Home
Socialism
Posted By: AntiGov
Socialism - 07/30/18 04:25 AM
Posted By: FlyinFinn
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 04:27 AM
Greed, love of force and coercion, ignorance and self aggrandizement.
Posted By: Riverotter2
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 12:08 PM
Just seen on the news 43% of Millennials are planning on quitting their jobs within two years. There where most of your free, free, free is coming from. Lazy parents and sorry schools and collages.
Posted By: seniortrap
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 12:48 PM
It started in 1935 when FDR got Social Security passed and handed out more money.
Then in 1968 LBJ transferred the money out of that fund(SS) over to the general fund.
Then in 1975 Medicare came to pass. More FREE!!!!!!
Now they scream its all going broke.
Margaret Thatcher stated, "Socialism is great until you runout of other peoples money"!
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 01:12 PM
The one's pushing it the most have little to nothing to put in the "pot" and are not wanting to work for it in the end!
Posted By: waggler
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 01:30 PM
A socialist is just a communist without a rifle.
Posted By: BigBob
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 03:22 PM
Or, any common sense!
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 03:26 PM
Posted By: nightlife
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 03:38 PM
Part I think is that a lot of those that support it are ingnorent of just what it entiles, I once had a young lady try to convince me about the virtues of socialism by describing it as increaseing personal liberty and protecting personal property ect ect and she was a bit upset when I started laughing at her and told her that she had just described capatialism to a T
I then proceeded to describe socialism to her she did not believe me and insisted I was mistaken
Sad thing is that such people will not admit they are wrong even when they have been clearly shown they are and the more they are shown how wrong they are the adimendet and down right rabid about how right they are
Lot like bunny huggers
Posted By: nightlife
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 03:41 PM
Part I think is that a lot of those that support it are ingnorent of just what it entiles, I once had a young lady try to convince me about the virtues of socialism by describing it as increaseing personal liberty and protecting personal property ect ect and she was a bit upset when I started laughing at her and told her that she had just described capatialism to a T
I then proceeded to describe socialism to her she did not believe me and insisted I was mistaken
Sad thing is that such people will not admit they are wrong even when they have been clearly shown they are and the more they are shown how wrong they are the more adimendet and down right rabid they become about how right they are
Lot like bunny huggers
Posted By: Marty B
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 04:12 PM
Posted By: Marty B
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 04:16 PM
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 04:55 PM
Many are millennials who are unemployed, in student debt, reason like a 2 year old, believe money grows on trees, don't own a business, car, house, or are married. But, still think they have all the answers to the world's problems, even though they admit they don't have a clue on foreign affairs.
Posted By: Yes sir
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 05:20 PM
We are raising a society the believes more in entitlements than freedom.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 06:00 PM
It started many years ago and slowly grew I helped manage a juvenile Academy for many years and the people straight out of collage had the idea that after graduation they were done working!
Now today with everything being automatic it has become even worse. If some were farmers we would starve waiting for someone to do the work!
Posted By: Riverotter2
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 08:19 PM
When it get down to the nut cuttin you guys going to wear the color gray this time, lol.
Posted By: Kart29
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 08:20 PM
A socialist is just a communist without a rifle.
I have to try to remember that one!
Posted By: Art S
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 08:40 PM
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 09:57 PM
A socialist is just a communist without a rifle who hasn't figured out how to take your rifle.
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:03 PM
What I don't understand is how they can run for and hold office. To hold office you have to swear an oath to our Constitution! We outlawed the communist party years ago. We kick folks out of and/or stop entry in to our military for being communist or belonging to other militias.
I can see if someone went a card carrying member being able to hold office. But if you hold the card you shouldn't be able to hold office.
Heck,. It is literally a question for entry into FBI, CIA, etc...
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:04 PM
We have a Constitution. You have to swear to uphold and protect that!
You can not be a part of the opposing force and do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: FlyinFinn
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:11 PM
It is not illegal to be a Communist. There are Communist Parties active in many states in our country.
Being a 'communist' isn't unconstitutional,. Many of the policies they may implement might be unconstitutional, but that has been the case of both Republican and Democrat parties in our near history.
Posted By: FlyinFinn
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:13 PM
Here is a link to the Indiana District of the Communist Party:
http://www.cpusa.org/authors/indiana-district/
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:15 PM
It is not illegal to be a Communist. There are Communist Parties active in many states in our country.
Being a 'communist' isn't unconstitutional,. Many of the policies they may implement might be unconstitutional, but that has been the case of both Republican and Democrat parties in our near history.
Being one is not illegal. Belonging to the "club" is not illegal.
But being the above then taking office and swearing an oath to our Constitution is! Because it a lie!!!
I'm pretty sure we did outlaw a communist party! As in dem, rep, communist
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:16 PM
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" ...
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:17 PM
And "states" are different! States have more leeway to do what they want
Posted By: virgil1972
Re: Socialism - 07/30/18 10:18 PM
I agree that many of the people don't even know what is socialism really is and means. They think you can have all that free stuff, not have high taxes, and keep your freedoms.
With how screwed up the medical industry is I may be able to support single payer health care if it was ran by each individual state and not a federal program, dont think that quite makes me a full fledged socialist though...
Posted By: upstateNY
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 12:04 AM
Free stuff paid for by the gubmint sounds just hunky dorey to those that don't realise the gubments money is actually our taxes.
Posted By: BigBob
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 12:43 AM
When it get down to the nut cuttin you guys going to wear the color gray this time, lol.
"Butternut"
Posted By: white17
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 12:43 AM
And "states" are different! States have more leeway to do what they want
Hers's the link to the national party.
http://www.cpusa.org/ You may be aware that John Brennan...Obama's head of the CIA, voted for Gus Hall in 1976. Hall was the CPUSA candidate for president. So much for control of the communists. They are alive and well all around us.
Posted By: white17
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 12:44 AM
With how screwed up the medical industry is I may be able to support single payer health care if it was ran by each individual state and not a federal program, dont think that quite makes me a full fledged socialist though...
How would you pay for it ?
Posted By: Riverotter2
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:12 AM
When it get down to the nut cuttin you guys going to wear the color gray this time, lol.
