"Crazy Bernie" to introduce socialized medicine bill

[Shadows]

Yea, it shows how ignorant people are when they talk about socialized medicine. There is a big difference between "Payer" & "Provider". Would a Public option would likely involve approval from respective states like the Medicaid expansion? Most GOP controlled states may not approve it defeating the whole thing. It will be an immensely complex situation but still much better than now.

As the previous poster said you have to go for a Single Payer by expanding Medicare first to 50/55 & then 30 & then ultimately 0 by covering everyone. That has to be the goal of the Demcrats, a Medicare for all, not a right wing conservative Heritage foundation plan like version (the ACA).

Also all this Dems can't win, taxes etc were made for years to get any big thing passed & it was thrown into the garbage can time & again. For Social Security & else, FDR expanded government massively, raised taxes etc & some even called him a "Communist". When LBJ started Medicare, not only was it called "Socialized Medicine" but a senior killer & what not with ads & jingles & St. Raegan doing his thing to mislead people. We had all this arguments - Tax hikes, Big Government blah blah !

Everyone of them lasts today & massively popular programs, strong & big welfare programs are notoriously hard to get rid off. 18% of GDP on healthcare if so f***ed up when UK spends 6%, Canda like 8-9%, France 12% odd. You have to do better & expand Medicare !

Bernie's earlier Single Payer bills were in many ways similar to Paul Wellstone's one introduced in 1993 - The S. 491. A fitting tribute for a remarkable Senator & a progressive hero!

Btw Bernie in the CNN Interview clearly said the short term plan is to allow drug imports, lower the Medicare eligibility age & introduce a Public option. So I don't think he is planning to introduce a Medicare-for-all type now but will first try & work out something !

[Shadows]

Since the GOP's attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare with their god awful bill failed, I think that the next Demcratic wave won't push for single payer but will instead try to transition the us healthcare system into a multi payer system like Germany or the Netherlands. Now if the GOP healthcare plan had actually passed, then single payer would almost certainly be on the Democratic Party platform going into the 2020's.

I have no doubt the Democrats would be stupid enough to do this. Pushing a multi-payer system is a horrible idea politically. You have to realize that in every country that has adopted single payer, the healthcare debate is over. Once you have single payer, that's it, everyone realizes it's good. You might have a few people on the libertarian right who want to turn back time but no one takes them seriously. Anything short of single payer just prolongs the debate. Just get it over with and have single payer. Plus multi-payer is way harder to sell because it's way more complicated. Single payer is very easy "You pay taxes and then you get stuff for free".

By the way, Henry Jackson supported single payer.

The Multi-payer thing is actually much harder to sell to conservatives & it is way more government control. For one in Germany, the system is like anyone earning 50K or less (or some similar figure) & the unemployed & others have to get public insurance which covers 80% + of the population.

How do you do that in US - Force people earning less than 50 or 75K etc to get public insurance ? Can you imagine forcing this & the political narrative? Secondly, even if the GOP embraces this idea after coming to power, they will decrease this 50K number with time (reform blah blah) & essentially covert into a Medicaid or a Block grant program. And you have to increase taxes for subsidizing for Multi-payer otherwise Co-pays etc will be too high !

It is incredibly complex, more expensive than Single payer & will have even more problems while implementing !

[Shadows]

There is no reasoning with you, gave up on your so called "debate" long ago.  Neither of us will change each other's minds and I am not going to support your deplorable positions on socialized medicine so I'd rather not engage with you further.

Yeah, you gave up on the debate basically as soon as you started posting!

How could I possibly match wits with you?  Your theories on why socialism will give everyone a warm fuzzy are groundbreaking.

Dude you are insulting people & fighting with them. Pages full of bickering & rude posts. If you can't respond at the topic or issue, then don't, but you don't have to go on attack mode against others.

[Shadows]

I'd advise the Democrats against this. It could harm them to the extent that they might even lose the presidency an obnoxious political novice, lose both the House and Senate and decline to controlling only 1/4 of state legislatures, say.

lol... so true.  

but come on democrats, lets double down on this... we need more Millennials positioned in key precincts reminding hard working people why their tax dollars should be paying for your health care.  Maybe we can get Republicans up to 270 in the House by 2018... and then they can really destroy this country and you'll have far worse issues to think about than not getting free/nearly free health care.

