• 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!

This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

None work worth a crap, and none service a nation of our size.

Far more people are covered by universal HC than by our antiquated for profit disaster and they pay far less for equal or better outcomes. Since we kept this system because so many were covered by their employment why don't we just make all employers cover us then? Now that less and less are doing that we officially have the worst of both worlds.
 
That is understandable. They are all quite broad and cover a lot of ground which is why I am reluctant to go much further. I am not prepared to write a book on it and anything short of that will come up short. However, if you have a specific question, I will do my best to answer it, given the limits of this forum and my abilities

From what I read so far the range is simple and short... to very complicated long reads. Thanks for offering. I don't have a specific question.

Roseann:)
 
Actually the founding fathers were very much for education.

"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." ~ Thomas Jefferson

That may have been true in the past, but for a number of decades your industrial/business has wanted obedient workers, which has led to a substandard education system, and people without critical thinking skills. This is why Trump can get away with lying and scamming 1/3 of American, they lack the critical thinking skills to understand what is happening.

Why else do you think Trump loves the poorly educated, ie his base? Because it's easy to scam such people.


From the OECD:

PISA-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-mathematics-science-reading.png
 
Not if the heath care is...

1.One size fits all.
2.Forced
3.Exclusive
4.Under complete control of the government.

I would like to see creative ideas using the private sector as the main source of health care.

Government being the last resort for a back up to the private sector.

I would completely rule our Single Payer Government controlled health care.

Why? The following link is my answer.

Why Single-Payer Would Make Health Care Worse for Americans | The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation Sep 26th, 2018 Commentary By:

Meridian M. Paulton Research Assistant in Domestic Policy Studies

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D. Senior Fellow

Title: Why Single-Payer Would Make Health Care Worse for Americans

Did you know?

Is there a medical doctor shortage in the USA?

Is there a medical doctor shortage in the USA? - Quora

Is Medical School Worth it Financially? – BestMedicalDegrees.com

The Deceptive Salary of Doctors – BestMedicalDegrees.com

Roseann:)


There is no historical example (that I can find) of for profit free market health care that provides affordable health care for all of it's citizens.

Dems believe it is more important to get everyone covered, than to get part of the population covered better.

No system is perfect, keep that in mind. Medicare has worked very well for me, so I'm not seeing what the problem is with it.

I don't trust any right wing think tank for such solutions. There are just as many persons of letters on the opposite side of this argument. I've met doctors for, and against, a public option.

Moreover, the right seems to make a boogeyman out of government, but the right has no problem with government run police, fire, defense. education ( well, some do) or the Naval Hospital. They always point to the VA as what the inevitable result that medicare for all would be. The two are completely different models.

As for "one size fits all", I"m not for that either. There is a population that do not get employer covered plans, and I believe a public option is the best solution, medicare for anyone who wants it, paid for by taxes.
 
Last edited:
There is no historical example (that I can find) of for profit free market health care that provides affordable health care for all of it's citizens.

Dems believe it is more important to get everyone covered, than to get part of the population covered better.

No system is perfect, keep that in mind. Medicare has worked very well for me, so I'm not seeing what the problem is with it.

I don't trust any right wing think tank for such solutions. There are just as many persons of letters on the opposite side of this argument. I've met doctors for, and against, a public option.

Moreover, the right seems to make a boogeyman out of government, but the right has no problem with government run police, fire, defense. education ( well, some do) or the Naval Hospital. They always point to the VA as what the inevitable result that medicare for all would be. The two are completely different models.

As for "one size fits all", I"m not for that either. There is a population that do not get employer covered plans, and I believe a public option is the best solution, medicare for anyone who wants it, paid for by taxes.

1. Maybe some day... if all of the politicians AKA "servants of the People" kept their political ambitions out of their service to the people.
(getting elected/re-elected via telling the citizens simple talking points that they think will get them elected/reelected via the use of poll results).

Those servants could use their combined intellectual abilities for the good of the People that they serve via representation...

And be the first nation to accomplish that goal.

Instead of using Health Care as a political football via keeping it in play for political gamesmanship.

2. The Democrat Socialist Party is not the same as the Traditional Democrat Party AKA Dems. When you use the word Dems, I think of the Traditional party that seems to have lost control to DemSocs and have joined in or are pretending to join in with the DemSos to try and keep up the illusion that the Democratic Party is an United Party.

