The Differences between the LEFT and LIBERALs.

[Checkerboard Strangler]

People used to be treated halfway decently back in the fifties and sixties.

People used to be treated halfway decently even in the thirties and forties. The New Deal put a lot of people back to work even when capitalism had failed the entire country.

Early on I referenced my own early experience as a young student and later as a young man.
Even working a crappy job afforded me the basics, and that in turn allowed me upward mobility as my education and experience landed me some better work and better opportunities, which I took advantage of.

All that any working man (or woman, obviously) needs is "enough" to have the basics covered and if they are made of the right stuff they will take care of the rest and thrive. They will educate themselves, get the necessary training and they will move up.

No reasonable person expects minimum wage jobs to provide a good living situation but the fact is, minimum wage jobs used to actually BE something one could survive on. You didn't want to stay on minimum wage any longer than necessary because your "roof" was usually a shoddy place, if you had a vehicle it was a heap and you couldn't afford much more than "the light bill" and some very basic food.

Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING else was a luxury, which is expected because the folks who held those kinds of jobs were mostly youngsters just starting out, or seniors supplementing their social security, or they were folks who couldn't or wouldn't get educated.
But it was enough to get a foothold to something better if you applied yourself.
That bottom rung on the ladder is now for all practical purposes sawed off, and that was my only point in all of this.
Without a bottom rung, all the ladders in the world are useless. Upward mobility does not exist if that bottom rung is sawed off or "broken".
A just society isn't supposed to coddle the people at the bottom but upward mobility is a worthy investment because it allows society to maintain a healthy mooring.

This isn't "government free stuff" it's simple principles found in everyday Christianity, just as one example.
Allow folks on the bottom a fighting chance and most of them always figure out how to improve their lot in life.
My heart goes out to struggling young people who are having difficulty due to opportunities which are now somewhat out of reach but which used to be available to young people back in my day...opportunities afforded by just being able to cover the basics even at the bottom rung when you're just starting out.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yep, by requiring that all M4A care providers become public or non-profit.

H.R.676 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Require M4A providers to be public or nonprofit is an excellent idea.
So is excising the already extant sweetheart deals that allow the private sector to "milk" enormous profits off Medicare services.

I think what you are describing ultimately leads to some kind of two-tiered system which exists in a lot of countries with some form of single payer.
There is a public health service and a private sector service.
If you make all the right moves and wind up making scads of dough, you can afford the Cadillac of health care.
If not, keep working hard, safe in the knowledge that you will still be able to afford a Chevy.

What a lot of people notice is, in countries that have that setup, the private sector is more able to use free market principles to compete with each other, with the result that even the "Cadillac" standard of health care is a bit more affordable than it is in places like the US.
If you fall and break your hip in Canada as a foreigner, you'll most likely have to use private sector health care and pay for it yourself but it is still cheaper than it would be down here.

Many Canadians supplement their public health care with gap policies to cover things not covered by the Canada Health Act while others rely on the public system exclusively. And they STILL wind up paying less than we do either way.

As I have said many times before, the USA is never going to wind up with a fully socialized system, not ever. It's pretty clear that the strongest efforts, the ones most likely to succeed, are intended to create an environment where the basics are extended to almost everyone but that does not mean that the private sector has to just shrivel up and die, and regardless of what some progressive Democrats are saying about doing just that, the reality is the reality. The private sector will continue on, and quite possibly thrive, thanks to those who can afford it.
But most people will probably make use of some combination of the two.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why does being communist bother you? You actually act like a socialist, which is just as bad. And apparently, you failed out of Prager U, since you literally froth at the mouth about it. One can almost see the spittle fly.

So this is all you're left with?
I am searching for a legitimate point in your screed, but in and amongst the (A) accusations that I am a communist, (B) accusations that I "might be a socialist which is just as bad", (C) suggestions that I failed at something (PragerU) which is not a legitimate source of education and (D) nonsensical manifestations from the voices in your head about froth and spittle, I found nothing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Require M4A providers to be public or nonprofit is an excellent idea.
So is excising the already extant sweetheart deals that allow the private sector to "milk" enormous profits off Medicare services.

I think what you are describing ultimately leads to some kind of two-tiered system which exists in a lot of countries with some form of single payer.
There is a public health service and a private sector service.
If you make all the right moves and wind up making scads of dough, you can afford the Cadillac of health care.
If not, keep working hard, safe in the knowledge that you will still be able to afford a Chevy.

What a lot of people notice is, in countries that have that setup, the private sector is more able to use free market principles to compete with each other, with the result that even the "Cadillac" standard of health care is a bit more affordable than it is in places like the US.
If you fall and break your hip in Canada as a foreigner, you'll most likely have to use private sector health care and pay for it yourself but it is still cheaper than it would be down here.

Many Canadians supplement their public health care with gap policies to cover things not covered by the Canada Health Act while others rely on the public system exclusively. And they STILL wind up paying less than we do either way.

