• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we pay people who are unwilling to work? AOC thinks so.

Im sorry, are these AOC threads interrupting the 10,000th Collusion Truther thread here at DP?

The woman is in the news. I get that she is an embarrassment to the left, but thats just too bad, isnt it.

I am quit proud of her but I am a republican,
 
No **** Sherlock.
You fart too. Look it up.
I did. That's how I know it's a problem.

In 2011, methane from livestock accounted for 39 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, according to a report that United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization released Friday. That's more than synthetic fertilizer or deforestation. Methane from livestock rose 11 percent between 2001 and 2011.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...re-warming-the-planet-and-theyre-here-to-stay
 
As part of her New Green Deal, AOC wants to pay people for fogging a mirror. Can't you just feel the meteoric rise to the middle and call to greatness and prosperity?:roll:

"Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D., Mass.) introduced a Green New Deal bill Thursday that, in addition to transitioning the U.S. entirely to renewable energy in ten years, promises to provide “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.”

Since arriving in Washington in January, Ocasio-Cortez has prioritized the implementation of a Green New Deal and, in her frequent media appearances, has emphasized its potential as a means to pursue “economic justice” while drastically reducing carbon emissions over the next decade.

In drafting the proposal, Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow progressive lawmakers appear to have envisioned that the trillions of dollars in new government spending it would require would be financed entirely on credit.

“How will you pay for it,” reads a frequently-asked-questions document that accompanied the bill.“The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment.”
With the exception of the brief mention of a “carbon tax,” which the FAQ document claims “misses the point,” there is no mention of any additional taxes to cover the cost of spending.

20
In addition to providing “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work,” the plan also promises to create “millions of good, high-wage jobs” for willing Americans. Many of those new federal employees would presumably assist in the 14 major clean-energy-infrastructure projects the plan calls for.

In defending the breadth and scope of the proposal, which also includes 15 “social and economic justice and security” requirements, Ocasio-Cortez has likened it to the mobilization effort that preceded World War II, and conceded that it qualifies as a “moonshot” idea."



Kennedy's moonshot was a call to greatness and pushing the boundaries of human achievement. AOC's "moonshot" is a call to suck on the government teat and have us become a socialist mecca.

Paying people that can work but wont is insane.
 
You might want to enslave others to pay for what you should be taking care of yourself, I however would be ashamed to demand that.

false.
 
Im sorry, are these AOC threads interrupting the 10,000th Collusion Truther thread here at DP?

The woman is in the news. I get that she is an embarrassment to the left, but thats just too bad, isnt it.

in the time that it took you to type that, Fox probably ran five stories about her. you should go check.
 
Too many people are reading 'unwilling to work' and thinking unambitious. These words appeared in the FAC but not in the content. I suggest we get more clarity before
jumping to any conclusions based on those three words.

For instance I am two years away from retirement. There is a very good chance that in four years time I will be 'unwilling to work'. I may do volunteer work but I would be unwilling to tie myself down to a job where I have to show up every day. The one thing I will demand from my retirement is the ability to have complete control over what I do, and when I do it. If the wife lets me :)

If you planned and saved and made smart choices and can retire to life aces. Tell me again why I should pay if you spent all your money and didn't plan for your retirement?
 

Not false. UHC forces everyone to pay, and be entrenched in a system they may not want to be in, and forces them to pay into said system whether they want to or not. Enslavement.
 
Not false. UHC forces everyone to pay, and be entrenched in a system they may not want to be in, and forces them to pay into said system whether they want to or not. Enslavement.

bull****.
 
If you planned and saved and made smart choices and can retire to life aces. Tell me again why I should pay if you spent all your money and didn't plan for your retirement?

Amen. I worked my ass off, continue to work, live within my means and save, save, save. I'm not going to pay because some lazy, greedy, impetuous dufii didn't have the personal responsibility to plan for their future.
 
bull****.

I know you don't' like to be honest about UHC, it's sunshine and unicorn rainbow farts.

I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN A UHC SYSTEM. Millions of American's are against it. We do not want to have our healthcare turned over to the Government. We do not want others to pay for it unwillingly. We don't want to be forced to pay into a fail system that UHC is. We don't want to wait 6-9 months for routine medical operations. We do not want to wait 18 weeks for an MRI.

YOU want to FORCE us into that system. Force us to pay for YOUR care.

No, screw that.
 
Amen. I worked my ass off, continue to work, live within my means and save, save, save. I'm not going to pay because some lazy, greedy, impetuous dufii didn't have the personal responsibility to plan for their future.

I put 25% of my pay towards our retirement. My wife just got another raise and should certain sales goals and **** get met, her stock options will see a triple fold increase, meaning that when this damn company she works for sells (it was set up to make enough products that someone bigger scoops it up) we'll be millionaires. But that doesn't mean we aren't scrimping now nor will go on a spending spree when that big check lands.
 
