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.
Neither is your claim true. No one thinks that, and no one promises that.
You clearly don't listen to the message peddled by politicians, the hospital monopolies, Big Pharma and the media. You also must be oblivious to what the supporters of nationalized/universal healthcare on this and every other forum in existence have been peddling.
Lifestyle, genetics, bad luck, etc. None of those stop anyone from reaching past the average life expectancy. Nope, it's access to healthcare and not being financially burdened by it. The implication being of course that with enough healthcare and freedom from paying the bill for it, you WILL live well into your 80s, 90s, etc.
Listen to a politician selling it. Listen to a drug commercial. Listen to the lobbyists who advocate on behalf of it. And listen to the media sycophants who prop up the political message. They are all selling implied immortality and not so subtly suggesting that were it not for the GOP trying to kill you, you'd live a lot longer. Commercial of bad GOP person pushing grandma off a cliff ring any bells?
America has been sold one lie after another about healthcare for over 100 years, and now they actually believe most of those lies as the gospel truth.
So...we should let half of Chicago burn down, because the poor neighborhood can't contain its own fire? Hmm..
Adam Smith specifically mentioned that in capitalism the government would do things like make bridges and infrastructure to facilitate commerce and travel, as private businesses can't easily or efficiently do that. Do you disagree with capitalism there? Should we privatize the interstate highway system? All city roads? Privatized?
What about the service of national defense should we undo that?
Should we discontinue the CDC service? Why should you pay for someone else's disease control, am I right?
I think the problem is, too many people constantly face limits on healthcare on a daily basis under the current system. Meanwhile, countries with a national system see better overall access for the masses and overall better results with more prevention.
Firefighters can be easily funded by the insurance companies.
Even if you want to fund it by taxation, you can fund it by a sales tax where EVERYONE pays.
What would you call that when you force other people to pay for your expenses?
Taxation and welfare.
You are making up your own definition of slavery. When you are up on the slave block being sold and have to watch your master have relations with your wife, and another 10000000 horrors actual slaves went thru in this country, let me know so I can say you were correct.
I get it, you do not like any kind of government transfer of wealth. A valid opinion, but words mean things.
You clearly don't listen to the message peddled by politicians, the hospital monopolies, Big Pharma and the media. You also must be oblivious to what the supporters of nationalized/universal healthcare on this and every other forum in existence have been peddling.
Lifestyle, genetics, bad luck, etc. None of those stop anyone from reaching past the average life expectancy. Nope, it's access to healthcare and not being financially burdened by it. The implication being of course that with enough healthcare and freedom from paying the bill for it, you WILL live well into your 80s, 90s, etc.
Listen to a politician selling it. Listen to a drug commercial. Listen to the lobbyists who advocate on behalf of it. And listen to the media sycophants who prop up the political message. They are all selling implied immortality and not so subtly suggesting that were it not for the GOP trying to kill you, you'd live a lot longer. Commercial of bad GOP person pushing grandma off a cliff ring any bells?
America has been sold one lie after another about healthcare for over 100 years, and now they actually believe most of those lies as the gospel truth.
The lie you just brought to the table is people suggesting you'll live longer if you adopt a universal system. No one suggests that; instead what they're suggesting is those Americans who are dying needlessly and have been for decades without ANY form of pre-emptive healthcare would instead have perhaps led longer and more productive lives.
See the difference?
Those stats you're not going to see put up there by any State or Federal government entity in the U.S.; the numbers of Americans dying for lack of affordable, pre-emptive basic healthcare. They don't want you to know that and you don't want to believe it …. so here you sit ….. complacent in your belief that all those other countries that would not seek to emulate your system or any part of it, have somehow all got it wrong.
"I could see no reason why I should, at the end of each week, pour the reward of my toil into the purse of my master. When I carried to him my weekly wages, he would, after counting the money, look me in the face with a robber-like fierceness, and ask, “Is this all?” He was satisfied with nothing less than the last cent. He would, however, when I made him six dollars, sometimes gives me six cents, to encourage me." -Frederick Douglas
I share the view of Douglass that while we may enjoy certain freedoms, if you cant keep all of your wages you are not truely a free man.
