Tech Support Guy banner

How to vote in the next election?

  • Vote Trump and destroy the economy and our society

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Vote Hard Core Socialist Democrat and destroy the economy and our society

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Vote for a moderate Independent that's pragmatic

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Don't vote

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Walk Away

    Votes: 0 0.0%

The Hard Core Democrat Socialists vs Trump

19K views 383 replies 9 participants last post by  Johnny b 
#1 ·
Something to worry about, if the mentality of the left wins out in the next election.
Warren wants accumulated wealth to be taxed.
AOC wants a top 70% tax .

Some choice.
On the right, a dictatorial fascist, intent on destroying an economy and a society, on the left, socialists intent on destroying our economic model for failed socialism which is a societal killer in and of itself.

The rich should get ready for Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-...r-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-165057651.html

There are serious problems with the "wealth tax" on millionaires and billionaires that Sen. Elizabeth Warren says would raise nearly $3 trillion.

Since the tax would target wealth rather than income, the government would have to value the assets of wealthy households.

Warren's wealth tax would impose an annual 2% surtax on wealth above $50 million, and a 3% surtax on wealth above $1 billion.
That's an annual, repetitive tax. Think that will keep serious investing within the US?
Not likely!
Investment money goes where it's most appreciated. Just common sense.

But can it happen?
Some details to consider:

3 problems with Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-problems-with-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-191056473.html

And if Warren doesn't get the nod, there's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( AOC )
(in above link)
And of course Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has floated the idea of raising the top marginal tax rate, now 37%, to as high as 70%.
Corruption is and always been the major problem that needs to be addressed, imo,
It's simply getting worse.
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
You are not helping Johnny b,
Are you a troll?
As much as I loath Trump, I am not ready to call him a fascist.
One of the biggest problems with America, is the idea that anyone can "make it" there. This leads to a reluctance to increase taxes on the wealthy because people want to believe that IF they get wealthy, then they would like to be able to keep that wealth for themselves.
Another problem is the legacy of the cold war: we were told that Communisim is bad, and so now we cannot accept the value of some "socialist" systems in our society.
The US military is essentially a government run socialist enterprise, and yet few call it that or complain about it.

The USA has so many problems that could be solved if they were to look elsewhere in the world for how other countries do things better for solutions.
Why not have single payer heathcare like the rest of the world?
Why not have WELL REGULATED gun ownership like they do in countries such a Switzerland.
Paid maternity & paternity leave,
Climate action plans.
Significant infrastructure spending on building and repair.
Tax policy to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest amongst the populace.
Professional policing everywhere
Consistant public education.

I could go on.
Why not dicuss real solutions to real problems instead of slinging mud?
 
#5 ·
I listened to a planet money (NPR) podcast a few weeks ago on the subject of a weath tax. They agree with the premise of the article in that creating a weath tax may not be workable. It has been tried in other counties with limited success.
I see the reference to AOC at the bottom of the article. You post implies that she might run for the presidency. That is not the case.
I do agree with you that corruption is one of the biggest impediments to a well run country / world. It is too bad that Trump has done nothing to address it despite his campaign promises.
 
#7 ·
I see the reference to AOC at the bottom of the article. You post implies that she might run for the presidency. That is not the case.
No, my post implies no such assumption.
In case you've forgotten, it's the legislature that writes new laws, and that includes passing tax codes.
With a socialist sitting in the oval office, AOC, a legislator, will likely have influence and hers looks destructive, imho, of course :D

I do agree with you that corruption is one of the biggest impediments to a well run country / world.
:up:
And it's become pervasive through out our society lately.

I recently read:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...e-jerry-falwell-jr-says-after-leaks-to-media/
and
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/09/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-loans-227914

Liberty U. is one of the largest Christian universities in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University

Too many of our religious leaders are succumbing to what they are supposed to preach against.
And our society winds up losing it's moral center.

Corruption exists in much more than just the political arena.

There has become a common belief that the ends justifies the means and that might is right.
 
#6 ·
I am Canadian, so I am ineligible to vote in US elections.
Besides, your poll is loaded - It is making assumptions that are untrue and using emotional language.
If the economy does tank, it may well be because of the business cycle taking a down turn after a ten year rise.
I continue to be surprised that the economy has not tanked under Trump. My theory is that it is all a confidence game: as long as everyone believes things are OK, then they are. As soon as businesses start laying people off because they see a weakening economy, then you will get a down-word spiral.
 
#8 ·
I am Canadian, so I am ineligible to vote in US elections.
Besides, your poll is loaded - It is making assumptions that are untrue and using emotional language......................
In your humble opinion :D

Live in the US a while and that will likely change LOL!

