2020 Democrat hopefuls

[fried-chicken]

It doesnt end with healthcare. Education as well. Warren is even further on the scale with proposals of wealth confiscation. Keep in mind this is exactly the plan put forth by Lenin: first control healthcare, then control education, then the sky's the limit.

Low IQ, low effort, scare tactics that just don't hold up when you look at the modern world. We've already done this but I guess I'll remind you. If single payer healthcare makes your country socialist name me a single peer capitalist country.

You won't be able to so you'll ignore this.

 

[fried-chicken]

We can't possibly do this thing that literally the entire world manages to do, it's just too hard when you have as much money as we do compared to countries that do it easily with much less wealth.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ok so pretend I left Bernie out and only mentioned Warren since that's who your comment was directed to. Do you disagree that our current economy is "mixed"?

Not at all. Not surprisingly, the most productive, successful, and least controversial parts of our economy fall on the free market side of the equation though. You could maybe make the argument that government involvement in the ag sector creates a happier consumer but it's much more volatile than people want to believe. People get upset when they see farm subsidies but fail to realize that the only reason those subsidies are necessary is because of what essentially amounts to government price controls.

 

[Crazyhole]

We can't possibly do this thing that literally the entire world manages to do, it's just too hard when you have as much money as we do compared to countries that do it easily with much less wealth.

Which country would you like to model our healthcare system after?

 

[fried-chicken]

Which country would you like to model our healthcare system after?

Ours, Medicare.

 

[sk8knight]

Which country would you like to model our healthcare system after?

Any of the countries that pay a higher percentage of taxes with far, far fewer challenges for their system?

 

[Boosted87]

With Warren, I can believe at some level that she at least believes in some level of open markets.

Sanders only limits his proposals for nationalization and mass taxation because he knows anything further would turn off even lefties. He'd nationalize everything if he could, assess 70% wealth taxes, install wage controls, and basically replace the bulk of private industry jobs with government jobs. This is a guy who grew up idolizing communist regimes and now self identifies as a socialist. He's the real deal, which is why this jackass can never be put in a position of actual power.

I think you're right that in his heart and his younger years, he would have been much closer to pure socialism than he today. But it's also pretty normal to moderate your views as you get older. Today's Bernie wants America to look like a Scandinavian economy. That's absolutely pushing things towards the socialism side of the spectrum versus where we are today, but it's still a mixed economy - I think something like 40% of GDP is government spending.

What I don't like is pretending this is a battle between pure socialism and pure capitalism. It's not - it's much more nuanced than that. Norway and Sweden have like 50% of GDP is government spending. That's probably what we're actually arguing here - 40% vs 50%. A pretty drastic change? Sure - but calling it socialism is just scare-tactic-politics because of the negative connotation of the word.

 

[fried-chicken]

There should be no industry in America where doing significant harm increases profits.

No company should be incented to harm americans. If a company begins to have that be the case then it should be run by the government.

Health insurance falls into that group. They make money by paying for as little services as they can possibly get away with while charging as much as they can possibly get away with. That's their business model. The cost of good for them are medical procedure payments. The less they can pay for the better.

It's the same reason private prisons don't work. They make more money the more people go to jail. They lobby politicians to create stricter laws to jail more people. Their incentives don't align with public wellbeing.

Capitalism is great and is by far the easiest economic system to manage but there are some industries that are not comparable because their drive to make more money also produces harm to America people.

We want tech companies in capitalism because if you can't afford an iPhone that's ok. It's not ok if you can't afford an MRI.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ours, Medicare.

Oh. The government program that is on the fastest track to bankruptcy out of all of them?

Maybe tell me which other country that has a successful nationalized single payer healthcare program we should emulate.

 

[fried-chicken]

Oh. The government program that is on the fastest track to bankruptcy out of all of them?

Maybe tell me which other country that has a successful nationalized single payer healthcare program we should emulate.

You've been hearing that your whole life, I've been hearing that my whole life the truth is that we could get the money if we really gave a shit but we'd rather cut taxes for Kim Kardashian.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think you're right that in his heart and his younger years, he would have been much closer to pure socialism than he today. But it's also pretty normal to moderate your views as you get older. Today's Bernie wants America to look like a Scandinavian economy. That's absolutely pushing things towards the socialism side of the spectrum versus where we are today, but it's still a mixed economy - I think something like 40% of GDP is government spending.

What I don't like is pretending this is a battle between pure socialism and pure capitalism. It's not - it's much more nuanced than that. Norway and Sweden have like 50% of GDP is government spending. That's probably what we're actually arguing here - 40% vs 50%. A pretty drastic change? Sure - but calling it socialism is just scare-tactic-politics because of the negative connotation of the word.