3. I knew that prior to your statement that I should keep in mind that no system is perfect.

Medicare may be working very well for you currently.

keep in mind that there is currently a limited number of people being served within that system.

Now let's add the All who are currently not being served within that system to the ALL who are currently being served within that system.

You may be surprised that the service you are currently receiving may suffer from the addition of ALL those people who have been added in line with you for service.

You used the word citizen at the beginning of the post.

Where do ALL of the non-citizens fit into this equation? Will, they also be in competition with ALL of the citizens for service?

4. I provided that information for the reader(s) to read and decide for themselves the quality of that information.

5. The right thinks the governments power should be limited. Via the idea that the more power we relinquish to the government, the more power they want, the more power they take and the power of the People deteriorates and we have less power and freedom to make choices for ourselves.

Governments are not productive. Governments are unproductive.

They are Powerful takers and distributors of The Peoples productivity.

They do not work within a Budget. They have continually kicked that can down the road for years.

They spend our tax payer money on a multitude of stupid things while they keep important things undone which they use as political footballs via keeping those important things undone while they keep promising when campaigning for re-election to accomplish those important things we say we need.

6. They have for years been using the one size fits all... easy way out.

Maybe, some day ALL of our Representatives will actually work hard and use their combined intellectual abilities to accomplish some results that actually benefit "We the People".

I have been listening to and reading about all of the Democrat Socialists talking point promises without any substantive information on how they will actually accomplish those goals. AKA Pipe Dreams.

Trump has actually accomplished goals that have helped Citizens, in spite of the fact that he has had continual resistance from members of the combined political parties.

His Big League Ego and his not being a politician may actually continue to benefit more peoples needs based on the fact that the more goals that braggart achieves the more he can continue to boast about those accomplishments and show off for all of his resistors.

The man is all about winning and that seems to motivate him.

Plus, he also has another big thing in his favor... he is not a socialist.

imho Roseann:)
 
1. Maybe some day... if all of the politicians AKA "servants of the People" kept their political ambitions out of their service to the people.
(getting elected/re-elected via telling the citizens simple talking points that they think will get them elected/reelected via the use of poll results).

Those servants could use their combined intellectual abilities for the good of the People that they serve via representation...

And be the first nation to accomplish that goal.

[...]

2. The Democrat Socialist Party is not the same as the Traditional Democrat Party AKA Dems. When you use the word Dems, I think of the Traditional party that seems to have lost control to DemSocs and have joined in or are pretending to join in with the DemSos to try and keep up the illusion that the Democratic Party is an United Party.

3. I knew that prior to your statement that I should keep in mind that no system is perfect.

Medicare may be working very well for you currently.

keep in mind that there is currently a limited number of people being served within that system.

Now let's add the All who are currently not being served within that system to the ALL who are currently being served within that system.

You may be surprised that the service you are currently receiving may suffer from the addition of ALL those people who have been added in line with you for service.

You used the word citizen at the beginning of the post.

Where do ALL of the non-citizens fit into this equation? Will, they also be in competition with ALL of the citizens for service?

4. I provided that information for the reader(s) to read and decide for themselves the quality of that information.

5. The right thinks the governments power should be limited. Via the idea that the more power we relinquish to the government, the more power they want, the more power they take and the power of the People deteriorates and we have less power and freedom to make choices for ourselves.

Governments are not productive. Governments are unproductive.

They are Powerful takers and distributors of The Peoples productivity.

They do not work within a Budget. They have continually kicked that can down the road for years.

They spend our tax payer money on a multitude of stupid things while they keep important things undone which they use as political footballs via keeping those important things undone while they keep promising when campaigning for re-election to accomplish those important things we say we need.

6. They have for years been using the one size fits all... easy way out.

Maybe, some day ALL of our Representatives will actually work hard and use their combined intellectual abilities to accomplish some results that actually benefit "We the People".

I have been listening to and reading about all of the Democrat Socialists talking point promises without any substantive information on how they will actually accomplish those goals. AKA Pipe Dreams.

Trump has actually accomplished goals that have helped Citizens, in spite of the fact that he has had continual resistance from members of the combined political parties.