"Butternut"
OK Butternut it is. lol
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:15 AM
And "states" are different! States have more leeway to do what they want
Hers's the link to the national party.
http://www.cpusa.org/ You may be aware that John Brennan...Obama's head of the CIA, voted for Gus Hall in 1976. Hall was the CPUSA candidate for president. So much for control of the communists. They are alive and well all around us.
Yup
And he even said he was sweating that question.
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:25 AM
White
It's being made a big deal again it today's political world. His voting for communist party that is. Where it leads who knows. But one can hope that things are straightened out.
With how screwed up the medical industry is I may be able to support single payer health care if it was ran by each individual state and not a federal program, dont think that quite makes me a full fledged socialist though...
How would you pay for it ?
I will start out by saying I do not have a full understanding of the medical system, I feel if I studied it for 10 hours a day for 6 months I would have a elementary understanding of it, it is such a complex field that I think it is arrogance for most people to suggest they have all the answers on how to fix the issues in that field me included.
Now that my disclaimer is out of the way I will move on to the question. Firstly you would need to force cost down, the $30 dollar Tylenol and $629 dollar band aids cannot be allowed to go on, prices would need to be negotiated and standardized between hospitals and the state, in addition to standardized pricing which should lower cost you would also be able to cut out the billing department which at present is basically entire wings of hospitals because of the huge amount of paper work that goes along with billing all the different insurance plans. In another cost saving attempt I would limit doctors and hospitals liability, lawsuits are to common due to the emotions involved in sickness and death this drives malpractice insurance through the roof which is then passed on to other customers. Now we know the average health care cost per individual over their lifetime is 316,000 dollars which means it would cost someone about 8,000 dollars per year for 40 years to fund their health care cost for the entirety of their life, now if we went single payer I am assuming we could match other first world countries in price which is about half of our cost per person which would leave us needing to fund 4,000 per year per person. To raise that 4,000 a year medicaid could be dissolved and social security could be shrunk/diverted to health care, other state run programs could also be cut (food stamps etc).
At present my main problem is that medical cost are driven by insurance and are out of control, spending twice as much as other countries for our medical is ridiculous. If there are better ways to sort it out I am all ears.
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:36 AM
Take away congress's lifetime premium 'special' healthcare and have them get the same as everyone else and you will see some changes in what everyone else has a choice of.
Posted By: AntiGov
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:42 AM
Donner
Health care is a disaster because of government involvement
For healthcare to not be a disaster , government would have to have no involvement
Posted By: J Staton
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:43 AM
Cut insurance both private/govt out of the equation. Let the patient/doctor negotiate the price.
For healthcare to not be a disaster , government would have to have no involvement
government is providing for our general welfare
Posted By: AntiGov
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 01:50 AM
For healthcare to not be a disaster , government would have to have no involvement
government is providing for our general welfare
And yet , people still can't figure out why it's a mess
Posted By: Furvor
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 02:02 AM
Capitalism is a risk/reward system. You take the risk. You get the reward.
Socialism is a risk/reward system. You take the risk. Others get the reward.
Of course, Karl Marx never described his labor theory of value that way.
Socialism sounds too good to be true and it is not true. It assumes there is no such thing as free loaders.
Posted By: Riverotter2
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 12:49 PM
Seem like the word Socialist is always tacked onto wonderful people and their organizations.
Hitlers National Socialist German Workers Party
Lenin's Democratic Socialist Party
Carl Marx
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders -- Socialist Democrats of the good old U.S.A.
Seem like more of this Socialist crap led to more death, death death then free, free, free in the long run don't it.
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 04:49 PM
I agree that many of the people don't even know what is socialism really is and means. They think you can have all that free stuff, not have high taxes, and keep your freedoms.
And it doesn't cost anybody anything. It's the "Money Grows On Trees" fantasy.
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 05:00 PM
For healthcare to not be a disaster , government would have to have no involvement
government is providing for our general welfare
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 05:05 PM
Donner, you have it backwards. The cost of insurance is driven by the high cost of medical services. You said it yourself, $30 Tylenol, $629 band-aids, etc. How do you think that influences insurance premiums?
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 06:26 PM
Pretty sure that $30 aspirin and the $4 catchup paper cup in comes in is from the many that never pay their own bills and use the ER like a free clinic all of the time.
That meth head from the other day will end up with a bill easily over a quarter million dollars when it's over just to go out and do it again first chance they get. Never had a steady job in their life and State is paying for the kids just a never ending story.
I often wondered if coverage did not drop and the costs went up with Obummercare to keep from having to give it away if it was offered on a payed policy? Many people only see the price hike and don't consider the coverage lost at the same time as a loss. Preventive care is a shadow of what it was at one time with many basic tests and labs not being covered, 15 years ago I paid $20 for a Dr. visit and the policy coverage paid $120 now that is reversed.
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 08:19 PM
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 08:21 PM
Just like anything else. Get govt out and prices will fall. Just the paperwork alone required by govt would probably drop medical cost in half.
Then you price people based off life style and life choices they are making. Vs charging everyone the same
Posted By: gryhkl
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 08:29 PM
A big problem is that government involvement is driven by lobbyists representing interest such as the pharmaceutical industry, energy industry, mega banking industry, corporate farmers, etc............. Our elected officials are bought and paid for before they ever make it to Washington D.C.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 07/31/18 09:32 PM
Yep the big push to stop pharmaceutical drugs from Canada is not a safety issue as much as a competition problem with special interest groups, so who are they really looking out for it sure is not the little guy!
Donner, you have it backwards. The cost of insurance is driven by the high cost of medical services. You said it yourself, $30 Tylenol, $629 band-aids, etc. How do you think that influences insurance premiums?
It is a two way street, I am not a fan of Adam Ruins everything but I think this clip explains it reasonably well,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDOQpfaUc8
Posted By: Bigfoot
Re: Socialism - 08/01/18 12:30 AM
I think that it should be required for all services and pharmaceuticals priced up front and publicly posted so people can shop .
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 08/01/18 04:52 PM
Donner, you have it backwards. The cost of insurance is driven by the high cost of medical services. You said it yourself, $30 Tylenol, $629 band-aids, etc. How do you think that influences insurance premiums?
