70 replies to this topic

[HordeLorde]

Trump also says what he thinks.

 

He just has no filter or focus.

or morals/ethics/concsience

Heres a picture of another man who says exactly what he thinks.



i dont see anybody rooting for a Manson Presidency...do you?

Edited by HordeLorde, 07 February 2016 - 11:48 PM.

[HordeLorde]

 

 

Basically what Bernie advocates is the Nordic model, which I have been pushing for years. His unexpected rise only reinforces my secret belief that I subconsciously control the universe.

 

No, he doesn't. 

 

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland etc. all have private health-care options. I'm alright with a 50-50 split, which is pretty close to what we have now at least in terms of healthcare. What he wants to do is COMPLETELY replace all private healthcare and make it all government paid for. That's a can of worms that can't end well. 

You should write your congressman and senators and ask them if they think that THEIR government run, tax-payer funded healthcare is a can of worms that can't end well. And if so how come they don't opt out.

Again, I've never tried to argue that government support is a bad thing. 

 

Just that absolute government control cannot end well. For a variety of different reasons. People ought to be allowed certain choices. 

 

 

Furthermore, congressmen are allowed to have access to private healthcare. 

Yeah but most of them dont. Because they know that their congressional healthcare is the bombdiggity.

[Manoka]

 

 

 

Basically what Bernie advocates is the Nordic model, which I have been pushing for years. His unexpected rise only reinforces my secret belief that I subconsciously control the universe.

 

No, he doesn't. 

 

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland etc. all have private health-care options. I'm alright with a 50-50 split, which is pretty close to what we have now at least in terms of healthcare. What he wants to do is COMPLETELY replace all private healthcare and make it all government paid for. That's a can of worms that can't end well. 

You should write your congressman and senators and ask them if they think that THEIR government run, tax-payer funded healthcare is a can of worms that can't end well. And if so how come they don't opt out.

Again, I've never tried to argue that government support is a bad thing. 

 

Just that absolute government control cannot end well. For a variety of different reasons. People ought to be allowed certain choices. 

 

 

Furthermore, congressmen are allowed to have access to private healthcare. 

Yeah but most of them dont. Because they know that their congressional healthcare is the bombdiggity.

Most of them are rich so, they do in fact pay for much of their own healthcare. xP

 

I have no problem with taking care of people's essential needs. But forcing them only to have government healthcare is going to be extremely problematic. It's not socialism, it's communism. It's an authoritarian regime who now has say over the very well being, over the health of every citizen, who now can control that faucet of your life. Who will now force you to be dependent on them. And that's the problem. 

 

 

One of three things are possible. 

 

One, the government doesn't actually pay for everything, and the system he proposes is yet another lie. 

 

Or, every elective, cosmetic, non-essential or even extremely expensive operation is now put under review by the government. A person who needs a 300,000 dollar surgery may be willing to pay for it, willing to put forth the effort or get a loan etc. but when every tax paying citizen HAS to make the call of whether or not he gets the more expensive or cheaper alternative, well, that's going to be a problem. Because we can almost guarantee it's going to be the cheaper, that cosmetic surgeries will be ignored. Because a person getting gender reassignment or plastic surgery is not an essential need. And if it comes down to the tax payers coughing up the doe, there might be cutbacks in non-essential areas. 

 

Or perhaps a tax will be imposed on all fat people or all people who smoke or drink or do unhealthy things. The government will come in to your house and make sure you are doing your sit-ups and push-ups because after all, the tax payer is now wholly responsible for every single action that you take that effects your own health. What do you think will happen? A person's choices are no longer their own, they have to be dependent on the government. And that's a huge problem. There is no way this can end well, there are problems that will inevitability happen just from this alone.

 

 

Or our taxes sky rocket due to all the unhealthy people we are now paying for and we bankrupt the country. Because we are paying for all of it, instead of citizens paying for it themselves or shouldering some of the responsibility. Adding trillions to a nation already drowning in debt. 

 

It can't end well.

Edited by Manoka, 08 February 2016 - 12:16 AM.

[Redezra]

Trump also says what he thinks.

 

He just has no filter or focus.

or morals/ethics/concsience

Heres a picture of another man who says exactly what he thinks.



i dont see anybody rooting for a Manson Presidency...do you?