I am Canadian, so I am ineligible to vote in US elections.
True, but this is my poll and voting in it is allowed :D

And I even gave 2 options for those that support neither radical position :)

If you feel for a political position not given, no rules against posting it.
No Canadians, though :D
 
#9 ·
And if Warren doesn't get the nod, there's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( AOC )
To me that looks like you were implying that AOC would "get the nod" (to run for / become president)
I have not forgotten my schoolhouse rock lessons from when I was a kid. You may be surprised that in school here in Canada they do not teach much about the US system of government.
I don't pay any attention to what religious leaders say in much the same way as I don't take what Trump says at face value either.
Perhaps we would be better off if religious institutions lost their tax exempt status. They could perhaps be awarded tax exemptions for doing "good work" (feeding and sheltering the poor for example).
 
#13 ·
But you have not given the option that the majority of Americans did choose in the Nov 2016 election, and will likely be on the ballot for the 2020 election:
() Vote for a moderate Democrat.

And wouldn't it be nice if there was another option that we have not seen since Eisenhower:
() Vote for a moderate Republican?

Call me ageist, but I feel that the 3 Dem front-runners: Biden, Sanders and Warren are too old. I would like to see Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Yany, and Klobuchar doing better

If you feel that spending too much is a problem, then have a listen to this:
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/msnbc/why-is-this-happening/e/60525006
Debunking the Deficit Hysteria with Stephanie Kelton.

Re, Taking your AOC remark out of context... It is true that I did not read the article before forming my initial reply, but I stand by my criticism that your statement (without reading the article) implies that she was running for president.
 
#15 ·
But you have not given the option that the majority of Americans did choose in the Nov 2016 election, and will likely be on the ballot for the 2020 election:
() Vote for a moderate Democrat.

And wouldn't it be nice if there was another option that we have not seen since Eisenhower:
() Vote for a moderate Republican?
...............
You can always start your own poll :D

But it would need to follow the reality of the times ;)

Those at the front of both parties do appear mostly as radical elements.
 
#18 ·
Well, well, well....... I don't think you understand the political field in the US at all . :D
I am curious as to what you think that political centre looks like.
 
#25 ·
Left / Right ... doesn't matter. We are all screwed either way because some will block things and create bad policies and we the small people get screwed.

......
I agree.
I would like to see some pragmatism in our political leaders rather than the constant 'sound bytes' and propaganda oriented to getting elected/re-elected..
 
#26 ·
I consider myself not indoctrinated to the political system and can see things that people would not see, or don't want to see... take Bush/Gore election... the last state to count was Florida... Where Jeb Bush was governor. To me that is a conflict of interest and people should not be allowed to run for president where they have relatives in any state position like that.

I honestly believe Trump is not the right person to be president. I haven't seen anything that has been a positive to the common folk. Obama is probably the only president I have felt more comfortable with than any other president, or even VP and presidential candidates.
 
#36 ·
Can't fix stupid...

i mean.. you can't fix a lifetime of propaganda that has made people (on all sides) not see past 1 point of view.

For example, I know a guy that is a really nice guy. He votes republician, and he is a devout Christian. But there is no constructive talking with him when politics is involved. He listens to Rush Limburg and basically anything he says is the gospel truth, no one else is right. I watched Farienhient 9/11 just to see what their views were... when he asked what I did over the weekend made me gringed because I knew it would go into that everything this bull yada yada. And it did even though I said that i didn't want to discuss it when i told him.

Then there is the 'fiilabuster' and 'gerrymandering'... stupid things that shouldn't happen. The list goes on.
 
#39 ·
Can't fix stupid...

i mean.. you can't fix a lifetime of propaganda that has made people (on all sides) not see past 1 point of view.
.................
I suspect most voters will decide from emotionalism.
Both the right and left wing too frequently seem to argue from that POV.
 
#41 ·
Johnny b,
I appreciate your answering my question despite your misgivings about how the past is not relevant to the present.
I beg to differ however, the actions of the sitting president is more of a reflection of what will be done than the promises of a candidate on the campaign trail.
I agree that Dem's are sitting more to the left than in past years, but I see that as a good thing.
What was the input on the ACA that the Republican's had that was ignored (by the Democrat run 1st term Obama congress) ? I don't watch Fox news so I must have missed something. Or was it just "No"

During "a bad economic time". hmmmm. You mean a year after the economic collapse following 7 1/2 years of the Bush presidency?
It seems that the ACA became much more popular after it was implemented and people saw the benefits. Still, healthcare really should be done with a single payer system like the rest of the civilized world. Unfortunately, Obama didn't have enough political juice to go all the way.
There seems to be a false equivalency people have when discussing Democrats vs Republicans. Like when counting DT lies vs HC lies. Sure HC was sometimes caught out in a lie / spin / exaggeration, but hers were on an order of magnitude less egregious than DT's lies.
 
