Why do Republicans sabotage Obamacare - then say it's failing?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

 

[Rustic]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Well to be honest, I don't know for sure what would be wrong with it. Let's think about that. A single payer system would be funded by tax dollars. Those additional taxes would be off set by the fact that people would have fewer out of pocket expenses like deductibles and co pays and lower premiums. Maybe no premiums. Would those who choose to opt out be willing to pay those same taxes, or would we need to adopt an even more complex tax code to accommodate duel systems where some people buy insurance on the open market and others don't?

Another issue is the fact that any insurance system is only as good and stable as the pool of insured persons. There would need to be assurance that there would be sufficient numbers of younger health people who are part of the system for it to work. I'm not saying voluntary can't work. Just saying that I have questions about it. Your thoughts?

 

[Spare_change]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

THOSE are sources that are supposed to make an unbiased and reasoned argument for single payer healthcare? Seriously?

You need to expand your research - you're drinking too much kool-aid.

Get back to me when you have an unbiased discussion.

 

[Spare_change]

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Well to be honest, I don't know for sure what would be wrong with it. Let's think about that. A single payer system would be funded by tax dollars. Those additional taxes would be off set by the fact that people would have fewer out of pocket expenses like deductibles and co pays and lower premiums. Maybe no premiums. Would those who choose to opt out be willing to pay those same taxes, or would we need to adopt an even more complex tax code to accommodate duel systems where some people buy insurance on the open market and others don't?

Another issue is the fact that any insurance system is only as good and stable as the pool of insured persons. There would need to be assurance that there would be sufficient numbers of younger health people who are part of the system for it to work. I'm not saying voluntary can't work. Just saying that I have questions about it. Your thoughts?

The depth of your lack of understanding of the healthcare insurance industry is staggering.

I suggest you begin (and, I DO mean, begin) your study by researching the Law of Large Numbers.

Then, you should follow that up by understanding how insurance companies make their money. Apparently, you are under the mistaken impression that insurance companies make their money on insurance.

Finally, you should study the impact of taxes, as well as the impact of redistribution of wealth. As an aside, you might want to look into the VERY consistent history of government levies on the people.

Until then, frankly, you are definitively unqualified to discuss the subject at hand.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

THOSE are sources that are supposed to make an unbiased and reasoned argument for single payer healthcare? Seriously?

You need to expand your research - you're drinking too much kool-aid.

Get back to me when you have an unbiased discussion.

Why don't you get back to ME when you can refute the information that I posted. I presented a conservative case for single payer. It appears that anything that supports single payer will be dismissed as biased because you are biased against single payer.

 

[Spare_change]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

THOSE are sources that are supposed to make an unbiased and reasoned argument for single payer healthcare? Seriously?

You need to expand your research - you're drinking too much kool-aid.

Get back to me when you have an unbiased discussion.

Why don't you get back to ME when you can refute the information that I posted. I presented a conservative case for single payer. It appears that anything that supports single payer will be dismissed as biased because you are biased against single payer.

Your "information" isn't worth the time to "refute" it. You provide a biased and inaccurate series of screeds from discredited sources who have a vested interest in the answer, and you expect a response?

It ain't happenin' today. Try to find something honest.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Well to be honest, I don't know for sure what would be wrong with it. Let's think about that. A single payer system would be funded by tax dollars. Those additional taxes would be off set by the fact that people would have fewer out of pocket expenses like deductibles and co pays and lower premiums. Maybe no premiums. Would those who choose to opt out be willing to pay those same taxes, or would we need to adopt an even more complex tax code to accommodate duel systems where some people buy insurance on the open market and others don't?

Another issue is the fact that any insurance system is only as good and stable as the pool of insured persons. There would need to be assurance that there would be sufficient numbers of younger health people who are part of the system for it to work. I'm not saying voluntary can't work. Just saying that I have questions about it. Your thoughts?

The depth of your lack of understanding of the healthcare insurance industry is staggering.

I suggest you begin (and, I DO mean, begin) your study by researching the Law of Large Numbers.

Then, you should follow that up by understanding how insurance companies make their money. Apparently, you are under the mistaken impression that insurance companies make their money on insurance.

Finally, you should study the impact of taxes, as well as the impact of redistribution of wealth. As an aside, you might want to look into the VERY consistent history of government levies on the people.

Until then, frankly, you are definitively unqualified to discuss the subject at hand.

Since you claim to know so much, why don't you actually resent some information on all of that instead of just disparaging me for lack of knowledge. I will admit that I'm not an expert on insurance but you have yet to convince me that you are an know what you're talking about. What exactly is your solution to the insurance issue?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We need Single-Payer.

