Everyone who works pays into Medicare, but only seniors can derive benefits.... If everyone claims benefits it exhausts the program.... Quite simple to understand....
Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
Russia helping Bernie's campaign?
- Thread starter Xenom0rph
- Start date
- Status
Bible_Belt
Master Don Juan
Tell that to a little kid with cancer.
I politely asked @EyeBRollin to please stop the emotional pandering, i would like to ask the same of you....
I hadn't, but either way it blows. I'm not surprised as it's similar to the cable and ISP industries. Lack of choice.
Nevertheless I would like to see a safety net for the poor/uninsured that's straightforward. I respect the opinion that it's socialist/redistribution and not everyone wants that, but I think it's a sound investment for a nation to make in itself.
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
Here's the pro M4A argument which is completely pragmatic.
If you had universal healthcare then you personally would save money.
No, it's the precise opposite. The economics of scale make it cheaper when it expands, not more expensive. That's part of the point. And everyone is already paying into the corrupt insurance system which is far more expensive in both human resources (far more red tape in healthcare facilities) and money than universal healthcare, so the universal program wouldn't be an exhaustion, it would be a relief.
You may be ideologically opposed to universal healthcare but don't try to twist the facts.
Last edited:
Didn’t you get the memo? This isn’t a fact based debate, only personal biases and opinions …
And one that’s off topic also.
The economies of scale theory was already disproven with the Individual Mandate under Obamacare.....
....the Individual Mandate required everyone ti buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty. It was believed that by expanding the payer pool that it would reduce costs of medical services....
... It didnt work...premiums, copays and deductibles increased because insurance companies and health providers were no longer incentivized to price compete....
Economies of scale only work in a market system were companies are encourage to compete by lowering costs of services....
Last edited:
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
Yeah duh. Of course when you allow the corporate lobby to write and implement the legislation and control the service it's going to be for their own benefit rather than yours through anticompetitive practices, that was the whole point. Romneycare/Obamacare isn't universal healthcare, it's a corrupt collusion. It's a Trojan horse that countries with universal healthcare don't have, hence the graph.
Those same corporations create jobs.... If people dont have jobs how would they pay into hypothetical M4A....???....
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
Those people will migrate into other jobs, if you don't believe me then look at the unemployment rates by country which show that Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Holland all have lower unemployment rates than America and they all have universal healthcare.
A direct example is how they can migrate into real healthcare jobs, because now there is more money to spend on actual healthcare rather than transfer cost price gouging from insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
By the way, the AMA is actively suppressing the supply of physicians in America in collusion with the federal government allowing it to do so (just like Romneycare/Obamacare are corrupt collusions), so if that cartel was dismantled then it would most likely start to become cheaper to see a physician as well in addition to M4A. You know that Communist hellhole Cuba, next to the wonderful Capitalist success Haiti? Cuba has 67,2 physicians per 10 000 people America has 24,5. My country Sweden has 39,3.
"Migrating into another job" is basically your mental gymnastics to rationalize the job displacement under M4A......
Changing jobs is NOT easy in the US... either because of location, living expenses, children or education level....
.....I already mentioned earlier in this thread that life in American society is simply too drastically different than life in other parts of the world to draw comparisons....
Comparing Sweden to Germany is might be logical...but comparing the US to any Euro country is too much of a stretch....
Even comparing the US to Canada is not valid because Canada doesnt have nearly the population size, immigration problem or military commitment of the US....
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
Google "jobs that don't exist anymore" and tell me, where has the cataclysmic disaster from those job displacements been?
Do you think society should remain stuck at a grossly inefficient practice because innovation would cause a temporary displacement during reskilling?
And by the way - those people whose jobs are displaced, if there's anywhere that won't take care of them while they reskill, it's right wing America. If you have policies in place to help people reskill, like some other countries do, you don't really have a displacement problem.
Last edited:
Those jobs disappeared over decades as technology changed... Under M4A Insurance companies and health service business would displace hundreds of thousands if jobs over a span of a few years....
...with the gov functioning as the sole insurer under M4A they will price fix with pharmaceutic companies and health service providers... This means those providers and pharma companies would be forced to cut jobs, lower wages, or cut available of services to stay afloat....
....economic disaster can only follow....
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
Not a problem with a comprehensive market reskilling policy, as exists in Sweden for example.
No, those corporations aren't operating at a subsistence profit margin. It's the price gouging by insurance and pharmaceuticals, that you don't have in the rest of the world and yet their healthcare systems deliver better outcomes in aggregate, which will be cut out. There will certainly be job displacement of former insurance workers, because universal healthcare has far less red tape than America's healthcare, so you don't need as many people to administrate it. This will actually save healthcare providers money since they no longer have to pay for a bloat of insurance clerks. An "economic disaster" it will not be either in itself and especially not under competent administration.
You can't have it both ways. You can't be right wing on one hand and say you want to decrease inefficient, corrupt and expensive bloat, but then say that bloat is good because it "creates jobs".
Last edited:
Reskilling might work in a country like Sweden because its smaller in population and square kilometers....
....but imagine a displaced healthcare worker living in in a small rural community that gets displaced...reskilling them isnt enough because they would have to relocate to find work.... And relocating isnt easy in the US due to living expenses and the huge size of the country....
....now extrapolate this scenario to hundreds of thousands of displaced health related workers over a short span of a few years and economic disaster is sure to happen...
Again, i reiterate to you that it is simply invalud to compare America to other nations...
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
America's population density is 35,77 per square kilometer, in Sweden it's 25. Those people will be able to find local work or move near a nearby urban area. If they were living in a rural area as insurance clerks in the first place then they don't need to relocate to San Francisco or wherever far away from their home where they'd have to pay 10 000$ a month for a dog shed to sleep in, because they won't need to apply for the jobs that only exist there, they will be content to find another job in their region. By the way, the displacement of jobs from rural regions to more urban areas is a general trend.
Well since everyone here has an opinion, I’ll give mine. When the US government tries to do a private industry job, they fail miserably. When you start talking citizens losing their jobs in the process, then it becomes chaos, and chaos is Always a byproduct of falure…
AttackFormation
Master Don Juan
I do agree that the federal government has to be minimized from being corrupt in itself on one hand, and from corrupt collusion with private corporations on the other. The CIA and Pentagon are practically crime syndicates, and then you have regulatory capture and corruption in much of the rest. I'm a left-libertarian sympathizer, but one of the things I absolutely agree with right-libertarians on is that if the government is corrupt then you can't solve a problem by giving the government more power over it (likewise if corporations are predatory like the american health insurance lobby, you can't solve a problem by giving the corporations more power either).
But the thing is, Sanders winning is likely to take steps to improve that, he is already showing a taste test of it with his anti-corruption campaign and if people show motivation for it he could go further. And the fact that universal healthcare is implemented in other countries with less corruption than the by definition corrupt healthcare system in America is proof that it can be done with the right organization strategy, watchdogs, prosecution and activism (the kinds of functions that corrupt government officials want to sabotage, dismantle or block).
Last edited:
- Status