The irony here is that those Scandinavian countries don't have the programs that he is proposing outside of welfare. They all went away from them starting in the mid 90s because it was choking their economies.

 

[Crazyhole]

You've been hearing that your whole life, I've been hearing that my whole life the truth is that we could get the money if we really gave a shit but we'd rather cut taxes for Kim Kardashian.

I guess if we ignore proven economic theories like the laffer curve, sure we can. The government can just take 90% of all income and whatever amount of wealth confiscation they want to, print money as necessary, and there will be no consequence of doing so. Everything can be free or cheap, people will continue to work hard, and it will all be because human nature is centered around the greater good.

Hashtag delusional. Hashtag modern education. Hashtag Venezuala.

 

[UCFKnight85]

There should be no industry in America where doing significant harm increases profits.

No company should be incented to harm americans. If a company begins to have that be the case then it should be run by the government.

Health insurance falls into that group. They make money by paying for as little services as they can possibly get away with while charging as much as they can possibly get away with. That's their business model. The cost of good for them are medical procedure payments. The less they can pay for the better.

It's the same reason private prisons don't work. They make more money the more people go to jail. They lobby politicians to create stricter laws to jail more people. Their incentives don't align with public wellbeing.

Capitalism is great and is by far the easiest economic system to manage but there are some industries that are not comparable because their drive to make more money also produces harm to America people.

We want tech companies in capitalism because if you can't afford an iPhone that's ok. It's not ok if you can't afford an MRI.

LOL
What do you think nationalized health care is? Taxing as much as possible to ultimately deliver as little care at once as possible. String things out. Wait lists. You have this severely warped idea of what nationalized health coverage is.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Ummm...... yes?

That’s racist

 

[fried-chicken]

I guess if we ignore proven economic theories like the laffer curve, sure we can. The government can just take 90% of all income and whatever amount of wealth confiscation they want to, print money as necessary, and there will be no consequence of doing so. Everything can be free or cheap, people will continue to work hard, and it will all be because human nature is centered around the greater good.

Hashtag delusional. Hashtag modern education. Hashtag Venezuala.

No you're right, it's impossible.

Except that everyone else has figured it out.

 

[fried-chicken]

LOL
What do you think nationalized health care is? Taxing as much as possible to ultimately deliver as little care at once as possible. String things out. Wait lists. You have this severely warped idea of what nationalized health coverage is.

Everyone loves their medicare. You're against it because health insurance companies paid republicans to tell you to be against it.

 

[Crazyhole]

No you're right, it's impossible.

Except that everyone else has figured it out.

Still avoiding the question I see, deferring to a talking point that your overlord handlers have convinced you of. Which country should we emulate our healthcare on?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Everyone loves their medicare. You're against it because health insurance companies paid republicans to tell you to be against it.

My insurance is fantastic. I watch Veterans get treated like shit by their government run healthcare and shake my head.

Government healthcare is a disaster

 

[Crazyhole]

My insurance is fantastic. I watch Veterans get treated like shit by their government run healthcare and shake my head.

Government healthcare is a disaster

Clearly FC has no personal experience in health insurance beyond being on his parents plan, Medicaid, or Obamacare. If you never had any skin in the game and actually made economic decisions on healthcare you would just assume that free is the best option.

 

[fried-chicken]

My insurance is fantastic.

No it's not.

 

[fried-chicken]

Clearly FC has no personal experience in health insurance beyond being on his parents plan

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

No it's not.

Mine is....get to pick any doctor. Everything is 100% paid. Medical, dental, vision... everything. Also free

 

[fried-chicken]

Mine is....get to pick any doctor. Everything is 100% paid. Medical, dental, vision... everything. Also free

It's not free

 

[UCFKnight85]

Remember, Shook Chicken is a failed employee and failed small business owner (allegedly). It makes sense that he’d resort to socialism and insisting that everyone else pick up the tab for things he otherwise doesn’t want to provide himself

 

[fried-chicken]

Remember, Shook Chicken is a failed employee and failed small business owner (allegedly). It makes sense that he’d resort to socialism and insisting that everyone else pick up the tab for things he otherwise doesn’t want to provide himself

Are you unhinged to the point that you create scenarios of my business failing in your imagination? I have no idea where you got this idea.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Are you unhinged to the point that you create scenarios of my business failing in your imagination? I have no idea where you got this idea.

