Serious Political Question

[rgc7]

Ontario,
I am for the most part in favor of free markets, competition, and rugged individualism, but I have to agree with you on 1. Some type of limits put on doctor's abuse of having unlimited freedom to dip into the system with their unnecessary visits and procedures
2. pharmaceutical companies are a lot more difficult
To " Control " because of the vast amount of money and time that they spend on research and development.
The difficulty of getting drugs approved, and the cost to stockholders when drugs fail. When Pharmaceutical
Companies start losing money, they cut back on research and even go out of business. I think the the FDA
Must move faster so new drugs can be approved or rejected faster thus saving Pharmaceutical companies
Both time and money ?
There is another factor to consider, If a cure for a disease is discovered and the drug seems expensive , but it may in reality not be expensive ! It may be not only a saver of lives, pain and suffering ( no small thing ), but also a hugh saver of
hospital costs and stays and painful procedures as well as not only increasing ones life span but giving that person and his family a much improved quality of life. The benefits are enormous !
3. As far as college costs go, they are no longer worth the money unless one is pursuing a professional
Course of study) . I am completely in favor of both cutting federal aid to colleges ( unless the money is for valuable research ) and having colleges use their own money to Fund scholarships.

 

[IrishInOntario]

Ontario,
I am for the most part in favor of free markets, competition, and rugged individualism, but I have to agree with you on 1. Some type of limits put on doctor's abuse of having unlimited freedom to dip into the system with their unnecessary visits and procedures
2. pharmaceutical companies are a lot more difficult
To " Control " because of the vast amount of money and time that they spend on research and development.
The difficulty of getting drugs approved, and the cost to stockholders when drugs fail. When Pharmaceutical
Companies start losing money, they cut back on research and even go out of business. I think the the FDA
Must move faster so new drugs can be approved or rejected faster thus saving Pharmaceutical companies
Both time and money ?
There is another factor to consider, If a cure for a disease is discovered and the drug seems expensive , but it may in reality not be expensive ! It may be not only a saver of lives, pain and suffering ( no small thing ), but also a hugh saver of
hospital costs and stays and painful procedures as well as not only increasing ones life span but giving that person and his family a much improved quality of life. The benefits are enormous !
3. As far as college costs go, they are no longer worth the money unless one is pursuing a professional
Course of study) . I am completely in favor of both cutting federal aid to colleges ( unless the money is for valuable research ) and having colleges use their own money to Fund scholarships.

Rgc,

It's simple to me. I am 100% in favour of free markets for any commodity, service, or product that is non-essential to survival. In those choice based industries it drives down the cost as competitors seek to out do each other for your business.

Free markets belong nowhere near elements of life that are essential to survival and well being, such as healthcare. When the element of choice is stripped away from the equation and people need healthcare to survive, the natural state of humanity "intrinsic and inherit greed" as St. Thomes Aquinas so eloquently explained it, takes over and people will charge absurd rates to others for Healthcare because they know when push comes to shove, most people will lose everything to stay alive. People shouldn't have to make that impossible "choice" in a world where these corporations would still be uber rich if they priced their product with a conscience, or if the Congress and the legal system gave two shits about the average American and made it law that said companies could only charge a certain amount.

Money might rule the world, but it should have no business in life-or-death healthcare decisions. I stand by the statement I'm about to make...

If money, a fabricated system of governance that is no more relavent than the stock we as humans put into it, is more important to you than the survival of your fellow countrymen and women who are in need of medical help, you should be taken out back and executed on the spot as a traitor to your own species....

Harsh, I know. But coming from a medic who may someday be asked to give his own life to save another, I could not give fewer ****s about people's stock options when it comes to saving a life.

 

[hayaka]

Obamacare may not survive in its current form, but one thing is certain: it has changed the parameters of the debate, such that the U.S. will never go back to a health care regime where a person can be denied insurance coverage due to preexisting conditions. The country (by an overwhelming majority) has moved on from that.

This may result in the inability of health insurance companies to survive (although it doesn't have to, e.g. the Switzerland approach), but if it does, then it does. Other countries do just fine without private health insurance carriers.

 

[rgc7]

Rgc,

It's simple to me. I am 100% in favour of free markets for any commodity, service, or product that is non-essential to survival. In those choice based industries it drives down the cost as competitors seek to out do each other for your business.