#42 ·
I appreciate your answering my question despite your misgivings about how the past is not relevant to the present.
LOL!
Severity is the issue.
That severity has been increasing over time, and here we are now with extremes getting attention.

I beg to differ however, the actions of the sitting president is more of a reflection of what will be done than the promises of a candidate on the campaign trail.
You are only rationalizing your liberal tendencies.
Of course not everything gets accomplished that's promised, but it's not for trying.
As Trump tries to fulfill his promises, so did Obama with ACA. Obama turned the health industry upside down and yet none of it affected the cost of health care, only who paid for it.
Some even subsidized by other tax payers.
And the method of being forced by the government to buy the insurance, was at one time in the recent past, considered unconstitutional.
With Trump, just about everything Obama did is challenged.

Of course the past is important, it's how we got to our predicament today.
As I said, the past is the past. It's a 'new day' with many new/recently new players.

There simply isn't much you can post that re-images Warren or B Sanders into the everyday moderate Democrat :D

Still, healthcare really should be done with a single payer system like the rest of the civilized world.
Really, don't you think that puts even you in that leftist column?
I'm not going to brag of health care in the US, but burdening the general public at a time when our economic future looks poor, is not logical.
I have yet to read how the US can pay for it.
Yes, I've heard the liberal spiels, but not where the funding comes from. Complete funding.
And on top of free college educations.

I have read where 46% of the general public have no retirement funds.
That's like almost living hand to mouth.
Where are they going to get the funds to pay for their share of health coverage, or do they become the new leaches of a potentially declining number of tax payers?

Do you see the direction of this?
Think what happened to Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union :cool:
Debt till their socialist economies tanked and then it was everyone for themselves.

There seems to be a false equivalency people have when discussing Democrats vs Republicans.
What makes you think there is any equivalency?
They are politicians after all, in an age of moral decay.
They seek power.

Like when counting DT lies vs HC lies. Sure HC was sometimes caught out in a lie / spin / exaggeration, but hers were on an order of magnitude less egregious than DT's lies.
Retired politicians are not a useful comparison for the next election.
Only those that are currently potential candidates.
They will be the policy makers.

Hillary is toast.
 
#44 ·
You talk about universal healthcare as if it is liberal policy, and that it is a bad thing. I find it hard to square that with the fact that it is by far the most expensive heath care system in the world with only average outcomes. There are a few bright spots. Canadians find the wait times shorter on some procedures than they do at home.

When I talk about there being a false equivalency between Reps and Dems, I am referring to journalists mostly who are trained to look at both sides of the story, but fail to call out the differences in scale.

I don't pretend to know that much about the ACA, but my understanding is that is was a compromise bill. Yall would be better off with single payer, but that would be too disruptive to the economy. Kinda like how yall still use imperial measurements and everyone else uses metric. And you have boring green dollar bills that are easy to counterfeit instead of coins and plastic bills with high tech counterfeiting measures built in.

Yes, I know all about the great recession. I blame Bush Jr. and his republican cohorts. After all he had all that time to set up the economy to win instead of fail. I also blame Bush for 9/11 as Clinton warned him to be wary of Bin Laden and yet he did nothing. I blame him for both wars. There were other ways to respond to 9/11 and starting a couple of wars in the mideast was one of the poorer choices.

An argument could be made that Bush was a worse president than Trump, based on how many lives were lost (world wide) and how he left with the economy in tatters.
Trump is too incompetent to get anything (bad) done, but it has been not for trying. My biggest worry is with all the conservative judges that have been installed.
 
#46 · (Edited)
You talk about universal healthcare as if it is liberal policy, and that it is a bad thing. I find it hard to square that with the fact that it is by far the most expensive heath care system in the world with only average outcomes. There are a few bright spots. Canadians find the wait times shorter on some procedures than they do at home.

When I talk about there being a false equivalency between Reps and Dems, I am referring to journalists mostly who are trained to look at both sides of the story, but fail to call out the differences in scale.

I don't pretend to know that much about the ACA, but my understanding is that is was a compromise bill. Yall would be better off with single payer, but that would be too disruptive to the economy. Kinda like how yall still use imperial measurements and everyone else uses metric. And you have boring green dollar bills that are easy to counterfeit instead of coins and plastic bills with high tech counterfeiting measures built in.

