What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Curious George]

That is a non sequitur. To my statement.

To be fair the rhetorical questions implied a non-sequitur to an ad hominem.

 

[Curious George]

I am very sorry about the late reply.

I like many righties support a free market with as little government regulation as possible. We believe in the power of people to make choices and along with businesses. This is why we do not support the concept of buying something because you can. We view capitalism as an exchange of values in the sense that: "my 5$ or worth your speciality burger." If something is too expensive for you and you cannot afford it or don't think the price is justified then you must not engage in that business.

This might surprise you, but leftists believe in the same. What you are describing is not right wing. You are describing a piece of capitalism. Now, the reason for capitalism is that it offers an allocation of resources that requires the least interference to achieve the optimal happiness. This involves a priori assumptions. Unfortunately, it breaks down without regulation. The consequence of this is that there are no true capitalists, only a spectrum of people who disagree with the level of interference necessary to keep the system running well.

Now I would disagree with some of the assumption necessary when discussing this. Specifically, that five dollars burger can only be worth as many resources as a person has, and we are starting with varied amount of resources and varied ability to obtain resources. The capitalist system assumes that the person who pays the most for an item will get the most happiness from that. This meets a dead end as resources collect and clump together: there is no way for most to win a bidding war over a bottle of water with Bill Gates, despite our comparative level of thirst. The result is a breakdown in the social optimization.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Socialist and Liberal in the USA, means what ever the speaker is trying to belittle. They are now pejorative terms.

I hold to a UK , pre Lib Dem, liberal philosophy, such as might be associated with Joe Grimmond or David Steel prior to the merger.
Liberalism was a strong supporter of free trade, freedom of expression and personal freedom. It had no hangups about the usefulness of Business, finance and private ownership, but could also see the benefits of Public health, state schools and control of some public services.
It did not fit the pattern of Left and Right. It did not share the exaggerated, them and us, dichotomy of public and private ownership.

It is this battleground, that led to the uncontrolled growth of Financial globalism under Thatcher and Regan, that is so dominating the world today.

Trump is ploughing a new furrow, toward a strange new form of libertarianism ( a word and philosophy, not much used in the UK) but protected by a dictatorship. He sees his actions as being for the benefit of the "People". in the same way as "Communistic" dictators did. And with the same belief, that Dictators always know best, and what is good for them and you........ even it destroys you.

 

[Mister Emu]

Constitutional amendment vastly differ from congressional legislation or federal action.

Of course, yet still up for a vote.

If punching nazi's is part of the problem then I am a huge ****ing part of the problem. Nazi's don't punch back when they are dead. We learned that in WWII.

Absolutely disgusting.

However, I still don't see the difference... I think maybe we can agree that committing violence to others with opposing political beliefs both belong in the same disgusting category.

The first is unfortunate, because your conflating mentally unstable individuals being vulnerable to rhetoric and groups of up to hundreds of people planning together to shut down political thought they disagree with.

The second part, yes we do agree 100% on such categorization.

Well if you say you're not attributing it to the entire left (or even most of it I hope), then I won't push it

I am only attributing it to those would use violence to oppose political speech and thought; those that are, as the title says, oppressive.

Well until we see the kind of violence you're prophesying, I would just leave the guesswork out of it and not propose "blood in the streets" as being any sort of legitimate option.

I think you are ignoring the weight of social-psychological understanding when you call it "prophesy" and "guesswork".

Unless you have some sort of proof that all this was some elaborate plan

It isn't an elaborate plan, just a way to get around bans on carrying weapons. A theatre to dress up their clubs. The proof is in the way they use them: as clubs. But, it appears the theatre is at times successful, so a nod to them.

I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on that either.

Apparently so.

 

[Shad]

Both Norway and Sweeden do not have universal healthcare.

I said Switzerland not Sweden. Switzerland has a private industry with high cost yet it's people are more healthy than those on a full national system.

Norway does have a national healthcare industry not a private one.
.

They have a system somewhat similar to the ACA.

No as private insurance is very limited nor does the private industry provide anything like the national service. It is used to cut costs like pharmaceuticals and deductibles.

They also make far more money in median income.

And pay more in taxes to cover the cost.

Per Capita it seems Norway is the only one that pays more per person.

Yes due to national healthcare in which people pay for the services of others via taxes.

However they have far better income equality in their country so the average American would actually end up paying for significantly less in a single payer situation.

Norway is far more homogeneous than America thus does not have the problems which diversity creates in society and government. It also does not have it's history of slavery and racism which still impacts social divides.

Americans paying less is an assertion, nothing more.