His Big League Ego and his not being a politician may actually continue to benefit more peoples needs based on the fact that the more goals that braggart achieves the more he can continue to boast about those accomplishments and show off for all of his resistors.

The man is all about winning and that seems to motivate him.

Plus, he also has another big thing in his favor... he is not a socialist.

imho Roseann:)



I don't agree with you that governments are not productive. Is the police non productive? Is the fire deparment non productive? Is the EPA non productive, was the Consumer Protection Agency non productive? And, I could go on.

the problem with government isn't the government, it is bigness. I worked for a multinational company and they had many of the problems of bigness that government has. Committee management, deadwood in the ranks, office politics, etc. If medicare has to suffer a bit because of bigness, so that everyone is covered, I'm okay with that, though I'm not convinced it will. It might, it might not. The IRS seems to manage okay serving the entire nation.


My use of "citizen" will include anyone who has the permanent legal right to live here. They work, they pay taxes, though should, therefore, have the same rights as citizens. It takes years to obtain citizenship,( and it takes a while to achieve permanent legal residence) but during that time, do they surrender their rights when they work just as hard, and pay the same taxes, as citizens? Note that I said "permanent legal right" Note that these people are covered by the Constitution, as well. Many who are in the military are such persons. A good section of the navy are Filipinos who joined at Subic Bay. That is my view.
 
Last edited:
I think Democrats shoot themselves in the foot when they refer to their policies or themselves as "socialist." The majority of these people, it seems, just want social democracy, which not the same thing as socialism/democratic socialism (which has already been pointed out on this thread, I believe). Socialism is when all the businesses in a country are either owned by the government or worker collectives. Not very many people want that, and, to be honest, it probably doesn't work in practice. These "socialists" would be so much more marketable if they branded themselves properly as social democrats (social democracy is capitalism with high taxes, a strong welfare system, etc., what the Nordic nations have).
 
I don't agree with you that governments are not productive. Is the police non productive? Is the fire deparment non productive? Is the EPA non productive, was the Consumer Protection Agency non productive? And, I could go on.

the problem with government isn't the government, it is bigness. I worked for a multinational company and they had many of the problems of bigness that government has. Committee management, deadwood in the ranks, office politics, etc. If medicare has to suffer a bit because of bigness, so that everyone is covered, I'm okay with that, though I'm not convinced it will. It might, it might not. The IRS seems to manage okay serving the entire nation.


My use of "citizen" will include anyone who has the permanent legal right to live here. They work, they pay taxes, though should, therefore, have the same rights as citizens. It takes years to obtain citizenship,( and it takes a while to achieve permanent legal residence) but during that time, do they surrender their rights when they work just as hard, and pay the same taxes, as citizens? Note that I said "permanent legal right" Note that these people are covered by the Constitution, as well. Many who are in the military are such persons. A good section of the navy are Filipinos who joined at Subic Bay. That is my view.

Clarification concerning my use of not productive follows...

Government agencies do not produce money to keep them in operation.

Yes, there are many Government agencies that do provide important services.

However, those services are dependent on tax payers dollars.

Government agencies do not operate like businesses.

When businesses have the problem you call bigness they need to act to correct that problem in order to prevent the business from going into failure mode.

When Government Agencies have the bigness problem they do not react like a business to solve the problem.

Government reaction is not finding solutions to fix the problem.

They simply resort to raising taxes and those agencies remain bloated. With more bloat to follow because they never go out of business.

What is your view concerning the idea of legal versus illegal status?

Do you believe there is no such thing as any persons who are residing in the U.S. being identified with an illegal status?

If, you believe all persons regardless of legal/illegal status to be citizens, then you will need to put all of them in line with you for accessing Government health care.

How do persons that are not legally residing in the U.S. pay taxes?

Since people who work in the U.S. need a social security number to work in the U.S. >>>in order to pay taxes to the I.R.S.

For the sake of argument let's assume Medicare does suffer from bigness, what do you have in mind to correct that problem?

Can you provide any information concerning the actual cost to the tax payers for your idea of Medicare for all and when it suffers from bigness what the additional cost will be for the tax payers?

Pipe dreams are wonderful things if they actually pan out but end up being a nightmare when they fail.

You use simple talking points to express a pipe dream.