Yes, I know all about the great recession. I blame Bush Jr. and his republican cohorts. After all he had all that time to set up the economy to win instead of fail. I also blame Bush for 9/11 as Clinton warned him to be wary of Bin Laden and yet he did nothing. I blame him for both wars. There were other ways to respond to 9/11 and starting a couple of wars in the mideast was one of the poorer choices.

An argument could be made that Bush was a worse president than Trump, based on how many lives were lost (world wide) and how he left with the economy in tatters.
Trump is too incompetent to get anything (bad) done, but it has been not for trying. My biggest worry is with all the conservative judges that have been installed.
You talk about universal healthcare as if it is liberal policy, and that it is a bad thing.
It's mainly about timing and circumstances.
If a plan isn't financially viable, why implement it?
Our leader should be working to figure out how to get to a position where that 'goodness' can become a viable reality.
Sean, our Social Security is now at risk.
Trump has even considered reducing payroll taxes as a means to stimulate the economy.
That puts social services at an even greater risk.
If you have it good in Canada, perhaps the US isn't for you.
I don't know your federal debt loads, but according to annalists, ours are approaching unsustainable proportions with more to come.
We've take the concept of health care to the level of an entitlement.
We have too many entitlements already and more planned and promised by the leftists in the Democrat party.

When I talk about there being a false equivalency between Reps and Dems, I am referring to journalists mostly who are trained to look at both sides of the story, but fail to call out the differences in scale.
Scale has been mentioned, perhaps you've missed it?
I and others here have posted to that effect with news articles.
Trump is a voracious liar.

I blame Bush Jr. and his republican cohorts. After all he had all that time to set up the economy to win instead of fail.
You're preaching to the choir.
Bush allowed failure by ignoring the derivatives issue untill it was too late to correct.
And it was Bill Clinton that pushed for and signed the legislation that allowed the banking industry to sell securities and treat derivatives as if they were actual investment mechanisms. I don't think he planned it, but it turned out to be irresponsible.

I also blame Bush for 9/11 as Clinton warned him to be wary of Bin Laden and yet he did nothing.
Fair point. I made similar arguments here under a different screen name back in the day.
edit: But the blame for the attack goes to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

I blame him for both wars.
I don't blame him for the initial Afghan invasion to hunt Bin Laden That was needed.
And he failed.
I definitely blame him for the Iraq mess. There were no WMDs. Only the lies of their existence. It created a power vacuum destabilizing the region and setting up for the ISIS caliphate.

An argument could be made that Bush was a worse president than Trump
I honestly couldn't be bothered to argue either way.
IMO, both bad Presidents that put a heavy toll on our society.

Trump is too incompetent to get anything (bad) done, but it has been not for trying. My biggest worry is with all the conservative judges that have been installed.
It's been said in the past, the intentions of a President don't really start until his second term. The first is spent in getting reelected. That's why his election promises are so important. They are meant to please certain segments of the population.
I don't think it's wise to underestimate him.
IMO, he acts like a fool. A very dangerous one with a sizable portion of the voters supporting his positions.
 
#48 ·
Interesting article this morning at USAToday:

The Democratic race gets hotter with a debate over where, exactly, the party should stand
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...l-candidates-clash-houston-debate/2306169001/

Claims and counter claims, but this stood out as influential political commentary from Trump,
And almost precisely as the Democrats' debate was beginning in Houston, Trump was starting to speak to House Republicans who were meeting in Baltimore, previewing the arguments he will make in the campaign. He was running well past schedule, and spoke for more than an hour, a split-screen that may have been deliberate. "The country will go to hell," if a Democrat wins the White House, the president declared, saying they were "going to take your money, they're going to take, and very much hurt, your families."
Linkage to that speech:
Trump says Democrats' 'failed and corrupt rule' destroyed Baltimore in House GOP speech
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...troyed-baltimore-house-gop-speech/2303002001/

President Donald Trump said Democratic rule "destroyed" cities like Baltimore in a speech to House Republicans during their annual retreat, in his first visit to the city he once described as a "rodent infested mess."

"We're going to fight for the future of cities like Baltimore that have been destroyed by decades of failed and corrupt rule," he told House GOP members at the House Republican Conference Member Retreat dinner.
True or not, like it or not, that kind of rhetoric is what put Trump in the Oval Office.
All it takes is an element of truth no matter how small and a lot of emotional propaganda to sway a public tired of putting up with undesirable conditions, even if the reality of Trump brings a worse condition.

Democratic Socialists seem to think countering with freebies is the solution for their own success.
 
#49 ·
Of course it's very early in the quest for the Oval Office and things can and probably will change, but look at the early leaders in the Democrat Party and wonder how they came to be ( :D )

News Analysis: Democrats head toward a three-person race while the second tier scrambles
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...lysis-democrats-head-toward-three-person-race

The cast, well guess who LOL!



