Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-31-2018, 05:13 PM   #1
basswipe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
basswipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: RI
Posts: 5,695
Medicare for all!!!

32.6 trillion dollars over a 10yr time span to make this happen.The only way to raise that kind of money would be the largest tax increase in US history.

Who pays for this?Certainly not the "rich".The "rich" make up less than .01% of the general population.

Working class taxpaying folks will bear 100% of this burden.For the first time in US history if you have a job and pay taxes you WILL be giving up more than half of your earned income to the US government.Never mind what you give up in state and local,especially in RI.

All of the above is 100% fact.

Sanders/Cortez 2020!!!!!The dream team for today's progressive liberal.

Scary sh!t to say the least.
basswipe is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 05:19 PM   #2
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
I think you're reading that study wrong. I believe the funding would include money currently going into health care and was shown to represent a 2 trillion dollar *savings* when you look at the net.

Now I'm not ready to advocate for single payer health care just yet, but the amount of money that goes into our system relative to the quality of care is pathetic compared to other industrialized nations.
spence is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 05:31 PM   #3
basswipe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
basswipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: RI
Posts: 5,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think you're reading that study wrong. I believe the funding would include money currently going into health care and was shown to represent a 2 trillion dollar *savings* when you look at the net.

Now I'm not ready to advocate for single payer health care just yet, but the amount of money that goes into our system relative to the quality of care is pathetic compared to other industrialized nations.

Nope.Read it 100% correct.

As far as your second statement you are partially correct.In the US we put the most money into the system,the problem is most of those receiving the care don't pay a dime into that system and hence the quality goes down for all.

Affordable Care Act my ass.I pay more now than I ever have and receiving MUCH less.
basswipe is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 06:01 PM   #4
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
You do realize that something like 10% ofthw people in the US own 90% of the wealth, right??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 06:05 PM   #5
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
You do realize that something like 10% ofthw people in the US own 90% of the wealth, right??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"According to an analysis that excludes pensions and social security, the richest 1% of the American population in 2007 owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%"


80/20 rule never fails.....applies to everything

interesting list

Here's the list of the countries with the highest wealth inequality, according to the Allianz report.

U.S.A. — 80.56.
Sweden — 79.90.
U.K. — 75.72.
Indonesia — 73.61.
Austria — 73.59.
Germany — 73.34.
Colombia — 73.18.
Chile — 73.17.
scottw is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 09:25 PM   #6
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Just more proof that trickle down economics is a scam to make the rich even richer....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 08:10 AM   #7
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
"According to an analysis that excludes pensions and social security, the richest 1% of the American population in 2007 owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%"


80/20 rule never fails.....applies to everything

interesting list

Here's the list of the countries with the highest wealth inequality, according to the Allianz report.

U.S.A. — 80.56.
The United States currently operates under a mixed market health care system. Government sources (federal, state, and local) account for 45% of U.S. health care expenditures.[89] Private sources account for the remainder of costs, with 38% of people receiving health coverage through their employers and 17% arising from other private payment such as private insurance and out-of-pocket co-pays
Sweden — 79.90.
The Swedish public health system is funded through taxes levied by the county councils, but partly run by private companies.
U.K. — 75.72.
The four countries of the United Kingdom have separate but co-operating public health care systems that were created in 1948
Indonesia — 73.61.
Indonesia's community health system were organized in three tier, on top of the chart is Community Health Center (Puskesmas), followed by Health Sub-Center on the second level and Village-Level Integrated Post at the third level.
Austria — 73.59.
Healthcare in Austria. The nation of Austria has a two-tier health care system in which virtually all individuals receive publicly funded care, but they also have the option to purchase supplementary private health insurance.
Germany — 73.34.

The University Medical Center Freiburg in Germany
Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance: "Law-enforced health insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) known as sickness funds "Krankenkasse" and "Privat" (Private Krankenversicherung) .[55][56] Compulsory insurance applies to those below a set income level and is provided through private non-profit "sickness funds" at similar rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions
.
Colombia — 73.18.
The national constitution was reformed in 1991 and with this purpose the general system of social security was reformed with the implementation of Law 100, which widely extended health coverage to the population;
Chile — 73.17.
Chile has maintained a dual health care system in which its citizens can voluntarily opt for coverage by either the public National Health Insurance Fund or any of the country's private health insurance companies.
We already spend the money
Total estimated US spending on healthcare in 2016 was 3.3 trillion or $10,348 per person
Between 20 and 30% of that is administrative costs, etc.
Feel free to look up the percent of GDP that other countries spend on healthcare, We win, as long as the highest is winning
If we had a healthcare system that provided primary care alone it would reduce our total healthcare costs by reducing Emergency room usage and providing treatment at earlier stages of disease.
Never mind the drug costs in this country compared to others.