So far, you have not provided any substantial information to prove the pipe dream can be a functional and affordable enterprise.

Roseann:)
 
[...]

Government agencies do not produce money to keep them in operation
Yes, there are many Government agencies that do provide important services.
However, those services are dependent on tax payers dollars.
Government agencies do not operate like businesses.

When businesses have the problem you call bigness they need to act to correct that problem in order to prevent the business from going into failure mode.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on how serious the problem is and whether there is incentive to correct it.
When Government Agencies have the bigness problem they do not react like a business to solve the problem.
And, the alternative is, what? No government?
Government reaction is not finding solutions to fix the problem.

They simply resort to raising taxes and those agencies remain bloated. With more bloat to follow because they never go out of business.
You have a typical right wing view of government. Of course a government, by it's nature, is not subject to the rigors of competition, but that is the price that must be paid in order to have a government. The alternative is anarchy, which would be chaos. Got a better idea?
What is your view concerning the idea of legal versus illegal status?

Do you believe there is no such thing as any persons who are residing in the U.S. being identified with an illegal status?
What are you saying, specifically? Deport 12 million illegals?
If, you believe all persons regardless of legal/illegal status to be citizens, then you will need to put all of them in line with you for accessing Government health care.
I did not say that.
How do persons that are not legally residing in the U.S. pay taxes?
Not sure, but they do, per this study:
Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.
For the sake of argument let's assume Medicare does suffer from bigness, what do you have in mind to correct that problem?

Medicare is more efficient than HMOs, private insurance. No, it's not as efficient as Bernie Sanders said it was, but one thing IS true, it's not less efficient than private insurance. In fact, it's more efficient, but less than Bernie says. Politifact sheds light on this.

Therefore, You should direct that question to private insurers, many are quite large.

Can you provide any information concerning the actual cost to the tax payers for your idea of Medicare for all and when it suffers from bigness what the additional cost will be for the tax payers?

See above.

Pipe dreams are wonderful things if they actually pan out but end up being a nightmare when they fail.

You use simple talking points to express a pipe dream.

So far, you have not provided any substantial information to prove the pipe dream can be a functional and affordable enterprise.

Roseann:)

The alternative, the status of health care as it existed before the ACA, was far worse for many Americans who were unable to afford private insurance, and whose employers did not have health care plans, and the self employed. the ACA eliminated insurers denying claims for pre-existing conditions. You haven't provided any a solution that is better than medicare for all, or the current ACA.

Trump said he was going to do just that, but he failed on that count, even when he had control over both houses. And remember, they tried to do it on a budget consolidation bill, which required only an up or down vote, and they had a majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the house, and they still couldn't do it. So, you think you can? Please enlighten me with your plan.

I doubt I could give you the information you want, you'll never be satisfied, nor do you, or any republicans, have a better alternative.

UHC is not a pipe dream in some 50 western developed nations, so how is it a pipe dream when lesser countries have achieved it?

To assert it is a pipe dream, well, it's only a pipe dream to republicans who resist the concept.
 
Last edited:
[...]

Plus, he also has another big thing in his favor... he is not a socialist.

imho Roseann:)


That's not saying much. He espoused democratic ideas before he decided to run for president. I recall back back in the early 2000s where he suggested that a good way to pay down the debt is one off tax on the super rich's wealth, a 25% grab.

He later retracted that idea, but the fact that he uttered it, means that his core being is a lot closer to being a socialist than you imagine.

Thing is, he doesn't really care. he just wants to be loved by a lot of people, it's all he is really interested in, and the Trump brand.

The question remains, why did he run as a Repub and not a Dem, given his history?

My gut feeling is that, given that he's rich, he surveyed the landscape, noting that the DNC
have "superdelegates" who would be in the tank for a party chosen dem, which would not be him, he opted to join the RNC and run as a repub, who do not have superdelegates. Besides, repubs are much much much more friendly to rich guys.

But, to join the RNC, he has to wear a new suit, one that he is not used to wearing.

This was proven in spades when he was asked would he favor punishment
for women who obtained an abortion ( after R v W was repealed ).

He hesitated, thought about it, and said, "yes, I would favor some form of punishment".