It should not be surprising that those three candidates have risen to the top of the field of more than 20: Biden, Sanders and Warren are the three contenders who came to the race with a national political brand, and they have used their campaigns to hone their messages with a clarity that none of their competitors have.

More surprising is the fact that, in a campaign that started with paeans to the party's need for youth and diversity, none of the many other candidates has elbowed into a place among the three white septuagenarians.
Sean,
2 out of 3 do look rather socialist in a negative sense.
2 out of 3 do look strongly anti-capitalistic.

It appears that's what sells to the current lovers of liberalism.

What's yours is mine, what's mines me own :D

Trump's position seems to be everything is his :eek:

meh!

Sean, go vote ;)
 
#50 ·
Oh my, the trials and tribulations of arguing for free health care.

Debates confirm there is really only one issue in the Democratic primary
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/2020-democrats-health-care/index.html

Worth the read, imho, but since CNN upsets those sensitive fist pumping Nationalists . I'll keep the quotes short ( :D )

In a Pew survey in July, 53% of Americans said the government has a responsibility to make sure Americans have health care coverage, compared with 44% who said the government does not.
Disagreements among the candidates have largely been focused at the three primary debates on how to go about giving every American health insurance and how to pay for it.
'Free' seems to appeal, fancy that. :rolleyes:
 
#55 ·
Oh my, the trials and tribulations of arguing for free health care.
'Free' seems to appeal, fancy that. :rolleyes:
Johnny b,
You seem to be stuck on the idea that "free healthcare" is expensive (to the taxpayer).
Empirically, it can be demonstrated that it is not. You just have to look at the experience in all the other first world counties to understand that.
There are a number of reasons for this.
You are not paying middle man gatekeeper's who's job is to deny coverage and save costs whenever possible.
You make preventive care more common as (under insured) people are not afraid of the expense of going to the Dr. As early treatment is much cheaper than trying to fix problems after they have progressed beyond the the simple fix.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-save-america-trillions-whats-holding-us-back
"But such rises in utilization are likely to be modest (even more modest than these analyses predict). There are only so many doctors and hospital beds, which limits theorized surges in utilization. Anyway, there are hundreds of billions in potential savings in moving to single-payer, such as slimming down on the massive administrative bloat of the privatized American healthcare system and bringing down our sky-high drug prices."

"But here's the thing: a single-payer system allows cost growth to be directly controlled over time in a way that's not possible with a privatized system"

"A more progressive system of healthcare financing can, over time, reduce inequalities not only in health, but in wealth, helping to close our nation's disastrous economic divide"
Do you believe the economic divide is a problem?

https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211
"Early childhood care prevents future social costs. These include crime, welfare dependency, and health issues. Health education teaches families how to make healthy lifestyle choices, preventing chronic diseases"

Or do you believe that being told the core health message - Eat well, exercise, don't smoke or drink if you want to be healthy infringes on your freedom.

"Care for patients in the last six years of life makes up one-fourth of the Medicare budget. In their last month of life, half go to the emergency room. One-third wind up in the intensive care unit and one-fifth undergo surgery."
Perhaps that is why America clings to privatized healthcare - the desperate need to squeeze one last (miserable) month out of one's own life. I do believe that this is also a problem in other countries as well. It is difficult to make the decision to not treat a hopeless case, and so more money is spent that would be prudent. A topic for another thread.
 
#53 ·
I cannot vote as no choice for me to select as they are as skewed as a typical political survey with choices that reflect the OP's POV.

I'll vote for whomever the Dems run. That simple. It's past time to end this farce and move to the next without Israels new messiah (LOL). I'll take democratic socialism over reichwing fascism anytime.

This thread has been an interesting read, though.

I too prefer some youthful candidates, but will live with a Bernie or Biden in hopes if they head the ticket, IF they get a great VP and vow to run one term and step aside.
 
#58 ·
No you didn't. Your crystal ball cannot predict the economic and social outcome of the election of a particular party.
You can guess at the potential outcomes, but you can't declare something that has not happened to be a reality.
And why did you not predict an outcome for your 3 other choices?
Let me help you out -
Vote for a Moderate Pragmatic - and see Trump get re-elected with thin margin in the electoral college.
Don't vote - and see Joe Biden win in a landslide.
Walk Away - I am not sure how this is different from "Don't Vote" You mean move to another country?

That doesn't work. We have an expression here in the great white north:
"When America sneezes, Canada catches a cold"
Meaning that the US is 10 times bigger than Canada, so that things that happens in America, affect us here in Canada.
 