Last edited by Pete F.; 08-01-2018 at 08:12 AM.. Reason: ADD

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 08-01-2018, 08:17 AM   #8
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
We already spend the money
Total estimated US spending on healthcare in 2016 was 3.3 trillion or $10,348 per person
Between 20 and 30% of that is administrative costs, etc.
Feel free to look up the percent of GDP that other countries spend on healthcare, We win, as long as the highest is winning
If we had a healthcare system that provided primary care alone it would reduce our total healthcare costs by reducing Emergency room usage and providing treatment at earlier stages of disease.
Never mind the drug costs in this country compared to others.
I never mentioned healthcare...those were wealth inequality numbers
scottw is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 08:34 AM   #9
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I never mentioned healthcare...those were wealth inequality numbers
Since the title of this thread is Medicare for all!!!
I assumed that your comment was in reference to that
What was it in reference to?

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 08-01-2018, 09:04 AM   #10
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Since the title of this thread is Medicare for all!!!
I assumed that your comment was in reference to that
What was it in reference to?
it's right there...just read

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
You do realize that something like 10% ofthw people in the US own 90% of the wealth, right??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
scottw is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 09:27 AM   #11
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
it's right there...just read

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
You do realize that something like 10% ofthw people in the US own 90% of the wealth, right??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just wanted to make sure you understood that we have that level of wealth inequality and find it impossible to fund some type of universal healthcare

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 08-01-2018, 10:46 AM   #12
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
There is no concrete correlation between wealth inequality and government's possibility to fund anything. It would be "possible" for the US government to fund universal healthcare. It would be possible for it to fund WWIII. It would be possible to fund all manner of destructive things. It already does.
detbuch is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 11:35 AM   #13
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
There is no concrete correlation between wealth inequality and government's possibility to fund anything. It would be "possible" for the US government to fund universal healthcare. It would be possible for it to fund WWIII. It would be possible to fund all manner of destructive things. It already does.
What it seems to me to happen is we can not consider things because they are looked at as the worst possible or destructive. I think we currently have a system with significant problems. I don't think the solution is to have no system or controls. Nor do I think the progressive "free" attitude is correct, but I do think that just like Transportation, Education, Military we as a society need to help one another.

I think what i posted the other day from The Grumpy Economist is the sort of direction that could work, so I'll repost it here:Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

Last edited by Pete F.; 08-01-2018 at 01:22 PM.. Reason: Change color

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 08-01-2018, 12:59 PM   #14
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
really bad choice of colors
scottw is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 01:00 PM   #15
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Just wanted to make sure you understood that we have that level of wealth inequality and find it impossible to fund some type of universal healthcare
WTF?
scottw is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 01:17 PM   #16
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
really bad choice of colors
I should not have made it that color, I realize in hindsight that conservatives don’t like anything green
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 08-01-2018, 01:22 PM   #17
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I should not have made it that color, I realize in hindsight that conservatives don’t like anything green
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
HUH?
scottw is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 01:23 PM   #18
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
HUH?
Sitting in the low chair again?

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 08-01-2018, 02:27 PM   #19
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I should not have made it that color, I realize in hindsight that conservatives don’t like anything green
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Like money?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 04:55 PM   #20
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Donald Trump is now trying to break the health-care system all by himself, . On Thursday, Trump launched an assault Via executive order

New Rules, Cheaper 'Short-Term' Health Care Plans Now Last Up To 3 Years

Some promises Trump has made about health care


‘INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY’ but not the same as everybody unless you can pay


‘NO ONE WILL LOSE COVERAGE’ If they can pay for it


‘NOBODY WILL BE WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY’ as long as you can afford good coverage and dont get sick

‘EVERYBODY’S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF’ Sure they are
wdmso is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 06:20 PM   #21
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I should not have made it that color, I realize in hindsight that conservatives don’t like anything green
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think it is just that they prefer orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 08-01-2018, 08:47 PM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
What it seems to me to happen is we can not consider things because they are looked at as the worst possible or destructive. I think we currently have a system with significant problems. I don't think the solution is to have no system or controls. Nor do I think the progressive "free" attitude is correct, but I do think that just like Transportation, Education, Military we as a society need to help one another.

I think what i posted the other day from The Grumpy Economist is the sort of direction that could work, so I'll repost it here:Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.
I believe I already replied to that Grumpy Economist article by saying that it is quite similar to what "conservatives" proposed before Obamacare was passed. That was rejected by "liberals" in favor of Obamacare which your Grumpy economist characterizes as a mess. Progressive opposition to Grumpy's idea of "single payer" would make it impossible to achieve. Even more so if "conservatives" or Republicans propose such a thing.

Perhaps the problem of achieving what you seem to believe is a "sort of direction that could work", is because of what you previously referred to as the friction between what you believe in and what is impossible. Or maybe Grumpy's idea is unlikely, if not impossible, since you can apply to it what you said about my idea of freedom and the free market (which sounded rational and commonsensical to you)--it can be derailed because it is "innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity."

Last edited by detbuch; 08-01-2018 at 10:45 PM..
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com