Priorities

[Frodo]

I fixed the options accordingly lest anyone claim that it is possible to do any combination of the above.  It's one or the other -so make a choice. 

[War on Want]

Number 2






Number 3
Number1

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Option 2.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Option 2


Option 1




Option 3

[Associate Justice PiT]

For me it would be:

option 1
option 2




















































option 3   
 

[dead0man]

Option 1








Option 3




















Option 2

[Boris]

Assuming one's objective is to increase "prosperity," (measured in utils, I guess) of as many people as possible in the most efficient manner (measured in cost of utils, I guess), I think there's an objective answer to this question. Or at least there should be, theoretically.

[Reluctant Republican]

Option 1




Option 3






Option 2

[DownWithTheLeft]

Option 1 far and away.  What so many people fail to comprehend that while I would never support Option 2, its impossible without Option 1.  You can't just keep throwing money as a bandage, for some reason this incredibly simple idea passes over so many people.

[John Dibble]

Option 1 far and away.  What so many people fail to comprehend that while I would never support Option 2, its impossible without Option 1.  You can't just keep throwing money as a bandage, for some reason this incredibly simple idea passes over so many people.

Agreed. Without a sound financial plan backing it any universal healthcare effort would eventually collapse into itself unless it made serious cuts in quality and service. It might take a few decades, but it would happen.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Option 1 far and away.  What so many people fail to comprehend that while I would never support Option 2, its impossible without Option 1.  You can't just keep throwing money as a bandage, for some reason this incredibly simple idea passes over so many people.

Agreed. Without a sound financial plan backing it any universal healthcare effort would eventually collapse into itself unless it made serious cuts in quality and service. It might take a few decades, but it would happen.

So doesn't this serve as good evidence as to how stupid it would be to fully fund it with a fast food tax?

[Хahar 🤔]

2



1































































































3

[Torie]

They all suck. One size does not fit all.

[John Dibble]

Option 1 far and away.  What so many people fail to comprehend that while I would never support Option 2, its impossible without Option 1.  You can't just keep throwing money as a bandage, for some reason this incredibly simple idea passes over so many people.

Agreed. Without a sound financial plan backing it any universal healthcare effort would eventually collapse into itself unless it made serious cuts in quality and service. It might take a few decades, but it would happen.

So doesn't this serve as good evidence as to how stupid it would be to fully fund it with a fast food tax?

What does that have to do with anything related to this discussion?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Option 1 far and away.  What so many people fail to comprehend that while I would never support Option 2, its impossible without Option 1.  You can't just keep throwing money as a bandage, for some reason this incredibly simple idea passes over so many people.

Agreed. Without a sound financial plan backing it any universal healthcare effort would eventually collapse into itself unless it made serious cuts in quality and service. It might take a few decades, but it would happen.

So doesn't this serve as good evidence as to how stupid it would be to fully fund it with a fast food tax?

What does that have to do with anything related to this discussion?

I'm serving up a reasoning as to why WalterMitty's plan for a national healthcare system funded by one (with his excuse that THAT'S why he supports a fast food tax, not social engineering, because apparently there is absolutely no other way to fund a national healthcare system...) is really dumb.

[Ban my account ffs!]

First, you do number 2.  This will have positive returns over the short, medium, and long terms making option 1 easier to do.  Once option 1 is completed, we could then move onto option 3.

I think people in this forum are forgetting about the "infrastructure" part.  What do you propose?  Letting it crumble? 

And let's not start into this "OMG PRIVATE ROADS *ORGASM*"

You'll find soon enough that the economy will grind to a halt when the freight trains and semi trucks do.

[John Dibble]

Option 1 far and away.  What so many people fail to comprehend that while I would never support Option 2, its impossible without Option 1.  You can't just keep throwing money as a bandage, for some reason this incredibly simple idea passes over so many people.