 

A Marylin Manson presidency, yes.

 

[HordeLorde]

 

 

 

 

Basically what Bernie advocates is the Nordic model, which I have been pushing for years. His unexpected rise only reinforces my secret belief that I subconsciously control the universe.

 

No, he doesn't. 

 

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland etc. all have private health-care options. I'm alright with a 50-50 split, which is pretty close to what we have now at least in terms of healthcare. What he wants to do is COMPLETELY replace all private healthcare and make it all government paid for. That's a can of worms that can't end well. 

You should write your congressman and senators and ask them if they think that THEIR government run, tax-payer funded healthcare is a can of worms that can't end well. And if so how come they don't opt out.

Again, I've never tried to argue that government support is a bad thing. 

 

Just that absolute government control cannot end well. For a variety of different reasons. People ought to be allowed certain choices. 

 

 

Furthermore, congressmen are allowed to have access to private healthcare. 

Yeah but most of them dont. Because they know that their congressional healthcare is the bombdiggity.

Most of them are rich so, they do in fact pay for much of their own healthcare. xP

 

I have no problem with taking care of people's essential needs. But forcing them only to have government healthcare is going to be extremely problematic. It's not socialism, it's communism. It's an authoritarian regime who now has say over the very well being, over the health of every citizen, who now can control that faucet of your life. Who will now force you to be dependent on them. And that's the problem. 

 

 

One of three things are possible. 

 

One, the government doesn't actually pay for everything, and the system he proposes is yet another lie. 

 

Or, every elective, cosmetic, non-essential or even extremely expensive operation is now put under review by the government. A person who needs a 300,000 dollar surgery may be willing to pay for it, willing to put forth the effort or get a loan etc. but when every tax paying citizen HAS to make the call of whether or not he gets the more expensive or cheaper alternative, well, that's going to be a problem. Because we can almost guarantee it's going to be the cheaper, that cosmetic surgeries will be ignored. Because a person getting gender reassignment or plastic surgery is not an essential need. And if it comes down to the tax payers coughing up the doe, there might be cutbacks in non-essential areas. 

 

Or perhaps a tax will be imposed on all fat people or all people who smoke or drink or do unhealthy things. The government will come in to your house and make sure you are doing your sit-ups and push-ups because after all, the tax payer is now wholly responsible for every single action that you take that effects your own health. What do you think will happen? A person's choices are no longer their own, they have to be dependent on the government. And that's a huge problem. There is no way this can end well, there are problems that will inevitability happen just from this alone.

 

 

Or our taxes sky rocket due to all the unhealthy people we are now paying for and we bankrupt the country. Because we are paying for all of it, instead of citizens paying for it themselves or shouldering some of the responsibility. Adding trillions to a nation already drowning in debt. 

 

It can't end well.

nice try with the gender re-assignment surgery. In quite a few states lawmakers are working on legislation that will make people who require that surgery as Medically necessary and not cosmetic due to the mental and emotional trauma/distress it causes the individual, making it medically necessary to avoid the individual harming his or herself. A tax on fat people, or people who live unhealthy lifestyles will never come to fruition as it would be an ethical issue regarding discrimination. Never gonna happen.

Also, people who smoke tobacco are already taxed at the point of sale...and not just sales tax..there is already a tobacco tax in most states, and that tax goes up every once in awhile. the tax is put on the companies themselves, but those companies compensate by raising their prices on their products, henceforth passing the tax to the consumer.

We already depend on our government for a lot of different things. Keeping us safe, making sure roads and bridges are maintained, making sure people aren't selling literal bull-shit in a can as a miracle wrinkle cream...etc.... and our taxes fund all of that.

Eisenhower had a tax rate of 91% on everybody's income tax, and he did a lot with it.... if you dont like it then sell your car and trek through the woods to work every day...because those taxes built our interstate highway system(among other things). Bernie wants to raise taxes on anyone who makes more than $200,000  a year(which by the way includes him if he's elected and doesn't include most congressmen and senators.) and the highest he would even consider is 70%. 

