How do you feel about socialist ideas such as state funded safety organizations (police, fire, EMS), road care, social security, etc.
I'd like to add to that list - what are people's view of the USA being the only industrialized first world nation in the world that does not have healthcare for all as a basic human right. And please - if you want to argue that people can walk into an emergency room and get treated and that's what "healthcare for all as a right" means to you.... don't bother. That's world class B.S.
Like so many things - doing it 'right' and helping to keep people healthy rather than having to treat them when they are very sick is (gasp) cheaper.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
We live in a country where Bernie's fairness and decency approach to providing a social safety net and addressing inequalities is considered impossible nonsense. There really isn't much to argue with the anti Bernie crowd after you come to that realization.
I was reminded this weekend that FDR and MLK were democratic socialists. Imagine how they would be treated today.
It all sounds great, but maybe we start with step one, get cost under control.
Promises are just words until actions are taken. And they can claim all the savings they want, but until they get costs under control and we see what kind of fallout we get from that, we shouldn't go making complete overhaul changes.
If we cut payments to hospitals and doctors, what is the fallout. Will some of the hospitals have to close and consolidate to maintain efficient operating costs? Will some older doctors retire early, leaving a void of professionals to care for the people? Does this affect those looking to enter the profession? Will there be overcrowding in ERs and hospitals, more so than there already is. Will people take responsibility for their own health, as to not become a burden on the system?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Ilove how the far left here want to put Stone in jail for the Russian hoax but their ready to elect a true Russian commie that hates our democracy and the American people screw him and anyone that supports that enemy of AMERICA
Ilove how the far left here want to put Stone in jail for the Russian hoax but their ready to elect a true Russian commie that hates our democracy and the American people screw him and anyone that supports that enemy of AMERICA
Proof positive no-one should expend effort ever 'discussing' anything with you.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Ilove how the far left here want to put Stone in jail for the Russian hoax but their ready to elect a true Russian commie that hates our democracy and the American people screw him and anyone that supports that enemy of AMERICA
Oh brother.... LOL,, you are hilarious.
You take an internet hoax and turn it into reality when probably the hoax itself was started by Russian bots..
Its fine to listen to Fox News,.., but don't believe them anymore than you'd believe anyone else without first spending some time to actually do some research on your own.,
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Ilove how the far left here want to put Stone in jail for the Russian hoax but their ready to elect a true Russian commie that hates our democracy and the American people screw him and anyone that supports that enemy of AMERICA
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST
The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.
Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.
All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.
Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration.
Administrative costs are so high because thousands of insurance companies individually negotiate benefit rules and rates with thousands of hospitals and doctors. On top of that, they rely on different billing procedures — and this puts a costly burden on providers.
Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion a year. Savings on prescription drugs would be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs. A Medicare for All system would save still more with implementation of global health care spending budgets.
Even more savings are possible in a Medicare for All system because, like every other wealthy country, we would have a uniform electronic health records system. Such a system generates additional savings because system problems would be easier to detect and correct. A uniform claims data system helps reduce health care spending for fraudulent services. In 2018, total U.S. health care costs were $3.6 trillion, representing 17.7 percent of GDP.
Savings are in part a function of the benefits Medicare for All covers. The Mercatus report and others projected savings, even with the elimination of deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. Under both Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) Medicare for All bill and Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s (D-Wash.) Medicare for All bill, patients would not pay deductibles or coinsurance when they receive medical care. Their bills also provide for vision, hearing and dental care, as well as long-term services and supports, such as home care and nursing home care.
No matter how you design a single-payer public health insurance system, it would have lower overall health care costs, so long as for-profit private health insurers no longer exist to drive up health care costs. Yes, it’s true that some other wealthy countries rely on “private insurers” to provide benefits and spend far less than we do on care. But, these insurers do not operate in any way like health insurers in the U.S.
Other wealthy countries dictate virtually every element of the health insurance people receive, including what’s covered, what’s paid, and people’s out-of-pocket costs — all identical for everyone. The insurers operate like claims processors or bill payers. They follow the coverage and payment rules set by the government, nothing like the private health insurers in the U.S. which revel in product diversity (read: complexity and confusion).
And, if you’re thinking that having the federal government guarantee coverage to all Americans is a big deal, it’s actually not. The government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs. Among other things, it pays for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TriCare and a wide range of state and local health care programs, along with private insurance for government employees and tax subsidies for private insurance.