It is a two way street, I am not a fan of Adam Ruins everything but I think this clip explains it reasonably well, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDOQpfaUc8
You really base your opinion on a TV reality show? The way this reality show explains discounts allotted to insurance companies doesn't happen. Insurance companies set maximum payments on procedures for all doctors and hospitals unless there are extenuating circumstances. They do this to try to hold insurance costs down. Common sense indicates that insurance companies aren't a charity as some think they should be. But, like any other business, they are in business to make a profit.
Posted By: hippie
Re: Socialism - 08/01/18 05:02 PM
Seem like the word Socialist is always tacked onto wonderful people and their organizations.
Hitlers National Socialist German Workers Party
Lenin's Democratic Socialist Party
Carl Marx
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders -- Socialist Democrats of the good old U.S.A.
Seem like more of this Socialist crap led to more death, death death then free, free, free in the long run don't it.
LOL, have you ever listened to that ocasio-Cortez woman? WOW WOW WOW!
And to think, the DNC says she's the new face of their party! lol
I did notice that after he interview with M. Hoover on PBS, they musta told her to sit in the corner until november.
Posted By: Furvor
Re: Socialism - 08/01/18 06:48 PM
The more 'aid' is given the more aid seekers will flock to the area. It's like trying to plug a leaking dike with your finger. Best current examples are California, the U.S./Mexico border, and the Afro rush overwhelming European countries. Folks assume its easier to move to where milk and honey are almost free than to fix their homeland governments.
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/01/18 07:23 PM
When the well runs dry there will be quite the dilemma in Europe and America.....
[/quote]"You really base your opinion on a TV reality show? The way this reality show explains discounts allotted to insurance companies doesn't happen. Insurance companies set maximum payments on procedures for all doctors and hospitals unless there are extenuating circumstances. They do this to try to hold insurance costs down. Common sense indicates that insurance companies aren't a charity as some think they should be. But, like any other business, they are in business to make a profit."[/quote]
I wrote a pretty detailed post to which I received a few one sentence replies, in my follow up to these one sentence replies I put a clip to a show that I said was not very good, now you are accusing me of basing my opinion off of said clip, no you want a worth while reply respond in more detail to my original post, maybe give solutions not just critique.
Any industry that depends on insurance will have high rates, get a quote on having roofing or siding done, now get quotes after a storm when your insurance is going to pay for it and you will notice they are much higher than if you had to pay out of pocket, this same thing happens in medical, you have to be daft not to see that.
Posted By: Bigfoot
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 12:40 AM
I had 8o% insurance when I we had our youngest son . My brother in law had cash in hand and price shopped a little when they had their daughter three years after my son . we compaired money spent and he payed $800 more than my 20% I had to pay out of pocket . They had much better care with a single room . Any insurance that isn't 100% is a jip because they charge so much more if your insured .
Posted By: upstateNY
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 12:57 AM
I would like a bunch of free stuff.
I had 8o% insurance when I we had our youngest son . My brother in law had cash in hand and price shopped a little when they had their daughter three years after my son . we compaired money spent and he payed $800 more than my 20% I had to pay out of pocket . They had much better care with a single room . Any insurance that isn't 100% is a jip because they charge so much more if your insured .
This is every industry that insurance is part of, I do not expect insurance to run as a charity but when our healthcare is double most first world nations something is wrong.
Posted By: Osky
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 02:29 AM
I had 8o% insurance when I we had our youngest son . My brother in law had cash in hand and price shopped a little when they had their daughter three years after my son . we compaired money spent and he payed $800 more than my 20% I had to pay out of pocket . They had much better care with a single room . Any insurance that isn't 100% is a jip because they charge so much more if your insured .
This is every industry that insurance is part of, I do not expect insurance to run as a charity but when our healthcare is double most first world nations something is wrong.
How many of those first world nations have tort reform? Or a version thereof?
Osky
Posted By: white17
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 02:35 AM
Is there really another first world nation ??
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 02:36 AM
I would like a bunch of free stuff.
Let me know if that works out and I will join ya.
Posted By: Ringneck1
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 03:08 AM
Great topic.
Because it seems so easy. Much easier than acquiring skill and working and taking risk and all that entails.
IMO politicians are to blame, FDR to begin with because the new deal enabled the mindset. But also, parents. How many times have we heard a teary eyed parent lament that they don't want their kid to struggle like they did. So overcompensation occurs and kids are not prepared to struggle. Then when the bottom falls out the only answer is life is not fair and gov't needs to equalize the outcome. I've been guilty of that myself - but that struggle thing, that's critical to learning how to succeed. Kids today can't fail and learn, it's fail and quit.
Generally speaking of course.
Posted By: Boco
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 03:34 AM
The young socialists are sort of like hippies,they like the carefree bohemian lifestyle.
Posted By: AntiGov
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 04:00 AM
One key point I believe is that those in our society that support socialism or socialistic programs is that they have absolutely no comprehension of the end game.
Is there really another first world nation ??
is that a serious question? Australia, every Nordic country, Canada...
Posted By: 3 Fingers
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 08:20 AM
I think AntiGov says it right about the end game. How many times have people set up small scale “communes “ with pie in the sky ideals? They always fail.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 01:21 PM
One key point I believe is that those in our society that support socialism or socialistic programs is that they have absolutely no comprehension of the end game.
That's the majority of the world really most people struggle to see past their own noses let alone looking 3 steps ahead today. The lions share consume and have little clue where it all comes from, only a few produce what we all need.
One key point I believe is that those in our society that support socialism or socialistic programs is that they have absolutely no comprehension of the end game.
I think the same can be said for libertarians.
One key point I believe is that those in our society that support socialism or socialistic programs is that they have absolutely no comprehension of the end game.
That's the majority of the world really most people struggle to see past their own noses let alone looking 3 steps ahead today. The lions share consume and have little clue where it all comes from, only a few produce what we all need.
The socialist thinking is that it is unfair that somebody had an idea first and capitalized on it or taking someone else's idea, making it better and taking all the reward. The whole "You didn't build that."
Posted By: Catch22
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 03:03 PM
One key point I believe is that those in our society that support socialism or socialistic programs is that they have absolutely no comprehension of the end game.