Its only reasonable to assume given your support for policies that put the burden of providing basic goods and services for yourself onto the backs of everyone else, as all good little socialists do

 

[UCFKnight85]

Poor lil Joe Biden





I’ll give Yang props, he’s the only candidate on that entire side to suggest that maybe the best place for a parent is at home with their child

 

[Crazyhole]

Poor lil Joe Biden

View embedded media

View embedded media

I’ll give Yang props, he’s the only candidate on that entire side to suggest that maybe the best place for a parent is at home with their child

Indoctrination works best when you start early. If it doesn't take, send them to the gulag.

 

[Boosted87]

Not at all. Not surprisingly, the most productive, successful, and least controversial parts of our economy fall on the free market side of the equation though. You could maybe make the argument that government involvement in the ag sector creates a happier consumer but it's much more volatile than people want to believe. People get upset when they see farm subsidies but fail to realize that the only reason those subsidies are necessary is because of what essentially amounts to government price controls.

It's a good take but I think it's easy to forget the really boring stuff. I mean, is there anything less controversial than the interstate highway system? Even in that case though, it's mixed right? Sure, the overall system is federally funded, but private companies get the contracts to do all the actual work.

I think this is a really important distinction. I think nationalizing health insurance (single-payer) is a far better model than nationalizing care itself (like the VA). That creates the same kind of mix as described above - private companies competing for government dollars. I think it would be a terrible idea to nationalize major defense companies, but I have no problem with the bulk of their revenue coming from government contracts.

From my perspective, moving to something like single-payer would be putting healthcare dead-middle of the spectrum. In the same place I see defense technology - 100% publicly funded and 100% privately delivered. Is that the right choice for healthcare? I think that's a good discussion to have, but I don't think it's a choice between capitalism and socialism. I don't see the fact that 85% of Lockheed revenue is from the US Govt as evidence that politicians who support defense technology are socialists.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's a good take but I think it's easy to forget the really boring stuff. I mean, is there anything less controversial than the interstate highway system? Even in that case though, it's mixed right? Sure, the overall system is federally funded, but private companies get the contracts to do all the actual work.

I think this is a really important distinction. I think nationalizing health insurance (single-payer) is a far better model than nationalizing care itself (like the VA). That creates the same kind of mix as described above - private companies competing for government dollars. I think it would be a terrible idea to nationalize major defense companies, but I have no problem with the bulk of their revenue coming from government contracts.

From my perspective, moving to something like single-payer would be putting healthcare dead-middle of the spectrum. In the same place I see defense technology - 100% publicly funded and 100% privately delivered. Is that the right choice for healthcare? I think that's a good discussion to have, but I don't think it's a choice between capitalism and socialism. I don't see the fact that 85% of Lockheed revenue is from the US Govt as evidence that politicians who support defense technology are socialists.

Dude, no one is arguing that we don't have a mixed economy. What we're saying, correctly, is that a candidate like Sanders is such an avowed and self described socialist that if he had his way, he'd push the pendulum so far to the left that we'd be wildly out of balance and it'd wreck our economy. Which most analysis have shown would happen.

To your last point, defense technology is not 100% publicly funded. Defense companies spend millions of dollars every year in IRAD. Yes, the DOD does fund R&D both internally and to private industry but it's not 100%.

You're also missing the fact that defense R&D and manufacturing is merely supplying and supporting our national armed forces, something that is explicitly called out in the Constitution to be stood up by the Federal Government. It's an actual proscribed job function of DC. Nowhere does it say that it's the Federal Government's responsibility to be everyone's insurance company and health care delivery provider. Healthcare is a good and service that can be, and has been, delivered extremely well by the private sector throughout our history. You cannot deliver a national armed forces via the private sector.

 

[sk8knight]

Indoctrination works best when you start early. If it doesn't take, send them to the gulag.

I just learned today that gulag's were good places. So maybe there's something to this.

 

[Crazyhole]

It's a good take but I think it's easy to forget the really boring stuff. I mean, is there anything less controversial than the interstate highway system? Even in that case though, it's mixed right? Sure, the overall system is federally funded, but private companies get the contracts to do all the actual work.

I think this is a really important distinction. I think nationalizing health insurance (single-payer) is a far better model than nationalizing care itself (like the VA). That creates the same kind of mix as described above - private companies competing for government dollars. I think it would be a terrible idea to nationalize major defense companies, but I have no problem with the bulk of their revenue coming from government contracts.

From my perspective, moving to something like single-payer would be putting healthcare dead-middle of the spectrum. In the same place I see defense technology - 100% publicly funded and 100% privately delivered. Is that the right choice for healthcare? I think that's a good discussion to have, but I don't think it's a choice between capitalism and socialism. I don't see the fact that 85% of Lockheed revenue is from the US Govt as evidence that politicians who support defense technology are socialists.