Whether you call it single-payer or Medicare for All, it isn’t some socialist pipe dream. It’s a sensible, efficient, and effective way to guarantee excellent health insurance to everyone.
Diane Archer is a senior adviser at Social Security Works.
That's your reply to what I wrote? Really? That really doesn't make you look very good.
I just explain in principle economic terms why socialist type programs don't work well. Now READ CAREFULLY. Everything I described in my previous post applies to "socialist leaning" programs. The program doesn't even have to be full socialist in order to be prone to what I laid out.
I expected a more economically based argument from you using principles, what a shame. And you said you've taken economics? I think not because you haven't shown me anything.
Everything you just said about laws being skewed in favor of the elites, can't handle a $400 emergency, inequality, fascism, class warfare is BUNK. All of that is just socialist talking points and garbage with no factual basis.
See, that's the difference between you and me. I laid out economic facts and prinicples, you lay out some tepid emotional response. In my mind that doesn't qualify as a real rebuttal. You can say what you "feel" but that doesn't mean anything if its just operated on emotion.
I laid out economic principles, you haven't done anything. Show me why it would work using those and I'll respect your response a lot more. Until then your reply is garbage.
The only problem with all of that nonsense is the fact that you're dead wrong. As I said before dozens and dozens and dozens of countries around the globe, to the left of the USA Democrats all doing great thank you very much. Better schools, better healthcare (for all) better quality of life. And your opinion can't invalidate those facts.
You have no clue what you're talking about and are completely out of your depth. You're completely illiterate when it comes to the study of economics. ILLITERATE.
Everything I've said thus far in this thread are economic principles and facts you should know about socialist type programs, societies, and governments. This isn't anything earth shattering either. People have known about these examples for the past 40+ years. You'd know that if you ever bothered to open a textbook.
You're pathetic. You operate on nothing but emotion. Try logic sometime and see how it works for you.
That's your reply to what I wrote? Really? That really doesn't make you look very good.
I just explain in principle economic terms why socialist type programs don't work well. Now READ CAREFULLY. Everything I described in my previous post applies to "socialist leaning" programs. The program doesn't even have to be full socialist in order to be prone to what I laid out.
I expected a more economically based argument from you using principles, what a shame. And you said you've taken economics? I think not because you haven't shown me anything.
Everything you just said about laws being skewed in favor of the elites, can't handle a $400 emergency, inequality, fascism, class warfare is BUNK. All of that is just socialist talking points and garbage with no factual basis.
See, that's the difference between you and me. I laid out economic facts and prinicples, you lay out some tepid emotional response. In my mind that doesn't qualify as a real rebuttal. You can say what you "feel" but that doesn't mean anything if its just operated on emotion.
I laid out economic principles, you haven't done anything. Show me why it would work using those and I'll respect your response a lot more. Until then your reply is garbage.
The only problem with all of that nonsense is the fact that you're dead wrong. As I said before dozens and dozens and dozens of countries around the globe, to the left of the USA Democrats all doing great thank you very much. Better schools, better healthcare (for all) better quality of life. And your opinion can't invalidate those facts.
You have no clue what you're talking about and are completely out of your depth. You're completely illiterate when it comes to the study of economics. ILLITERATE.
Everything I've said thus far in this thread are economic principles and facts you should know about socialist type programs, societies, and governments. This isn't anything earth shattering either. People have known about these examples for the past 40+ years. You'd know that if you ever bothered to open a textbook.
You're pathetic. You operate on nothing but emotion. Try logic sometime and see how it works for you.
This is hilarious coming from you. It's so obvious reading the poorly crafted word strings you post, that you have an extremely limited education beyond high school. However, for all I know you might have a degree in babbling economics. You know, it's the one where you talk like you know about something you don't, only it's on a scale kind of like stolen valor. But hey, you keep doing you and I'll keep ignoring your overly simplified economic delusions and GOPerisms that you twist into some kind of Walter Mitty-esque self promoted mental graphic novel that everyone else plainly sees as a comic book about loserville. Your economic education credentials wouldn't fill the point of a sewing needle.
You have no clue what you're talking about and are completely out of your depth. You're completely illiterate when it comes to the study of economics. ILLITERATE.