Now to a point no one considers. Lotsa rich people who have a problem with this tax rate are just greedy assholes who want to horde their wealth. They claim they worked hard for all that money. No, they fucking didn't. Most CEOs don't do much but have meetings, make phone calls and basically are just a face for their company. All the pertinent and quality work is usually designated to other people. For example, Trump claims he builds things. The reality is he doesn't build and hasn't built a damn thing. a bunch of construction workers built his damn tower. While he sits on his ass and films a horrible celebrity reality game show every few years. Does any of that sound worthy of a $300,000 a year salary plus bonuses for no reason? No, it doesn't. The people who are actually putting in legitimate hard work every day tend to make less than 45,000 a year....and much even less than that.

Will Bernie raise taxes? oh yes most certainly. So what am I getting for it in return? 
1. Free college education- now I will be more educated and can get a better higher paying job cuz I have knowledge!
2. Healthcare- now I can go to a hospital and get treated and not worry about getting a $13,000 bill in the mail because insurance won't cover me because I have a pre-existing condition...FURTHERMORE, it avoids a judgment on my credit report for not paying that bill because I couldn't afford it. sounds like a win-win-win to me.
3. I won't have to worry about myself when I get older because Social Security will still exist!
And he may add other stuff along the way.
all while raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour!

is he taking more money from me? sure. Am I worried? not in the slightest..... because what it is going to get me is going to be FAR MORE VALUABLE than a few extra bucks on my paycheck....plus I'll get a lot of it back come tax season....win-win-win-win-win-win-win.....
 

[Manoka]

 

 

 

 

 

Basically what Bernie advocates is the Nordic model, which I have been pushing for years. His unexpected rise only reinforces my secret belief that I subconsciously control the universe.

 

No, he doesn't. 

 

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland etc. all have private health-care options. I'm alright with a 50-50 split, which is pretty close to what we have now at least in terms of healthcare. What he wants to do is COMPLETELY replace all private healthcare and make it all government paid for. That's a can of worms that can't end well. 

You should write your congressman and senators and ask them if they think that THEIR government run, tax-payer funded healthcare is a can of worms that can't end well. And if so how come they don't opt out.

Again, I've never tried to argue that government support is a bad thing. 

 

Just that absolute government control cannot end well. For a variety of different reasons. People ought to be allowed certain choices. 

 

 

Furthermore, congressmen are allowed to have access to private healthcare. 

Yeah but most of them dont. Because they know that their congressional healthcare is the bombdiggity.

Most of them are rich so, they do in fact pay for much of their own healthcare. xP

 

I have no problem with taking care of people's essential needs. But forcing them only to have government healthcare is going to be extremely problematic. It's not socialism, it's communism. It's an authoritarian regime who now has say over the very well being, over the health of every citizen, who now can control that faucet of your life. Who will now force you to be dependent on them. And that's the problem. 

 

 

One of three things are possible. 

 

One, the government doesn't actually pay for everything, and the system he proposes is yet another lie. 

 

Or, every elective, cosmetic, non-essential or even extremely expensive operation is now put under review by the government. A person who needs a 300,000 dollar surgery may be willing to pay for it, willing to put forth the effort or get a loan etc. but when every tax paying citizen HAS to make the call of whether or not he gets the more expensive or cheaper alternative, well, that's going to be a problem. Because we can almost guarantee it's going to be the cheaper, that cosmetic surgeries will be ignored. Because a person getting gender reassignment or plastic surgery is not an essential need. And if it comes down to the tax payers coughing up the doe, there might be cutbacks in non-essential areas. 

 

Or perhaps a tax will be imposed on all fat people or all people who smoke or drink or do unhealthy things. The government will come in to your house and make sure you are doing your sit-ups and push-ups because after all, the tax payer is now wholly responsible for every single action that you take that effects your own health. What do you think will happen? A person's choices are no longer their own, they have to be dependent on the government. And that's a huge problem. There is no way this can end well, there are problems that will inevitability happen just from this alone.

 

 

Or our taxes sky rocket due to all the unhealthy people we are now paying for and we bankrupt the country. Because we are paying for all of it, instead of citizens paying for it themselves or shouldering some of the responsibility. Adding trillions to a nation already drowning in debt. 