Here's the thing. Abortion and pro life subject is something well thought about by repubs, it's core principle for them, and the answer to that question should have been a no brainer for any bona fide conservative, which is "Of course not". he got into a big kerfuffle for saying that. That he said it, and had to think about the answer, and this proves to me that he's no long time conservative, he gave an answer he thought they would give, he really didn't know the conservative view on the subject. Therefore, he's wearing a new suit purely for the sake of running for president in a party and philosophy he's not all that familiar with.

in short, he's a phony.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on how serious the problem is and whether there is incentive to correct it.

And, the alternative is, what? No government?

You have a typical right wing view of government. Of course a government, by it's nature, is not subject to the rigors of competition, but that is the price that must be paid in order to have a government. The alternative is anarchy, which would be chaos. Got a better idea?

What are you saying, specifically? Deport 12 million illegals?

I did not say that.

Not sure, but they do, per this study:



Medicare is more efficient than HMOs, private insurance. No, it's not as efficient as Bernie Sanders said it was, but one thing IS true, it's not less efficient than private insurance. In fact, it's more efficient, but less than Bernie says. Politifact sheds light on this.


Therefore, You should direct that question to private insurers, many are quite large.



See above.



The alternative, the status of health care as it existed before the ACA, was far worse for many Americans who were unable to afford private insurance, and whose employers did not have health care plans, and the self employed. the ACA eliminated insurers denying claims for pre-existing conditions. You haven't provided any a solution that is better than medicare for all, or the current ACA.

Trump said he was going to do just that, but he failed on that count, even when he had control over both houses. And remember, they tried to do it on a budget consolidation bill, which required only an up or down vote, and they had a majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the house, and they still couldn't do it. So, you think you can? Please enlighten me with your plan.

I doubt I could give you the information you want, you'll never be satisfied, nor do you, or any republicans, have a better alternative.

UHC is not a pipe dream in some 50 western developed nations, so how is it a pipe dream when lesser countries have achieved it?

To assert it is a pipe dream, well, it's only a pipe dream to republicans who resist the concept.

A Limited Servile Government that is Efficient, Versatile, Competent and actually Governs Responsibly as servants of the People while adhering to the U.S. Constitution is not an example of no government or anarchy as you have suggested.

How would you describe the qualities of a Democratic Socialist Government?

I didn't create the illegal problem.

What I expect from ALL of our elected Representatives is for All of them to work together to fix the problem.

Based on the fact that it is their job to fix that problem.

Note: A problem they have been working on for years.

Note: It is a fact>>> that the years old problem still exists today.


The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

Report by Matt O'Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017

snippet

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Jun 30, 2011, 03:35pm The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

The Apothecary Avik Roy Forbes Staff The Apothecary Contributor Group
Healthcare, Fiscal, and Tax Commentary from Forbes’ Policy Editor

snippet

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

You are correct. I will continue to resist that pipe dream concept.

Until that abstract idea; general notion can actually provide information that Health Care for ALL will be Affordable, Beneficial for ALL that also includes an appropriate waiting period when you call to get an appointment to see a Doctor.



Roseann:)
 
That's not saying much. He espoused democratic ideas before he decided to run for president. I recall back back in the early 2000s where he suggested that a good way to pay down the debt is one off tax on the super rich's wealth, a 25% grab.

He later retracted that idea, but the fact that he uttered it, means that his core being is a lot closer to being a socialist than you imagine.

Thing is, he doesn't really care. he just wants to be loved by a lot of people, it's all he is really interested in, and the Trump brand.

The question remains, why did he run as a Repub and not a Dem, given his history?

My gut feeling is that, given that he's rich, he surveyed the landscape, noting that the DNC
have "superdelegates" who would be in the tank for a party chosen dem, which would not be him, he opted to join the RNC and run as a repub, who do not have superdelegates. Besides, repubs are much much much more friendly to rich guys.

But, to join the RNC, he has to wear a new suit, one that he is not used to wearing.

This was proven in spades when he was asked would he favor punishment
for women who obtained an abortion ( after R v W was repealed ).

He hesitated, thought about it, and said, "yes, I would favor some form of punishment".