The interstate system isn't an industry, it's an infrastructure project. Defense is the most basic function of government that exists in any country and has since far before Marx was a glimmer in his father's eye.

I think the best example of a mixed economy in the US is in education. We have public and private schools competing with one another to provide a service which people choose between.

If we want a true mixed economy in healthcare, provide a government option that people can choose. Bernie wants to abolish competition and mandate insurance coverage through taxation. Explain where the market principles are when there is no remnant of supply/demand? The government will have to mandate price reimbursement for services and it will price many providers out of business, reducing consumer choices. A mixed economy works to reduce monopolies, Medicare for all will create them. That leaves us with 2 end-game scenarios: government works hand in hand with a very few large private companies which is fascism defined, or the government will have to take over the service end of the equation in which case we have pure socialism.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Bernie and Warren are going to war. See I told you that the libs would eat themselves. Biden will be the nominee easily! Hopefully he quickly chooses Deval Patrick as his running mate in case he has to step down. Biden/Patrick can beat Trump/Pence.

 

[Crazyhole]

Bernie and Warren are going to war. See I told you that the libs would eat themselves. Biden will be the nominee easily! Hopefully he quickly chooses Deval Patrick as his running mate in case he has to step down. Biden/Patrick can beat Trump/Pence.

The same thing happens in every primary. The winner always has something about them that stands out as different from the others. Biden being a former VP is a pretty good starting point to separate himself from the other "moderates". I still like Bernie's chances though because he excites his far left base the most.

 

[Boosted87]

Dude, no one is arguing that we don't have a mixed economy. What we're saying, correctly, is that a candidate like Sanders is such an avowed and self described socialist that if he had his way, he'd push the pendulum so far to the left that we'd be wildly out of balance and it'd wreck our economy. Which most analysis have shown would happen.

To your last point, defense technology is not 100% publicly funded. Defense companies spend millions of dollars every year in IRAD. Yes, the DOD does fund R&D both internally and to private industry but it's not 100%.

You're also missing the fact that defense R&D and manufacturing is merely supplying and supporting our national armed forces, something that is explicitly called out in the Constitution to be stood up by the Federal Government. It's an actual proscribed job function of DC. Nowhere does it say that it's the Federal Government's responsibility to be everyone's insurance company and health care delivery provider. Healthcare is a good and service that can be, and has been, delivered extremely well by the private sector throughout our history. You cannot deliver a national armed forces via the private sector.

So Lockheed for example - something like 85% of revenue is US Govt contracts - 13% is foreign gov't contracts - and 2% is commercial and other. Of course they fund internal IRAD's out of their own profits, but the the vast majority of those profits are from the government contracts in the first place. I don't mean this point to be argumentative. My only point is that the defense industry is overwhelmingly funded with public money that goes to competing private companies for the purpose of a public interest (national defense), and I believe this is a great example of a "mixed' economic system.

To your second point, I think you could deliver a national armed forces via the private sector - it would just be terrible. And I think that's something to keep in mind. The private sector doesn't deliver every good or service as well as the government can. I just want an honest and objective analysis on a case-by-case basis rather than us just yelling "socialism!" and assuming the free market can do it best.

 

[Crazyhole]

So Lockheed for example - something like 85% of revenue is US Govt contracts - 13% is foreign gov't contracts - and 2% is commercial and other. Of course they fund internal IRAD's out of their own profits, but the the vast majority of those profits are from the government contracts in the first place. I don't mean this point to be argumentative. My only point is that the defense industry is overwhelmingly funded with public money that goes to competing private companies for the purpose of a public interest (national defense), and I believe this is a great example of a "mixed' economic system.

To your second point, I think you could deliver a national armed forces via the private sector - it would just be terrible. And I think that's something to keep in mind. The private sector doesn't deliver every good or service as well as the government can. I just want an honest and objective analysis on a case-by-case basis rather than us just yelling "socialism!" and assuming the free market can do it best.

An important part of the discussion is that insurance isn't healthcare, it's an intermediary for payment. That isn't technically a good or service in the traditional sense, it's a hedge (or a bet) against remaining healthy. To that end, a better comparison would be to social security. The only market fundamentals that come into play with insurance are cost and benefits covered/disallowed. Would medicare for all provide different benefits for people who opt out of ones they dont feel will be used? Of course not. Everybody gets the same benefit whether they pay or not. That by definition is socialism and the only way it can possibly be a form of a mixed economy is if they solicit bids from healthcare providers. They won't do that, they will dictate the amount that they will pay and some private companies will be forced out of business.