I think the same can be said for libertarians.
Sure it can be said, don't mean it's accurate lol.
Posted By: wetdog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 03:06 PM
I think the same can be said for libertarians.
Sure it can be said, don't mean it's accurate lol.
The libertarian end game has already played out in this country in the 1800s, a few huge players end up owning everything with the majority living in poverty. There needs to be some government controls that prevent monopolies and insane amounts of wealth inequality that result in rich and poor classes with little middle class.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 03:53 PM
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 04:22 PM
I had 8o% insurance when I we had our youngest son . My brother in law had cash in hand and price shopped a little when they had their daughter three years after my son . we compaired money spent and he payed $800 more than my 20% I had to pay out of pocket . They had much better care with a single room . Any insurance that isn't 100% is a jip because they charge so much more if your insured .
This is every industry that insurance is part of, I do not expect insurance to run as a charity but when our healthcare is double most first world nations something is wrong.
Then why do we have so many people coming to America for our healthcare? It's because it's the best in the world and for some it's free and these are the ones who use it for the tiniest malady.
Keep in mind that when you are catering to people who are getting free healthcare, somebody's got to pay for it. It will drive the cost of healthcare higher which will make insurance rates go up as well.
Then why do we have so many people coming to America for our healthcare? It's because it's the best in the world and for some it's free and these are the ones who use it for the tiniest malady.
Keep in mind that when you are catering to people who are getting free healthcare, somebody's got to pay for it. It will drive the cost of healthcare higher which will make insurance rates go up as well.
To be fair many Americans are also going overseas or to Mexico for cheaper healthcare because they cannot afford it here even with insurance. I have stated I am all ears if someone has a solution for healthcare in our country but first we need to accept certain aspects of it (price) are not working. Simply stating the GOVT is the problem with healthcare may be partially true but to think GOVT involvement is the only thing driving cost is a poor assumption.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 06:27 PM
You don't see Bernie giving up his wealth do you? LOL Ponzi scam is all it is, your still going to have the haves and the have nots just more of the have nots if hard work will get you nothing more then the guys not willing to work. Just a big incentive killer.
Libertarians talk a good game and somehow free range people will get it all done but never have I heard how all that gets done and by who yet?
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 06:31 PM
There are a few around here who still have Bernie bumper stickers on their vehicles. they are pretty much well intentioned morons.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 06:36 PM
Healthcare only cost the people that have worked for something that they are not willing to lose, if you have nothing to your name you will get all of the healthcare you need and never have to pay for it! If you have no property, savings or credit to worry about your in the free healthcare business and can use the ER like a office visit.
Run up all of the bills you want we don't have debtors prisons any more, they will just file a lean on future incomes or transactions they might recoup money from. Piece of cake drink do drugs and smoke all you want your still getting it for free!
Posted By: Trapper7
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 07:41 PM
Then why do we have so many people coming to America for our healthcare? It's because it's the best in the world and for some it's free and these are the ones who use it for the tiniest malady.
Keep in mind that when you are catering to people who are getting free healthcare, somebody's got to pay for it. It will drive the cost of healthcare higher which will make insurance rates go up as well.
To be fair many Americans are also going overseas or to Mexico for cheaper healthcare because they cannot afford it here even with insurance. I have stated I am all ears if someone has a solution for healthcare in our country but first we need to accept certain aspects of it (price) are not working. Simply stating the GOVT is the problem with healthcare may be partially true but to think GOVT involvement is the only thing driving cost is a poor assumption.
Most of those going to Mexico are going because they don't have healthcare or are being baited by some new miracle drug that will cure their ailment. Steve McQueen is a good example to Mexico for a drug made from apricot seeds. Research later learned that this was all a hoax.
Part of the reason for the crazy prices are too much free healthcare, pharmaceutical companies charging exorbitant prices stating research costs, etc.
How do you think hospitals, doctors and insurance companies are supposed to make up for the government-mandated free healthcare? Low income people that qualify can get Medical Assistance (MA). It covers everything from a stubbed toe to open heart surgery. I know a single mother who is on it. She has gone into emergency for things like morning sickness, cut finger, headaches, bloody nose, etc. I have health insurance. I've never gone in for any of those things. Know why she does? Answer: Because it's free!
The single payer system or government-run healthcare isn't the answer. Just look at the mess government has made with medicare and social security. Social security is one of the poorest returns on an investment system ever seen and yet it seems every year we keep hearing about how it's about to go broke and how they can't give a cost of living increase because the money isn't there this year.
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 08:59 PM
Covered under Medicaid!
Posted By: upstateNY
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 09:06 PM
I would like a bunch of free stuff.
Let me know if that works out and I will join ya.
LOL I cant afford any more free stuff.
Posted By: ol' dad
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 09:07 PM
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
I must have forgotten what amendment it was that grants people the right to free healthcare.
ol'dad
There are a few around here who still have Bernie bumper stickers on their vehicles. they are pretty much well intentioned morons.
Yeah, and they are all connected to the dang college down there Marty. They are teaching our kids the wrong things.....and have been for many years. Years of indoctrination from lib professors that we have not been able to combat. And every year it starts earlier in our school systems. We need a plan to take our education system away from these jackwads!
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 09:59 PM
There are a few around here who still have Bernie bumper stickers on their vehicles. they are pretty much well intentioned morons.
Yeah, and they are all connected to the dang college down there Marty. They are teaching our kids the wrong things.....and have been for many years. Years of indoctrination from lib professors that we have not been able to combat. And every year it starts earlier in our school systems. We need a plan to take our education system away from these jackwads!
Home school
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/02/18 10:03 PM
What I hate is you drive by a hospital and all them dead people piled up outside that could not be seen for no insurance! Oh wait come to think of it I have never seen that, Never mind. LOL
Posted By: seniortrap
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 01:13 PM
brianmall: Since its passing, it has never been enforced due to the weakness of the party, but still remains a law, never ruled unconstitutional or repealed.
Its still illegal to have here. But as usual, the D.C. politicians won't do much of anything at all times. Maybe too many communists in there (Democrats)??????
