Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
do you really figure that if the government didnt give money to "farmers" that we wouldnt have affordable food? its just crony capitalism/government corruption.
well, my basic premise was that you appear to be suggesting that any industry that covers a "need" shouldnt be for profit. im not sure what makes food/clothing/shelter any different from health care except for there are often much greater one time expenses. housing has a very high expense but it is generally paid out monthly, much like insurance.
i dont really see where the benefit is of taking out profit. you seem to like to use a strawman argument, blaming this evil greedy CEO making hundreds of millions and deciding who lives and who dies. that argument is both silly and has absolutely nothing to do with profit. even if you eliminate mr evil moneybags CEO, somebody (or some group of people) is still making a decision on what to cover and what not to cover.
so i only see fake complaints and no real "solution" or even an explanation of where you brilliant idea of removing profit would be helpful.
well, my basic premise was that you appear to be suggesting that any industry that covers a "need" shouldnt be for profit. im not sure what makes food/clothing/shelter any different from health care except for there are often much greater one time expenses. housing has a very high expense but it is generally paid out monthly, much like insurance.
i dont really see where the benefit is of taking out profit. you seem to like to use a strawman argument, blaming this evil greedy CEO making hundreds of millions and deciding who lives and who dies. that argument is both silly and has absolutely nothing to do with profit. even if you eliminate mr evil moneybags CEO, somebody (or some group of people) is still making a decision on what to cover and what not to cover.
so i only see fake complaints and no real "solution" or even an explanation of where you brilliant idea of removing profit would be helpful.
Every other developed nation with universal healthcare.
Every other developed nation with universal healthcare.
that is in no way responsive to what i said. do you think that in those countries they will cover any illness and any medical procedure/medicine to try to cure it?
It doesn't matter how many times you conservatives use that term, it's still not true in a practical context.
If you look at S/S with the cool, abstract eyes of an economist, then it's technically accurate.
However, real life circumstances vary, like raindrops.
What about all the people who work for 40 years, and die either before claiming S/S benefits, or soon after filing ?
Or, in the case of Medicare, all the healthy people who rarely file a claim ?
How has their situation impacted these so-called entitlements ?
I won't even get into how much more value the money had when we paid in, vs. the buying power of that money when you get it back.
That is money we are owed, so yeah, we're entitled to it.
you seem to be trying to say it isnt an entitlement while all your points suggest it is an entitlement.
the ones who dont agree are the government. they make it quite clear that they have no obligation to give you any particular amount of money back. but the genius population doesnt want it to be in actual private accounts for them that they can invest on their own.
its hilarious how the politicians convinced people that investing the money would be a bad idea. do you know why politicians opposed it? its amazing that people dont see. that money was all going to treasuries. that means government spending. it was a reliable source of revenue. anything that people could do with as they please, takes away money from the government to spend on whatever they want. that is why politicians tricked people into thinking it was too risky for them to have some say in the matter.
and the funny thing is that they knew exactly what they were doing and the idiot citizens believed their lies.
do you really figure that if the government didnt give money to "farmers" that we wouldnt have affordable food? its just crony capitalism/government corruption.
Yes that is what would actually happen because if these programs were not put in place these people would be on the hook for $Millions in property taxes.
So the answer if more taxes for universal healthcare? No thank you.
Obviously things need changing but, hospitals and insurance companies should make reasonable profits.
The great supporters of the Republican Party, the Koch brothers commissioned a study universal healthcare vs our current system. To the surprise, universal healthcare would be cheaper. I don't recall the exact figures but it was a couple of billion dollars cheaper. The money spent now by employers or individuals would pay for it, say your employer pays $10K a year for your insurance, would you prefer it as a raise or let employers continue to pay for it?
It wasn't until Nixon that hospitals could be profit making with the "Health Maintenance Act" promoted by Kaiser Permanente. As far as insurance companies, the add NO value to healthcare. Basically all they seem to do is deny claims because the "improper coding is used", or a t is not crossed or an i dotted, all of which delays payments, and caused mental stress for the patient.
I haven't heard of a country with universal healthcare wanting to change to our system. Many of the countries with Universal Healthcare have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, and better overall health. Maybe because their citizens don't delay going to a doctor because do they pay the deductible or get new shoes for their children?
What we all need is healthcare like our politicians have, that's how Dick Cheney got his new heart. Also with a Universal Healthcare system things like auto insurance should be cheaper since there would be no medical payments portion.
should food be a for profit industry? how about housing? how about clothing? being for profit is a good thing. however, that can get screwed up generally by government. profit doesnt increase your overall cost. things typically cost more in a non-profit.
Grocery stores work on single digit profits.
Doctors should make good salaries based on years spent training.
Healthcare should be a right not an option only for those who can afford it.
The great supporters of the Republican Party, the Koch brothers commissioned a study universal healthcare vs our current system. To the surprise, universal healthcare would be cheaper. I don't recall the exact figures but it was a couple of billion dollars cheaper. The money spent now by employers or individuals would pay for it, say your employer pays $10K a year for your insurance, would you prefer it as a raise or let employers continue to pay for it?
It wasn't until Nixon that hospitals could be profit making with the "Health Maintenance Act" promoted by Kaiser Permanente. As far as insurance companies, the add NO value to healthcare. Basically all they seem to do is deny claims because the "improper coding is used", or a t is not crossed or an i dotted, all of which delays payments, and caused mental stress for the patient.
I haven't heard of a country with universal healthcare wanting to change to our system. Many of the countries with Universal Healthcare have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, and better overall health. Maybe because their citizens don't delay going to a doctor because do they pay the deductible or get new shoes for their children?
What we all need is healthcare like our politicians have, that's how Dick Cheney got his new heart. Also with a Universal Healthcare system things like auto insurance should be cheaper since there would be no medical payments portion.
Forgot about this part. If government healthcare is so terrifying, why doesn't Congress get rid of their own? Why do elected officials and government employees of all levels get government health insurance? They should be BEGGING to be on the insurance plans we all get as regular citizens, no?
I can tell you I worked for the government and now work in private. If the government can negotiate such great insurance and provide it so cheaply to government employees, it can be done. I paid far less into the system as a deduction from my salary and my coverage was the best I've ever had. Giving up my government employee health insurance plan was probably the #1 hardest thing about leaving that job, but it was only contract work and I had to go.
As to the rest of what you said, thank you for being another sane person in the room.
The democrats want the rich to pay "their fair share", so why shouldn't rich STATES pay "their fair share"? I love how people complain about the SALT deduction but haven't done their 2018 taxes (or haven't looked at the difference). I make north of $250K, pay $20K in property taxes and have 2 kids. My taxes for 2018 are up around $200 (which is LESS than they would have gone up in the old system with the new tax tables). No SALT means NO AMT (for most people). They dont quite cancel each other out but the $2K tax credit I get for each kid does (with AMT my kids were worth $0 deductions to me, except for NJ taxes, they were worth $25/each)
Last edited by sonofagunk; 01-10-2019 at 08:01 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