As I have said many times before, the USA is never going to wind up with a fully socialized system, not ever. It's pretty clear that the strongest efforts, the ones most likely to succeed, are intended to create an environment where the basics are extended to almost everyone but that does not mean that the private sector has to just shrivel up and die, and regardless of what some progressive Democrats are saying about doing just that, the reality is the reality. The private sector will continue on, and quite possibly thrive, thanks to those who can afford it.
But most people will probably make use of some combination of the two.

One problem with Medicare (for some) as we have now is that its premiums are a fixed monthly amount such that I pay about 8% of my Social Security retirement income for Medicare premiums while my girlfriend pays about 17% and my father pays about 22% of their SS retirement incomes to get the same coverage.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

One problem with Medicare (for some) as we have now is that its premiums are a fixed monthly amount such that I pay about 8% of my Social Security retirement income for Medicare premiums while my girlfriend pays about 17% and my father pays about 22% of their SS retirement incomes to get the same coverage.

When in reality it should be scaled a bit, yes?

 

[ttwtt78640]

When in reality it should be scaled a bit, yes?

It was to some extent, since I paid more FICA payroll taxes up front, but yes, IMHO, Medicare premiums should be less regressive after retirement.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"Part B premiums are subject to an income-related monthly adjustment amount, and in 2018, Part B premiums ranges between $134 and $428.60 per month, depending on the modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) reported on your tax return two years ago."

So you're objecting to the lower rung premiums as being too high for lower income folks. I agree with you.
I also think that the Social Security Earnings Cap (what is it, $128,000 right now??) is too low.

So you want the adjustments to be a wee bit more egalitarian and I agree with you. Cut the lower income folks a break because they're already being slammed on everything else right now.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Mister ttwtt, you and I are on the same page on a lot of issues.
I know a lot of people accuse me of being some raging Leftist who waves a flag of Vlad Lenin and wears a Che Guevera tee shirt, but I am not, nor do I wish to be.
I try to and want to be a realist because politics is the art of the possible.

I do lean slightly to the Left but that is because I grew up being blessed with all the advantages that a child of the New Deal was offered, and that includes things that were enhanced by REPUBLICANS like Ike, so it is not as if I see all Republicans as universally bad or evil.
Even Tricky Dick did some incredibly wonderful things during his cursed tenure in the White House, things which his Democrat counterparts could never conjure into reality themselves.

I know what to look for in an elected official, as far as my own beliefs and values, and in the end it doesn't matter to me what party they are in, provided that their party is willing to respect them enough to allow them to LEAD. I can like and respect them all day long but if their own party craps all over them, it's pointless.
But every now and then, the sun breaks through and both Democrats and Republicans are able to summon a little something called "the better angels of our nature" and good things happen.

You are now free to fart in my general direction and call me a Pollyanna, I know that's what they do in Texas, I used to live there.

 

[Casper]

I have my doubts.

Sadly, I agree.

 

[bongsaway]

People used to be treated halfway decently even in the thirties and forties. The New Deal put a lot of people back to work even when capitalism had failed the entire country.

Early on I referenced my own early experience as a young student and later as a young man.
Even working a crappy job afforded me the basics, and that in turn allowed me upward mobility as my education and experience landed me some better work and better opportunities, which I took advantage of.

All that any working man (or woman, obviously) needs is "enough" to have the basics covered and if they are made of the right stuff they will take care of the rest and thrive. They will educate themselves, get the necessary training and they will move up.

No reasonable person expects minimum wage jobs to provide a good living situation but the fact is, minimum wage jobs used to actually BE something one could survive on. You didn't want to stay on minimum wage any longer than necessary because your "roof" was usually a shoddy place, if you had a vehicle it was a heap and you couldn't afford much more than "the light bill" and some very basic food.

Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING else was a luxury, which is expected because the folks who held those kinds of jobs were mostly youngsters just starting out, or seniors supplementing their social security, or they were folks who couldn't or wouldn't get educated.
But it was enough to get a foothold to something better if you applied yourself.
That bottom rung on the ladder is now for all practical purposes sawed off, and that was my only point in all of this.
Without a bottom rung, all the ladders in the world are useless. Upward mobility does not exist if that bottom rung is sawed off or "broken".
A just society isn't supposed to coddle the people at the bottom but upward mobility is a worthy investment because it allows society to maintain a healthy mooring.

This isn't "government free stuff" it's simple principles found in everyday Christianity, just as one example.
Allow folks on the bottom a fighting chance and most of them always figure out how to improve their lot in life.
My heart goes out to struggling young people who are having difficulty due to opportunities which are now somewhat out of reach but which used to be available to young people back in my day...opportunities afforded by just being able to cover the basics even at the bottom rung when you're just starting out.

Well said.

 

[Nap]

More cheap ad hominems. You seem nice. Are you a PragerU student also?

I was pretty much agreeing with you........