"Crazy Bernie" to introduce socialized medicine bill

[Ebowed]

Democrats need to run on expanding and strengthening Medicaid, a public option to bring down costs and increase competition in the exchanges, and dropping the Medicare age to 55 or so.

Opening the conversation with single-payer is a negotiation tactic that enables these policies to move through.

Obama started with a public option and the Republicans were able to kill that even though they never had any intention of supporting a health care bill at all!

[Ebowed]

Single Payer is socialism, enough said. It's unamerican, and should not even be allowed to be discussed in this country as a serious proposal. Multi-Payer, public option, repeal of various provisions of ObamaCare - let's have that discussion. But single payer - No. Pelosi said it best: "We're capitalists, and that's how it is!"

Such a strange hill to die on.

[Ebowed]

Being told by snot nosed 21 year olds that you need to pay 60% in taxes to fund their college tuition and their free health care is enough to make any adult vote Republican.

*sigh*

I suppose you'd rather pay lower taxes and higher premiums.  I get that there is some kind of psychological appeal to that, sure.  It makes you think you have more control over your income.  Really you don't, but whatever.  I don't see why other people should have to die just so that you can pretend to have more "choice".  The jig is up, friend.

How is it that the USA spends a higher proportion of its GDP on health than other countries with actual effective, universal systems?

[Ebowed]

Being told by snot nosed 21 year olds that you need to pay 60% in taxes to fund their college tuition and their free health care is enough to make any adult vote Republican.

*sigh*

I suppose you'd rather pay lower taxes and higher premiums.  I get that there is some kind of psychological appeal to that, sure.  It makes you think you have more control over your income.  Really you don't, but whatever.  I don't see why other people should have to die just so that you can pretend to have more "choice".  The jig is up, friend.

How is it that the USA spends a higher proportion of its GDP on health than other countries with actual effective, universal systems?

The only change Democrats have made is Obamacare.  It raised my taxes about $3,000 a year and I derived absolutely no benefit from it.  If Democrats want to start winning back voters, taxing them more isn't going to do it.

Nope, people are sick of the HMO death panels.

Instead of rationing care to people like you who can already afford it, it makes more sense to look after everybody.

Charities clearly can't keep up with economic dislocation, homelessness, and unemployment.  So unless you think the status quo is fine (because you aren't negatively affected by it yet), your argument doesn't really make sense.

[Ebowed]

OK, so how much more do you think I need to pay in taxes for spending programs?  Should I pay lets say 50% of my income to the Federal Government?  60%?  Where does it end?

I agree with you that giving the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries a blank check is an inevitable recipe for rising costs.  Clearly the current system is ludicrously inefficient since basically every other industrialized country has figured out less expensive ways to cover everybody.  The ACA's strengths are in its expansion of public programs and its regulation of those bloated industries.  Its weakness is that it did not go far enough in that direction.

That being said, you will end up paying for the catastrophic care of the uninsured either way as they continue to end up in emergency rooms with problems that would have cost less to address (not to mention provided better health outcomes) before it got to the point of emergency.

I can't speak to what your tax rate "should" be, but I remain unconvinced that you deserve medical care more than someone who works harder than you but gets paid less.

[Ebowed]

How do you know who does or does not work harder than me?

You referred to taxation as a disincentive to work, so you seem to think you work harder than people who pay lower taxes.  Are you saying that low-paid teachers, nurses, carers, people in the service industries, etc. either a.) don't work hard or b.) choose not to get better-paying jobs?  And more to the point, do you think you deserve health care more than these people?  Just because you can afford to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes a year and not see a personal benefit from it?  Sorry, pal, but without everyone else toiling underneath you, holding you up, there is no universe where you can enjoy that level of comfort and self-absorption.

Medical care is a service like any other, in which you must pay for.  Doctors do not work for free.  I pay for my health insurance.  So are you saying it is fair that those of us who do not derive any personal benefit from Obamacare should have had our taxes increased a few years ago?

Obviously, yes, otherwise how would the programs be funded?  The benefit, by the way, is that people don't die on the streets.  Since the well-being of these people doesn't matter to you, look at it this way: you let that sort of thing fester for long enough and there will be a revolt.

Regarding your argument that I would pay for catastrophic care, etc. I was already doing that before Obamacare, when my taxes were lower, so I'm not sure how that factors into the discussion at all.  

So you are stating that it is preferable for uninsured people to remain that way and then just get fixed up, potentially, in emergency care, assuming they don't die first?

[Ebowed]

LMAO to your first point.  Lets take this ridiculous argument to its logical extreme.  We live in a global economy, in fact many multinational corporations exist right here in the US.  So I think it's fair that you should be paying for the health insurance of people in the third world who need emergency care... right?  After all, they are human too.

As to your last points - tell me how this doesn't apply to the third world, since these are human beings as well.  Since you argue that it is not about my personal benefit, then shouldn't I as a taxpayer be funding health care for everyone regardless of border?  After all, I may have more in common with someone in China or India than say West Virginia.  

To your point about a revolt... only the reverse is true.  You keep pushing absurd fiscal policies and a welfare state and you get a revolt in the opposite direction, which is basically what you see now with Republicans cutting free lunches for poor kids.  The socialist agenda is actually pushing Republicans to just cut whatever they can as a backlash.

