The three main goals of libertarianism

[JoeNormal]

So you think there should be a penalty for being smarter and working harder?

I pay it every day. I'm just glad that I'm smarter and able to work harder.

You didn't answer the question. Should there be such a penalty?

I suppose I do. It's a model that's been around for much longer than I've been alive and it certainly didn't come as a surprise that as I made more money, I'd have to pay more in taxes.

 

[Oddball]

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

Allow me to explain what JoeFuckTard just said:

Football teams compete. There is a game involved. Each time tries to score more than the other team. If one team manages to score more TD's and FG's, they have an unfair advantage. Refs should help "neutralize" that advantage to ensure that the better team does not win. See how that works?

Hey, guess what? There are penalties in football for things like pass interference, jumping the snap, unneccessary roughness... They all involve loss of yardage and they have nothing to do with one team outscoring another.

Yeah, and only one team wins the Super Bowl, even though most players on most teams playacted really, really hard, and some of them were exemplary.

Life's tough....Shit happens...Wear a fucking helmet.

 

[Oddball]

Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.

Totally different than what? I thought you were talking about PPACA? Under what other law are we forced to pay cartels ransom? (I know there are some, but which one are you talking about?)

First of all it is totally different in the fact the PPACA outlaws insurance cartel Death Panels via the 'preexisting condition'

Let's make this clear...CRYSTAL; when someone 'opts out' of buying health insurance they are not exercising personal responsibility, they are exercising personal IRresponsibility. They are welshers, with a welfare queen mentality.

Bullshit.

Just because someone has no insurance does not mean that they will not just go ahead pay their bills out-of-pocket.

There really is no end to your towering stupidity, is there?

 

[Oddball]

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

Don't you believe you should take a step back, TakeAStepBack? Someone should talk to you about where babies come from before you try to tackle economics.

You don't know jack shit about economics, junior.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Does forcing people to pay cartels ransom money every single month and STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered or refuse to pay ransom money and face bankruptcy or even death sound like liberty to you?

Not at all. It sounds like PPACA. What argument are you making here?

Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.

Or the fact that, you'd rather have cancer than pay the premiums Obama causes to go through the roof.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To: Bfgrn

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

Let's have a little econ 101 quiz.

You work for ABC corporation, it includes health insurance for you and your family. WHO pays for the health insurance?

Nobody. What corporation in their right minds would buy such ridiculously high priced insurance for their employees?

 

[Bfgrn]

Who pays? There are a number of alternatives here:

ABC may take the form of the health insurance company and or the health insurance management company. ABC may use ABC assets, customer assets or other third party assets to cover the health care claims. ABC may require a portion of the employee's salary to fund all or a portion of the employee's premium cost. In some cases the employee may accepts the insurance through ABC and in other cases the employee may reject the insurance through ABC.

At any rate, when the rubber hits the road the employee works to receive compensation. Compensation is typically in the form of wages and benefits, but may also be in the form of stock and other assets, or the work may be gratis. When the corporate accountants write a check for your premium it is a check for your labor. You see we work for compensation usually. When someone writes a check in your behalf, they are usually doing so with your permission, with the exception of mandated government deposits. For example, 401k deposits are optional as are health care premium deposits.

Even though the company writes the checks, in a very real sense the employee is the one paying for his health care by providing labor. The check is remittance for work provided as a part of an employment contract. The funding for the check comes from investors, the worker, and customers. Who's paying... you could say the customers are paying. You could say the employee is paying with his labor. You could say the company writes the checks, but sometimes they are just the middle men and managers of the relationship between the work and customer sales. Really it "depends" on the situation and your perspective.

An awful lot of words to say: The EMPLOYEE pays.

Again, I will quote one of the right's beloved handlers; The Heritage Foundation:

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

I'll take your long winded response and citation as I passed your 101 test with flying colors.

Now, perhaps you can translate that into answers for my questions:

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

"Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting"
Edmund Burke

WOW! You claim you 'passed my 101 test with flying colors'. I just got you a RAISE. I showed you that YOU are paying for your health insurance. If your employer doesn't have to provide health insurance, he can pay you MORE.