Everything I've said thus far in this thread are economic principles and facts you should know about socialist type programs, societies, and governments. This isn't anything earth shattering either. People have known about these examples for the past 40+ years. You'd know that if you ever bothered to open a textbook.
You're pathetic. You operate on nothing but emotion. Try logic sometime and see how it works for you.
I'll go very slow for you.
I'll go logically for you - so your emotional self can try to follow.
Step by step.
- You talk about "economic principals" - theory.
- My answer is real world - live "examples".
- Just in case you are not getting the point - real world results always trump 'theory'.
- What you claim the USA will become is PROVEN in the world today not to be true.
- What you claim to be the inevitable result of a move to the left of where the country is today - is NOT going to happen.
- Where the Dems want to take the USA - even Bernie - is still not as far left of countries in Europe who are thriving.
- Those are FACTS. Not theory. Not principals.
Have a good day. Take some time to follow the steps and realize you are incorrect.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Do you think we are talking about using existing funds? Do you know that the fund you speak of is only in trouble because politicians took money that wasn't theirs to play with and spent it mostly on the military? You should be mad that they did that, not mad that a guy like Bernie wants to make your life a little better. smh
The rest of your rant is pointless to address because you aren't even in the same book as the rest of us let alone on the same page.
What funds are they going to use? Of course they are going to use existing funds in all of this.
Under Bernie's plan he makes my life worse, not better.
My rant is pointless?
This goes to show me you have no idea what Medicare actually covers.
Let me give you an example:
If you get admitted to the hospital be it 1 day or 60 days, under Medicare you are required to pay a 1,408 dollar deductible
If your in the hospital for more than 60 days you have to pay 352 dollars PER DAY for each day your in the hospital.
If your still in after 90 days, the cost goes up to 704 dollars PER DAY
60 days later, Medicare stops paying and your on the hook for 100% of the costs until you leave the hospital.
Once you leave the hospital, that 60 day period is over...2 week later you end up in the hospital? That is another 1,408 dollars your forced to pay.
Bernie didn't tell you that did he?
How is that making my life better? My current insurance covers 90/10 of everything with a 1,000 dollar out of pocket expense? I had a 44,000 dollar surgery done a year and a half ago and I was only on the hook for 1,100 bucks....under Medicare i'd pay far more.
Longterm care(custodial care) - So if you have a stoke and don't have any family members that can help you, you will foot 100% of the bill for skilled care in your home till you get back on your feet at the cost of about 480 dollars per day give or take.
Dental Care - Does not cover most Dental care. that toothache that is killing you, good luck..hope you have the cash to shell out fotr expensive dental care.
Eye Exams and Glasses - Need new glasses? again...hope you have saved some money.
Cosmetic Surgery - Not a big deal to most, but still not covered. Dermatologist visit? Good luck.
Hearing Aids - Having trouble hearing? Have an accident that impaired the hearing in your ear? Good luck, Medicare won't cover that.The average hearing aid costs between 1,000 - 4,000 dollars. Hope you have saved some money.
Routine Foot Care -Have foot problems? Probably won't be covered.
Medicare itself flat out recommends you to have insurance and to NOT rely on them
Quote:
If you need services Medicare doesn't cover, you'll have to pay for them yourself unless you have other insurance or a Medicare health plan that covers them.
So you are extolling the virtues of the private insurance healthcare system --- because you benefit more than you pay. LOL
You provided examples of when Bernie' system would cost you more.
You also stated that medicare doesn't cover long term custodial care.
1. Any system where the majority of people take out more than they pay .... is not going to work. So you are the outlier. The best system for all is not based on outliers ... it is based on the many.
2. In any comparison of any system - there will ALWAYS be examples to be found where one system is more expensive than the other. I have zero doubt there are many more examples that could be provided that show Bernie's system saves money.
3. I don't know of any medical health insurance that covers long term custodial care ... and if it does I am certain it costs a fortune.
In all of this - what you don't mention or miss - by providing better and more affordable care for all and increasing the health of the nation .... the cost benefit is enormous long term.
Any clue what most of the countries ranked (way) ahead of the USA have in common? Yeah - nationalized healthcare for all.
That's your reply to what I wrote? Really? That really doesn't make you look very good.