I know you don't' like to be honest about UHC, it's sunshine and unicorn rainbow farts.

I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN A UHC SYSTEM. Millions of American's are against it. We do not want to have our healthcare turned over to the Government. We do not want others to pay for it unwillingly. We don't want to be forced to pay into a fail system that UHC is. We don't want to wait 6-9 months for routine medical operations. We do not want to wait 18 weeks for an MRI.

YOU want to FORCE us into that system. Force us to pay for YOUR care.

No, screw that.

"enslavement." give me a ****ing break.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_blog_main_horizontal.jpg

yeah, that's just awesome right there. we should just sit around huffing our own farts and wait for the market to magic it better.

no thanks. i will instead vote against every candidate that stands in the way of fixing the problem.
 
I put 25% of my pay towards our retirement. My wife just got another raise and should certain sales goals and **** get met, her stock options will see a triple fold increase, meaning that when this damn company she works for sells (it was set up to make enough products that someone bigger scoops it up) we'll be millionaires. But that doesn't mean we aren't scrimping now nor will go on a spending spree when that big check lands.

Good luck to you and your wife!! I hope it happens for you!
 
"enslavement." give me a ****ing break.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

View attachment 67250064

yeah, that's just awesome right there. we should just sit around huffing our own farts and wait for the market to magic it better.

no thanks. i will instead vote against every candidate that stands in the way of fixing the problem.

Much of the cost problems can be tied back to Government interference, and your solution is more Government, that makes no sense at all
 
I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN A UHC SYSTEM. Millions of American's are against it. We do not want to have our healthcare turned over to the Government.
And yet, Medicare -- which is a government health care system -- is one of the most popular government programs. "Medicare For All" is polling very high, pushing 70%. Hmmmmmm.


We do not want others to pay for it unwillingly. We don't want to be forced to pay into a fail system that UHC is. We don't want to wait 6-9 months for routine medical operations.
Sorry not sorry, but those claims are bull****.

Overall, wait times in the US are the same as everywhere else. Anyone who needs urgent care gets it right away. As a result, health care outcomes in nations with UHC are as good, if not better, than the US. E.g. infant mortality is higher in the US than almost every nation in Europe.

Plus, if you can't afford health insurance, then you can't afford that MRI, no matter how fast you can make an appointment.


YOU want to FORCE us into that system. Force us to pay for YOUR care.
lol

News flash! Private health insurance works using the exact same principle. You pay into the system, regardless of whether you are health or sick. The payments are pooled, and distributed to the people who happen to be sick at any given moment. The system forces you to pay for someone else's care. Oh, and to enrich the top executives and shareholders.

In theory, you can choose not to have health insurance; in practice, it's risking bankruptcy. Among other issues is that hospitals set sky-high prices for care, because that's a starting point for negotiations with insurers; however, if you're uninsured, you get socked with the full cost. If you don't have insurance and you have a heart attack, it could cost you $50,000 or more, not including the cost of care after the heart attack.

Unsurprisingly, the US system is horribly inefficient -- as shown by how medical expenditures per capita in the US are more than double the OECD average:

OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg


And let's not forget that "medicine for profit" bestows upon our society wonderful gifts like the opiate crisis, or before the ACA, refusing coverage to individuals or their so-called "pre-existing conditions" in order to keep insurer's profits high.
 
Much of the cost problems can be tied back to Government interference, and your solution is more Government, that makes no sense at all
lol

Try again. All those nations that pay less for care have UHC / socialized medicine. They are more efficient for numerous reasons:

• The UHC system has a very large number of patients, meaning they have a very strong negotiating position with pharmaceuticals.

• The UHC system is paying doctors directly. I.e. they cut out the middle layers, such as insurers or hospitals.

• Most UHC systems can evaluate pharmaceuticals and procedures for effectiveness. This means they don't get suckered into paying top dollar for generic drugs that have a trivial tweak to re-establish a patent.

• Standard markets drive efficiency by encouraging transparency. However, that's not really possible with medical care. If you're having a heart attack, you're not going to have time to comparison shop, and it would be downright idiotic to delay care by traveling 30 extra minutes because St Luke's says it's having a sale on bypass surgeries.

• Government systems tend to be more transparent than private ones. Even the attempts to make US systems more transparent, like *COUGH* the Trump administration requiring hospitals to publish their list costs for procedures -- a) require regulation, and b) don't work because the system isn't designed to provide consumers with information. Medical costs are designed around negotiations with insurers.
 
Much of the cost problems can be tied back to Government interference, and your solution is more Government, that makes no sense at all

look at the chart again.
 
There are 2020 candidates who support it. How scary is that?