Here's the thing. Abortion and pro life subject is something well thought about by repubs, it's core principle for them, and the answer to that question should have been a no brainer for any bona fide conservative, which is "Of course not". he got into a big kerfuffle for saying that. That he said it, and had to think about the answer, and this proves to me that he's no long time conservative, he gave an answer he thought they would give, he really didn't know the conservative view on the subject. Therefore, he's wearing a new suit purely for the sake of running for president in a party and philosophy he's not all that familiar with.

in short, he's a phony.

I get it, you have a problem with Trump. I have a similar problem with Democratic Socialists/Socialists.

You have your preference, I have mine.

Roseann:)
 
Bring on free healthcare for everyone. Bring on free education for everyone. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Have the government take over and dictate to large employers. It's called a Utopian society and this is what a Utopian society looks like:

‘Maduro Is Ruin.’ Venezuela’s Poor Now Despise the Socialist Leader


Not the Utopia I envision.
First this little paragraph to clear up an ever present confusion between democratic socialism and social democracy as ideologies. I urge RW'ers to refer to it frequently

"The key difference between the two here is the degree of acceptance of Marxist theory and the premise that capitalism must necessarily go. While democratic socialism advocates converting a society from capitalism to a communist society through democratic means, social democracy supports maintaing the capitalist framework, and working inside it, using economic and political interventions and government regulations/services to help the working class."What is the difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Social Democrat? - Quora

Now what I think social democrats can bring to the table that Dems and Pubs do not. New ideas We desperately need ideas from both the libertarians and the social democrats. We are not getting squat listening to the media describe the same stale ideas listed in the two party platforms.
 
Last edited:
First this little paragraph to clear up an ever present confusion between democratic socialism and social democracy as ideologies. I urge RW'ers to refer to it frequently

"The key difference between the two here is the degree of acceptance of Marxist theory and the premise that capitalism must necessarily go. While democratic socialism advocates converting a society from capitalism to a communist society through democratic means, social democracy supports maintaing the capitalist framework, and working inside it, using economic and political interventions and government regulations/services to help the working class."What is the difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Social Democrat? - Quora

Now what I think social democrats can bring to the table that Dems and Pubs do not. New ideas We desperately need ideas from both the libertarians and the social democrats. We are not getting squat listening to the media describe the same stale ideas listed in the two party platforms.

It's a crock of crap. Their ideas are peace on Earth, green energy, and don't let our environment kill us. Beyond that, they've got nothing but fantasies.
 
It's a crock of crap. Their ideas are peace on Earth, green energy, and don't let our environment kill us. Beyond that, they've got nothing but fantasies.
the funny thing about ideological fantasies fueled by economic frustration. Inside those broad scoped unrealistic and unviable pie in the sky notions, there are smaller ideas for reform legislation that are not all that crazy outside the fantasies.
 
Moreover, the right seems to make a boogeyman out of government, but the right has no problem with government run police, fire, defense. education ( well, some do) or the Naval Hospital. They always point to the VA as what the inevitable result that medicare for all would be. The two are completely different models.

They are different models, but the danger the VA example highlights is relevant in one respect. There are many who make the single-payer argument not just in terms of it being a vehicle for universal coverage and administrative simplification (which are both true and good arguments for it), but as the mechanism for a "starve the beast" approach to American health care.

Those folks believe that the government can and should use administrative price-setting to arbitrarily dial down the amount of spending on the health sector--and that doing so constitutes genuine 'cost savings' that make public financing of the single-payer system cheaper/easier than the current mixed financing approach.

That's where the cautionary tale of the VA (or the NHS, or any other system where a governmental budgetary lever was pulled to save a buck and arbitrarily under-resource the system) is worth thinking about.
 
A Limited Servile Government that is Efficient, Versatile, Competent and actually Governs Responsibly as servants of the People while adhering to the U.S. Constitution is not an example of no government or anarchy as you have suggested.

How would you describe the qualities of a Democratic Socialist Government?

I didn't create the illegal problem.

What I expect from ALL of our elected Representatives is for All of them to work together to fix the problem.

Based on the fact that it is their job to fix that problem.

Note: A problem they have been working on for years.

Note: It is a fact>>> that the years old problem still exists today.


The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

Report by Matt O'Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017

snippet

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Jun 30, 2011, 03:35pm The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

The Apothecary Avik Roy Forbes Staff The Apothecary Contributor Group
Healthcare, Fiscal, and Tax Commentary from Forbes’ Policy Editor

snippet

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

You are correct. I will continue to resist that pipe dream concept.