Lastly the article mentioned preformance. I just looked up the United States and we are now 37th.

It does not mention performance, it talked about efficiency. Right after this it tells you why it ranked so low. The exact reasons I stated in my previous post. Americans are not as healthy as other nationalities ergo costs go up as a result.

But look at the charts there and see that all of the countries with universal healthcare are much cheaper and have better scoring records in world wide healthcare standards.

Cheaper does not mean better. Norway pays more than the rest but has a higher life expectancy than the "cheaper" systems. Switzerland likewise but with a private system. Again this goes back to life styles of these nations which America is far far behind especially with it high obesity percentage. Unhealthy people result in a higher cost. Also both those system use preventive care more than America which requires people admitting they have issues.

[Norway isn't a single payer system.

Yes it is.

[They only have coverage for those under 16 and only for hospitilization if my understanding is correct. Adults (which is the majority of healthcare costs since young ones tend to be healthy) are not part of a single payer system.

Wrong. Citizens apply for exemption cards which provides full coverage. When yearly deductible is paid for, usually below 2k USD the rest if covered by government. Deductibles include the costs of transportation and pharmaceuticals along with normal cost

So the deciding factor of these rations should be by need or by money? By your logic it should be money? It is not an item like sugar.

Money will always be involved as money pays for stuff and staff... have you heard of this concept? Government only cares about need if you are going to die as a result then you get priority. If it is not life threatening care is rationed based on the amount of service the government deems to be required. If the government decides that it only needs to employ 4 neurosurgeons that is what you are stuck with. I can provide examples of rationed healthcare and waiting lists. I have been on such lists.

Healthcare is a dynamic market based on skills.

Yes which include individual practitioners agreeing to how much their services are worth. Ever notice why America has so many medical practitioners? Government does not dictate what they deserved to be paid based on a bottom line. Also said doctors are free to look at multiple employment opportunities. In Canada if you do not accept what the government says you can not practice medicine in Canada.

It isn't rationed off to an equal amount per person. It does deal with supply and demand of services but this is not the same thing as a ration. You don't get 3 medical treatments a month per person as you would sugar or any other product.

Supply and demand is a part of the free market. If you go to a single system both are undermined becoming nonsensical parameters of a foreign concept. Have you thought about demands such as fast service if you can afford it? Have you heard of supplying such a service? Heard of the fast food industry? If I choose to pay for faster service because there is a supply for it I should be able to freely use it. A government system denies the choice of service

Secondly it wouldn't change the market at all with the exception of those that went without because they lacked the funds.

Yes it would as varies supply and demand issues become off limits by government policy and monopoly.

You have only made one point and that it was that another non-single payer system is slightly more expensive per person in the whole world.

No I made many points such as merely efficient results says nothing about why the results are this way. Hence why I pointed out American life style choices are not a good as others. I attacked this facade with facts that undermine your case as you only look at the result, nothing more.

Canada does have its problems. However they are not stemmed from the single payer system but actually a lack of medical professonals in the country.

Which is due to the government dictating what people deserve to be paid and it's hiring practices. Are you so naive to think this problem is not due to the government? If the government wanted employ more staff and attract staff to the nation to work it can do so. It can increase wages, lower work burdens, offer debt management for student loans. Practitioners are not flooding Canada as there are better offers. Practitioners like to be able to pay off their debt in short order not decades.

Which goes right back to supply and demand with government monopoly

They are currently taking measures to change this. The problem, however, does not stem from the fact it is a single payer healthcare system.

Yes measures such as closing down hospitals, lower staff requirements, increasing the workload on most position and increasing the national debt to pay for a system that nation can not afford. Joy....

dunno what you are talking about.
Ration- allow each person to have only a fixed amount of (a particular commodity).

Which a national system does.

You are free to do the same in a single payer system.

I am free to seek an alternative while still paying for a system I didn't use. Joy.

You are not designated to a single doctor or a single facility.

No I am restrict to what the government decides are my options. And yes at times I am restricted to a single facility such as the Cancer Center, this is what happens with specialist in a national system. It becomes even more rationed. More so in the Canadian system alternatives not sanctioned by the government are illegal to use. Again a government monopoly.

The only thing that changes is that you don't have an insurance card but rather it is paid for through the government. It changes nothing in your ability to go to a preffered doctor.

No it restricts my choice to seek fast services and results over a waiting list determined by the government

To a degree. However they are more willing to pay for services than private insurances by far.

Which has both positives and negatives. It avoid people getting trapped by a policy. However it was their choice to agree to it, not one forced them to. If someone is a life long chain smoker citizens are forced to pay for the poor choices of said individuals and their problem. That is a negative as far as I look at it.