I just explain in principle economic terms why socialist type programs don't work well. Now READ CAREFULLY. Everything I described in my previous post applies to "socialist leaning" programs. The program doesn't even have to be full socialist in order to be prone to what I laid out.
I expected a more economically based argument from you using principles, what a shame. And you said you've taken economics? I think not because you haven't shown me anything.
Everything you just said about laws being skewed in favor of the elites, can't handle a $400 emergency, inequality, fascism, class warfare is BUNK. All of that is just socialist talking points and garbage with no factual basis.
See, that's the difference between you and me. I laid out economic facts and prinicples, you lay out some tepid emotional response. In my mind that doesn't qualify as a real rebuttal. You can say what you "feel" but that doesn't mean anything if its just operated on emotion.
I laid out economic principles, you haven't done anything. Show me why it would work using those and I'll respect your response a lot more. Until then your reply is garbage.
The only problem with all of that nonsense is the fact that you're dead wrong. As I said before dozens and dozens and dozens of countries around the globe, to the left of the USA Democrats all doing great thank you very much. Better schools, better healthcare (for all) better quality of life. And your opinion can't invalidate those facts.
You have no clue what you're talking about and are completely out of your depth. You're completely illiterate when it comes to the study of economics. ILLITERATE.
Everything I've said thus far in this thread are economic principles and facts you should know about socialist type programs, societies, and governments. This isn't anything earth shattering either. People have known about these examples for the past 40+ years. You'd know that if you ever bothered to open a textbook.
You're pathetic. You operate on nothing but emotion. Try logic sometime and see how it works for you.
Bernie's Medicare for All offers a laundry list of what he calls financing options. Let's say he enacts all of them. For the sake of argument, we'll also act like those projections will ring true - a big stretch since most of them are additional taxes on the wealthy. Let's just say the wealthy and large corporations throw their collective hands in the air, don't look to any of the 5 million tax loopholes, and ante up.
I rounded up (not that they aren't already overestimated) and came up with 17.5 trillion over ten years.
Medicare currently costs 800 billion per year and only covers 1/6 of the population, we'll go ahead and ignore the fact that 90% of recipients have supplemental plans...
800 billion x 6 times the recipients x 10 years = 48 trillion
But then we have the magic bullet... the title of this thread... somehow our super-efficient government is going to save 450 billion per year. Let's act like the entity that's bought and paid for by the healthcare industry and big pharma somehow pulls this off ~ another 4.5 trillion over ten years.
And those people are are more likely to be much poorer than your average US Citizen. Even someone making 25,000 k a year in the USA could live like a king in Mexico, whats your point?
I don't understand a portion of this nations obsession with adding to the debt. The more debt our government runs up THE POORER WE ALL BECOME!
Yet, it feels like im speaking to a brick wall. You are NOT poorer than your parents, have less health care than your parents, etc, etc because of evil rich people..its because of the government devaluing the currency and running up defecits.
“By this means the government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.” -― John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace
Folks really need to read that book. I was required to in order to pass my economics courses. The longer we go without forcing our government into a balanced budget and shutting off the credit card, the poorer all of us are going to become...in a generation or two, your kids won't even be able to own a home...think about that...the house you bought today for 180,000 cost your parents about 65,000 in 1970....they are killing us with by devaluing the currency, the rich get richer, the poorer get poorer, yet we want to add to that?
How about getting ride of the Federal Reserve and taking away the governments credit card to start and put more money in the average person pocket so they can afford their own insurance...if they choose not to buy it, thats on them.
Besides, its hard to feel sorry for people who can afford a 1,000 dollar iPhone and 130+ dollars a month for a smartphone yet bitch about health insurance...get your priorities straight...I done without for years, still do on many things...thats life...the government can't just give us all everything...
Your missing ALL THE OTHER FREE STUFF that is unpaid for ... like student loan debt forgiveness and all the climate change costs ... the list is virtually endless ...
And I’m guessing a lot of these rich people will no longer be citizens of this country once Bernie decides to pass all their money around WHILE NOT TOUCHING HIS ALL READY ACCUMULATED MULTI MILLIONS ...
U MAY BE MISSING MORE .... THATS ALL I GOT FOR NOW ...
Your missing ALL THE OTHER FREE STUFF that is unpaid for ... like student loan debt forgiveness and all the climate change costs ... the list is virtually endless ...