#57 ·
With reduction in illegal immigration, the inflow of monies to SS thru payroll deductions will be greatly reduced; since illegals don't get their money back thru SS, they do help to insure citizens do. Tis' a Catch 22.
 
#59 ·
How morally bankrupt is this? Taking advantage of undocumented migrants to fill the coffers of the treasury?
Granted, they elected to come to the US, maybe understanding this reality.
If they go to an ER, and cannot pay, then it becomes a burden on the hospital, and so the costs get passed on.
They use roads and other infrastructure paid for by the tax deductions, but the SS deduction they will likely never benefit from.

Pearl Buck (1892-1973), wrote.... "for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members."
 
#74 · (Edited)
You really don't like the idea of single payer health care
True, I don't.
For one thing, it's only an element of the planned socialism the leaders you seem to favor, have in mind.

It seems you don't like the AHA either.
I'm unaware the AHA supports socialized medicine.
Please post links.

I have not heard you speak of how your preferred heath care system works
Not much positive or negative to say when it was private.
No major health issues other than an allergy.
I'm on Medicare now.
Medicare isn't free.
A person spends his working life funding it and it kicks in at 65.
It's paid the portion of my bills it's responsible for and I can see any doctor I want.
And I have seen several that were high dollar specialists.
It's insurance, not a freebe.
And as a part of SS, it's also at risk.
I suspect younger adults than I will never see the coverage they been paying for.

But do I want to essentially pay for those that set aside nothing for their health and rely on taxing me for their health coverage, and get poorer health service in return?
No.
I have no interest in sharing, what I've saved for my own security, with those that think they have the right to take from me.
 
#76 ·
Oh my. I have been working way too much to have missed out on this discussion!

Voted the Trump button for you Johnny. Of course, I do not agree with the destroy the economy, Yada, Yada, Yada bit; but, once you pass Economic Prognostication 101 I might be swayed to change my mind. ;)

To opine on a couple of the questions that SeanLaurence put forward...

Here in America, insurance paid abortion on demand would be Left-of-Center and tax payer funded abortion would be considered Far Left.

The ACA was passed by Democrats as an addendum to a budgetary adjustment at the end of the Congressional term. The budgetary adjustment mechanism was designed to address work projects (roads, parks, etc,...) and was never designed for a significant overhaul that would have such a profound potential (and actual in hindsight) economic impact on the Nation. Additionally, the budgetary adjustment mechanism only required a 50% up or down vote, as opposed to the normal 2/3 approval to pass per normal Congressional voting. And as a side note, not a single Republican voted for the ACA. The Democrats own that puppy... collar, leash, and droppings. Especially since the ACA made the so called "Cadillac" health care plans illegal.

As for why many Americans are opposed to a single payer healthcare... Lots of reasons; but, here are some off the top of my head.
  1. The government does not need to know our health status on demand, unless in the case of highly infectious diseases (like Ebola, or some other extreme instance).
  2. Cost... Tax the rich and tax the corporations is the idea right; but, these costs will passed down to the end consumer (basic economics) making it significantly more expensive overall for the middle class tax payers.
  3. Government price controls, when considering the cost of education and ongoing liability insurance, will cause individuals to reconsider a future job path of a doctor, or surgeon.
  4. Loss of choice. ACA proved this one. Many individuals were unable to keep the doctor of their choice and their preferred health care plan.
  5. Health care decision panels - AKA Death Panels. Essentially, rationing and prioritizing of care to younger individuals that statistically have a better chance of providing more taxes over time than an individual that is over 65 and likely out of the work force, or than individuals that have special needs and will take more than contribute to the health care system overall.
  6. A straight march towards socialism. The general viewpoint is that if you keep enacting socialist programs eventually you will run out of other peoples money.
My side view on health care is that we need to separate health care from health insurance. This is big part of the reason that "health care" is so expensive in America.

I hope this helps to explain the Trumptonian view... as Johnny will likely label this response. :D
 
#79 ·
Thanks for joining in Chawbacon
Oh my. I have been working way too much to have missed out on this discussion!

Voted the Trump button for you Johnny. Of course, I do not agree with the destroy the economy, Yada, Yada, Yada bit; but, once you pass Economic Prognostication 101 I might be swayed to change my mind. ;)

To opine on a couple of the questions that SeanLaurence put forward...

Here in America, insurance paid abortion on demand would be Left-of-Center and tax payer funded abortion would be considered Far Left.
The trouble with the political spectrum is that there isn't a set place for anything. In the case of my abortion example I don't see that the leftmost position is extreme or radical.
We could split it a bit more, suggesting that govt funded abortion in the cases of rape and incest is left of centre, and abortion on demand (we got a little careless last week) is further left, but I don't see that as "Far Left" position.