I work with insurances for a living and it is private insurances that deny coverage far more often than medicare or medicaid. And if medicare (which is slightly pickier than medicaid depending on the state) simply requires the correct diagnosis codes which every doctor has access to to validate treatment. The doctor still decides what procedures you get and when. The government doesn't treat you. Your doctor treats you. The government pays for it instead of cigna or aetna or blue cross blue shield.

So you work for an unethical company, point out it is unethical but do nothing to put your money where your mouth is. There is a word for that....

The government determines how much of said treatments are available as per my examples above.

And if you want extra there is nothing saying you can't get extra.

You've never lived under a national system. There a few extras to can "buy" within such a system. As mentioned earlier many alternatives are illegal.

But the comprehensive levels of treatment should be broad. For example no universal healthcare will ever pay for a boob job. You gotta get that done on your own. If you want to go to a spa rehabilitation center rather than a medical focused one you can pay for that. It doesn't stop you from getting the extra stuff you would want to pay extra for.

Again this is merely rationing.

You will pay less in taxes than you do on your healthcare insurance and deductable that is for certain.

This is hilarious. You provided an example of your coverage which was 1/3 of what it would cost mine

Average Canadian pays 4k in taxes?

If you take the national healthcare budge, divide it by population each citizen, adult and youth, is paying 4k a year. Canadians pay more in taxes in general to cover these social programs. We also have no military to speak of (hyerbole) as funding must be redirected to social programs.

Is that the average per capita as that will be higher than the median.

Straight per captia

The average joe pays far less.

Due to the tax code yes. Which just means that people end up paying less than others while being provided the exact same service.

You are basically saying you would rather pay more for worse coverage.

No I would like the option to decide what coverage I want to use.

false.

No it is true as per my example of the tax code and per captia.

IT means that you have coverage no matter your situation.

That is government imposing a contract upon me I didn't sign or agree to.

That is an important non emotional distinction.

Hardly. I lose the right to choose what service I pay for while people that can not afford these services for a variety of reasons gain something at little cost to themselves.

It is always there. I don't have to worry about having to pay my road or school bill every month.

Schools and roads are vital to the economy, society, law enforcement, military, etc. Healthcare isn't.

It doesn't get taken away from me if I lost my job or was going through tough economic times. Not being based on individual capital is an inextremely important distinction that has nothing to do with feelings.

You get pity because of your situation and possible poor choices thus should have coverage no matter what the circumstance.

Except I have explained it throughougly. You still believe the lie that healthcare would cost more in a snigle payer system. You even used a non-single payer system as an example against it without realizing it isn't a single payer system.

No I used a single payer system and a private system as examples.

Again you are looking at the result and not why costs vary.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This might surprise you, but leftists believe in the same. What you are describing is not right wing. You are describing a piece of capitalism. Now, the reason for capitalism is that it offers an allocation of resources that requires the least interference to achieve the optimal happiness. This involves a priori assumptions. Unfortunately, it breaks down without regulation. The consequence of this is that there are no true capitalists, only a spectrum of people who disagree with the level of interference necessary to keep the system running well.

Now I would disagree with some of the assumption necessary when discussing this. Specifically, that five dollars burger can only be worth as many resources as a person has, and we are starting with varied amount of resources and varied ability to obtain resources. The capitalist system assumes that the person who pays the most for an item will get the most happiness from that. This meets a dead end as resources collect and clump together: there is no way for most to win a bidding war over a bottle of water with Bill Gates, despite our comparative level of thirst. The result is a breakdown in the social optimization.

I am pretty positive I am describing capitalism, it is just that newer lefties want to distant themselves from capitalism.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is a non sequitur. To my statement.

It is not a non sequitur since the argument is entirely valid. You are claiming right wingers are selfish yet we value the things we own as much as you do. The minute somebody prospers though you get bitter. It has nothing to do with selfishness. It is about your jealousy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is not a non sequitur since the argument is entirely valid. You are claiming right wingers are selfish yet we value the things we own as much as you do. The minute somebody prospers though you get bitter. It has nothing to do with selfishness. It is about your jealousy.

.

Speak for your self.
I am happy with my life. I have all that I need in the way of posessions, house, car live in a beautiful location with a pension, that provides all that I need. In my old age, I am jealous of no one.

I do not get the least bitter when people prosper.

How ever this does not stop me noticing how the rich and corporations take advantage of their employees and the state by paying minimimum wages and minimum taxes. With out any thought that this has on other peoples welfare. While the financial industry sucks the lifeblood from everyone .
This certainly fits my definition of selfish.