You are making up your own definition of slavery. When you are up on the slave block being sold and have to watch your master have relations with your wife, and another 10000000 horrors actual slaves went thru in this country, let me know so I can say you were correct.
I get it, you do not like any kind of government transfer of wealth. A valid opinion, but words mean things.
The definition of slavery is someone else having any sort of legitimate (according to laws they wrote and can defend with force) claim on your life and/or the fruits of your labor than you, and being able to enforce that claim via force/violence or the established threat thereof.
Chattel slavery examples like yours are simply one manifestation of that definition. The quasi slavery described by Frederick Douglass is another. And redistribution of wealth via government force is indeed another. Every single example, regardless of how horrific, represents the same principle - some entity has a higher claim on your life, liberty, property and labor than you do, and they back that claim with force/violence or the established, credible threat thereof.
In the chattel slave case, they work for Master in the field or they are beaten/killed. In the quasi slave example, they pay Master his tithing or they are jailed/beaten/killed. In the government taxation example, they pay taxes or are beaten (financially, legally, and yes, even physically if they resist) or jailed.
You exist as a quasi slave exactly as Frederick Douglass described. Master lets you move around, seek employment where you can get it, work to whatever degree you desire...but you MUST pay Master that tithe/tax or Master will exercise their claim over you by alerting the authorities to first apprehend you and then either Master or whatever agency they outsource the job to will punish you for denying that higher claim on your life and the fruits of your labor than you possess.
Don't pay your taxes for a while and you'll find out in short order that someone has indeed put a higher claim on your life, liberty and property than you possess yourself. Start with property taxes, as the Master's field bosses are incited to violence much faster at the local level than state or national.
And if you fire back that taxes are different, no they aren't. The wages paid to Master on the plantation are exactly the same. The food, clothing and shelter Master provided on the plantation were paid for with that cotton you pick. No cotton, no plantation. Taxes are just government's nicer way of saying FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR and getting you to buy into it.
The arrangement is exactly the same. And if you think the government doesn't rape, rob, and murder whenever it pleases, you live in a freaking dream world. They are your worst enemy, but because some trains run on time and you have roads to drive on, you think them benevolent.
I think a national healthcare system would promote Capitalism and economic freedom.
Let's start with economic freedom.
The Heritage Foundation, which is a prominent conservative economic thinktank, ranks countries based on economic freedom. The US is ranked 12th and the countries above us all have a national healthcare system.
The CATO Institute, which is a prominent libertarian economic thinktank, ranks countries based on economic freedom. They rank the US as 5th and once again...all the countries above us have a national healthcare system.
Is it not possible that a national healthcare system helps economic freedom?
(1) Workers are more free to look for different jobs not afraid of the ramifications on health coverage for themselves and families.
(2) Smaller businesses are more likely to be able to compete against bigger businesses in this key benefit that workers want.
(3) The best countries to start a business and the best countries for small businesses all have a national healthcare system. I always hear the importance of small businesses as the backbone of the economy and crucial to economic freedom.
Let's end with Capitalism.
Capitalism is a free market system where the means of production (factories and farms) and the means of distribution (stores and restaurants) are privately owned. Healthcare is a service and not a means of production or a means of distribution. Just like our brave fire fighters and police officers provide a service and are not a means of production nor a means of distribution. Capitalist systems by Adam Smith's definition can provide free services. This is why countries above us on the list with a national healthcare system are still capitalist, the means of production and distribution are privately owned.
Adam Smith is the founding philosopher of capitalism.
(1) Adam Smith says that competition is required in capitalism, doesn't not having to worry about health insurance help smaller companies woo workers that demand health insurance?
(2) Adam Smith says that it is essential that workers are kept happy and therefore productive. He recommended pensions as one way to accomplish this. Had he lived today he might have made recommendations on health care.