Until that abstract idea; general notion can actually provide information that Health Care for ALL will be Affordable, Beneficial for ALL that also includes an appropriate waiting period when you call to get an appointment to see a Doctor.



Roseann:)


Your article states:

In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare

Alright:

Let's assume that medicare does cost 11% more as your one example asserts. In my view, if that is all the extra cost is, and the benefit is that ALL citizens are covered, that is worth it to cover everyone.

there is another cost savings benefit your article IGNORES:

When people are healthier, the result of millions being covered who had to rely previously on ER care, the cost to society surely would be less, over time, not more. Surely, the long range benefit would offset this modest increase, notwithstanding the fact that getting affordable health care to everyone is the more moral policy than the republican alternative of millions going without access to affordable care.

Again, if some 50 developed western nations with UHC are experiencing a per capital cost of roughly 50% of that of the US, one can hardly make the case that it is a "pipe dream".

In the meantime, what is the GOP plan for health care? Their plan is only to kill the ACA, and put nothing in it's place. With the Presidency, the house and the senate, they were unable to do that. However, have already done a lot to sabotage it. What is your proposal for health care?


I'm not seeing a more compelling argument by you.
 
Last edited:
A Limited Servile Government that is Efficient, Versatile, Competent and actually Governs Responsibly as servants of the People while adhering to the U.S. Constitution is not an example of no government or anarchy as you have suggested.

How would you describe the qualities of a Democratic Socialist Government?

I didn't create the illegal problem.

What I expect from ALL of our elected Representatives is for All of them to work together to fix the problem.

Based on the fact that it is their job to fix that problem.

Note: A problem they have been working on for years.

Note: It is a fact>>> that the years old problem still exists today.


The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

Report by Matt O'Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017

snippet

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.


While, I'm not defending illegal immigration, it's an accepted fact that there are some 12 million illegals in the US.


First, we must realize that deporting all of them is simply not a viable idea. So, they are here.


The right loves to fear monger about this group, but the reality isn't so clear cut. Do they commit more crime? Studies reveal that undocs/illegals commit fewer crimes overall that US citizens. ( I don't buy the argument that someone who overstays a visa, or is a first time crosser, is a criminal. One is an infraction, the other a class B misdemeanor.)

Do they cost more than Americans do?

Depends on whom you ask:

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

Pro and con arguments are provided, with annotated refutations, as well.

Before you shout " wiki" in a kill-the-messenger" fashion, it's highly annotated, so refute sources, not wiki. Wiki is not a source. Wiki is a provider of sources. So, if you are going to refute anything, refute the sources given in the annotations.
 
Last edited:
the funny thing about ideological fantasies fueled by economic frustration. Inside those broad scoped unrealistic and unviable pie in the sky notions, there are smaller ideas for reform legislation that are not all that crazy outside the fantasies.

But when you are nuts, no one takes you seriously. That's the point. If you want to make achievable goals then you will get there a lot faster than appearing like you need a straight jacket and a padded cell.
 
Your article states:



Alright:

Let's assume that medicare does cost 11% more as your one example asserts. In my view, if that is all the extra cost is, and the benefit is that ALL citizens are covered, that is worth it to cover everyone.

there is another cost savings benefit your article IGNORES:

When people are healthier, the result of millions being covered who had to rely previously on ER care, the cost to society surely would be less, over time, not more. Surely, the long range benefit would offset this modest increase, notwithstanding the fact that getting affordable health care to everyone is the more moral policy than the republican alternative of millions going without access to affordable care.

Again, if some 50 developed western nations with UHC are experiencing a per capital cost of roughly 50% of that of the US, one can hardly make the case that it is a "pipe dream".

In the meantime, what is the GOP plan for health care? Their plan is only to kill the ACA, and put nothing in it's place. With the Presidency, the house and the senate, they were unable to do that. However, have already done a lot to sabotage it. What is your proposal for health care?


I'm not seeing a more compelling argument by you.

So far, I have not read any compelling arguments made by you based on a concept. (an abstract idea; a general notion.)