 

[Shad]

It is not a non sequitur since the argument is entirely valid. You are claiming right wingers are selfish yet we value the things we own as much as you do. The minute somebody prospers though you get bitter. It has nothing to do with selfishness. It is about your jealousy.

And sense of entitlement.

 

[Underhill]

I respect another poster's right to be wrong.

"....it is no worse than...."
There's a ringing endorsement.

There are other reasons to paint her as a hawk, & reasons that The Donald could be better (or worse).
Your looking at a narrow ad hoc picture doesn't rise to the level of objective analysis which could sway me.
We've already covered this before the election in great detail, & there's no need to revisit it.
You want me to vote against Trump....then you should'a defeated the DNC's corrupt banishment of Bernie.
I would've voted for him.
But not ole blood'n guts bloated big government Hilda.

It seems that few on the left will acknowledge that we who voted for The Devil can be reasonable.
No amount of discussion has changed this because you're just so danged sure you have The Truth.
Have you noticed that Trump voters don't demonize Hillary voters?
But Hillary fans keep trying to demonize us as deplorables.
They gotta get over the loss, the anger, the hatred, & the intolerance of contrary views.

You have got to be kidding me? Of course Hillary voters are demonized. Hell, you do it when you mischaracterize the protest as 'sour grapes' and sore losers. It's the same garbage by a different name. I work in an office full of 300 Trump voters, all of whom thought I was insane to vote for her (those I dared tell), several of whom made comments like, 'anyone who would vote for her should be kicked in the nuts'.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have got to be kidding me? Of course Hillary voters are demonized.

I'm sure you can find an example here or there where Hillary voters are dissed.
But the severe criticism of us "deplorables" (a phrase which has no counterpart)
is far more severe. (Notice how I didn't invoke "false equivalency"?)
Criminy, even one staff member here told me we're even worse than Trump.

Hell, you do it when you mischaracterize the protest as 'sour grapes' and sore losers.

I apply the terms only to the ones who call us Nazis & racists.
In their case, they are indeed sore losers who react poorly.

It's the same garbage by a different name. I work in an office full of 300 Trump voters, all of whom thought I was insane to vote for her (those I dared tell), several of whom made comments like, 'anyone who would vote for her should be kicked in the nuts'.

You could very well be a special case of such one sided abuse.
So while you're at work, I recommend not comparing Trump to Hitler,
& not calling co-workers Nazis, racists, or hoo hah grabbers.
But looking at things more generally, eg, NPR, RF, a different picture emerges.

Btw, I don't criticize you or your reasons for voting for her.
After all, you might've made the better choice.

 

[Stevicus]

You have got to be kidding me? Of course Hillary voters are demonized.

In my observation, both sides have demonized each other. It's not even just about Hillary or Trump, but the nature of partisan politics in general. Not that mud-slinging is anything new to American politics, but there seems less willingness for either side to try to compromise or meet each other halfway.

I've noticed that both sides tend to talk past each other, without giving much consideration to what the other side has to say. Both sides seem so intent on exposing the inner demons of the other that they've lost track of the issues. And too often I hear people say they "can't be bothered" to try to explain or elaborate on their views. Both sides also ostensibly view the other as irredeemable and beyond hope, so there's really no point in taking a reasonable approach to argumentation and debate over controversial issues. Or at least, that's what a lot of people seem to think nowadays.

 

[Underhill]

In my observation, both sides have demonized each other. It's not even just about Hillary or Trump, but the nature of partisan politics in general. Not that mud-slinging is anything new to American politics, but there seems less willingness for either side to try to compromise or meet each other halfway.

I've noticed that both sides tend to talk past each other, without giving much consideration to what the other side has to say. Both sides seem so intent on exposing the inner demons of the other that they've lost track of the issues. And too often I hear people say they "can't be bothered" to try to explain or elaborate on their views. Both sides also ostensibly view the other as irredeemable and beyond hope, so there's really no point in taking a reasonable approach to argumentation and debate over controversial issues. Or at least, that's what a lot of people seem to think nowadays.

Normally I would agree with that. And in most elections I think the difference between one candidate and the other is largely a matter of small things. McCain/Obama I voted for Obama but could have lived with McCain. Even Romney would not have been the end of the world. This election was a bit different though.

I see this election as people being sick of the status quo so they vote the guy in who drains the swamp by dropping a nuke. He isn't just a republican in the traditional sense. As I have pointed out, out of the 43 republicans who started the election cycle on the republican side, there were at least a few I would have voted for over Clinton. But Trump is dangerous. His top advisor is making statements about war with China. Long standing trade agreements are up for grabs. We are looking at trade wars at the very least.