 

It can't end well.

nice try with the gender re-assignment surgery. In quite a few states lawmakers are working on legislation that will make people who require that surgery as Medically necessary and not cosmetic due to the mental and emotional trauma/distress it causes the individual, making it medically necessary to avoid the individual harming his or herself. A tax on fat people, or people who live unhealthy lifestyles will never come to fruition as it would be an ethical issue regarding discrimination. Never gonna happen.

Also, people who smoke tobacco are already taxed at the point of sale...and not just sales tax..there is already a tobacco tax in most states, and that tax goes up every once in awhile. the tax is put on the companies themselves, but those companies compensate by raising their prices on their products, henceforth passing the tax to the consumer.

We already depend on our government for a lot of different things. Keeping us safe, making sure roads and bridges are maintained, making sure people aren't selling literal bull-shit in a can as a miracle wrinkle cream...etc.... and our taxes fund all of that.

Eisenhower had a tax rate of 91% on everybody's income tax, and he did a lot with it.... if you dont like it then sell your car and trek through the woods to work every day...because those taxes built our interstate highway system(among other things). Bernie wants to raise taxes on anyone who makes more than $200,000  a year(which by the way includes him if he's elected and doesn't include most congressmen and senators.) and the highest he would even consider is 70%. 

Now to a point no one considers. Lotsa rich people who have a problem with this tax rate are just greedy assholes who want to horde their wealth. They claim they worked hard for all that money. No, they fucking didn't. Most CEOs don't do much but have meetings, make phone calls and basically are just a face for their company. All the pertinent and quality work is usually designated to other people. For example, Trump claims he builds things. The reality is he doesn't build and hasn't built a damn thing. a bunch of construction workers built his damn tower. While he sits on his ass and films a horrible celebrity reality game show every few years. Does any of that sound worthy of a $300,000 a year salary plus bonuses for no reason? No, it doesn't. The people who are actually putting in legitimate hard work every day tend to make less than 45,000 a year....and much even less than that.

Will Bernie raise taxes? oh yes most certainly. So what am I getting for it in return? 
1. Free college education- now I will be more educated and can get a better higher paying job cuz I have knowledge!
2. Healthcare- now I can go to a hospital and get treated and not worry about getting a $13,000 bill in the mail because insurance won't cover me because I have a pre-existing condition...FURTHERMORE, it avoids a judgment on my credit report for not paying that bill because I couldn't afford it. sounds like a win-win-win to me.
3. I won't have to worry about myself when I get older because Social Security will still exist!
And he may add other stuff along the way.
all while raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour!

is he taking more money from me? sure. Am I worried? not in the slightest..... because what it is going to get me is going to be FAR MORE VALUABLE than a few extra bucks on my paycheck....plus I'll get a lot of it back come tax season....win-win-win-win-win-win-win.....
 

He can't promise any of those things. All of those things cost money, and without a way to get the money to pay for said things, we obviously can't get them. We are currently in debt, but it won't last forever. The individuals we are in debt to will eventually stop lending if it looks like we'll never pay it back, and we'll go broke. Without a comprehensive way to fix the economy, we're still in the same boat. In fact it will just sinker faster. 

 

We have among the highest tax rates in the world. A 35% federal tax rate for corporations, which puts us in the second highest tier of corporate tax rates, with a possible addition of up to 12%, putting us well above the rest if the additional taxes are considered. [1] The 5th highest for income tax, which is just below the rest of the countries, at 55% when state and federal taxes are considered. We are near the highest in many other forms of taxes as well, with an additional 5-8% sales tax on top of that. 

 

 

We are already near our breaking point, near the maximum of what we can tax. Taxing more is just going to put our economy on the edge. Further, he doesn't really have a plan to pay for any of these things, big promises with no real way to afford it. Anyone can go up there and say they are going to write America an even bigger check than the last president, but that does little to really help us if they don't have a plan of where they are going to get that money from. 

 

 

 

1. His plan to pay for it won't pan out because he plans to tax things that don't produce real money, such as stocks. He also only plans to make public college free, which was fairly cheap to begin with. 

2. Healthcare companies already can't drop you for preexisting conditions, under the ACA, which was ironically originally designed by the Republicans. 

3. Social security already exists, and more government debt means we likely won't have the ability to pay for it 

 

 

Americans are already squeezed as it is. 