There was guy called FDR. When he came it, the top tax rate was 25%. He gradually increased it to 90%+, introduced Social Security, Minimum Wage, massively expanded government & the welfare state. He was called even a Marxist. He introduced a maximum wage, putting Income tax at 100% beyond a certain limit which inflation adjusted would be around 300K today. Congress vetoed it & settled at 90% odd.

He is known as possibly one of the greatest Presidents in human history for fundamentally changing political economics because of Keynesian economics which he implemented before Keynes proved it statically. FDR had the highest growth rate, lowest unemployment, etc in possibly history of the USA.

Then there was Truman, Eisenhower (90% tax rate). And then JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, etc - The top tax rate was 70% odd. And taxing people above 200/250K a little more is very good for the economy. These people have a lower Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) in economic terms. So there is nothing abnormal about 70% to 90% tax, that was the norm. Bernie's top marginal tax rate was 52% which was way lower than most. I will also add the number of 200K+ earners is very low compared to the overall people & most people support raising taxes on the wealthy - Around 68% in the latest poll.

And then let's talk about Economics -

As you can see with these tax cuts, the Top 1% odd is cornering most of the wealth & the bottom 50-60% of the population either has a lower standard of living or has stagnated at the same level







Look you don't have to support it but you should atleast understand the reason of why people are asking for something. That & a little bit of empathy rather than so much of a condescending attitude will help !

[Shadows]

There is no reasoning with you, gave up on your so called "debate" long ago.  Neither of us will change each other's minds and I am not going to support your deplorable positions on socialized medicine so I'd rather not engage with you further.

Yeah, you gave up on the debate basically as soon as you started posting!

How could I possibly match wits with you?  Your theories on why socialism will give everyone a warm fuzzy are groundbreaking.

Dude you are insulting people & fighting with them. Pages full of bickering & rude posts. If you can't respond at the topic or issue, then don't, but you don't have to go on attack mode against others.

Would you say being called "greedy" and "self-absorbed" is an insult?  Kindly stop talking to me now.

Yes it is. But you have to understand why other people are talking about Healthcare of Education -

Healthcare - Guaranteed by every major country as a right. And the reason why people talk about it is, because it is different from another product or service. It is necessary to live & live a healthy life. Human civilization has progressed & it is not nomadic. Should people go bankrupt or die because they can't afford healthcare? Should people chose between food & medicines? You may think so, but it is also perfectly rational for people to think that should be a basic human right. And certainly every major country has implemented it, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Weirdo-ist & Islamist & any other ist you can add.



Education - Do you agree with Universal K-12? You do know the effect of high costs of student debt. Well a K-12 is no longer good enough for a decent job anymore. A college degree is worth as much as K-12 was worth 50 ot 60  years ago. That is why people are asking for Tuition free college.

And it would be paid by a Financial Transaction Tax (very small likely 0.001% odd) which is there in most countries. It is one of the cheapest proposals & costs around 70-80B when Trump's military increase would only be 55B odd. So it is an inexpensive plan, easy to pay for.

I hope you atleast understand the logic behind these. You may not life it, you will hate it if your taxes increase. But atleast there will not be so much hatred & animosity if you understand the logic !

[Shadows]

There is no reasoning with you, gave up on your so called "debate" long ago.  Neither of us will change each other's minds and I am not going to support your deplorable positions on socialized medicine so I'd rather not engage with you further.

Yeah, you gave up on the debate basically as soon as you started posting!

How could I possibly match wits with you?  Your theories on why socialism will give everyone a warm fuzzy are groundbreaking.

Dude you are insulting people & fighting with them. Pages full of bickering & rude posts. If you can't respond at the topic or issue, then don't, but you don't have to go on attack mode against others.

Would you say being called "greedy" and "self-absorbed" is an insult?  Kindly stop talking to me now.

Yes it is. But you have to understand why other people are talking about Healthcare of Education -

Healthcare - Guaranteed by every major country as a right. And the reason why people talk about it is, because it is different from another product or service. It is necessary to live & live a healthy life. Human civilization has progressed & it is not nomadic. Should people go bankrupt or die because they can't afford healthcare? Should people chose between food & medicines? You may think so, but it is also perfectly rational for people to think that should be a basic human right. And certainly every major country has implemented it, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Weirdo-ist & Islamist & any other ist you can add.