Some have tried to tell me this is all posturing for future negotiations. I don't think so. When I look at his cabinet, these people are true believers, not deep thinkers. I certainly hope I am wrong, but I have seen no evidence that I am.

I still think an awful lot of people voted for Trump to make a statement thinking he wouldn't actually win. Now that he is in there they are getting very nervous.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I said Switzerland not Sweden. Switzerland has a private industry with high cost yet it's people are more healthy than those on a full national system.

Norway does have a national healthcare industry not a private one.
.


No as private insurance is very limited nor does the private industry provide anything like the national service. It is used to cut costs like pharmaceuticals and deductibles.[/quoted]
Limited only to hospital visits and emergency rooms. All specialists and doctor vistis as well as medicine comes out of pocket. They have a commonwealth fund which functions differnetly than most Canadain and other single payer systems. Switzerland does not have a single payer system at all. Sweeden does and is far cheaper than the US system.

And pay more in taxes to cover the cost.

Indeed. They have more take home money than the average American. They have free college and albiet an expensive healthcare system at least one that is ranked 11th in the world. Their infastructure is phenomenal. They work 36-38 hours a week with full benifits and have a significantly higher standard of living than the average American. Paying more taxes hasn't really hurt them that much because nearly all of it is re-invested back into the society where they live rather than spent elsewhere. So they pay about 10% more on average in taxes than they would in America but they get almost all of it back. They have far less crime. America has 6.5 times as many muders per capita than they do.

All you see is the tax rate. High means bad low means good always. They choose to have such a high tax rate because it works in their country. It keeps income inequality down. It keeps poverty down. You gotta try really hard to be poor in Norway. You are almost guranteed sucess in life so long as you do your part.

I'm not advocating taxation at their rate. I am American. I have been raised off this idea of the American dream and economic mobility. However in our country the only economic mobility I have seen is strait down. Something needs to change.

Yes due to national healthcare in which people pay for the services of others via taxes.

Actually its due to a large quantity of factors. Seeing as they are the only ones who have anything remotely similar to a single payer healthcare system that has their costs. They are also not a true single payer healthcare system like the UK or Canada.

Norway is far more homogeneous than America thus does not have the problems which diversity creates in society and government. It also does not have it's history of slavery and racism which still impacts social divides.

Americans paying less is an assertion, nothing more.

Race has very little to do with massive income inequality. While virtually all of those .1% of people that do enjoy the massive income inequality are whtie the average white person and the average black person in America are about the same in contrast to what I'm talking about.

Its a government construct. It always has and always will be.

It does not mention performance, it talked about efficiency. Right after this it tells you why it ranked so low. The exact reasons I stated in my previous post. Americans are not as healthy as other nationalities ergo costs go up as a result.

While Americans are very unhealthy so is a large part of the world today. It alone does not account for the increase in our costs. It is our inefficiency in healthcare that produces the most. Though it is a complex problem that cannot be totally singled out to any one factor.

Yes it is.

It is a non-privatized system. Not a single payer system. In a single payer system 100% of healthcare costs are covered by the government. They are not in Norway. You have deductables after the age of 16 and the coverage you have paid for only covers hospital and emergency treatments. Going to see your doctor, getting a checkup, getting a flu shot, getting your insulin, ect are all covered out of pocket.

Non-private does not mean single payer.

Money will always be involved as money pays for stuff and staff... have you heard of this concept? Government only cares about need if you are going to die as a result then you get priority. If it is not life threatening care is rationed based on the amount of service the government deems to be required. If the government decides that it only needs to employ 4 neurosurgeons that is what you are stuck with. I can provide examples of rationed healthcare and waiting lists. I have been on such lists.

In a single payer healthcare system they do not "hire" doctors. They take the function of health insurance. Your premimum is taxes and you are covered 100%. You have waiting lists and you have wait times. You may be denied a specific treatment or surgery because it requires a specific diagnosis that you do not qualify for. This is our current system. It will be the same with single payer healthcare.

Yes which include individual practitioners agreeing to how much their services are worth. Ever notice why America has so many medical practitioners? Government does not dictate what they deserved to be paid based on a bottom line. Also said doctors are free to look at multiple employment opportunities. In Canada if you do not accept what the government says you can not practice medicine in Canada.

It is the same with insurance companies here. If you don't want to accept what the insurance is willing to pay then you dont' get paid. Canadian doctors make about the same as American doctors.