The ACA was passed by Democrats as an addendum to a budgetary adjustment at the end of the Congressional term. The budgetary adjustment mechanism was designed to address work projects (roads, parks, etc,...) and was never designed for a significant overhaul that would have such a profound potential (and actual in hindsight) economic impact on the Nation. Additionally, the budgetary adjustment mechanism only required a 50% up or down vote, as opposed to the normal 2/3 approval to pass per normal Congressional voting. And as a side note, not a single Republican voted for the ACA. The Democrats own that puppy... collar, leash, and droppings. Especially since the ACA made the so called "Cadillac" health care plans illegal.
I agree with you that the legislate process was abused in this case (and many others I am sure). I think you are making a point for me that the ACA is not ideal, but it was the best that Democrat's could do in the face of Republican obstructionism. The point of a political opposition party should be to find fault with proposed legislation and try to make improvements to it rather than to just say no to what is otherwise a good thing just so it does not get labelled with the other parties brand.

As for why many Americans are opposed to a single payer healthcare... Lots of reasons; but, here are some off the top of my head.
  1. The government does not need to know our health status on demand, unless in the case of highly infectious diseases (like Ebola, or some other extreme instance).
  2. Cost... Tax the rich and tax the corporations is the idea right; but, these costs will passed down to the end consumer (basic economics) making it significantly more expensive overall for the middle class tax payers.
  3. Government price controls, when considering the cost of education and ongoing liability insurance, will cause individuals to reconsider a future job path of a doctor, or surgeon.
  4. Loss of choice. ACA proved this one. Many individuals were unable to keep the doctor of their choice and their preferred health care plan.
  5. Health care decision panels - AKA Death Panels. Essentially, rationing and prioritizing of care to younger individuals that statistically have a better chance of providing more taxes over time than an individual that is over 65 and likely out of the work force, or than individuals that have special needs and will take more than contribute to the health care system overall.
  6. A straight march towards socialism. The general viewpoint is that if you keep enacting socialist programs eventually you will run out of other peoples money.
1. You don't trust your government. Well there is a problem right there. What can be done to restore that trust? You trust corporations more? Systems can be set up to keep your medical status private.
2. Empirically , single payer healthcare is cheaper in all of the other countries in the western world. You think the US can't match that?
3. Right now there are other barriers to becoming a Doctor. This does not seem to be a problem elsewhere in the world. The biggest problem seems to be Dr's being trained in countries where their education is subsidized, getting poached by american hospitals with the promise of a big paycheck. (You probably see this as a good thing)
4) I think this is a myth. Can you show me something credible about loss of Dr choice?
5) This is a myth: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
6) If you are going to use the word "Socialism" in that manner, then there is nothing to discuss with you. There are all kinds of socialist institutions in America that I assume you are perfectly fine with. Or are you going to leave your medicare card at home and pay cash the next time you visit the hospital? I would say something about the military as well, but you have no control over how it is funded or used.

My side view on health care is that we need to separate health care from health insurance. This is big part of the reason that "health care" is so expensive in America.
So you are agreeing that a single payer system would be an improvement?

I hope this helps to explain the Trumptonian view... as Johnny will likely label this response. :D
Well, I understand that Trump promised the greatest health care system in the history of the world. I am still waiting.
 
#77 · (Edited)
Jack :D

Thanks for the input from the other dark side. LOL!
Actually, good points there.

Just pointing out that ACA was a concern to conservatives long before Trump's Nationalism ( read fascism ;) ) took hold.

My side view on health care is that we need to separate health care from health insurance. This is big part of the reason that "health care" is so expensive in America.
Agreed.

ACA covered more patients in numbers, at the same time did little to nothing in addressing health costs, essentially legislating who was responsible for paying the insurance premiums.

Trump, and conservatives, fail in replacing ACA because no viable alternative has been devised. What used to work was broken when discarded.
Rather than modify and adjust a system that had worked in the past during better economic conditions, Obama introduced a path to the inefficiencies of socialism.

Sean inadvertently touched on this when he introduced the need to regulate the salaries of doctors.
Performance no longer becomes a valued trait. That of course relates to quality of care.
In addition, not only would health care be 'free' to the patient, anything associated with providing it needs to be regulated.
From ambulance drivers to doctors and nurses, all hospital/clinic personnel and staff.
Include the medical and pharmaceutical industry that supplies instruments, medications and drugs.
Their costs need to be regulated as well, and as easily seen, this chain of disruption eventually extends into all of society, right down to the everyday individual.
We'll become a 'well regulated society'. :rolleyes:

Of course, it likely won't happen in a short period of time, like FDR's social security and LBJ's Great Society, this intrusion starts slowly as legislators and citizens rationalize their 'wants' until everything becomes a 'need'.