 

And secondly, mandating EVERYONE get all their healthcare paid for by the government is just ridiculous. Again, I have no problem with government assistance. I have a problem with it being the only form of assistance. People already can choose to drive on private roads or own a weapon for self defense or have lots of things without having to be completely dependent on the government. 

Edited by Manoka, 08 February 2016 - 02:36 AM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

When it comes to the cost of healthcare, a friend of mine explains it well: He is married and has two kids, ages 5 and 7. They have a family health insurance plan through his wife's employer (she is a nurse and has good health insurance), for which they pay $275 per paycheck (paid bi-weekly). That works out to $7,150 annually. Do you seriously think that your taxes would go up $7000 under a President Bernie Sanders? Of course not.

 

It's economies of scale. The more people buy into the pool, the lower rates will become for individuals. In a national pool, with a large proportion of young, healthy people, the expectation is that the vast majority of people will pay significantly less for health insurance . Yes, your taxes would go up. But even if they went up $2000, you'd still save over $5000 a year.

 

Bottom line: Norway, Sweden, Denmark and others have managed to figure this out. Are conservatives trying to suggest that the United States is not as good as Norway? Give me a break. They should be framing this as a patriotic imperative. We're Americans, goddam it! We're better than this!

 

FFS, Australia managed to figure this out. Australia. A nation of drunks and criminals. Come ON.

(Redezra: )

[Manoka]

First of all, the way the current system works is more similiar to the Norwegian and Finnish model. Bernie Sanders would inherently require that you have to accept government insurance. 

 

Second, yes I do believe the price will be the equivalent, since that's what health insurance costs. That's like asking me if I think I'll have to pay a tax's worth for cars if Bernie Sanders promised me a car out of my taxes. Yes, taxes would go up by a car if the government bought everyone a car, it won't magically become cheaper just because the government is doing it. 

 

 

Honestly Jorost this is common sense. Health insurance is worth what the price of healthcare is, it's prices are ultimately dependent on what healthcare actually costs, which means that if we all shifted to the government paying for it, then now the government would inevitably be paying that amount. It  *might* drop a little if profit's go down, but right now health insurance companies aren't making a 350% profit, they're making 10-20%, meaning we aren't going to a drop from 7,000 to 2,000. 

 

Not to mention it's not the Norwegian model at all. There are both public and private options, but you are required to buy health insurance. In Bernie Sander's model, there is only government insurance and healthcare, meaning there is no longer a private option. A 50-50 public/private split is fine, but a 100% government control is not. 

Edited by Manoka, 08 February 2016 - 06:59 PM.

[HordeLorde]

First of all, the way the current system works is more similiar to the Norwegian and Finnish model. Bernie Sanders would inherently require that you have to accept government insurance. 

 

Second, yes I do believe the price will be the equivalent, since that's what health insurance costs. That's like asking me if I think I'll have to pay a tax's worth for cars if Bernie Sanders promised me a car out of my taxes. Yes, taxes would go up by a car if the government bought everyone a car, it won't magically become cheaper just because the government is doing it. 

 

 

Honestly Jorost this is common sense. Health insurance is worth what the price of healthcare is, it's prices are ultimately dependent on what healthcare actually costs, which means that if we all shifted to the government paying for it, then now the government would inevitably be paying that amount. It  *might* drop a little if profit's go down, but right now health insurance companies aren't making a 350% profit, they're making 10-20%, meaning we aren't going to a drop from 7,000 to 2,000. 

 

Not to mention it's not the Norwegian model at all. There are both public and private options, but you are required to buy health insurance. In Bernie Sander's model, there is only government insurance and healthcare, meaning there is no longer a private option. A 50-50 public/private split is fine, but a 100% government control is not. 

Manoka, from what i've noticed common sense isnt exactly part of your repertoire. just sayin.... wub ya <3

[KiWi]

The more people buy into the pool, the lower rates will become for individuals. In a national pool, with a large proportion of young, healthy people, the expectation is that the vast majority of people will pay significantly less for health insurance

Sounds like a pyramid scheme.

I need to encourage everyone I know to allow more immigrants (that will work literally any job), and to breed like rabbits, while not having any kids myself, and laughing at all the benefits I get.

Sounds cool.