Education - Do you agree with Universal K-12? You do know the effect of high costs of student debt. Well a K-12 is no longer good enough for a decent job anymore. A college degree is worth as much as K-12 was worth 50 ot 60  years ago. That is why people are asking for Tuition free college.

And it would be paid by a Financial Transaction Tax (very small likely 0.001% odd) which is there in most countries. It is one of the cheapest proposals & costs around 70-80B when Trump's military increase would only be 55B odd. So it is an inexpensive plan, easy to pay for.

I hope you atleast understand the logic behind these. You may not life it, you will hate it if your taxes increase. But atleast there will not be so much hatred & animosity if you understand the logic !

I understand the logic of socialism.  I do not agree with it. 

The mentality that you can hurl insults at someone who disagrees with socialism or whatever you espouse and not expect them back is what I further disagree with, which was the subject of your post.

That is not "Socialism" btw as many Capitalist nations follow the same. But I get your point & the blame goes both ways since you lost your mind & hurled insults too. Anyone can have his/her point & disagree vehemently and yes, you don't deserve to be insulted either.

Can everyone move on & be cordial with each other & disagree like adults ?

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

It is a rational argument that you don't want excessive state spending through taxes but you don't have to be so caustic & derisionary to people.

I was curious to know your stand on the following - Do you support Medicare? Do you support Food stamps? You can oppose it, Medicare is supported by like 75% odd or something, there must be a quarter of people who oppose it - That doesn't make those people bad, they just have a different ideology or belief system. But you should be honest about what you believe !

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

how exactly are patents "against the free market" - patent holders routinely license patented technology out to other companies.  additionally antitrust suits can be brought for unfair monopoly rights to an innovation.  

You can choose to license or not license to a particular person X - It is within your power. You can charge any rates you wish or can negotiate.

Let us take an example - You (Non Swing Voter) create a new tool to help Atlas promote itself or something, a unique product/technology. You have full monopoly to sell/license etc that item for a period of let's say 10 years. I can come up with that product on my own after 15 days (after your patent) & i can't sell that product to Atlas or other such groups.

And you will in most case charge a price much MUCH higher than what is your cost of discovery with huge profits. The free market allows unlimited competition with no/low barriers of entry to drive price down. In economics, in an ideal free market with perfect competition, you will actually get 0 profits.

If you have a patent & a monopoly for say 10 years, that is completely against the free market. In the free market, supply & demand determine the prices of goods. In a patent, you have a monopoly & can charge prices (to supposedly recover your costs) which could be much MUCH higher than what the prices would be in a free market !

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

how exactly are patents "against the free market" - patent holders routinely license patented technology out to other companies.  additionally antitrust suits can be brought for unfair monopoly rights to an innovation.  

You can choose to license or not license to a particular person X - It is within your power. You can charge any rates you wish or can negotiate.

Let us take an example - You (Non Swing Voter) create a new tool to help Atlas promote itself or something, a unique product/technology. You have full monopoly to sell/license etc that item for a period of let's say 10 years. I can come up with that product on my own after 15 days (after your patent) & i can't sell that product to Atlas or other such groups.

And you will in most case charge a price much MUCH higher than what is your cost of discovery with huge profits. The free market allows unlimited competition with no/low barriers of entry to drive price down. In economics, in an ideal free market with perfect competition, you will actually 0 profits.

If you have a patent & a monopoly for say 10 years, that is completely against the free market. In the free market, supply & demand determine the prices of goods. In a patent, you have a monopoly & can charge high prices (to supposedly recover your costs) which could be much MUCH higher than what the prices would be in a free market !

This is actually generally completely false because the majority of technologically important patents are standard essential and must be licensed under FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discrminatory) terms.

Furthermore, in the real world, few people effectively hold a monopoly on any technology because their is vast cross licensing.  Even little known inventors aggregate their patents to non practicing entities that "patent troll" them.

So yeah, that whole thing you mentioned, doesn't actually happen in the real world.

You are insanely uninformed about this. If you talk about technology, the reason it is licensed freely & priced cheaply because technology keeps changing & becomes quickly out-dated plus it is easy for someone to come with a similar technology with same working benefits. That is just a bad example.

Let us look at real world examples of Patents - Drugs. If you create a new medicine tomorrow for let's say Diabetes, you will have patent for more than a decade right? Look at the price of drugs which are under patent & what happens when the patent expires? They crash & become a small fraction of the price when everyone competes.

And you can check the balance sheets of Pharma companies to see the profits obtained from a drug under Patent vs the cost & R&D of creating that product & apply time value of money & see the returns !

The Pharma/drug sector is the biggest example of a monopoly created by a patent which charges absurd prices but you could argue it fosters innovation & creation of new medicines/drugs.

And I could go on about many different products other than drugs !

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

We've seen that public schools do not make (or threaten to make) charter or private schools nonexistent. Certainly the government can offer more help to those wanting to attend charter or private schools, but public schools are hardly an industry-destroyer.

For Medicare, many people have supplemental plans that are sold by private companies. Furthermore, the health insurance industry as a whole remains intact. While medicare certainly affected part of the health insurance industry, it does not threaten to destroy the industry as a whole, and therefore is not socialism.

Patents and Copyrights simply protect intellectual property, they do not attempt to destroy industry. Enough said.

Fair argument - You idea is that it shouldn't destroy an entire industry & not so much about pure free market in every industry (because patents by design are a monopoly too whether they protect intellectual property or not). Your point is that Medicare has killed the free market of insurance for seniors but hasn't destroyed an entire industry.

Fair point if your "I ama against the possible destruction of an entire industry" is the logic !

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

how exactly are patents "against the free market" - patent holders routinely license patented technology out to other companies.  additionally antitrust suits can be brought for unfair monopoly rights to an innovation.  

You can choose to license or not license to a particular person X - It is within your power. You can charge any rates you wish or can negotiate.

Let us take an example - You (Non Swing Voter) create a new tool to help Atlas promote itself or something, a unique product/technology. You have full monopoly to sell/license etc that item for a period of let's say 10 years. I can come up with that product on my own after 15 days (after your patent) & i can't sell that product to Atlas or other such groups.

And you will in most case charge a price much MUCH higher than what is your cost of discovery with huge profits. The free market allows unlimited competition with no/low barriers of entry to drive price down. In economics, in an ideal free market with perfect competition, you will actually 0 profits.

If you have a patent & a monopoly for say 10 years, that is completely against the free market. In the free market, supply & demand determine the prices of goods. In a patent, you have a monopoly & can charge high prices (to supposedly recover your costs) which could be much MUCH higher than what the prices would be in a free market !

This is actually generally completely false because the majority of technologically important patents are standard essential and must be licensed under FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discrminatory) terms.

Furthermore, in the real world, few people effectively hold a monopoly on any technology because their is vast cross licensing.  Even little known inventors aggregate their patents to non practicing entities that "patent troll" them.

So yeah, that whole thing you mentioned, doesn't actually happen in the real world.

You are insanely uninformed about this. If you talk about technology, the reason it is licensed freely & priced cheaply because technology keeps changing & becomes quickly out-dated plus it is easy for someone to come with a similar technology with same working benefits. That is just a bad example.

Let us look at real world examples of Patents - Drugs. If you create a new medicine tomorrow for let's say Diabetes, you will have patent for more than a decade right? Look at the price of drugs which are under patent & what happens when the patent expires? They crash & become a small fraction of the price when everyone competes.

And you can check the balance sheets of Pharma companies to see the profits obtained from a drug under Patent vs the cost & R&D of creating that product & apply time value of money & see the returns !

The Pharma/drug sector is the biggest example of a monopoly created by a patent which charges absurd prices but you could argue it fosters innovation & creation of new medicines/drugs.

And I could go on about many different products other than drugs !

Dude you don't even know how long exactly a patent lasts...

Nothing I said was incorrect... the majority of patents are not related to Pharma.

Look at telecom patents... the phone companies and electronics companies all cross license.  a huge swath of patents are considered standard essential and must be licensed on fair terms.  

Pharma - Wasn't it 20 years ?(Used to 17 odd I remember during Clinton if I am not wrong) but that is not the point - I was trying to explain to you the logic with an example not argue about a duration.

Telecoms cross license due to externalities, you get positive externalities & many of the items are related & you each can gain out of it. Plus it is a large market of non-essential products for which the end consumer is not ready to pay absurd money (an elastic product).

While drugs are essential, life-saving products some of which have no substitutes (largely inelastic product) which is why you have these products charged abnormally high.

But look if they cross-sell it, license it cheaply or whether they charge huge prices are irrelevant. It is what they chose to do - Depending on the industry, type of product, consumers willingness to play, availability of substitutes.

In a free market, Supply & Demand determines prices of all items, in a patent system, they don't. This is fundamental Rule 101 if you read economics - I don't even know why I have to argue this. I am not arguing is patents or good or bad - You could argue it protects innovation & intellectual property !

[Shadows]

If we eliminate the private sector for one industry, it's not like the bernie left is going to stop there. They'll push for another industry to be destroyed by the government, and so on, until "the free market" looks like China's - a few private businesses are allowed so they can look capitalist, but everyone knows they're not actually capitalist (And it would not matter if we still elected our leaders - Socialism is an economic idea). The only reason the bernie left doesn't say this is because if they did so, the entire democratic party would suffer losses far worse than they did in 2010. We have to take a stand here, while capitalists have the advantage, to prevent the erosion of the capitalist values under which this country was founded and must keep to remain the greatest country in the world.

You seriously believe that Bernie & his supporters want a system like China or even Cuba with a government controlled economy rather than parts of Europe? Given Bernie's close to 40 year old record where he has supported many small businesses (including in VT this month where he was there to help a small private Solar company). Jeff Weaver, campaign manager of Bernie runs a comic store & is a small business owner. Bernie Sanders is actually arguing for free drug imports from large multi-national corporations from other countries, the ultimate free market idea

Considering the Insurance industry price gouges people, spends billions in campaign finance/lobbying & no European country/Canada/Japan having Universal Healthcare has become fully socialist, the fear could be unjust. Bernie is 79 anyways, he doesn't have 40 or 50 years to live. But atleast that is better reasoning rather than "My taxes will rise, so I hate it".

[Shadows]

Anyways, it feels so good that socialism is going to win on this issue in the US but I still feel bad for the losers who are trapped in the year 1997.

Yeah except socialism is not going to win on this issue, thankfully.

Bernie Sanders it the most popular politician in the country because regular people want free things from the government: how does that make you feel?

Bernie Sanders is a loser who couldn't even win a primary against a boring candidate.  How does it make you feel that you're not going to get the free stuff you so crave?  That you might actually have to work to pay for your health insurance?

You may not like something but why do you have to bait people & ridicule them? It seems you like this game of banter, insulting people with a superiority complex.

How do you know he supports Bernie for some free stuff? Can he no other reasons? "Why don't you work for it, you won't get the free stuff now, you candidate is a loser " -  This is just a sad & condescending statement

[Shadows]

Anyways, it feels so good that socialism is going to win on this issue in the US but I still feel bad for the losers who are trapped in the year 1997.

Yeah except socialism is not going to win on this issue, thankfully.

Bernie Sanders it the most popular politician in the country because regular people want free things from the government: how does that make you feel?

Bernie Sanders is a loser who couldn't even win a primary against a boring candidate.  How does it make you feel that you're not going to get the free stuff you so crave?  That you might actually have to work to pay for your health insurance?

You may not like something but why do you have to bait people & ridicule them? It seems you like this game of banter, insulting people with a superiority complex.

How do you know he supports Bernie for some free stuff? Can he no other reasons? "Why don't you work for it, you won't get the free stuff now, you candidate is a loser " -  This is just a sad & condescending statement

can you stop with your one sided nonsense, you know very well that he called me intellectually inferior a few posts prior.  Which is laughable considering what I do and what he does.

"What I do & what he does" - How polite !

Can we stop this You vs supposed "Socialist" fight in every thread? You are now digging old posts & doing everything to slight people & bait them rather than posting about issues. What are you trying to prove by laughing at people & mocking them?

Unless you ALSO agree to back off, this derailing of every thread will continue !