Corruption has put our society at economic risk.
That would be corruption within our society and it's leaders.
It didn't start with Trump and Nationalism, it's built up over time to this level.
Not much will change if it isn't addressed.
Socialism isn't the escape route, it's simply a bad detour.

A straight march towards socialism. The general viewpoint is that if you keep enacting socialist programs eventually you will run out of other peoples money.
When taken to the extremes seen, it's rather obvious.

But then, Trumpism isn't interested in applying needed moderation, are they? :D
More like, trash outright, all systems seen as social safety nets.
Shocking ;)
 
#82 ·
Jack :D
Sean inadvertently touched on this when he introduced the need to regulate the salaries of doctors.
I think you bought that up. I responded that Salaries were not the only things Dr's think about.

Performance no longer becomes a valued trait. That of course relates to quality of care.
That is just BS. Performance is measured and valued in all institutions, Capitalist or otherwise.
Besides, in a free market, is it not the consumer that is supposed to choose the best thing and the system will improve with the rising of the best? How does that work in a heath-care setting, where everything is done behind closed doors, and patient data is protected with confidentiality rules. When is the last time your ambulance driver asked you which is your preferred trauma centre base on the yelp reviews. Ooops, your favourite trauma surgeon is off today. well I guess you will have to bleed out then.

In addition, not only would health care be 'free' to the patient, anything associated with providing it needs to be regulated.
From ambulance drivers to doctors and nurses, all hospital/clinic personnel and staff.
Include the medical and pharmaceutical industry that supplies instruments, medications and drugs.
Their costs need to be regulated as well, and as easily seen, this chain of disruption eventually extends into all of society, right down to the everyday individual.
We'll become a 'well regulated society'. :rolleyes:
I didn't realize that your health care system wasn't regulated now. Gosh, I really don't want to be visiting the US with that reality.

Of course, it likely won't happen in a short period of time, like FDR's social security and LBJ's Great Society, this intrusion starts slowly as legislators and citizens rationalize their 'wants' until everything becomes a 'need'.
There are 2 ways of implementing new policy. Slowly or Quickly. One could make arguments as to which is better.

Corruption has put our society at economic risk.
That would be corruption within our society and it's leaders.
It didn't start with Trump and Nationalism, it's built up over time to this level.
Not much will change if it isn't addressed.
Socialism isn't the escape route, it's simply a bad detour.

When taken to the extremes seen, it's rather obvious.

But then, Trumpism isn't interested in applying needed moderation, are they? :D
More like, trash outright, all systems seen as social safety nets.
Shocking ;)
Corruption and Socialism are not related concepts. You may have witnessed corrupt socialist regimes and you are witnessing a corrupt capitalist regime in America right now. We need to fight corruption on its face and not conflate it with ideology.

Check out what is happening in WA state with regards to healthcare:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/upshot/washington-state-weakened-public-option-.html
 
#90 ·
All that kerfuffle over socialized health care and AOC and her green plan hasn't even had a mention.

A 93 Trillion dollar socialist experiment disguised as a a means to address global warming.

I wonder where the funds are coming from? :rolleyes:

How Does 'Boss' AOC Plan To Pay For Her $93 Trillion Green New Deal?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/green-new-deal-93-trillion-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

Green New Deal's Gargantuan Price Tag

A new analysis from the American Action Forum finds that the Green New Deal, as laid out by New York Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, would cost up to $93 trillion in the first ten years.

Remember, the GND isn't just about converting the entire U.S. energy supply to renewable energy in a decade and establishing a "zero emissions transportation system."

The plan also includes things like "guaranteed" federal jobs, "universal health care," and "food security."
Universal Health Care :eek:!
LOL how fitting :rolleyes:
Sneak socialism in on the qt.

I wonder what it's going to cost after that 10 year period?
 
#91 ·
I have not looked at any of the green plan's in any detail. So I would prefer not to comment on something I don't know about. Do you have a plan? It seems you don't have a health care plan.

Since European healthcare is demonstrably better (Cheaper and with better health outcomes) than American healthcare, you lost your argument before you even started.
 
#92 ·
So I would prefer not to comment on something I don't know about.
LOL!

You've got nothing to say about an obviously destructive socialist plan with a 93 trillion dollar price tag and you'd rather not comment.
But want to put me on the hot seat for,....whatever.

Clue....look at the price tag.
It's simply not doable with the status of our economy.

Since European healthcare is demonstrably better
If you haven't noticed, the US isn't Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis
Yep, everything is hunky dory in Europe :rolleyes:
Socialism doesn't look any better to me.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top