Supply and demand is a part of the free market. If you go to a single system both are undermined becoming nonsensical parameters of a foreign concept. Have you thought about demands such as fast service if you can afford it? Have you heard of supplying such a service? Heard of the fast food industry? If I choose to pay for faster service because there is a supply for it I should be able to freely use it. A government system denies the choice of service

It does not. If you want to pay for fast service out of pocket you are allowed to. In Canada it is not illegal to practice medicine and work purely out of pocket of your customers. A doctor in Canada can set up office and practice (within legal parameters of medicine) and never take a dime from the government. However they will go out of buisiness rather quickly since Canadians often just go to the doctor for free rather than paying to get there faster.

Same here. We will still have private doctors for the ultra rich who want to pay for them out of pocket. But the vast majority of people will just go to the doctor for free.

Yes it would as varies supply and demand issues become off limits by government policy and monopoly.

Such as?

No I made many points such as merely efficient results says nothing about why the results are this way. Hence why I pointed out American life style choices are not a good as others. I attacked this facade with facts that undermine your case as you only look at the result, nothing more.

Results matter. Americans are not drastically more unhealthy than Canadians for example. Yet they pay far less for better service.

Which is due to the government dictating what people deserve to be paid and it's hiring practices. Are you so naive to think this problem is not due to the government? If the government wanted employ more staff and attract staff to the nation to work it can do so. It can increase wages, lower work burdens, offer debt management for student loans. Practitioners are not flooding Canada as there are better offers. Practitioners like to be able to pay off their debt in short order not decades.

This requires evidence. Canadian doctors make about the same as Americans and get their degree's for far cheaper.

Yes measures such as closing down hospitals, lower staff requirements, increasing the workload on most position and increasing the national debt to pay for a system that nation can not afford. Joy....

Requires evidence.

Which a national system does.

Requires evidence. The government does not tell people to go die if they reach their lifetime limit of coverage. It is handled no differnetly than the US system with two major exceptions. Currently we have a large number of specialists in America and few primary providers. Canada is the opposite. They have tons of primary providers and few specialists. It has little to do with how much money they make as they make about the same as America does. Secondly poor people don't just ignore horrible symptoms till its too late in Canadian system.

Are you advocating that people who are poor simply die?

I am free to seek an alternative while still paying for a system I didn't use. Joy.

collective responsibility is a *****. I want my money back for all the Syrian Children that were killed.

No I am restrict to what the government decides are my options. And yes at times I am restricted to a single facility such as the Cancer Center, this is what happens with specialist in a national system. It becomes even more rationed. More so in the Canadian system alternatives not sanctioned by the government are illegal to use. Again a government monopoly.



No it restricts my choice to seek fast services and results over a waiting list determined by the government

government's don't decide the waiting list. Healthcare officials do. Some accountant in Washington doesn't determine who gets coverage and who doesn't. Its the doctor that does it now. They just pay for it. It is illegal to go to a doctor that is not sanctioned by the government in the US as well. GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY right? Or is it that people who don't have a medical license can't practice medicine because it protects us from quack doctors?

Which has both positives and negatives. It avoid people getting trapped by a policy. However it was their choice to agree to it, not one forced them to. If someone is a life long chain smoker citizens are forced to pay for the poor choices of said individuals and their problem. That is a negative as far as I look at it.

We do that already. I'd like to make it cheaper.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So you work for an unethical company, point out it is unethical but do nothing to put your money where your mouth is. There is a word for that....

An accountant? I work for a hospital. I work with insurance companies. I don't feel my hospital is ....terribly unethical.

I do put my money where my mouth is. I voted for Bernie Sanders and I donated to his campaign. Hillary decided she wanted the crown and lost to a clown. Her loss was the only comfort I have in this last election.

The government determines how much of said treatments are available as per my examples above.

No. The doctors do. The government does not.

Due to the tax code yes. Which just means that people end up paying less than others while being provided the exact same service.

Which is the point.

No it is true as per my example of the tax code and per captia.

No. It isn't. You said that canadians on average spend about 4 thousand on healthcare. The average American spends over nine thousand on healthcare. What part of that did you not understand? Canadians pay far less. In a similar system we would pay far less per capita.

That is government imposing a contract upon me I didn't sign or agree to.

At least this is one you benifit from. You also signed a contract that says you will be taken from your home during a time of war to kill enemies that have been decided upon by the government. You also have signed a contract with the government that if you don't jump through the propper legal hoops if you drive a car you will be detained and put in prison. If you do something to your own body that the government does not approve of you will be detained. You signed a contract that you will pay for people to enforce these laws and in cases detain or harm you. You have signed a contract that you have to pay for a portion of all of the roads, schools, water systems, military and food stamps and if you refuse to pay you will be detained forcefully.

