basic, routine healthcare services cost more than the average person can afford.

Here's a better example of what drives healthcare inflation: Recently my doctor prescribed a skin cream for my psoriasis. It was new, so I figured it would be expensive. When I picked up my prescription, the price was $40 - for, maybe, two months worth. When I balked at the price, the pharmacist laughed. The forty dollars was my copay. The actual cost for the cream was $325 a tube. I was furious at the stupidity of such a scam, but my doctor said it was good stuff so I paid the forty dollars. My doctor was right, the cream works pretty well. But there's no way in hell I'd pay $325 dollars for a tube of it. No person in their right mind would. The only reason the drug company gets away with charging that much is because their customers have insurance that covers prescription medication.

This kind of cost/benefit decision occurs much, much more often than your "emergency room example". Every single time a healthcare consumer is faced with a cost based decision, that doesn't actually cost them any money, they have an inverted incentive - they have every reason to prefer the more expensive option rather than the less expensive. That's where the market incentives break down.

I'll add my own story to this.

A few years ago, I had to order some replacement medical supplies. I was going to use insurance to pay for them. I asked the lady how much it was going to be. She said with insurance, the price was going to be about $390. I then asked her, what the cost was if I didn't use insurance. She then said the cost would be about $150.

That got me curious and I asked her what the reason for that was. She told me that, insurance companies have set prices they will pay for things. It doesn't matter what the item actually costs, the insurance says they will pay $x.xx for a given item or service, so that's what the provider charges for the item or service.

So, for medical supplies, the actual cost was closer to $150, but since insurance has their price for those items set at $390, that's what they will pay.

It doesn't make sense, but that is what I was told.

 

[donttread]

Markets don't work for health care - MarketWatch

>>> In fact, totally free markets are abysmally bad at delivering health care. That's why every advanced economy, to one degree or another, has given government a large role in providing health care to its citizens.​

>>> We've tried the market approach to health care and the result has always been the same: Poor health and poor people.​

>>> Poverty and disease go together, and the causation goes both ways. Show me a country that keeps the government out of health care and I'll show you a country that spends too much on death and not enough on life.​

>>> I'm not arguing that everything government does is good, or that everything the private sector does is bad. It's clear that government actions can have their own failures that make health care more expensive or less effective. All I'm arguing here is that relying on markets exclusively leaves us poorer and sicker.​

Straight from the spokesman of a Communist Party politburo.

If it's some kind of pill or medication, free markets are amazingly efficient at delivering it. If it's something to be forced on patients against their will, then of course there’s always a market for extortion, forced drugging, and involuntary hospitalization under the explicit blessing and protection of government.

The real healthcare market is precisely in the government intervention to enforce routine mayhem, involuntary vaccination, mass murder, and abortion-on-demand at the pleasure of street hookers for every patron of prostitutes and dead-beat dad on the block.

If healthcare is a “good” for individuals making their own decisions, then there is no reason why a free market cannot deliver it. It is when prostitutes have to be involuntarily committed for healthcare against their will and extorted and beaten for the payment of it that government must intervene.

The price of healthcare rises and rises because there is no market pressure for it to decrease.

Because of state policies that interfere with market pressure. Revoke them, and prices normalize.

Markets don't work in healthcare for obvious reasons. Counter my emergency room example if you can.

Sure, I'll "counter" it.

Your emergency room example fails to adequately account for healthcare inflation for several reasons. First, you're talking about emergencies - by definition, exceptional situations. The vast bulk of our health care spending decisions are not made in an emergency. Second, people can and do make cost-based decisions during an emergency, if they are responsible for the costs. I know, I've been there and done that. Third, your "emergency room example" only affects prices for emergency services, and that's not the real problem when it comes to healthcare costs. The real problem is that the prices for basic, routine healthcare services cost more than the average person can afford.

Here's a better example of what drives healthcare inflation: Recently my doctor prescribed a skin cream for my psoriasis. It was new, so I figured it would be expensive. When I picked up my prescription, the price was $40 - for, maybe, two months worth. When I balked at the price, the pharmacist laughed. The forty dollars was my copay. The actual cost for the cream was $325 a tube. I was furious at the stupidity of such a scam, but my doctor said it was good stuff so I paid the forty dollars. My doctor was right, the cream works pretty well. But there's no way in hell I'd pay $325 dollars for a tube of it. No person in their right mind would. The only reason the drug company gets away with charging that much is because their customers have insurance that covers prescription medication.

This kind of cost/benefit decision occurs much, much more often than your "emergency room example". Every single time a healthcare consumer is faced with a cost based decision, that doesn't actually cost them any money, they have an inverted incentive - they have every reason to prefer the more expensive option rather than the less expensive. That's where the market incentives break down.

I'll add my own story to this.

A few years ago, I had to order some replacement medical supplies. I was going to use insurance to pay for them. I asked the lady how much it was going to be. She said with insurance, the price was going to be about $390. I then asked her, what the cost was if I didn't use insurance. She then said the cost would be about $150.

That got me curious and I asked her what the reason for that was. She told me that, insurance companies have set prices they will pay for things. It doesn't matter what the item actually costs, the insurance says they will pay $x.xx for a given item or service, so that's what the provider charges for the item or service.

So, for medical supplies, the actual cost was closer to $150, but since insurance has their price for those items set at $390, that's what they will pay.

It doesn't make sense, but that is what I was told.

I've seen it work the other way around for inpatient stays. The insurance companies all had Diagnosis categories for which they paid X-maont instaed of paying for the exact care and supplies. Self pays got actually charged more. I was able to intervene in a situation like that or two.