The concept being... The Medical for ALL, pipe dream you are promoting without any actual details on how exactly it would work any better than the original system or the system that followed. The Affordable Health Care Act.

The original system (which needed fixing) being that which was in place prior to the Democratic Party fix of the health care system.

That fix was put in place solely by the Democrat Party. That system also had problems that needed fixing.

Thus, the need for Republican interference you mentioned in a previous post.

Now we have the Democrat/Democratic Socialist Party latest Government fix... Medical for ALL.

You are the one promoting changing the current health care system with a Democratic Socialist Government Health Care System concept labeled... Medical for ALL.

The onus is on you to provide the merits of that system you are promoting.

I think, our Representatives should find a productive way of fixing the system via various means.

I prefer, fixing Our American Health Care System via the American Way and not the way of other Countries that you and Democratic Socialists promote.

American Way is not taking the easy way out... one size fits all sole Government solutions to fix problems.

It is a combination of multiple and many resources that fits the specific needs of the multiple problems that need to be solved individually and not collectively for all of it's individual citizens.

Roseann:)
 
So far, I have not read any compelling arguments made by you based on a concept. (an abstract idea; a general notion.)

The concept being... The Medical for ALL, pipe dream you are promoting without any actual details on how exactly it would work any better than the original system or the system that followed. The Affordable Health Care Act.

The original system (which needed fixing) being that which was in place prior to the Democratic Party fix of the health care system.

That fix was put in place solely by the Democrat Party.

The ACA was debated for what, 14 months, and scores of amendments by Repubs.

But, of course, they are not going to let Obama have a legacy like the ACA. Repubs are AGAINST all forms of "health care for everyone that is affordable".

But, thing is, most people are for it. So, I really don't goive a daman that a party which has flung so far to the right that it's practically off th spectrum, wants. **** 'em.

The GOOP is shrinking.


That system also had problems that needed fixing.

That is correct
Thus, the need for Republican interference you mentioned in a previous post.

They did not "fix", they sabotaged. Big difference.
Now we have the Democrat/Democratic Socialist Party latest Government fix... Medical for ALL.
It's inevitable because the public wants it.
You are the one promoting changing the current health care system with a Democratic Socialist Government Health Care System concept labeled... Medical for ALL.

The onus is on you to provide the merits of that system you are promoting.

I think, our Representatives should find a productive way of fixing the system via various means.

I prefer, fixing Our American Health Care System via the American Way and not the way of other Countries that you and Democratic Socialists promote.

American Way is not taking the easy way out... one size fits all sole Government solutions to fix problems.

It is a combination of multiple and many resources that fits the specific needs of the multiple problems that need to be solved individually and not collectively for all of it's individual citizens.

Roseann:)


The right is going to lose this argument. The people, on the whole, want a UHC type health care system


My proposal is allow private insurance, but it must compete with medicare for anyone who wants it.


It's called a "public option". It's not exactly medicare for all, but for those who choose it. I think that will be the form of it,
at this juncture ( er ... if and/or when dems take the presidency in 2020 )

But, it must be mandated, one must chose one of the above. The reason is the same reason
people are required to purchase insurance when they purchase a car. A mandate is for the greater good. For, not to have it,
the costs to society are greater than without. That is the reason for both, they are the same.
 
As the old white conservative Fox-News-watching generation dies off, and as the rest of the population cuts the cable--and Fox News--from its viewing choices, then socialism will take on a more prominent role in the United States, as it does already in the U.S. military, whose members ironically hate socialism but live and benefit from its socialist structure.

But none of this matters, of course. Facts don't change people's minds--and especially not the minds of Trump-supporting bozos.
 
As the old white conservative Fox-News-watching generation dies off, and as the rest of the population cuts the cable--and Fox News--from its viewing choices, then socialism will take on a more prominent role in the United States, as it does already in the U.S. military, whose members ironically hate socialism but live and benefit from its socialist structure.

But none of this matters, of course. Facts don't change people's minds--and especially not the minds of Trump-supporting bozos.

:roll:

While many liberal problems are self inflicted by their own kind. Faux outrage, emotional breakdowns, and identity politics.

You are the poster child of liberal hate when you go off on a petty tangent about white people who happen to watch FOX news. You scream acceptance and equality......... while tearing down anyone who doesn't think in lock step with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom