Bravo Lindsey Graham
- Thread starter HallBall10
- Start date
Ahh yes..throw in the gratuitous racist trope.
Who said anything about them being from a particular race? If Joey O'Brian said what they said I would respond the same way. They just happen to of be a particular cohort. That seems to be YOUR focus, not mine.
Nonsense response. A private security force is bound by law and jurisdiction of a government police agency. It’s not choose one or the other. Where did I say “healthcare is socialism”? You’re off your game today.
Yes, you were saying what Trump should have said and I said it wasn't racist enough for Trump... Not you...
In the context of the discussion here when I said no one is proposing socialism when you chimed in with...
I'm saying we accept certain things being paid for by the government. It doesn't become the evil Boogeyman "socialism" if we add in health insurance.
But like I said, medicare for all is not going to happen. A public option is a better idea and we can let people decide what insurance they want.
Go back and read your post. Medicare For All as defined by several candidates is a Socialist program. It does infringe on my ability and freedom to choose. It may not happen, but it is being proposed.
I'm aware of what I wrote.
Medicare for all is not socialism. My response on this topic was to hoopsfan who said...
I thought it was worth pointing out that literally no one is proposing socialism. If they were, I would agree with him.
But for arguments sake, if we all had access to a healthcare plan outside of our employer would we have more freedom or less than we currently have now?
Apparently you’re not aware. Medicare for All is a Socialist program. Government taking over a business as the only option. Can’t get anymore Socialist than that. You pointed to that as the specific example with regards to violating life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Last edited:
Again, it is not socialism. I was replying to someone else who said Dems are pushing for socialism which goes against life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
I would agree socialism would do that but that is not what people are proposing.
If you want to say it has socialist principles that's fine but no more than many other programs we have so I am curious why those are all ok but we draw a line at healthcare.
In regards to freedom and being less free than what we currently have, I don't agree at all. We have a workforce that is less mobile because employees are tied to their health plans which reduces entrepreneurship and risk taking. There are millions of people who don't have insurance and avoid going to the doctor when they are sick...
I mean there are valid arguments against single payer... Life liberty and the persuit of happiness aren't really part of those arguments though. Probably the opposite.
You keep trying to deflect the point. Proposing a socialist policy is in itself supporting socialism.
And I clearly drew the line before. So I’m not going to repeat myself. With regards to health care, even your assumptions are incorrect. The workforce today is more mobile than ever. And COBRA enables you to transition from one job to the other if there is a time gap. Yes, I know you have to pay for that but it’s not factual to say people don’t have access to healthcare during that period. Eliminating all choices in favor of a mandated government run health plan for all is an infringement on my life, liberty and happiness. Pretty obvious to most.
At what point did I mention healthcare? I’m not drawing any line at just healthcare. I just said policies. Healthcare is one of the policies. Free tuition is another. I don’t like the idea of social security, but that’s another topic all together. Etc etc etc.
On another note. I love that Bernie is having problems with his own people wanting $15 per hour.
Still no response from you to cite where that was said by the president.
The reason is because he didn't say it and you know that.
You clearly have made up your own facts and when you are called on it, you head for the hills.
Regarding whether Medicare for all is Socialism or not you first have to understand that there is not a precise, universal agreed definition of Socialism.
Merge is using one definition and based on that definition one can conclude that it is not socialism.
However, other definitions of socialism talk about other forms of production ownership and control. One definition that regulation of industry and services by the Government is Socialism.
For health care, IMO, if the government is controlling all payments to providers, that constitutes Socialism.
That aside, people should take a hard look at how this might actually work.
With Medicare today, you go the provider and get treatment. They send a bill to Medicare. Medicare pays perhaps 20-50% of the bill. The provider then sends the remainder to secondary insurance (a.k.a Medigap) if the patient has it. Secondary insurance is paid for by the patient. If the sum of the reimbursements is less than the fee, the provider chooses to either write the balance off or bill the patient for some or all of the balance.