 

[Boosted87]

The interstate system isn't an industry, it's an infrastructure project. Defense is the most basic function of government that exists in any country and has since far before Marx was a glimmer in his father's eye.

I think the best example of a mixed economy in the US is in education. We have public and private schools competing with one another to provide a service which people choose between.

If we want a true mixed economy in healthcare, provide a government option that people can choose. Bernie wants to abolish competition and mandate insurance coverage through taxation. Explain where the market principles are when there is no remnant of supply/demand? The government will have to mandate price reimbursement for services and it will price many providers out of business, reducing consumer choices. A mixed economy works to reduce monopolies, Medicare for all will create them. That leaves us with 2 end-game scenarios: government works hand in hand with a very few large private companies which is fascism defined, or the government will have to take over the service end of the equation in which case we have pure socialism.

Right but federally funding infrastructure projects and hiring private firms to design/engineer/construct is an example of having a mixed economy. In a pure market economy, the government would fund no roads. In pure a socialist economy, the design/engineer/construct side would all be done directly by government employees. So government funding of private companies to deliver a good or service is totally normal. That's my whole point - supporting something like single payer is no more inherently "socialist" than any other government funded privately delivered good or service.

If candidates were arguing for a Nationalized VA model where everyone is a government employee - now that would be different. And I don't buy you're slippery slop contention. Why assume we'd have to socialize delivery of care? We haven't socialized all the defense contractors or highway construction companies? Consolidation into a limited number of firms delivering care is possible. There's a lot of consolidation going on already. But that's an oligopoly (in one particular industry) not fascism. There's plenty of room for more crony-capitalism for sure.

 

[Boosted87]

An important part of the discussion is that insurance isn't healthcare, it's an intermediary for payment. That isn't technically a good or service in the traditional sense, it's a hedge (or a bet) against remaining healthy. To that end, a better comparison would be to social security. The only market fundamentals that come into play with insurance are cost and benefits covered/disallowed. Would medicare for all provide different benefits for people who opt out of ones they dont feel will be used? Of course not. Everybody gets the same benefit whether they pay or not. That by definition is socialism and the only way it can possibly be a form of a mixed economy is if they solicit bids from healthcare providers. They won't do that, they will dictate the amount that they will pay and some private companies will be forced out of business.

Yes - and this why I think it's important to note that the discussion is about socializing health insurance - not healthcare delivery. Maybe some private companies get forced out of business but how is that any different than a small defense contractor that loses their biggest contract and has to shut down?

And you're certainly right that it's a hedge fundamentally, I don't think that's a good way to think about it. From a societal value perspective, we expect a hospital to treat a car accident victim with the same level of care regardless of ability to pay. We want a newborn child to get the best care possible regardless of the parent's financial situation. We don't want a single mom with 3 jobs to die of treatable cancer because she has no insurance.

So trying to analyze it using purely free-market principles is just not reflective of what society expects out of the system.

 

[sk8knight]

Yes - and this why I think it's important to note that the discussion is about socializing health insurance - not healthcare delivery. Maybe some private companies get forced out of business but how is that any different than a small defense contractor that loses their biggest contract and has to shut down?

And you're certainly right that it's a hedge fundamentally, I don't think that's a good way to think about it. From a societal value perspective, we expect a hospital to treat a car accident victim with the same level of care regardless of ability to pay. We want a newborn child to get the best care possible regardless of the parent's financial situation. We don't want a single mom with 3 jobs to die of treatable cancer because she has no insurance.

So trying to analyze it using purely free-market principles is just not reflective of what society expects out of the system.

Speaking of those examples, what actually happens now in those situations?

 

[Crazyhole]

Yes - and this why I think it's important to note that the discussion is about socializing health insurance - not healthcare delivery. Maybe some private companies get forced out of business but how is that any different than a small defense contractor that loses their biggest contract and has to shut down?

And you're certainly right that it's a hedge fundamentally, I don't think that's a good way to think about it. From a societal value perspective, we expect a hospital to treat a car accident victim with the same level of care regardless of ability to pay. We want a newborn child to get the best care possible regardless of the parent's financial situation. We don't want a single mom with 3 jobs to die of treatable cancer because she has no insurance.

So trying to analyze it using purely free-market principles is just not reflective of what society expects out of the system.

There was a time when church and donation funded hospitals would take on those kinds of cases pro-bono. Actually, they still exist with St Judes being a great example. The canard is that without the government people would just die because all hospitals are evil capitalists.