I could go on and on and on and on and on. But this is the one that you have an issue with? Better not go fishing in a public river because if you do you might have to deal with this contract that you didn't sign that the government forced on you.

Hardly. I lose the right to choose what service I pay for while people that can not afford these services for a variety of reasons gain something at little cost to themselves.

You don't loose coverage. Everyone gets coverage. You end up paying less than you did before. I don't see the downside. Are you upset because you can't go to the doctor with the cool mustache?

Schools and roads are vital to the economy, society, law enforcement, military, etc. Healthcare isn't.

Yes it is. Otherwise people die.

You get pity because of your situation and possible poor choices thus should have coverage no matter what the circumstance.

Its called social responsiblity. You are fine with it for all the other exceptions. Why should we take pity on the stupid mother who can't afford to buy her kid's school books? Why do we care if someone else gets robbed and they weren't strong enough to stop it themselves by force? Loosers can't afford the tolls at the toll roads. They should have made better choices.

Bottom line is that healthcare costs are nearly 1/5th of our total GDP and is the single largest non-government drag on our economy. Number one overall is our military. Number one reason for mass debt is medical costs. A healthy people makes for a better working people.

No I used a single payer system and a private system as examples.

Again you are looking at the result and not why costs vary.

I am uniquely informed about the different reasons for the costs. There are many. The least of which is our lifestyle choices in comparison to other countries in Europe and Canada. This being the only one you have brought up.

You havent' brought up the fact that we have laws currently in place that stops our ability to haggle prices with drug companies. That we pay more than any other country in the world for drugs and that is because we aren't allowed to stop them from doing this.; That we pay an insane amount of money for malpractice insurance because it is so easy to sue doctors for even unforseen and unavoidable medical complications during procedures. The fact that each hospital has a whole legal division because they have to. Because they have to hire a whole division of people to deal with contracted rates with insurances. THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES MUST MAKE A PROFIT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN PROVIDING HEALTHCARE AND BEING PAID FOR HEALTHCARE AND DOESN'T ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE AT ALL TO THE HEALTHCARE PREFORMANCE. (this of course being the main one), That we have multiple differnet companies that charge far more in America than anywhere else for their supplies. That they have agreements with other major companies to compete a minimal amount so as to get the best profits for their products. That both insurances and drug companies practically own doctors by giving them major medical equipment in exchange for that doctor being a contracted memember of the insurance and only prescribing medicine from a specific company. That many people don't go to primary providers or specialists because they are too expensive and therefore wait until the disease or issue is far to great and go to the emergency room. At which point it has progressed terribly and they must pay a far more expensive treatment than if they had nipped it in the bud earlier. That people go to the emergency room becauset hey know they can ignore the bill and still receve treatment because they have no other options. That American specialists make the most out of any doctors in the world (especially cardiologists and surgeons). That our nurses previously made more than most other countries but have seen a dip in the last few years.

That we cover 40% of all of these costs through medicare, medicaid and tricare yet do nothing to curb the costs

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Absolutely disgusting.
.

Should we help the Jews into the chambers then? There are limits to what is acceptable and what is not. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all.
If you spit in the face of my people prepare for retalitaiton. That is all there is to it. I cannot and will not live side by side with Nazis.
The people okay with Nazis are the ones that are disgusting.

 

[Mister Emu]

Should we help the Jews into the chambers then?

What chambers exist and who is putting them in, in America? Oh? None and no one? Well, huh.

There are limits to what is acceptable and what is not. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all.

Then you aren't liberal. Liberals defend the right of anyone to hold and express ideas. Liberals went to the Supreme Court to defend the right of the National Socialist Party of America to march. You support oppression.

If you spit in the face of my people prepare for retalitaiton. That is all there is to it.

Words aren't spit. And if you take them as such, you deserve whatever retaliation to your oppressive acts occurs.

I cannot and will not live side by side with Nazis.
The people okay with Nazis are the ones that are disgusting.

You do live with Nazis. When Nazis start initiating actual violence, I, someone probably best described as a fascist(though not in the pejorative usage i.e. racist and violent), will be right there with you to put them down. Until then, those who support real violence against words are foul cretins.

 

[Stevicus]

His top advisor is making statements about war with China. Long standing trade agreements are up for grabs. We are looking at trade wars at the very least.

Trade wars, perhaps, but I hadn't heard of any threat of an actual war with China. But the trade wars were inevitable anyway. You can't have such a lopsided trade deficit for this long without the other shoe dropping eventually.