I have client who is a CFO of Health Network. They lose money on the Medicare Patients and make it up with private pay and regular HMO insurance patients.
If you take away the current economics of private pay and HMO insurance, you will have a system that will not cover the cost of the providers.
Some of the shortfall will be covered by increased Medigap premiums.
Some of the shortfall will be covered by reduced care,and wait times.
Some of the shortfall will be covered by increase Medicare deductions (a.k.a payroll taxes)
Some of the shortfall will be covered by increased federal debt.
Some providers will fold and put pressure on provider supply, i.e more wait times.
At present, the competition among HMOs and their ability to negotiate with the providers is keeping this fragile system alive. When you take that away and turn over complete control to the government, the promise of "free healthcare" will manifest as a disaster.
Merge is using one definition and based on that definition one can conclude that it is not socialism.
However, other definitions of socialism talk about other forms of production ownership and control. One definition that regulation of industry and services by the Government is Socialism.
For health care, IMO, if the government is controlling all payments to providers, that constitutes Socialism.
That aside, people should take a hard look at how this might actually work.
With Medicare today, you go the provider and get treatment. They send a bill to Medicare. Medicare pays perhaps 20-50% of the bill. The provider then sends the remainder to secondary insurance (a.k.a Medigap) if the patient has it. Secondary insurance is paid for by the patient. If the sum of the reimbursements is less than the fee, the provider chooses to either write the balance off or bill the patient for some or all of the balance.
I have client who is a CFO of Health Network. They lose money on the Medicare Patients and make it up with private pay and regular HMO insurance patients.
If you take away the current economics of private pay and HMO insurance, you will have a system that will not cover the cost of the providers.
Some of the shortfall will be covered by increased Medigap premiums.
Some of the shortfall will be covered by reduced care,and wait times.
Some of the shortfall will be covered by increase Medicare deductions (a.k.a payroll taxes)
Some of the shortfall will be covered by increased federal debt.
Some providers will fold and put pressure on provider supply, i.e more wait times.
At present, the competition among HMOs and their ability to negotiate with the providers is keeping this fragile system alive. When you take that away and turn over complete control to the government, the promise of "free healthcare" will manifest as a disaster.
Exactly...this is the point John Delaney tried to drive home during the debates (and since), but has not gotten any traction since the Socialist plan is getting the support from Bernie and others.
This is silly.
When people talk about socialism being bad they are talking about it being in opposition to capitalism.
When people say socialism is bad because it goes against life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I will agree with that.
When people say providing health coverage or education goes against life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I would disagree with that.
There is a lot to unpack there but it goes on the assumption that Medicare under the same policies and reimbursement rates which it uses now. There is nothing that requires that to be the case. It could all be corrected so it would work better than it does currently.
Current Medicare is made up of a population that use a ton of healthcare. Adding in a younger, healthier population would improve the financial standing of the program.
It is a good debate to have. I don't support Medicare for all currently, but the idea is not an evil one that will impede upon our liberty.
Not silly at all and your attempt to reframe the conversation is lame. Disagree all you want, but a government run business that mandates everyone to use it with no options is Socialist by design.
Then your definition of Liberty is unique.
Forcing me to pay for someone else's college is an assault on my Liberty.
As I said before, any tax risks being such an assault.
When taxation gets to be too much or is marred by inefficiency and corruption, it becomes a form of legalized extortion.
I'll accept a libertarian argument over one that says providing health insurance to people makes them less free.
Who has more liberty and freedom? Someone who has Medicare or someone who has a job that doesn't provide health insurance?
Someone who has Medicare or someone who can't leave their job to start a business because they can't afford to purchase private insurance?
Having liberty and having money are two separate issues.
So they both have the same liberty in this country. One just has more wealth.
Assume they all make and have the same amount of money for this hypothetical.
Same answer. Both have the same liberty and freedom. Many Americans have faced that challenge and gone on to start successful businesses. There have never been promises that things would be easy or the government will cover your risks. However the liberty and freedom to try have always been there.