(3) Adam Smith says that it is the government's duty to facilitate the growth and competition of businesses and to do things that businesses cannot easily do. This is why he specifically says that it is the governments job to do things like build roads, canals, and bridges and to provide services like law enforcement officers...as it is something that helps businesses, that businesses cannot easily do themselves. Small businesses cannot easily provide healthcare, so in the name of competition and the facilitation of business, it would reason that the government should step in and provide this opportunity for them.
a public option/UHC/NHS/singlepayer (completely government run health care (like the VA)) would be a disaster..like the VA
Yang's UBI could easily be the solution to affordable health care..affordable education/student loan crisis..and creating a viable savings for retirement, and personal economic freedom
The concept of UBI is certainly a nice thing....and it is certainly the smartest, most logical of all the wild ideas of the fascist liberals
for example:
I work, have a wife, and my daughter turns 18 (still in high school) next month
and even though I make 70k/yr a extra 3k/month (3 people over 18 in the household) would be a great thing......especially if it is like welfare (not taxed) and not considered additional income (Like SS)
and it answers the problem of affordable medical care..affordable education...affordable childcare...and student loans debts...…...how you say?
well let's look at a example...
I work, have a wife, 4 kids and my oldest daughter turns 18 (still in high school) next month and even though I make 70k/yr...……..
UBI would be an extra 3k/month (3 people over 18 in the household)……….
that's 1k for my daughter PER MONTH for college (local CC is offering 500 per semester) that's 1k for daycare/school activities/wife's student loan PER MONTH and 1k more for a health insurance Cadillac plan (I pay 600/month) so that takes care of my family premium
imagine that...UBI out does bernies/beth/Harris's plans of M4A/free college/free daycare/studentloan payoff
this would also take care of the people who wish to retire early (before 65) as many people are out there ready to retire at 55-60 but are still working ONLY for healthcare
now Yang's math (how to pay for it) does need to be tweaked and validated, because he is under estimating the cost/savings ratio
THIS is something even Trump could suggest
Last edited by workingclasshero; 12-16-2019 at 09:20 AM..
There is zero doubt that National Healthcare would boost the economy big time.
BUT, it would lower inequality and monopoly and other such things which the "powers that be" do not want. They'd rather "boost the economy" by borrowing more money from future generations and awarding it to themselves.
They'd also rather indebt the plain folks who will then be forced to work....harder on the treadmill...to keep up. This is happening big time as we speak.
Then they will tell the regular people that it's their own fault for not pulling themselves up by their boothstraps...even though it has already been proven, for example, that an American born into one economic level is 300% more likely to succeed than one with the bad luck to be born in the bottom 50% (or worse).
You clearly don't listen to the message peddled by politicians, the hospital monopolies, Big Pharma and the media. You also must be oblivious to what the supporters of nationalized/universal healthcare on this and every other forum in existence have been peddling.
Lifestyle, genetics, bad luck, etc. None of those stop anyone from reaching past the average life expectancy. Nope, it's access to healthcare and not being financially burdened by it. The implication being of course that with enough healthcare and freedom from paying the bill for it, you WILL live well into your 80s, 90s, etc.
Listen to a politician selling it. Listen to a drug commercial. Listen to the lobbyists who advocate on behalf of it. And listen to the media sycophants who prop up the political message. They are all selling implied immortality and not so subtly suggesting that were it not for the GOP trying to kill you, you'd live a lot longer. Commercial of bad GOP person pushing grandma off a cliff ring any bells?
America has been sold one lie after another about healthcare for over 100 years, and now they actually believe most of those lies as the gospel truth.
Statism is based purely on emotion... not logic and morality. Clue one is this consent thingy by being expelled from a woman's cooter...but I digress.
Moving along, the above paradigm is used (quite effectively) by the purveyors of immortality to push through taxation and cradle to grave "care".
"We can save you...from yourself and even death".
It's a psychological linchpin of the statist mindset. Planted and cultivated in the public indoctrination centers as well as through the corporate media the slaves live their entire existence trading their own freedom and self-ownership for a shot at immortality.
Larken Rose doesn't call it (statism) the world's most dangerous religion for nothing, folks.
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.