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
I must have forgotten what amendment it was that grants people the right to free healthcare.
ol'dad
Again, what is the realistic solution? Remember we need to get enough people to vote in representatives to pass that solution, so what are we to do to fix this?
Posted By: hippie
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 04:40 PM
No one is denied healthcare in the U.S. Donner, so get that out of your head.
Hospitals here have this posted on their doors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
I never said anyone was did I? I said healthcare is to expensive the replies to that were "to many people us it for free" I understand and agree with that, my question is then so what are we going to do to get prices under control? Are we going to start denying health care to those who cant afford it? Are we going to let people die outside of hospitals? Obviously that is not going to happen so again what is the solution? How do we make healthcare affordable? I truly do not like government involvement so give me a good answer and I will switch sides in a second but first I need to know how to fix the problem of unaffordable healthcare.
Posted By: hippie
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 05:18 PM
Maybe i misunderstood your statement, "Denying healthcare to single poor single mothers who can't pay is not a realistic solution".
Denying healthcare i don't see happening in the U.S. ever.
Maybe i misunderstood your statement, "Denying healthcare to single poor single mothers who can't pay is not a realistic solution".
Denying healthcare i don't see happening in the U.S. ever.
As long as we let women vote we are going to have health care for all, I can guarantee it. So my question is how do we make it affordable? Right now people are basically forced into jobs that they hate simply because it is the only way to afford health insurance. If you have a family and some savings you cannot quit your job to start a business because your family will lose health insurance, farmers have to work a off the job farm just to afford health insurance, the prices for medical care are outrageous and we need to get them under control otherwise we will become equivalent to coal miners of old paying in scrip at the company store and never being able to afford to leave.
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 05:39 PM
The 'poor' woman on welfare not only gets more $ by having another kid that she can not afford to raise but the whole hospital bill is paid for by the taxpayer...kid is raised on taxpayer $....food, housing, clothes, medical expenses, and the list goes on.
Posted By: Kart29
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 05:48 PM
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
The way you phrase it "denying health care to poor single mothers..." makes it sound like somebody desires to prevent somebody else from getting healthcare. It makes it sound like the people in authority have a free will choice to decide who gets health care and who doesn't. I disagree with the very foundational concept that it is within the power of government or society to determine to whom they will grant health care services and to whom they will not. That's just starting off from a wrong foundation - which is where most of our society typically is.
"Ugly truth, freedom rings". Nobody deserves health care. If I or anyone else wants healthcare we should be free to go buy it at our own expense. We should not expect anyone else to buy it for us.
I will guarantee you that part of the reason we have so many single-parent families and children born outside of marriage is because our society has ameliorated most of the negative consequences of making babies outside of marriage. If it weren't for welfare programs, women would be much more reluctant to have babies without a committed husband. And maybe boys would grow start growing up to be real men if they weren't getting all the milk for free.
I'm very much in favor of charity and taking care of the widows, orphans, and other needy. But handling this through the force of government is morally wrong. It's just flat WRONG. There's nothing honorable about it any way. When we as a society do things that are WRONG, there are negative consequences.
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 05:51 PM
Man living in the house = not as much government $.
Having unwed babies is a profession in some places.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 05:54 PM
I don't think anybody would have a problem with these programs but it's the rampant abuse of the system many people have a problem with! Welfare in many places is a career now and it taught as a way of life. Many won't improve themselves for fear of losing the free stuff what a cycle of thinking that must be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JG71gZjzz4
Posted By: white17
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 06:02 PM
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
The way you phrase it "denying health care to poor single mothers..." makes it sound like somebody desires to prevent somebody else from getting healthcare. It makes it sound like the people in authority have a free will choice to decide who gets health care and who doesn't. I disagree with the very foundational concept that it is within the power of government or society to determine to whom they will grant health care services and to whom they will not. That's just starting off from a wrong foundation - which is where most of our society typically is.
"Ugly truth, freedom rings". Nobody deserves health care. If I or anyone else wants healthcare we should be free to go buy it at our own expense. We should not expect anyone else to buy it for us.
I will guarantee you that part of the reason we have so many single-parent families and children born outside of marriage is because our society has ameliorated most of the negative consequences of making babies outside of marriage. If it weren't for welfare programs, women would be much more reluctant to have babies without a committed husband. And maybe boys would grow start growing up to be real men if they weren't getting all the milk for free.
I'm very much in favor of charity and taking care of the widows, orphans, and other needy. But handling this through the force of government is morally wrong. It's just flat WRONG. There's nothing honorable about it any way. When we as a society do things that are WRONG, there are negative consequences.
X2 Well said !
Posted By: wetdog
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 06:07 PM
Do the math on free health care for all.
They say 30 trillion over 10 years
360 million people in the us
The math says 8200$ for everyone to get free health care a year
Now take out the kids who are not old enough to work,disabled people,and career bums(protester's)
Now the working class will have to pay appoxamitly
30,000$ each to provide health care for all
And that's just the health care for a year
Add in free schools
No thanks I will pay my bill you pay yours
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
The way you phrase it "denying health care to poor single mothers..." makes it sound like somebody desires to prevent somebody else from getting healthcare. It makes it sound like the people in authority have a free will choice to decide who gets health care and who doesn't. I disagree with the very foundational concept that it is within the power of government or society to determine to whom they will grant health care services and to whom they will not. That's just starting off from a wrong foundation - which is where most of our society typically is.
"Ugly truth, freedom rings". Nobody deserves health care. If I or anyone else wants healthcare we should be free to go buy it at our own expense. We should not expect anyone else to buy it for us.
I will guarantee you that part of the reason we have so many single-parent families and children born outside of marriage is because our society has ameliorated most of the negative consequences of making babies outside of marriage. If it weren't for welfare programs, women would be much more reluctant to have babies without a committed husband. And maybe boys would grow start growing up to be real men if they weren't getting all the milk for free.
I'm very much in favor of charity and taking care of the widows, orphans, and other needy. But handling this through the force of government is morally wrong. It's just flat WRONG. There's nothing honorable about it any way. When we as a society do things that are WRONG, there are negative consequences.