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

THOSE are sources that are supposed to make an unbiased and reasoned argument for single payer healthcare? Seriously?

You need to expand your research - you're drinking too much kool-aid.

Get back to me when you have an unbiased discussion.

Why don't you get back to ME when you can refute the information that I posted. I presented a conservative case for single payer. It appears that anything that supports single payer will be dismissed as biased because you are biased against single payer.

Your "information" isn't worth the time to "refute" it. You provide a biased and inaccurate series of screeds from discredited sources who have a vested interest in the answer, and you expect a response?

It ain't happenin' today. Try to find something honest.

Just a lot of words. A lot of noise that does not actually explain your position. Again, What is your solution EXACTACLY.? What is you plan?. Present a health care bill that works.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Why don't you get back to ME when you can refute the information that I posted. I presented a conservative case for single payer. It appears that anything that supports single payer will be dismissed as biased because you are biased against single payer.

Just so everyone is clear, exactly WHERE did you spend at least 10 years in either a Socialist or single payer health system so that you have all this invaluable insight? Were you born in the USA?
Have you lived elsewhere?

Because frankly, it appears you have no idea how things really work and what changing the current system we have means.
You have glossed over a plethora of issues with the health care system you advocate.

We are in a Constitutional Republic. Not sure how people keep thinking we can arbitrarily change the flavor of our form of government from Constitutional Republic to Socialism, Communism or whatever flavor they may personally feel is better.

Getting it clear that you are NOT OWED health care is the first step. You are thinking of lesser nations such as Canada, Austrailia etc.
Health care should be guided by the market. Unfortunately there are a few flaws that have allowed massive abuse such as the insurance system.
However, if enough people actually gave a damn and got involved, it could all be fixed beautifully. Instead, too many people (yourself included) continue to advocate that a government run system would be best. How silly. The government is the most wasteful entity imaginable. All the governments role should be is keeping the field level and prosecuting abuse. ALL the rest could be resolved with the actions of the people.
If they're too lazy or apathetic to get involved, then Obamacare is what they deserve...abject failure that it is. (surprise)

 

[Spare_change]

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Well to be honest, I don't know for sure what would be wrong with it. Let's think about that. A single payer system would be funded by tax dollars. Those additional taxes would be off set by the fact that people would have fewer out of pocket expenses like deductibles and co pays and lower premiums. Maybe no premiums. Would those who choose to opt out be willing to pay those same taxes, or would we need to adopt an even more complex tax code to accommodate duel systems where some people buy insurance on the open market and others don't?

Another issue is the fact that any insurance system is only as good and stable as the pool of insured persons. There would need to be assurance that there would be sufficient numbers of younger health people who are part of the system for it to work. I'm not saying voluntary can't work. Just saying that I have questions about it. Your thoughts?

The depth of your lack of understanding of the healthcare insurance industry is staggering.

I suggest you begin (and, I DO mean, begin) your study by researching the Law of Large Numbers.

Then, you should follow that up by understanding how insurance companies make their money. Apparently, you are under the mistaken impression that insurance companies make their money on insurance.

Finally, you should study the impact of taxes, as well as the impact of redistribution of wealth. As an aside, you might want to look into the VERY consistent history of government levies on the people.

Until then, frankly, you are definitively unqualified to discuss the subject at hand.

Since you claim to know so much, why don't you actually resent some information on all of that instead of just disparaging me for lack of knowledge. I will admit that I'm not an expert on insurance but you have yet to convince me that you are an know what you're talking about. What exactly is your solution to the insurance issue?

First, let's try to alleviate your decided lack of knowledge.

1) The Law of Large Numbers says that, with a large enough base, the mean approaches the average. How does this apply to insurance? Simple - if the odds of a 17 year old male getting breast cancer is 1:500 million, with a large enough base, it becomes not a probability, but rather a certainty. This is how insurance companies are able to predict their claims. The probability of an occurrence is more a factor of the size of the coverage base, and not very much less a factor of the age of the coverage pool.There is zero risk - what will happen is guaranteed.

2) Healthcare insurance companies do NOT make their money on your "more premiums than payouts" viewpoint. Their goal is to have 3% more premiums than claims - but that is merely a management target. Failing to hit that 3% mark is, generally, irrelevant to their bottom line.

3) Healthcare insurance companies make their money the old fashioned way - through investing. Simply, if you pay a $100/month premium, they invest it (making money on it) until you file a claim. Multiply that by 100,000,000 customers, and you can see that they have a consistent, and lucrative, cash flow model. In fact, a few years ago, insurance companies were the largest single class of investors in the US. I have no reason to suspect that might have changed, but I suppose it's possible pension plans or mutual funds might have passed it by.