[Redezra]

I'ma just put this out there, Fiat Currencies can operate with infinite debt. Because it's not bound to gold, it don't mean shit. There will always be money to spend on govt projects, this is why the govt could manufacture a trillion dollar coin if they wanted to. Where did that trillion dollars come from? Nowhere.

 

This usually results in inflation, but if your economic decisions are improving consumer confidence and getting them to spend more money in local and national economies, you're likely to end up with more money than you spend, and your books are still balanced.

 

You can't just throw money at the problem though, that results in stagflation, where the money don't push the economy into high gear. I've actually seen it work, believe it or not, in Australia. We dished out 900 AUD to each taxpaying citizen from the profits we were getting from China, with the ruling that it must be spent on consumables. Electronics, foods, consumer products, etc. Kicked the economy along and avoided the GFC, very cool. But this is not the case for every country. You must target your spending.

 

I can't say how scary it must be in the US when you're not earning much and fall sick. How much is your doctor's visit going to cost? How much is your medication going to cost? The fact that people put things off, even when severe, to wait till they have the money to do so, tells me that it's enough to halt consumption. You don't want to spend all yo moneys cause you might need it. All that money could be going into the local economy, but it's trapped in the health market, and worse still in bank accounts, doing nothing.

 

In Australia, you have no money, and you're sick. That's fine, you walk into your doctor's, see him, get your meds, pay exactly nothing, and get well. Nobody gives a fuck about getting ill, we don't save for it, we don't worry about it, the best you do is, if you're wealthy, you put some aside for private health insurance (which is very affordable, cause otherwise you'd just drop back onto the public system and pay the excess tax for doing so). All of our income that in the USA would go toward saving for possible medical costs just goes towards Xboxes and books and ludicrously expensive beef (cause big country == big transport costs).

 

This is, straight up, an economic advantage. Pair this with a sales tax, and you've just generated a fantastic revenue stream for govt, that is worth significantly more than the cost of the public medical system.

 

When it comes to the cost of healthcare, a friend of mine explains it well: He is married and has two kids, ages 5 and 7. They have a family health insurance plan through his wife's employer (she is a nurse and has good health insurance), for which they pay $275 per paycheck (paid bi-weekly). That works out to $7,150 annually. Do you seriously think that your taxes would go up $7000 under a President Bernie Sanders? Of course not.

 

It's economies of scale. The more people buy into the pool, the lower rates will become for individuals. In a national pool, with a large proportion of young, healthy people, the expectation is that the vast majority of people will pay significantly less for health insurance . Yes, your taxes would go up. But even if they went up $2000, you'd still save over $5000 a year.

 

Bottom line: Norway, Sweden, Denmark and others have managed to figure this out. Are conservatives trying to suggest that the United States is not as good as Norway? Give me a break. They should be framing this as a patriotic imperative. We're Americans, goddam it! We're better than this!

 

FFS, Australia managed to figure this out. Australia. A nation of drunks and criminals. Come ON.

(Redezra: )

 

Yes this exactly. Although the criminality helped, it's easier to steal from the rich and give to the poor when you've been stealing for centuries already.

[Manoka]

First of all, the way the current system works is more similiar to the Norwegian and Finnish model. Bernie Sanders would inherently require that you have to accept government insurance. 

 

Second, yes I do believe the price will be the equivalent, since that's what health insurance costs. That's like asking me if I think I'll have to pay a tax's worth for cars if Bernie Sanders promised me a car out of my taxes. Yes, taxes would go up by a car if the government bought everyone a car, it won't magically become cheaper just because the government is doing it. 

 

 

Honestly Jorost this is common sense. Health insurance is worth what the price of healthcare is, it's prices are ultimately dependent on what healthcare actually costs, which means that if we all shifted to the government paying for it, then now the government would inevitably be paying that amount. It  *might* drop a little if profit's go down, but right now health insurance companies aren't making a 350% profit, they're making 10-20%, meaning we aren't going to a drop from 7,000 to 2,000. 

 

Not to mention it's not the Norwegian model at all. There are both public and private options, but you are required to buy health insurance. In Bernie Sander's model, there is only government insurance and healthcare, meaning there is no longer a private option. A 50-50 public/private split is fine, but a 100% government control is not. 