I agree with pretty much all of what you said, I dont even want women to vote because I feel they tend to favor the collective over individual rights, or they favor the collective "humans" over their country people. However I also do not feel that it is right if your kid falls off his bike and breaks his leg and he has a simple surgery and a night in the hospital that it should warrant a bill that is the equivalent the average price of a house that takes most people 30 years to pay for. I do not want to see people forced into being corporate wage slaves just to afford health insurance for their family, we need to get medical prices under control and the only way I can see that happening is with single payer.
My phrasing of "Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution." was meant to be read exactly as it was written, it is not a realistic option because of the feelings of the voting populace, it was not meant to convey my personal feelings on the subject.
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 06:38 PM
You would be shocked the amount of aid one family can consume in their lifetime it is in the millions for some and in the end they still have nothing and is just passing on the lifestyle to many of their children to continue the tradition.
You would be shocked the amount of aid one family can consume in their lifetime it is in the millions for some and in the end they still have nothing and is just passing on the lifestyle to many of their children to continue the tradition.
The last couple years of his life my step brother used millions of dollars of public assistance, mainly rehab/halfway house type programs which are incredibly expensive. In the end he died as you would expect a addict to. It is unfortunate we cannot put our loser drunks/addicts on the "America boat" like Europe used to. As harsh as it is part of my would be fine with the Filipino method of just shooting drug dealers.
Do the math on free health care for all.
They say 30 trillion over 10 years
360 million people in the us
The math says 8200$ for everyone to get free health care a year
Now take out the kids who are not old enough to work,disabled people,and career bums(protester's)
Now the working class will have to pay appoxamitly
30,000$ each to provide health care for all
And that's just the health care for a year
Add in free schools
No thanks I will pay my bill you pay yours
In countries with similar levels of care the cost are around $4,000 per year. That is my problem, we need cost to get under control because right now it is obscene, I would gladly trade state sponsored indoctrination errr "education" for state sponsored health care if that was a option.
Posted By: white17
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 07:43 PM
Why would you think state sponsored health care would turn out any better than state sponsored education ?
Posted By: Law Dog
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 07:46 PM
In some cases the guy buying a new boat or gun won't go in for a check up because it cost so much! LOL
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
Bring back the draft. Medical professionals that become government property will treat those without insurance. They would not treat those who have insurance through their employers or those that can afford insurance themselves.
Those without insurance would be subject to extreme getting to get on military bases for treatment but a small price to pay for free healthcare.
Why would you think state sponsored health care would turn out any better than state sponsored education ?
Because of potential indoctrination the state should never be allowed to control mandatory education, in addition not everyone has children that will use the education system, a man who chooses to not have kids should not be taxed to pay for the education of a man who sired 12 kids. Education is also not something that is needed at a moments notice, you will not die if you do not sign on the dotted line because you need education, you have time to evaluate your options and make choices accordingly and within your budget. With advances in technology it is very possibly to gain a education from home using the internet, those who value education could still gain a quality education even if they were low income simply by going to class online.
Everyone uses health care and due to the nature of needing to immediately address a injury you do not have time to evaluate your choices, you may not even be conscious, this allows a very predatory pricing model to be exploited by predatory corporate interest which help to drive prices towards unaffordability.
I am all ears if you have solutions to fixing health care provided they are realistic. Denying health care to poor single mothers who cannot pay is not a realistic solution.
Bring back the draft. Medical professionals that become government property will treat those without insurance. They would not treat those who have insurance through their employers or those that can afford insurance themselves.
Those without insurance would be subject to extreme getting to get on military bases for treatment but a small price to pay for free healthcare.
Yikes.
You will get better care than price controlling when the quality medical professionals lockout government care.
You will get better care than price controlling when the quality medical professionals lockout government care.
Have medical professionals been able to successfully lockout government anywhere single payer has been instituted? Medical professionals and their pay is not the driving force behind medical cost, it is administration and corporate interest that are the driving forces of cost.
You don't think the best doctors are only going to service those that can pay?
Or
Are you talking about the government mandating that they service everyone and take whatever the government is paying?
My father-in-law is the mechanic the mechanics take their cars to. He works on cars based on who can pay. Turns away folks all the time. Does the government need to jump in that and make him work on everybody's car regardless if they can afford it or not?
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 10:09 PM
Saying that someone should die because they are financially challenged is a touchy topic.
Nobody saying that. I'm talking about people being ok with the government forcing someone to use their talent.
Which would be fine if they were the property of the government, not in the public sector.
Nobody saying that. I'm talking about people being ok with the government forcing someone to use their talent.
Which would be fine if they were the property of the government, not in the public sector.
You are the only one talking about forcing people to labor against their will. If a doctor does not want to work under a single payer system he does not have to, he can quit and we will replace him with another doctor. If we run low on doctors who do not want to work I am sure we can find some from overseas who would gladly gain residence and work as doctors in the U.S.
Posted By: Marty
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 10:39 PM
Seems to me that the whole health care system here is in need of overhaul. I do not know enough about what would work best but I can see how what we have is working.
Seems like there is lots of abuse by bottom feeders and not enough help for honest, hard workers.
Nobody saying that. I'm talking about people being ok with the government forcing someone to use their talent.
Which would be fine if they were the property of the government, not in the public sector.
You are the only one talking about forcing people to labor against their will. If a doctor does not want to work under a single payer system he does not have to, he can quit and we will replace him with another doctor. If we run low on doctors who do not want to work I am sure we can find some from overseas who would gladly gain residence and work as doctors in the U.S.
So you can't be a doctor in a single payer system and work for a private individual?
What is your trade?
Posted By: seniortrap
Re: Socialism - 08/03/18 11:03 PM
Donnersurvivor:
If a doctor does not want to work under a single payer system he does not have to, he can quit and we will replace him with another doctor. If we run low on doctors who do not want to work I am sure we can find some from overseas who would gladly gain residence and work as doctors in the U.S.
When was the last time you talked to an American doctor????
Posted By: Boco
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 12:23 AM
Maybe a Mexican doctor.
So you can't be a doctor in a single payer system and work for a private individual?
What is your trade?
I think I originally misunderstood what you were trying to say. Of course some doctors could and would remain in the private sector, some people have this notion that if we went single payer there would be a lack of doctors, I dont see that being a problem.