[Addenda: ask yourself what the government is going to do with all this excess cash. Will they invest it? Will they put it a safe deposit box until it's needed? Or, are they going to rape it clean like they have done with Social Security??]

4) Now, what does that have to do with the ACA/AHCA discussion going on today? ANY government controlled healthcare insurance program removes that money from the investment stream. We know that the government isn't going to invest that money - they are going to expand, create new expenditure programs, or pay down the national debt (you don't really believe that, do you?) Financial growth in this country will come to a virtual halt.

5) So, what's the answer? First, you have do decide who is interested in an answer. Medical providers aren't interested in lowering the cost of healthcare. Why would they want to cut their own income? Insurance companies couldn't care less ... they just pass the cost on to their customers. In fact, they actually like the idea of healthcare costs increasing - that raises the premiums, which raises the money available to them for investment (which is where they make their real money).

The government isn't interested in lowering the cost of healthcare. There is no penalty for increased taxes. In fact, just like businesses everywhere, the government's prime motivation is growth and expansion. Imagine, if you will, that you are a government middle manager. How do you enhance your career, get a higher position, make more money? By expanding your program, by increasing its budget!! These are the people that are going to make sure you get the best deal? Surely, you jest. You are a captive audience, and they simply have no motivation to sell out their future for you.

So, who DOES care? You do, of course. You want high quality healthcare at a reasonable price. What is the only tool available to you to influence the cost of healthcare? Competition. Assume for a minute, that the government has mandated that anybody doing a chest x-ray will received $100. The x-ray company is interested in making as much money as it can. Do you seriously believe you're going to get top-of-the-line, high quality service? Or, are you going to get a service that is cut to the bone, minimizing cost to improve profit?? So, how can you influence the quality of your health care? Shop it around. Demand competition. Let them bid on your contract. You want to be the final arbiter of the quality of YOUR health care, not some faceless bureaucrat whose primary motivation is to make his program bigger.

6) So, what's the answer? Open all markets to all insurance providers. No silly restrictions based on state lines. Force healthcare providers, and healthcare insurers, to compete for your money. If they are forced to compete, they will have to a) cut their prices, or b) give you more healthcare for your dollar. THAT is a win-win.

Provide people with a list of alternatives, and allow them to pick what best suits them. If you get better care, or expanded care, you SHOULD pay more than I do. It isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves. (By the way, if you actually read the CBO report on AHCA, they said that the result would be 23 million people who would not get healthcare insurance at the same price as those of the same age - not that they would lose their insurance - and that they assumed that all who had to pay more would CHOOSE to go without coverage). Gasp!! If you want the bigger hamburger, you have to pay more for it.

People talk about tort reform - nonsense. It's the only check and balance available us to influence the quality of healthcare. If you get bad healthcare, you're dead. Tough for you to negatively influence the doctor's customer base.

 

[Rustic]

No, as a matter of fact, we don't ... no matter how many times you say it.

I would challenge you to make the case for single payer.

Many have. No need to reinvent the wheel:

A conservative case for single-payer health care

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care

How the GOP's Healthcare Plan Helps Make Case for Medicare-for-All

Digest this and call us in the morning

Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it

Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?

I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Well to be honest, I don't know for sure what would be wrong with it. Let's think about that. A single payer system would be funded by tax dollars. Those additional taxes would be off set by the fact that people would have fewer out of pocket expenses like deductibles and co pays and lower premiums. Maybe no premiums. Would those who choose to opt out be willing to pay those same taxes, or would we need to adopt an even more complex tax code to accommodate duel systems where some people buy insurance on the open market and others don't?

Another issue is the fact that any insurance system is only as good and stable as the pool of insured persons. There would need to be assurance that there would be sufficient numbers of younger health people who are part of the system for it to work. I'm not saying voluntary can't work. Just saying that I have questions about it. Your thoughts?

I've never claimed anything off insurance, I don't ever expect to use Social Security or Medicare I just Soon pay out-of-pocket as i have always have done. I don't want to pay into any pool... ever. Paying into a pool and taking out of any pool is extremely inefficient and just plain stupid…

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just so everyone is clear, exactly WHERE did you spend at least 10 years in either a Socialist or single payer health system so that you have all this invaluable insight? Were you born in the USA?
Have you lived elsewhere?

Where I've lived is not relevant. I have 70 years of life experience and knowledge.

Because frankly, it appears you have no idea how things really work and what changing the current system we have means.