That was a very sloppy diversion tactic.  Your attempt to change the terms of this discussion aside, virtually every other industrialized country offers universal healthcare to its people.  Where did you get this false idea that the only option is US-style slavery to huge industries or nothing at all?

The government can, does, and should fund foreign aid programs, the focus of which often revolves around basic health and nutrition.  It is my view that wealthy nations such as the USA should increase their foreign aid spending.

Just because there are other people in the world who are struggling badly to survive, does not make it more okay that you are greedy and self-absorbed.  It actually makes it worse.

But the point still stands that you are already paying significant portions of your income towards a grossly inefficient health care delivery system.  Instead of defending it to the death on the grounds that you deserve a better standard of living than others, why not restructure it?  People who pay less taxes than you are still paying for the same health care system.  In fact, they generally pay a higher amount proportional to their overall income.  Your only gripe is that you didn't see a 'personal benefit' from the ACA.  Other people have to choose between health insurance and basic necessities.

[Ebowed]

LOL, I was waiting for the personal attacks of "greediness" - I'm just surprised you didn't add "scum" in there.  Sorry, but it's not greedy to want to keep a reasonable portion of the money I earn and that mentality of yours is exactly why successful people are turned off by the Democratic party.

You don't strike me as successful at all.  You seem to think that you are more important than everyone else, which isn't the same thing.

Again, my question stands, why should you not pay significantly more in taxes to fund universal health care for foreigners?

No, that point doesn't stand, because it's been addressed.  The health care system we are talking about is paid for by everyone in the USA, not just you.  Nor is anyone here arguing against foreign aid programs.

But I suppose, if you really want to stay on this point, can you explain why Americans, if they opted to pay for the world's healthcare, wouldn't need to pay for health care in Canada?  France?  New Zealand?  Can you pinpoint any particular reason for that?

Do you think it's fair that you have internet access and a computer and probably a new cell phone when these individuals do not have health insurance?

Of course I don't think it's fair that I have a better standard of living than most people in the world.  You seem to think so, though!

I'm not sure why you think bragging about donating a portion of your apparently vast disposable income to the administrative workers at charities makes you look good.  I actually brought up charities earlier, noting that they are unable to address the number of people affected by unemployment and homelessness.  Are you arguing otherwise?

[Ebowed]

Typical... instead of actual debate, ad hominem attacks.  I never claimed I was personally successful, nor do I care if some random person on the internet thinks so.  I find it amusing that you vilify me for being greedy yet won't even answer how much you donated to charity.  This "debate" is not worth my time.

You seem not to understand how proportions work.  You haven't told anyone how much you donate to charity either, but you are complaining about an extra $3,000 in taxes so that people don't die from preventable diseases.  I guess if you hadn't paid that extra $3k, it would all be going to charity?  Is that what you're so upset about?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Ebowed]

Typical... instead of actual debate, ad hominem attacks.  I never claimed I was personally successful, nor do I care if some random person on the internet thinks so.  I find it amusing that you vilify me for being greedy yet won't even answer how much you donated to charity.  This "debate" is not worth my time.

You seem not to understand how proportions work.  You haven't told anyone how much you donate to charity either, but you are complaining about an extra $3,000 in taxes so that people don't die from preventable diseases.  I guess if you hadn't paid that extra $3k, it would all be going to charity?  Is that what you're so upset about?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I think you should really donate 95% of your income to people who are starving in Africa because they need it more than you need it.  Anything less would be non-progressive.

This is humiliating for you.

[Ebowed]

The argument about how it's too expensive is a faulty argument which most Americans would disagree with (and do). You have a +$600 billion budget in defense but you don't have enough to cover all Americans so they can actually see a doctor when they need to and not worry about the costs? People are seeing through the BS and they want what every other civilized nation on the planet has.

I agree that we should cut the military budget, but I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that I don't want to pay for ebowed's health insurance simply because he thinks it's unfair that I make more money than him and that wealth needs to be redistributed to those that do not earn it.

You don't.  I live abroad and pay into a Medicare-for-all system through taxation.

That's probably the least relevant thing that you got wrong in this thread, though.  You couldn't address a single point that anyone made in rebuttal to you, and when you began to flail uncontrollably with incredibly poor argumentation, you tried to change the terms of the debate.  I strongly doubt that you managed to succeed in persuading anyone here that you deserve medical care more than anyone else.

[Ebowed]

The argument about how it's too expensive is a faulty argument which most Americans would disagree with (and do). You have a +$600 billion budget in defense but you don't have enough to cover all Americans so they can actually see a doctor when they need to and not worry about the costs? People are seeing through the BS and they want what every other civilized nation on the planet has.

I agree that we should cut the military budget, but I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that I don't want to pay for ebowed's health insurance simply because he thinks it's unfair that I make more money than him and that wealth needs to be redistributed to those that do not earn it.

You don't.  I live abroad and pay into a Medicare-for-all system through taxation.

That's probably the least relevant thing that you got wrong in this thread, though.  You couldn't address a single point that anyone made in rebuttal to you, and when you began to flail uncontrollably with incredibly poor argumentation, you tried to change the terms of the debate.  I strongly doubt that you managed to succeed in persuading anyone here that you deserve medical care more than anyone else.

There is a reason less than 2% of the population votes Green... and people like you are precisely why.

Trying to change the terms of debate again - like clockwork!

[Ebowed]

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!