Some of the answers to reducing health care costs are in my 'long winded response'. There is a distortion of the market due to employer-based insurance. It hides the true costs of health care.

Econ 101...Joe Blow is worth 'x' amount of dollars per hour to ABC corp. They could ACTUALLY pay him 'x' dollars per hour, but they are subtracting 'y' from his pay to cover his health care premium. So eliminating employer based health care would increase everyone's wages.

Now that sure sounds like a conservative/libertarian idea. YOU get to decide how to spend the 'y' money your employer deducts from your pay. You could even say he is 'taxing' you for health care.

Another HUGE distortion of the market is caused by insurance cartels, doctors and hospitals.

 

[Bfgrn]

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

Don't you believe you should take a step back, TakeAStepBack? Someone should talk to you about where babies come from before you try to tackle economics.

You don't know jack shit about economics, junior.

I know more about economics than turds like you. A LOT more...

 

[Oddball]

Don't you believe you should take a step back, TakeAStepBack? Someone should talk to you about where babies come from before you try to tackle economics.

You don't know jack shit about economics, junior.

I know more about economics than turds like you. A LOT more...

You don't know your ass from a hot rock.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Who pays? There are a number of alternatives here:

ABC may take the form of the health insurance company and or the health insurance management company. ABC may use ABC assets, customer assets or other third party assets to cover the health care claims. ABC may require a portion of the employee's salary to fund all or a portion of the employee's premium cost. In some cases the employee may accepts the insurance through ABC and in other cases the employee may reject the insurance through ABC.

At any rate, when the rubber hits the road the employee works to receive compensation. Compensation is typically in the form of wages and benefits, but may also be in the form of stock and other assets, or the work may be gratis. When the corporate accountants write a check for your premium it is a check for your labor. You see we work for compensation usually. When someone writes a check in your behalf, they are usually doing so with your permission, with the exception of mandated government deposits. For example, 401k deposits are optional as are health care premium deposits.

Even though the company writes the checks, in a very real sense the employee is the one paying for his health care by providing labor. The check is remittance for work provided as a part of an employment contract. The funding for the check comes from investors, the worker, and customers. Who's paying... you could say the customers are paying. You could say the employee is paying with his labor. You could say the company writes the checks, but sometimes they are just the middle men and managers of the relationship between the work and customer sales. Really it "depends" on the situation and your perspective.

An awful lot of words to say: The EMPLOYEE pays.

Again, I will quote one of the right's beloved handlers; The Heritage Foundation:

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

I'll take your long winded response and citation as I passed your 101 test with flying colors.

Now, perhaps you can translate that into answers for my questions:

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf

Physicians for a National Health Program

This site provides a lot of info on the advantages of single payer of course there would be countless ways to implement the idea.

I would respect anyone that opposed it for ideological reasons (even though the government has payed for the bulk of health care for years in less effective ways.) but there really is no reason to think that aggregate costs of health care wouldn't be less with single payer.

 

[Bfgrn]

You don't know jack shit about economics, junior.

I know more about economics than turds like you. A LOT more...

You don't know your ass from a hot rock.

Tell ya what Jethro, I will continue to prove my understanding of economics, and you can continue to call me names, OK?

I'm sure if you ever had to get a job instead of welshing off of daddy, any employer would really be impressed with the way you spout your one sentence Ebonics and mangle the English language.

 

[RKMBrown]

An awful lot of words to say: The EMPLOYEE pays.

Again, I will quote one of the right's beloved handlers; The Heritage Foundation:

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

I'll take your long winded response and citation as I passed your 101 test with flying colors.

Now, perhaps you can translate that into answers for my questions:

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

"Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting"
Edmund Burke

WOW! You claim you 'passed my 101 test with flying colors'. I just got you a RAISE. I showed you that YOU are paying for your health insurance. If your employer doesn't have to provide health insurance, he can pay you MORE.

Some of the answers to reducing health care costs are in my 'long winded response'. There is a distortion of the market due to employer-based insurance. It hides the true costs of health care.