Because you say so? Tell us, how do things work?

You have glossed over a plethora of issues with the health care system you advocate.

What exactly are those issues?

We are in a Constitutional Republic. Not sure how people keep thinking we can arbitrarily change the flavor of our form of government from Constitutional Republic to Socialism, Communism or whatever flavor they may personally feel is better.

You are confusing the form of government which is enshrined in the constitution and an economic system which is not. You seem to think that anything short of unbridled Laissez-faire capitalism is socialism and therefore "un-American" when the fact is that we have had socialism in this country since the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s

Getting it clear that you are NOT OWED health care is the first step. You are thinking of lesser nations such as Canada, Austrailia etc.

We will never agree on that? Health care is a human right as is food, shelter, clean water, and air. That is the difference between conservatives and progressives, decent people and the selfish Ayn Rand worshipers

Health care should be guided by the market. Unfortunately there are a few flaws that have allowed massive abuse such as the insurance system.

Right! That worked real well pre-Obama care. There were more than "a few flaws" The insurance companies were the real death panels and would be again if allowed

However, if enough people actually gave a damn and got involved, it could all be fixed beautifully. Instead, too many people (yourself included) continue to advocate that a government run system would be best. How silly. The government is the most wasteful entity imaginable. All the governments role should be is keeping the field level and prosecuting abuse. ALL the rest could be resolved with the actions of the people.

If they're too lazy or apathetic to get involved, then Obamacare is what they deserve...abject failure that it is. (surprise)

Yes, yes! The evil -can't do a damned thing right -government. How the hell is it supposed to "keep the field level" I'm sure that you're not talking about regulations- so what then. This is all just a lot of fluff with no substance. No specifics.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Where I've lived is not relevant. I have 70 years of life experience and knowledge.

I'm shocked you would call my post "fluff with no substance" <sarc>

You are confusing the form of government which is enshrined in the constitution and an economic system which is not. You seem to think that anything short of unbridled Laissez-faire capitalism is socialism and therefore "un-American" when the fact is that we have had socialism in this country since the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s

Stop being a moron. No I'm not confusing anything with anything. I know full well that one is traditionally defined as a form of government and the other an economic system...and I also know , as well as do MANY scholars, that the Left is using this as an excuse to say "See?...we're not trying to change the government...just the health care system"...which is a total lie. You and the Left are trying to change the form of government. PERIOD. You will not be satisfied with ANY change less than a complete change of the type of government the US has or it's entire financial foundation. What you really want is Communism....but Socialistic changes would vastly accommodate that. The lines between economic systems and governing principles have been blurred by those wanting to covertly change entire governments through step by step processes taking tens of decades.

I would even say that a nations financial system potentially has as great or a greater effect on it's society than it's proclaimed from of government. North Korea for example calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea....what's in a name?

Moving on...

Obamacare is an abject failure. Period. Even if the Republicans do nothing, it will fail with the intent all along to create a GOVERNMENT controlled single payer, Socialist system. Which will of course make your ilk quite happy....but will lead to a whole new universe of health care problems including but not limited to declining resources.

Human rights? So you have the right to demand others take care of you? Shelter you? Feed you?
Exactly where did these "rights" come from? Utopia?
People take care of others out of GENEROSITY and that model has worked well in the modern world AND ancient world.

So by the gun, you desire to FORCE the transfer of personal gain through hard work from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
Sure, lots of great nations were built that way...see Venezuela for a recent example. <sarc>

You will never improve the human condition by forcing mediocrity and destroying the incentives for personal productivity. Even China's Communist finally saw this to be the case and allowed capitalism and some degree of market freedom from government force and look what happened in China in the VERY short time since they adopted a FREE MARKET capitalistic model. Wake the fuck up would you?

See that's the problem...people saying they know it all when in fact they have absolutely NO IDEA what the hell they're talking about.
This nation is full of 70 year old idiots....and judging by the millennials of today, it will be vastly more full of said morons in decades to come.
Like most on the Left, you arrogantly believe that what you think MUST be God's truth.

What you have is a deep propensity towards big government and an equally deep resentment for those in America who have achieved on their own accord.
Therefore you believe that the only way to a level and "fair" playing field is to take from those who have achieved success in their lives and GIVE it to those who have not. VERY few successful people cry for bigger government and expanded government social programs. They know it's a losing proposition for all.

You are displaying the common and classic "victim" mentality displayed by the Left. One shared by nearly all Bernie Sanders supporters.

Socialized medicine is not a cure all and introduces more problems than it resolves.
Stop being so damned blind and easily led. Do some UNBIASED research then get back to us....