Agreed. Without a sound financial plan backing it any universal healthcare effort would eventually collapse into itself unless it made serious cuts in quality and service. It might take a few decades, but it would happen.

So doesn't this serve as good evidence as to how stupid it would be to fully fund it with a fast food tax?

What does that have to do with anything related to this discussion?

I'm serving up a reasoning as to why WalterMitty's plan for a national healthcare system funded by one (with his excuse that THAT'S why he supports a fast food tax, not social engineering, because apparently there is absolutely no other way to fund a national healthcare system...) is really dumb.

Leave it to BRTD to answer a rhetorical question.

[John Dibble]

First, you do number 2.  This will have positive returns over the short, medium, and long terms making option 1 easier to do.  Once option 1 is completed, we could then move onto option 3.

I have to disagree - if you don't do number 1 first, then number 2 is built on a weak foundation. Doing number 1 second would be more difficult, as financial irresponsibility would be ingrained into the things made implementing option 2, meaning to implement option 1 you'd need to completely overhaul the system you just built. Why not do it right the first time?

Also, there's the matter of more debt being accrued during the time spent on number 2, which further increases the difficulty of doing option 1 second.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Option 2 implies is for an increase in infrastructure investments, but that doesn't mean option 1 implies any decrease in current funding towards maintaining, improving, and building new infrastructure. Balancing the budget could include cuts towards these things, but they could also include tax increases (yeah, I know, heretical suggestion coming from a Libertarian) or cuts in other areas.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Well, while universal healthcare and infrastructure investment don't have a lot to do with eachother, both are important to maintaining a prosperous, efficient economic environment.

We could start options 1 and 2 at the same time, by upping infrastructure investment while both raising taxes, and cutting wasteful spending (like payments to corporate farms, expensive and redundant weapons programs, war on drugs, etc.).  We would need to focus our infrastructure investments on long-lasting, lower maintenance options.  Gas taxes should be raised to increase freight rail which is much more efficient.  Trucks on our interstates causes a lot of congestion and heachaches for commuters and travelers alike.  Trucks should be used only for short-haul routes to areas not served by rail or beginning and endpoint pickup/delivery.  This is already done to some extent.  It would greatly benefit us to vastly expand this way of doing things.

The big jump in investment on infrastructure would put many Americans to work, not only building and maintaining the roads, but also building the materials that go into them.  We need to be a producer country, and renewing our national infrastructure is a great way to up production. 

Increasing public transit and freight (as well as passenger rail for medium-length trips) puts each facet of travel at its most efficient point. 

Universal healthcare could be achieved soon after by creating a 3-tier system:

1)  Full coverage at no out of pocket cost for poor children, the elderly, and the disabled.  Not unlike Minnesota Medical Assistance which covers almost everything.

2)  A program like MinnesotaCare for the working poor, which offers high quality insurance coverage for artificially low rates (monthly premium tied to income with small co-pays). 

3)  Private coverage for everybody else. 

On top of this, there would be a catastrophic coverage clause for those that are killed or disabled by sickness for those that are underinsured.  This would alleviate private insurers of costly medical cases that would increase premiums on everybody if the conditions meet certain criteria.

[John Dibble]

We could start options 1 and 2 at the same time

Well, in reality, but not according to the question - you gotta pick one.

[DownWithTheLeft]

BTW, can pick never for 2?  I don't want to ever have to pay for health care for someone else.  Its not only unfair but the waste would be incredible and people would wind up paying much more than the system paid out.

I want to use my money to pay for the best doctors and I don't want those doctors making less money and not being motivated

[Hash]

2
1

















3

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Universal Healthcare is a terrific goal.  But if we can't get our budget in order now, how the heck are we going to do it with another $50B of expenses on the books?

[CPT MikeyMike]

3-1-2

[NDN]

Universal Healthcare is a terrific goal.  But if we can't get our budget in order now, how the heck are we going to do it with another $50B of expenses on the books?

Probably more, given our track record plus all the aging boomers.