And I’m guessing a lot of these rich people will no longer be citizens of this country once Bernie decides to pass all their money around WHILE NOT TOUCHING HIS ALL READY ACCUMULATED MULTI MILLIONS ...
U MAY BE MISSING MORE .... THATS ALL I GOT FOR NOW ...
College for All and Cancel Student Debt ~ 2.2 trillion
Housing for All ~ 2.5 trillion
Universal Childcare ~ 1.5 trillion
Best of all, the plan that will have us dump all of our cars in the ocean within ten years and having us driving bananas down the road...
The Green New Deal ~ 16.3 trillion
Let's not ignore expanding Social Security and forgiving all medical debt, a drop in the bucket in comparison... but hey, if we're going to treat the next few generations to insurmountable debt, we might as well go all in!
Classic. Well done. Why try to engage in a discussion and lose when you can simply try to belittle!
...
Thats classic coming from u ... at least I’m not hypocritical ... sheesh ...
Talk about pot meets kettle ...
There’s only 2 of u that deserve a convo when it comes to me ... Clem and Swish ... the rest of u have crapped all over me more times than i can count ... i am no innocent victim but neither are u except in your eyes ...
Classic. Well done. Why try to engage in a discussion and lose when you can simply try to belittle!
...
Thats classic coming from u ... at least I’m not hypocritical ... sheesh ...
Talk about pot meets kettle ...
There’s only 2 of u that deserve a convo when it comes to me ... Clem and Swish ... the rest of u have crapped all over me more times than i can count ... i am no innocent victim but neither are u except in your eyes ...
hardly, I simply return like with like - & I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that you referred to Trump in Pure Football forum by referring to "the other Billionaire from the political boards" ... and then lying and saying you didn't bring Trump into it. But I've mentioned this often enough that you're not man enough to fess up. It's all good we both know where you at.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You mean that 1+1 equals ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ TIMES, MINUS, and DIVIDED BY, that some folks think is the greatest thing since sliced bread, even though it is the dumbest thing since dumb was invented.
Maybe you have a point. Maybe Americans are too dumb to make it work like all those other countries. I mean - we can't deny that those other countries:
- Have government provided/nationalized "free" healthcare. - They have better overall rated healthcare. - They have lower costs per procedure. - Their nations have healthier citizens. - It cost less in taxes than typical insurance in the USA.
I mean we'd be really super dumb not to want those results right - so we must simply not be smart enough to make it work. Dumber than anything else since dumb was invented - Four shore.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Maybe you have a point. Maybe Americans are too dumb to make it work like all those other countries. I mean - we can't deny that those other countries:
- Have government provided/nationalized "free" healthcare. - They have better overall rated healthcare. - They have lower costs per procedure. - Their nations have healthier citizens. - It cost less in taxes than typical insurance in the USA.
I mean we'd be really super dumb not to want those results right - so we must simply not be smart enough to make it work. Dumber than anything else since dumb was invented - Four shore.
I don't doubt it can be done, but I don't think you can just flip and switch and do it all at one time. It's going to stages, probably more than I will see in my lifetime.
There's a lot of unknowns yet. It's great to say we are going to do this and that, but we have to remember, that we are talking about the jobs in the healthcare profession that will be majorly affected. The question is, what is that affect?
I don't doubt some of the lower paid workers will benefit, but other may not. And I'm not so sure I want someone cutting into me after the government said, "You will now make 75k a year instead fo 200k"
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
there are about 620 billionaires in the US, whose TOTAL income equates between 2.5-3 Trillion dollars.
How are they going to pay for the 30 trillion its going to cost?
First, that is a ten year cost. So annually you are at 3 trillion.
You will be trading premiums, co-pays, deductibles, out of pocket meds for higher taxes but it will be less than you spend now.
That number is also calculated at current costs. Prices will be negotiated down.
Currently those making over 250K a year stop paying into social security and medicare on money over 250k. That will end and all income will pay the same rate. this is the biggest source of funding the medicare fund.
Then the wealth tax on millionaires and billionaires.
But after explaining this a million times only to have somebody ignore all previous explanations and just ask again to smear the plan, I don't expect this answered your true question... "How do I get over my fear of change even when the change is better for me and has been proven world wide?"
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