Econ 101...Joe Blow is worth 'x' amount of dollars per hour to ABC corp. They could ACTUALLY pay him 'x' dollars per hour, but they are subtracting 'y' from his pay to cover his health care premium. So eliminating employer based health care would increase everyone's wages.

Now that sure sounds like a conservative/libertarian idea. YOU get to decide how to spend the 'y' money your employer deducts from your pay. You could even say he is 'taxing' you for health care.

Another HUGE distortion of the market is caused by insurance cartels, doctors and hospitals.

If my employer gives me cash instead of benefits I still have to buy the benefits that I want. If the government takes my cash to "provide" me with my benefits the government still has to remit payment for my benefits, or I have received nothing.

You appear to be saying you believe that my money will be more wisely spent by my government than I and / or my employer could ever imagine. I suppose you believe government is all powerful and wise. Hell government never wastes any money does it?

I asked you to explain how you "plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money." You are apparently not a good reader. Instead of reading the question. You provide a cut and paste about an entirely different subject. Do you know what the difference is between a doctor, an IRS agent, and a insurance agent? Hint the doctor is a health care worker the others are not. So I ask again, how do you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

I also asked you to explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck. In response you go off on some weird tangent about the money I'm currently spending on insurance would go to the government system instead. Hello, anyone in there? My paycheck is not YOUR paycheck, my income is MY income. My health care that I buy is my health care. My insurance that I buy, is my insurance. I asked how you expect to dump the cost of YOUR health care onto MY paycheck. I not so subtly asked how you expect me to pay for YOUR health care. The current health care plans are not based on progressive taxation. Your plan is progressive health care. Translation: Your plan dumps the cost of health care for people who don't pay to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

An awful lot of words to say: The EMPLOYEE pays.

Again, I will quote one of the right's beloved handlers; The Heritage Foundation:

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

I'll take your long winded response and citation as I passed your 101 test with flying colors.

Now, perhaps you can translate that into answers for my questions:

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf

Physicians for a National Health Program

This site provides a lot of info on the advantages of single payer of course there would be countless ways to implement the idea.

I would respect anyone that opposed it for ideological reasons (even though the government has payed for the bulk of health care for years in less effective ways.) but there really is no reason to think that aggregate costs of health care wouldn't be less with single payer.

Wouldn't be less for who? Can you name one efficient federal program?

 

[Eric Cartman]

I'll take your long winded response and citation as I passed your 101 test with flying colors.

Now, perhaps you can translate that into answers for my questions:

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf

Physicians for a National Health Program

This site provides a lot of info on the advantages of single payer of course there would be countless ways to implement the idea.

I would respect anyone that opposed it for ideological reasons (even though the government has payed for the bulk of health care for years in less effective ways.) but there really is no reason to think that aggregate costs of health care wouldn't be less with single payer.

Wouldn't be less for who? Can you name one efficient federal program?

Efficient is a subjective term but I can say for sure that Medicare (with all it's problems) is extremely more efficient than 3rd party private insurance.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll take your long winded response and citation as I passed your 101 test with flying colors.

Now, perhaps you can translate that into answers for my questions:

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

"Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting"
Edmund Burke

WOW! You claim you 'passed my 101 test with flying colors'. I just got you a RAISE. I showed you that YOU are paying for your health insurance. If your employer doesn't have to provide health insurance, he can pay you MORE.

Some of the answers to reducing health care costs are in my 'long winded response'. There is a distortion of the market due to employer-based insurance. It hides the true costs of health care.

Econ 101...Joe Blow is worth 'x' amount of dollars per hour to ABC corp. They could ACTUALLY pay him 'x' dollars per hour, but they are subtracting 'y' from his pay to cover his health care premium. So eliminating employer based health care would increase everyone's wages.

Now that sure sounds like a conservative/libertarian idea. YOU get to decide how to spend the 'y' money your employer deducts from your pay. You could even say he is 'taxing' you for health care.