Manoka, from what i've noticed common sense isnt exactly part of your repertoire. just sayin.... wub ya <3

And yet no-one has yet refuted my argument that there are base costs to things like insurance or that the government can somehow make it go down in price. The argument that government interaction will just make it go down is silly. 

 

Further, most Americans already have insurance, and an increase in the insurance pool won't directly lower the price. In other words if we simply had double the amount of people on insurance tomorrow it wouldn't drop costs by 200%, it would be more like 10-20%. Because only a percentage of the loss could be compensated for, not all of it. While it's true that a bigger pool is good for insurance companies due to stability (if you have 1,000 people and 100 of them are injured in the same hurricane tomorrow, that's a lot of pay outs), as millions of people tend to average out injuries to a statistical figure instead of something completely random, there is still a limit to how much money that will save. With most insurance companies already as big as they are there will be diminishing returns to having a larger pool which means switching to the government isn't going to result in a 350% drop in insurance prices. 

[Manoka]

I'ma just put this out there, Fiat Currencies can operate with infinite debt. Because it's not bound to gold, it don't mean shit. There will always be money to spend on govt projects, this is why the govt could manufacture a trillion dollar coin if they wanted to. Where did that trillion dollars come from? Nowhere.

 

This usually results in inflation, but if your economic decisions are improving consumer confidence and getting them to spend more money in local and national economies, you're likely to end up with more money than you spend, and your books are still balanced.

 

You can't just throw money at the problem though, that results in stagflation, where the money don't push the economy into high gear. I've actually seen it work, believe it or not, in Australia. We dished out 900 AUD to each taxpaying citizen from the profits we were getting from China, with the ruling that it must be spent on consumables. Electronics, foods, consumer products, etc. Kicked the economy along and avoided the GFC, very cool. But this is not the case for every country. You must target your spending.

 

I can't say how scary it must be in the US when you're not earning much and fall sick. How much is your doctor's visit going to cost? How much is your medication going to cost? The fact that people put things off, even when severe, to wait till they have the money to do so, tells me that it's enough to halt consumption. You don't want to spend all yo moneys cause you might need it. All that money could be going into the local economy, but it's trapped in the health market, and worse still in bank accounts, doing nothing.

 

In Australia, you have no money, and you're sick. That's fine, you walk into your doctor's, see him, get your meds, pay exactly nothing, and get well. Nobody gives a fuck about getting ill, we don't save for it, we don't worry about it, the best you do is, if you're wealthy, you put some aside for private health insurance (which is very affordable, cause otherwise you'd just drop back onto the public system and pay the excess tax for doing so). All of our income that in the USA would go toward saving for possible medical costs just goes towards Xboxes and books and ludicrously expensive beef (cause big country == big transport costs).

 

This is, straight up, an economic advantage. Pair this with a sales tax, and you've just generated a fantastic revenue stream for govt, that is worth significantly more than the cost of the public medical system.

 

When it comes to the cost of healthcare, a friend of mine explains it well: He is married and has two kids, ages 5 and 7. They have a family health insurance plan through his wife's employer (she is a nurse and has good health insurance), for which they pay $275 per paycheck (paid bi-weekly). That works out to $7,150 annually. Do you seriously think that your taxes would go up $7000 under a President Bernie Sanders? Of course not.

 

It's economies of scale. The more people buy into the pool, the lower rates will become for individuals. In a national pool, with a large proportion of young, healthy people, the expectation is that the vast majority of people will pay significantly less for health insurance . Yes, your taxes would go up. But even if they went up $2000, you'd still save over $5000 a year.

 

Bottom line: Norway, Sweden, Denmark and others have managed to figure this out. Are conservatives trying to suggest that the United States is not as good as Norway? Give me a break. They should be framing this as a patriotic imperative. We're Americans, goddam it! We're better than this!

 

FFS, Australia managed to figure this out. Australia. A nation of drunks and criminals. Come ON.

(Redezra: )

 

Yes this exactly. Although the criminality helped, it's easier to steal from the rich and give to the poor when you've been stealing for centuries already.