But trade is not truly a right-left issue anyway, since there are those on the left who were against free trade from the start. In fact, it was mostly the Democrats who were against the free trade agreements, while the Republicans were virtually unanimously for them. If it wasn't for Clinton flexing the party muscle and bringing in the wayward Democrats, NAFTA probably never would have passed.

 

[Shad]

Limited only to hospital visits and emergency rooms. All specialists and doctor vistis as well as medicine comes out of pocket. They have a commonwealth fund which functions differnetly than most Canadain and other single payer systems. Switzerland does not have a single payer system at all. Sweeden does and is far cheaper than the US system.

Nope, doctor visits can and are covered by the card which anyone can get once beyond the deductible limit. Never said Switzerland had a single payer system, you are not reading what I post. I used it as an example of a private system costing more than America from GDP. Sweden has the highest personal debt rate on the planet as the average citizen pays 51% in taxes. It's social program are a massive burden to the tax payer.

Indeed. They have more take home money than the average American. They have free college and albiet an expensive healthcare system at least one that is ranked 11th in the world. Their infastructure is phenomenal. They work 36-38 hours a week with full benifits and have a significantly higher standard of living than the average American. Paying more taxes hasn't really hurt them that much because nearly all of it is re-invested back into the society where they live rather than spent elsewhere.

By tax brackets they still pay more than Americans in the same bracket, more than Canadians in the same bracket. Again personal debt rates in Sweden show the tax burden is necessitating loans at an increased rate.

So they pay about 10% more on average in taxes than they would in America but they get almost all of it back. They have far less crime. America has 6.5 times as many muders per capita than they do.

You are ignoring Sweden is more homogeneous thus unified by common culture which reduces crime rates. Also Sweden is now one the top nations for rape. Take a guess why....

All you see is the tax rate. High means bad low means good always.

No I see what the tax burden costs people rather than only pointing to the "good". I also care about

They choose to have such a high tax rate because it works in their country.

3 of the last 4 election voted for in fiscal conservatives. Obviously not everyone agrees with your assertion by their voting record.

It keeps income inequality down. It keeps poverty down.

By taxing the crap out of people outside the equality bubble then taxing them at slightly lower rates like 51% or 38% if you are low income.

You gotta try really hard to be poor in Norway. You are almost guranteed sucess in life so long as you do your part.

That is about the job market and economy not healthcare.

Im not advocating taxation at their rate. I am American. I have been raised off this idea of the American dream and economic mobility. However in our country the only economic mobility I have seen is strait down. Something needs to change.

So you are using examples of systems which use a tax code you wouldn't want.... Hilarious. You picked the wrong career to become rich from. What more is there to say? If you think every job is a ticket to wealth you distorted the American dream to something different.

Actually its due to a large quantity of factors. Seeing as they are the only ones who have anything remotely similar to a single payer healthcare system that has their costs. They are also not a true single payer healthcare system like the UK or Canada.

You keep changing your terms. First you said universal healthcare. When I provided examples you changed your tune to single payer systems.

Race has very little to do with massive income inequality.

I didn't say race. I said America has a history of social and cultural issues due to racism and slavery. Scandinavians nation do not have this issue until recently. Guess why...

While virtually all of those .1% of people that do enjoy the massive income inequality are whtie the average white person and the average black person in America are about the same in contrast to what I'm talking about.

Take a few minutes to look up poverty rates. Look at demographics. Blacks are the highest group across most assessments by double the percentage at times. This goes right back to the social history of American. There is also an emerging cultural issues within the black community.

Its a government construct. It always has and always will be.

What is? Sorry I do not know what you are specifically referencing here.

While Americans are very unhealthy so is a large part of the world today. It alone does not account for the increase in our costs. It is our inefficiency in healthcare that produces the most. Though it is a complex problem that cannot be totally singled out to any one factor.

It adds to the cost. Also if you read the article it points out other systems encourage preventive care and healthy living. The American system nor culture encourages this enough. When 1/3 of your population is obese they will have health issues. Sure the American system has issues, I never said it was perfect. However national system have issues which you are oblivious to as you never lived within one of those systems.

t is a non-privatized system. Not a single payer system. In a single payer system 100% of healthcare costs are covered by the government. They are not in Norway. You have deductables after the age of 16 and the coverage you have paid for only covers hospital and emergency treatments. Going to see your doctor, getting a checkup, getting a flu shot, getting your insulin, ect are all covered out of pocket.

Wrong. Look up deduction or exempt cards. Any citizen can apply for one after the mandatory limit.

Non-private does not mean single payer.

Yes it does.

 

[Notanumber]

Double standards.

Not all the young ones are blinkered.