The rest of us who have to pay more taxes to subsidize the person that wants to leave their job to start a business have had their Liberty infringed upon.
Not quite as simple as to say my taxes went up so I am harmed.
Plenty of research out there that suggests that entrepreneurship is good for economic growth, and employer sponsored health insurance is a barrier to entrepreneurship. So your thought of increased taxes could be entirely mitigate from the missed potential economic growth.
Not to mention the impact of the economic incentives to providing healthcare to the millions of uninsured Americans.
Let the free market drive entrepreneurship.
Keep the government out it.
Your entitled to your views and I respect that, but not your views.
You are a hardcore statist. Have you considered moving to Russia or North Korea? Climate aside, I think you would love it there.
Keep the government out it.
Your entitled to your views and I respect that, but not your views.
You are a hardcore statist. Have you considered moving to Russia or North Korea? Climate aside, I think you would love it there.
That's my point. Tying our healthcare benefits to employment is not something that makes any of us free.
It limits us quite a bit, so I disagree with the idea that a single payer type of system would make us less free than we are today.
I just want to keep the debates honest without fearmongoring of a socialist boogeyman.
I am not currently for Medicare for all, but not because I don't like socialism.
That's my point - Say What?
What is your point?
It sounds to me like you are saying that:
In the interim:
With regard to healthcare being tied to employment, prior to ACA, it was not. An entrepreneur (one who take risks to start a business) was free to decide to take the risk of not having healthcare in order to pursue their dreams. Now they are not. They are forced to buy insurance.
That makes you feel good?
What is your point?
It sounds to me like you are saying that:
- Medicare for all is not Socialism
- Merge is not for Medicare for All.
- Medicare for all would help entrepreneurship
- Entrepreneurship is good for the economy.
In the interim:
- Medicare for all is Socialism
- Pirata is also not for Medicare for all
- Medicare for all for the sake of stimulating entrepreneurship is another example of Washington bureaucrats who know little about business and are using other people's money to meddle in things they should keep their nose out of. AOC is blue-chip example of that.
- Of course entrepreneurship is good for the economy.
With regard to healthcare being tied to employment, prior to ACA, it was not. An entrepreneur (one who take risks to start a business) was free to decide to take the risk of not having healthcare in order to pursue their dreams. Now they are not. They are forced to buy insurance.
That makes you feel good?
Yes. I did say all of those things but only in the context of explaining that saying you want to provide healthcare for all citizens was not similar to a crowd chanting "send her back".
Thread drifted a bit.
Having healthcare has been tied to employment since post WWII and it limits employee mobility. Lots of studies on this.
I don't believe we only have two choices though. We don't have to pick status quo or destroy the entire system.
There are lots of ways we could improve the current system and move away from employee sponsored coverage.
People choose to let it limit their mobility. It's not forced upon them. Many with barely a pot to piss in take the gamble. It's a choice. A freedom. A liberty.
A few simple laws could reduce or eliminate any affect on mobility.
Example: A law that says if you have coverage from an employer paid insurer and you change jobs and move to another insurer, any existing conditions are carried over with coverage."
You don't need a single payer to accomplish that.
Example: A law that says if you have coverage from an employer paid insurer and you change jobs and move to another insurer, any existing conditions are carried over with coverage."
You don't need a single payer to accomplish that.
How about Congresswomen?
From our beloved and patriotic Ilhan Omar:
"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," she replied.
"And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe -- Americans safe inside of this country -- we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."
Silly you. The Presidents words matter. Everyone else has carte blanche because of the first amendment. Get it right.
Two points on that.
1. Yes I do believe Presidents have a greater responsibility than members of congress to set a tone. That was true for Obama as well, and I criticized him a couple times where I thought he didn't convey the right message.
2. She's not wrong, especially the part about creating policies to right the radicalization of white men.
You know that quote is from an edited video, right? That’s not what she actually said. I have no use for her and the other three horsewomen of stupidocalypse, but that’s real fake news.
Similar threads