Try this phrase on Google....
"problems with socialized medicine"

Also if you have an open mind and are not a dedicated Communist....try reading and understanding this...
17 Arguments Against Socialized Medicine | Darryl Johnson

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

These Charts Show Why We’re All Screwed Under The GOP Health Care Bill

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Where I've lived is not relevant. I have 70 years of life experience and knowledge.

I'm shocked you would call my post "fluff with no substance" <sarc>

You are confusing the form of government which is enshrined in the constitution and an economic system which is not. You seem to think that anything short of unbridled Laissez-faire capitalism is socialism and therefore "un-American" when the fact is that we have had socialism in this country since the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s

Stop being a moron. No I'm not confusing anything with anything. I know full well that one is traditionally defined as a form of government and the other an economic system...and I also know , as well as do MANY scholars, that the Left is using this as an excuse to say "See?...we're not trying to change the government...just the health care system"...which is a total lie. You and the Left are trying to change the form of government. PERIOD. You will not be satisfied with ANY change less than a complete change of the type of government the US has or it's entire financial foundation. What you really want is Communism....but Socialistic changes would vastly accommodate that. The lines between economic systems and governing principles have been blurred by those wanting to covertly change entire governments through step by step processes taking tens of decades.

I would even say that a nations financial system potentially has as great or a greater effect on it's society than it's proclaimed from of government. North Korea for example calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea....what's in a name?

Moving on...

Obamacare is an abject failure. Period. Even if the Republicans do nothing, it will fail with the intent all along to create a GOVERNMENT controlled single payer, Socialist system. Which will of course make your ilk quite happy....but will lead to a whole new universe of health care problems including but not limited to declining resources.

Human rights? So you have the right to demand others take care of you? Shelter you? Feed you?
Exactly where did these "rights" come from? Utopia?
People take care of others out of GENEROSITY and that model has worked well in the modern world AND ancient world.

So by the gun, you desire to FORCE the transfer of personal gain through hard work from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
Sure, lots of great nations were built that way...see Venezuela for a recent example. <sarc>

You will never improve the human condition by forcing mediocrity and destroying the incentives for personal productivity. Even China's Communist finally saw this to be the case and allowed capitalism and some degree of market freedom from government force and look what happened in China in the VERY short time since they adopted a FREE MARKET capitalistic model. Wake the fuck up would you?

See that's the problem...people saying they know it all when in fact they have absolutely NO IDEA what the hell they're talking about.
This nation is full of 70 year old idiots....and judging by the millennials of today, it will be vastly more full of said morons in decades to come.
Like most on the Left, you arrogantly believe that what you think MUST be God's truth.

What you have is a deep propensity towards big government and an equally deep resentment for those in America who have achieved on their own accord.
Therefore you believe that the only way to a level and "fair" playing field is to take from those who have achieved success in their lives and GIVE it to those who have not. VERY few successful people cry for bigger government and expanded government social programs. They know it's a losing proposition for all.

You are displaying the common and classic "victim" mentality displayed by the Left. One shared by nearly all Bernie Sanders supporters.

Socialized medicine is not a cure all and introduces more problems than it resolves.
Stop being so damned blind and easily led. Do some UNBIASED research then get back to us....

Try this phrase on Google....
"problems with socialized medicine"

Also if you have an open mind and are not a dedicated Communist....try reading and understanding this...
17 Arguments Against Socialized Medicine | Darryl Johnson

All right wing , anti government, pro rich talking point. I not even going to deal with it. I am just going highlight one point in the propaganda that you posted that will undermine the veracity of the whole piece.

2. Social security payments are reduced or eliminated if your mother earns over $1,200 per year. This particular inequity within the entire inequitable program should be remedied, yet the problems posed by any attempt at "equity" tend to point up the undesirability of seeking "solutions" on a national basis.

That is a lie! only true if you start collecting early and are below full retirement age.

 

[kwc57]

These Charts Show Why We’re All Screwed Under The GOP Health Care Bill

addictinginfo.......ROFLMAO! You lose.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

These Charts Show Why We’re All Screwed Under The GOP Health Care Bill

addictinginfo.......ROFLMAO! You lose.

Webutation - Website Reputation Community

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Study: Obamacare Is Not Collapsing

 

[kwc57]

These Charts Show Why We’re All Screwed Under The GOP Health Care Bill

addictinginfo.......ROFLMAO! You lose.

Webutation - Website Reputation Community

Breitbart gets a 100% rating too Brainiac. You do realize that the Webutation doesn't vouch for the accuracy of the information on a site, don't you?