Another HUGE distortion of the market is caused by insurance cartels, doctors and hospitals.

If my employer gives me cash instead of benefits I still have to buy the benefits that I want. If the government takes my cash to "provide" me with my benefits the government still has to remit payment for my benefits, or I have received nothing.

You appear to be saying you believe that my money will be more wisely spent by my government than I and / or my employer could ever imagine. I suppose you believe government is all powerful and wise. Hell government never wastes any money does it?

I asked you to explain how you "plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money." You are apparently not a good reader. Instead of reading the question. You provide a cut and paste about an entirely different subject. Do you know what the difference is between a doctor, an IRS agent, and a insurance agent? Hint the doctor is a health care worker the others are not. So I ask again, how do you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

I also asked you to explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck. In response you go off on some weird tangent about the money I'm currently spending on insurance would go to the government system instead. Hello, anyone in there? My paycheck is not YOUR paycheck, my income is MY income. My health care that I buy is my health care. My insurance that I buy, is my insurance. I asked how you expect to dump the cost of YOUR health care onto MY paycheck. I not so subtly asked how you expect me to pay for YOUR health care. The current health care plans are not based on progressive taxation. Your plan is progressive health care. Translation: Your plan dumps the cost of health care for people who don't pay to me.

Listen to this...EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spends a LOT less per capita for health care. That means per person. Now, should I assume you are a person?

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the fucking robots??

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf

Physicians for a National Health Program

This site provides a lot of info on the advantages of single payer of course there would be countless ways to implement the idea.

I would respect anyone that opposed it for ideological reasons (even though the government has payed for the bulk of health care for years in less effective ways.) but there really is no reason to think that aggregate costs of health care wouldn't be less with single payer.

Wouldn't be less for who? Can you name one efficient federal program?

Efficient is a subjective term but I can say for sure that Medicare (with all it's problems) is extremely more efficient than 3rd party private insurance.

ROFL!

Only if you don't count all the fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't you believe you should take a step back, TakeAStepBack? Someone should talk to you about where babies come from before you try to tackle economics.

You don't know jack shit about economics, junior.

I know more about economics than turds like you. A LOT more...

The only problem is that everything you know is wrong.

 

[Oddball]

Efficient is a subjective term but I can say for sure that Medicare (with all it's problems) is extremely more efficient than 3rd party private insurance.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Its costs are well more than 10X than was projected, when enacted in 1965.

Any private company that got its costs off by that much would have been out of business in less than a decade.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Efficient is a subjective term but I can say for sure that Medicare (with all it's problems) is extremely more efficient than 3rd party private insurance.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Its costs are well more than 10X than was projected, when enacted in 1965.

Any private company that got its costs off by that much would have been out of business in less than a decade.

Or they would continue to raise premiums to meet costs and assure a profit albeit much less efficiently than Medicare.

They are both 3rd party payers their cost is mostly dependent on the health care provider.

 

[RKMBrown]

Listen to this...EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spends a LOT less per capita for health care. That means per person. Now, should I assume you are a person?

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the fucking robots??

Congrats, you've figured out that we are a rich nation with a shirt load of moochers and bucket loads of BS laws that force the costs through the roof.

Nothing you have said or proposed touches the cost of health care.

I keep asking you how you expect to get health care workers to work for less. Swapping out insurance companies for the federal government will not address the costs. You can complain all you want about the costs, but if you can't explain how you are going to force these folks to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for 12years of training then work for cheap then you really don't have a plan. You are just wishing for freebies. If you can't address the costs of hospital care, then you don't have an answer. If you can't address the costs of medicine, then you don't have an answer.

Changing who is managing, who is getting care, and "redistributing" the costs to the rich won't change how much it costs.

The easiest way to address cost would be to switch to a capitalist system. Health insurance is not capitalist, it's socialist.

It is not a coincidence that our costs went up with each successive layer of larger and larger groups of insured that do not care what the cost is for care they just want the best care their group insurance can buy. Removing the pain of having to make health care decisions based on financial ability, makes the price a sellers market where any cost no matter how high is the justified price.