The problem with this is that it can't last forever. Money still equals real things in the real world. You only have a certain amount of food, or water or doctors or nurses and all of them get paid for their labor, knowledge, expertise and so on. For the resources spent on the people, not just money but what those resources mean. You can print off money, but even ignoring inflation eventually you'll be running on fumes. Cars without gasoline simply won't run, Nurses without food; if you just pretend that you're giving them something of value eventually it will catch up to you, typically in regards to inflation, but it will do more than tank the economy, it will leave people pretty much nothing despite all the work they put in to things. You can't keep something like that up forever, money still means things in the real world until that money can't be trusted anymore. Furthermore, as a country dependent on foreign trade, even if we can get away with producing unlimited amounts of money because enough people are essentially willing to work for free, the rest of the world won't accept our severely reduced in value money and that will kill the many things we depend on and import. We can only continue to borrow money so long as people trust us to pay it back and if we just print off money at random people will lose that faith and the foreign entities we are borrowing money from will stop lending us the money, thus increasing the severity of the inevitable crash of such a choice.

 

Secondly in the U.S. there are already healthcare programs. On top of the ACA, a program authorized by Obama and created by the Republicans (albeit with a few changes), we've had healthcare in this country for years, chiefly medicare or medicade. The poor, extremely unhealthy, the elderly, the orphans and generally anyone who can't take care of themselves immediately get special benefits, and most people have their healthcare taken care of. 

 

 

In fact, the U.S. provides more money per citizen from it's government than any other country in the world. [1][2 People happen to spend more money on healthcare in the private sector. We already have enormous healthcare support. It's totally ludicrous to assume that we simply leave people to die or have no social safety nets in place. 

 

The argument I'm making is that absolute government control is a mistake. No Nordic, European or other country has a government that is the only source for medical care, for obvious reasons of allowing for free-market alternatives if people so choose. Government assistance is not the same as the government mandating you accept their help, mandating you be their only life-line. And the government taking over all healthcare leads to a number of nightmares such as how do we decide who pays for what, how do we decide what the government will pay for, how will we get the money to pay for it and so on. We already pay the most. Now, if we want to argue that a restructuring of certain things, a focus on preventive measures rather than treatment to prevent people from getting sick in the first place, particularly obesity which we have the highest of an OECD country and so on and so forth are important things than we can do that, but it's not about how much money we spend. It's not about giving people yet more money to spend on healthcare or providing them with yet more government assistance. It's everything else. 

Edited by Manoka, 09 February 2016 - 12:59 AM.

[HordeLorde]

Nothing lasts forever manoka....except maybe twinkies.... other than that milk goes sour, boobs sag, undefeated teams lose the championship game, empires fall.....hell even cockroaches die...life as we know it is always downhill.

 

[Manoka]

Nothing lasts forever manoka....except maybe twinkies.... other than that milk goes sour, boobs sag, undefeated teams lose the championship game, empires fall.....hell even cockroaches die...life as we know it is always downhill.

 

All the more reason to carefully calculate moves that risk the well being of millions of people, national well being.

[the rebel]

Nothing lasts forever manoka....except maybe twinkies.... other than that milk goes sour, boobs sag, undefeated teams lose the championship game, empires fall.....hell even cockroaches die...life as we know it is always downhill.

Well lobsters are theoretically immortal on a cellular level.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Heh. Lobsters are not immortal. From Wikipedia:

 

Contrary to popular belief, lobsters are not immortal. Lobsters grow by moulting which requires a lot of energy, and the larger the shell the more energy is required.^[20] Eventually, the lobster will die from exhaustion during a moult. Older lobsters are also known to stop moulting, which means that the shell will eventually become damaged, infected, or fall apart and they die.^[21] The European lobster has an average life span of 31 years for males and 54 years for females.

[the rebel]

@jorost: I did say on a cellular level that they're theoretically immortal. Not that they live forever. But theoretically on a cellular level they could

[HordeLorde]

@jorost: I did say on a cellular level that they're theoretically immortal. Not that they live forever. But theoretically on a cellular level they could

well on that note wwe all live forever as we shed skin and hair everyday. the wind blows it around(even into space.) meaning that every human being that has ever existed is everywhere in the universe all the time.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Theoretically every living thing is immortal at the cellular level. Henrietta Lacks' stem cell line has been reproducing happily with no degradation for over six decades. If that could have been achieved in the host organism, Henrietta Lacks would still be alive and wouldn't have aged a day since 1951.