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 12:41 AM
Them DEM's have a plan on how to pay for all this!
Tax us at 90% and defund our military
Posted By: brianmall
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 12:42 AM
That's no joke!
It's been mentioned by two up and coming socialist and one career Dem in the last month
Posted By: Nelly
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 12:58 AM
So you can't be a doctor in a single payer system and work for a private individual?
What is your trade?
I think I originally misunderstood what you were trying to say. Of course some doctors could and would remain in the private sector, some people have this notion that if we went single payer there would be a lack of doctors, I dont see that being a problem.
Reminds me of an old song lyric. "The doctor said he's coming, but you got to pay in cash "
So you can't be a doctor in a single payer system and work for a private individual?
What is your trade?
I think I originally misunderstood what you were trying to say. Of course some doctors could and would remain in the private sector, some people have this notion that if we went single payer there would be a lack of doctors, I dont see that being a problem.
There will be a shortage of quality doctors. Single payer system and you may very well be going to see muddyriverdog or whatever his handle is. He believes anybody can be a doctor.
Whether you want to believe it or not money is why most doctors are doctors.
If you are smart enough to be a doctor you are smart enough to do just about anything, and most will when there is not much of a living being a doctor.
Again I do not see doctors salary as being the primary driver of medical care cost, there is no reason they could not continue to receive very large salaries.
Posted By: Nelly
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 01:26 AM
If you are smart enough to be a doctor you are smart enough to just about anything, and most will when there is not much of a living being a doctor.
Yep. If you're bright enough to be a doctor, you're bright enough to know that lawsuits are where the real money is in the medical field. May as well go to law school.
Again I do not see doctors salary as being the primary driver of medical care cost, there is no reason they could not continue to receive very large salaries.
Ok
Posted By: white17
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 03:07 PM
Again I do not see doctors salary as being the primary driver of medical care cost, there is no reason they could not continue to receive very large salaries.
What do you think is the main driver of costs ?
I don't see doctors choosing to work for the feds when they could be in private practice. Consequently, that would mean that the government would have to quasi-force doctors into government service or out of private practice. I can see that happening by laws that limit what a doctor can charge or who he can see. Doesn't Canada have a similar set-up now...or used to. Seems to me, I remember reading that there is a two-tiered medical system in Canada. One system for government big wigs and hockey professionals, and another system for everyone else.
I bet you lunch he will say those evil pill companies that should be doing research for free.
Again I do not see doctors salary as being the primary driver of medical care cost, there is no reason they could not continue to receive very large salaries.
Ok
Hobbie, I think he may be somewhat correct. Ask a doctor what he pays in malpractice insurance premiums. It won't take much math to discover who is getting rich.
· 8+ years of medical school
· the cost of building a private practice
· staffing that practice with educated people
· buying/leasing state-of-the-art diagnostic/procedural equipment
Add all of that up. Then pay for malpractice insurance premiums and try to work a job where you are legally/ethically compelled to be available 24/7. And having your patients and friends armchair QB every decision you make... Doing everything right and still have people die under your care...
I'm not sure I could be persuaded to do it for 200K a year take-home.
Mike
And for what it's worth... I am NOT advocating for any government-run health care system.
There is no simple solution to solve all of the problems associated with medical care. Any solution to one variable will likely magnify the problems associated with one or more of the other variables.
Mike
Your post suggest that the government could cap malpractice payouts immediately impacting costs.
Reducing eduction cost could possibly bring to light great doctors that couldn't afford to attend.
A couple wins right there, that could easily be remedied with a draft.
I'm not sure increasing government involvement is the answer to reducing government involvement.
The cost will still be there. It will just be redirected to a different place.
Mike
Again I do not see doctors salary as being the primary driver of medical care cost, there is no reason they could not continue to receive very large salaries.
What do you think is the main driver of costs ?
I dont think looking at the main driver of cost is as important as looking at ways we can save on cost. Currently entire wings of hospitals are devoted to administration and billing due to the complexity of hundreds of different insurance options, single payer would axe these cost, malpractice insurance and legal cost are also enormous, when you deal with something as complex as a human mistakes will happen and we need to have a way to protect against them but allowing every emotional person who is upset about losing someone to drag a doctor or hospital into court is also a factor we can deal with by offering broader civil protections. Drug prices are another obvious problem, of course drug companies need to remain profitable so research can continue but do we need to offer such long patent protections on drugs? A EPI pen contains a few cents worth of epinephrine in a device that makes it quickly and easily deployable it is not exactly ground breaking technology yet due to the patent they charge $300 dollars for a device that without patent protection would likely cost $30 dollars, I see no reason we should continue to protect the monopoly of epi pens with a patent after this much time. Of course patients not paying for care is another reason for rising cost, I just fail to see how we protect against this.
I bet you lunch he will say those evil pill companies that should be doing research for free.
Have I given you the impression that I am a dye in the wool commie who drank the kool aid and now spews the official talking points? Or do I seem to be presenting what I know/believe in good faith asking for others opinions in a effort to gain knowledge to either change or solidify my opinion?
Donner is there any other industry where you can NOT pay and still receive products or services?
(I'm not picking on you, but you brought up a good point of how we protect from that)
Mike
Donner is there any other industry where you can NOT pay and still receive products or services?
(I'm not picking on you, but you brought up a good point of how we protect from that)
Mike
Not to my knowledge or at least nothing that immediately comes to mind. I do think we have to be aware of the unique problems health care has when we attempt to compare it to other goods and services though.
As far as the Epi-Pen debacle... I agree. It's ridiculous. The epinephrine can't be patented, only the delivery mechanism can.
If someone can't develop a delivery device that doesn't infringe, but can compete, with what is already on the market we have some serious problems ahead of us.
If someone could invent a competitive product and market it at a much lower cost they would be a millionaire overnight.
Mike
Posted By: virgil1972
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 04:36 PM
If you want to see how single payer works look at the VA hospitals. Look at how it is in Canada with the wait times.
As far as the Epi-Pen debacle... I agree. It's ridiculous. The epinephrine can't be patented, only the delivery mechanism can.