The current group of DNC whack jobs is crazy insane and it shows just how far we have slipped as a country.
no longer the party of JFK that is for sure. They are a bunch of loons with no conception of reality.

free everything, everything is free.

those people will pay for it. ol yea until they don't pay for it anymore.
 
There are 2020 candidates who support it. How scary is that?

Actually, have any of the declared candidates opposed it yet? ;)


So funny, a 29 year old idiot is literally running the dimwits in congress.. :)






Tim-
 
look at the chart again.

Single-payer's champions generally paint a lovely picture of healthcare utopia. Patients go to see the doctor of their choice whenever they like, get treatment, and leave the clinic without paying a cent. No copays, no deductibles, no cost-sharing, and no referrals -- health care is "free" at the point of service.


In reality, health care doesn't magically become free; people just pay for it outside the doctor's office, in the form of higher taxes.

Many Democrats have walked back their enthusiasm for single-payer after getting a look at the just how much public money they'd have to come up with.

Last month in North Carolina, Democratic State Representative Verla Insko moved to kill her own pro-single-payer bill. An assessment from the state legislature's Fiscal Research Division pegged the cost of single-payer at $70 billion, $42 billion of which would have to come from the state. That latter figure is almost twice the state budget.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...on-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/#3247b62b56f3

You're enamoured by charts that show only the rosey picture you want to see.
 
lol

Try again. All those nations that pay less for care have UHC / socialized medicine. They are more efficient for numerous reasons:

• The UHC system has a very large number of patients, meaning they have a very strong negotiating position with pharmaceuticals.
If i am a pharmaceutical company i don't care how many patients you have. the price is the price. if you don't like the price you don't get my drug.

• The UHC system is paying doctors directly. I.e. they cut out the middle layers, such as insurers or hospitals.

Sure what doctor is going to work for 20-40% less than what they make now?
would you work for 20-40% less to do your job?
if you say no then why would you expect them too?

• Most UHC systems can evaluate pharmaceuticals and procedures for effectiveness. This means they don't get suckered into paying top dollar for generic drugs that have a trivial tweak to re-establish a patent.

:lamo the government can't do that now with the stuff they do cover what makes you think they can handle the entire country?

• Standard markets drive efficiency by encouraging transparency. However, that's not really possible with medical care. If you're having a heart attack, you're not going to have time to comparison shop, and it would be downright idiotic to delay care by traveling 30 extra minutes because St Luke's says it's having a sale on bypass surgeries.

This is the first correct thing you said. More medical transparency is needed. the biggest cost to medical in this country are the drug middlemen and the hospital charge master DB's.

• Government systems tend to be more transparent than private ones. Even the attempts to make US systems more transparent, like *COUGH* the Trump administration requiring hospitals to publish their list costs for procedures -- a) require regulation, and b) don't work because the system isn't designed to provide consumers with information. Medical costs are designed around negotiations with insurers.
[/QUOTE]

LMAO this is 100% wrong. obamacare was supposed to cost less than 1 trillion it is way above that and continues to get more expensive.
No the hospitals know exactly what the cost of a procedure is.
that is why when you call and tell them you want to pay the cash price without insurance they charge you 200 for that CT instead of 1000.

amazing how that works.
 
And yet, Medicare -- which is a government health care system -- is one of the most popular government programs. "Medicare For All" is polling very high, pushing 70%. Hmmmmmm.



Sorry not sorry, but those claims are bull****.

Overall, wait times in the US are the same as everywhere else. Anyone who needs urgent care gets it right away. As a result, health care outcomes in nations with UHC are as good, if not better, than the US. E.g. infant mortality is higher in the US than almost every nation in Europe.

Plus, if you can't afford health insurance, then you can't afford that MRI, no matter how fast you can make an appointment.



lol

News flash! Private health insurance works using the exact same principle. You pay into the system, regardless of whether you are health or sick. The payments are pooled, and distributed to the people who happen to be sick at any given moment. The system forces you to pay for someone else's care. Oh, and to enrich the top executives and shareholders.

In theory, you can choose not to have health insurance; in practice, it's risking bankruptcy. Among other issues is that hospitals set sky-high prices for care, because that's a starting point for negotiations with insurers; however, if you're uninsured, you get socked with the full cost. If you don't have insurance and you have a heart attack, it could cost you $50,000 or more, not including the cost of care after the heart attack.

Unsurprisingly, the US system is horribly inefficient -- as shown by how medical expenditures per capita in the US are more than double the OECD average:

OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg


And let's not forget that "medicine for profit" bestows upon our society wonderful gifts like the opiate crisis, or before the ACA, refusing coverage to individuals or their so-called "pre-existing conditions" in order to keep insurer's profits high.

I dont' give a ****, people are stupid and offers of "free healthcare" will naturally garner the support of mass stupidity of people who can't take the moment to think for themselves.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...on-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/#3247b62b56f3
 
Back
Top Bottom