If someone can't develop a delivery device that doesn't infringe, but can compete, with what is already on the market we have some serious problems ahead of us.
If someone could invent a competitive product and market it at a much lower cost they would be a millionaire overnight.
Mike
I freely admit I do not have all the answers and I would be happy to change my views if someone had a better way to lower cost. As of now health insurance is becoming the new "scrip", people are tied to their jobs because losing that job or starting your own business would mean losing your insurances. As Americans we love and promote freedom but if you are only left with the freedom to make bad decisions that being quit your job and lose your insurance or stay in a job you hate to keep your family protected then we need to reevaluate what is going on because being stuck in jobs that offer insurance is not freedom.
If you want to see how single payer works look at the VA hospitals. Look at how it is in Canada with the wait times.
Or look at Japan who has first rate health care and has been single payer since the 60s.
Donner is there any other industry where you can NOT pay and still receive products or services?
(I'm not picking on you, but you brought up a good point of how we protect from that)
Mike
Not to my knowledge or at least nothing that immediately comes to mind. I do think we have to be aware of the unique problems health care has when we attempt to compare it to other goods and services though.
What does the law state as far as providing health care to someone regardless of ability to pay? Common sense would tell me that it only applies to situations of immediate danger to life and health.
I don't have an issue with that.
But there must be some incentive for the person who receives that care to provide some sort of compensation for services rendered. As far as I know, turning any outstanding bills over for collection is the only choice most caregivers have.
Mike
What does the law state as far as providing health care to someone regardless of ability to pay? Common sense would tell me that it only applies to situations of immediate danger to life and health.
I don't have an issue with that.
Mike
Hospitals must stabilize patients with life or limb threatening injuries regardless of ability to pay at the present.
If you want to see how single payer works look at the VA hospitals. Look at how it is in Canada with the wait times.
Or look at Japan who has first rate health care and has been single payer since the 60s.
I would add that Japanese culture plays a great amount into any success they have with their system.
There are always exceptions. But as a rule, personal accountability is a big deal amongst the Japanese people.
Cultural norms can't be excluded as a variable.
Mike
I bet you lunch he will say those evil pill companies that should be doing research for free.
Have I given you the impression that I am a dye in the wool commie who drank the kool aid and now spews the official talking points? Or do I seem to be presenting what I know/believe in good faith asking for others opinions in a effort to gain knowledge to either change or solidify my opinion?
I would say mostly the latter, my apologies sir.
Donner is there any other industry where you can NOT pay and still receive products or services?
(I'm not picking on you, but you brought up a good point of how we protect from that)
Mike
Not to my knowledge or at least nothing that immediately comes to mind. I do think we have to be aware of the unique problems health care has when we attempt to compare it to other goods and services though.
Credit card companies come to mind. They are shafted all the time and absorb that sting by charging low scorers higher interest rates.
I would add that Japanese culture plays a great amount into any success they have with their system.
There are always exceptions. But as a rule, personal accountability is a big deal amongst the Japanese people.
Cultural norms can't be excluded as a variable.
Mike
This is undoubtedly true, this is also why I said I would prefer a single payer system ran by the individual states as we have different politics etc throughout the country and keeping things "closer to home" would help alleviate tension and allow alterations within each system that better suited the populace.
Can't really do that as some states would end up with all the givers and others all the takers and the fed would have to bail the taker states out.
Poor city folks rarely physically move out of their living situation. These are the folks using the healthcare system more often than those taking care of themselves because they have much to live for.
In addition I feel it is constitutionally sound for the individual states to set up programs such as health care but it from my understanding it would be a illegal overreach if the feds did it.
I would add that Japanese culture plays a great amount into any success they have with their system.
There are always exceptions. But as a rule, personal accountability is a big deal amongst the Japanese people.
Cultural norms can't be excluded as a variable.
Mike
This is undoubtedly true, this is also why I said I would prefer a single payer system ran by the individual states as we have different politics etc throughout the country and keeping things "closer to home" would help alleviate tension and allow alterations within each system that better suited the populace.
Japanese children tend to be grounded in reality from an early age...
https://youtu.be/hL5mKE4e4uUMike
Posted By: tjm
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 07:30 PM
As long as doctors medical equipment manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies can be sued the costs of medical treatment will remain high, doesn't make any difference who pays.
I guess generally the insurance companies write the court mandated check, then they pass that cost and the legal and admin cost associated with it down to the insured provider who in turn adds on an admin cost and splits it up among the the patients.
Upfront cost bidding and publicly posted rates would possible only if indemnity waivers were included and insurance payment excluded.
The mere fact that insurance companies never pay the billed amount causes the providers to double or quadruple the amount billed so that after the insurance cuts the bill in half the provider still gets paid something.
Posted By: Furvor
Re: Socialism - 08/04/18 11:04 PM
Rejecting socialism in not anti social.
Posted By: Dirt
Re: Socialism - 08/06/18 03:58 PM
How many of you anti-socialist sentenced your children to a free government operated (communism) school?
Posted By: tjm
Re: Socialism - 08/06/18 05:19 PM
There are no anti socialists, just some government dependents don't realize they are dependent. Almost any one that posts here is taking advantage of some socialist government subsidized electricity and the food you ate very likely was transported over socialist government provided roads. If you are attacked or your house burgled most of you will immediately call the socialist police to rescue you.
Two kinds of people in the world, anarchists and socialists. Since you guys ain't in jail for blowing stuff up it must be that we are all socialists on this forum. Just maybe in varying degrees.
When you sold you goods, you took payment in socialist money, eh? Not even real socialist money but fiat socialist money.
Posted By: Dirt
Re: Socialism - 08/06/18 05:40 PM
Problem is the modern socialist utopias are massively debt ridden,which leads to insane economic policies to keep their ships from sinking.
Posted By: tjm
Re: Socialism - 08/06/18 06:10 PM
Sure, I get that and all debt funded economic policies are insane. Time for the anarchists to rise?
Trouble with this country may be we haven't had any wars that we were invested in emotionally since 1865. We have become a complacent nation go along and get along?
Posted By: Dirt
Re: Socialism - 08/06/18 09:41 PM
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution were not anarchist. They wrote a document that gave the government limited powers.