Free markets belong nowhere near elements of life that are essential to survival and well being, such as healthcare. When the element of choice is stripped away from the equation and people need healthcare to survive, the natural state of humanity "intrinsic and inherit greed" as St. Thomes Aquinas so eloquently explained it, takes over and people will charge absurd rates to others for Healthcare because they know when push comes to shove, most people will lose everything to stay alive. People shouldn't have to make that impossible "choice" in a world where these corporations would still be uber rich if they priced their product with a conscience, or if the Congress and the legal system gave two shits about the average American and made it law that said companies could only charge a certain amount.

Money might rule the world, but it should have no business in life-or-death healthcare decisions. I stand by the statement I'm about to make...

If money, a fabricated system of governance that is no more relavent than the stock we as humans put into it, is more important to you than the survival of your fellow countrymen and women who are in need of medical help, you should be taken out back and executed on the spot as a traitor to your own species....

Harsh, I know. But coming from a medic who may someday be asked to give his own life to save another, I could not give fewer ****s about people's stock options when it comes to saving a life.

 

[Bodizephax]

Rgc,

It's simple to me. I am 100% in favour of free markets for any commodity, service, or product that is non-essential to survival. In those choice based industries it drives down the cost as competitors seek to out do each other for your business.

Free markets belong nowhere near elements of life that are essential to survival and well being, such as healthcare. When the element of choice is stripped away from the equation and people need healthcare to survive, the natural state of humanity "intrinsic and inherit greed" as St. Thomes Aquinas so eloquently explained it, takes over and people will charge absurd rates to others for Healthcare because they know when push comes to shove, most people will lose everything to stay alive. People shouldn't have to make that impossible "choice" in a world where these corporations would still be uber rich if they priced their product with a conscience, or if the Congress and the legal system gave two shits about the average American and made it law that said companies could only charge a certain amount.

Money might rule the world, but it should have no business in life-or-death healthcare decisions. I stand by the statement I'm about to make...

If money, a fabricated system of governance that is no more relavent than the stock we as humans put into it, is more important to you than the survival of your fellow countrymen and women who are in need of medical help, you should be taken out back and executed on the spot as a traitor to your own species....

Harsh, I know. But coming from a medic who may someday be asked to give his own life to save another, I could not give fewer ****s about people's stock options when it comes to saving a life.

RGC is a Korean war vet. While you are an internet warrior. Your puffery about giving your own life to save another is a little much to bolster your argument. IMO.

 

[rgc7]

Ontario,
I admire you altruism and your devotion to your country and humanity. However, Capitalism is not the villain in health care. It has always been and still is absolutely an integral part of high quality health care.
1. While I believe that Doctors , by and large, go into medicine to Help and cure their patients, they also
Have to set up an office, hire help, and provide for their families, so they are not only doctors but also businessmen. Therefore, they must be paid either directly by the patient, work based Insurance, or some form of Socialized System. I think ,however, that many may be businessmen first and doctor's second , and that is unfortunate no matter what the payment system may be.
2. You may not like Pharmaceutical Companies, but do you really think that there would be the wonder drugs that exist today without them ? I. am sure that you realize the great research going on by the many Newer biotech type companies , ( whose shareholders are risking their whole investment ) that have been Losing money for years, and if their research fails, those companies simply go out of business. The research that they do is Cutting Edge, but failures are also very common. Without the shareholders ( whatever their motivations) these companies would never be able to start up . All medical research requires
Large sums of money. No money, no company, no research, no medical breakthroughs.
While Governments ( both capitalistic and socialistic ) may spend certain amounts of money on
Medical research most of the investment come from the private sector as do most of the drugs that give us all a better life from aspirin to antibiotics to future cures for some of the most deadly diseases know to mankind.
3. Just for the record, no where did I State nor do I believe, that anyone should be denied medical
Care because of lack of income ? So I have no idea what you are writing about on that topic ? That is quite contrary to my personal morals and believes.
However, While you think that the Canadian system and other countries with Socialized medical systems Are the best way to provide medical care, I do not share that view.
I prefer the free market system of the United States that is based upon both employer provided
and private insurance as well as both Federal and State ( Socialized programs ) like Medicaid. Our EMRs
Must also treat everyone who goes there for treatment. No one is denied care.
4. No system is better than another. But one thing is certain, the best medical care is in the developed
Nations, most of which are capitalistic. Financially successful Pharmaceutical companies in Capitalistic countries invest in research for life saving drugs. As their profits increase, they investing larger amounts
Of their profits into more and more research. As the research succeeds, certainly the share holders
Profit, but the real winners are the HumanRace.
A perfect example of what I am talking about is a company : Intuitive Surgical.
Years ago if we needed surgery, we went to the hospital and the surgeon cut us open ( like a Tuna Fish ) ;
the cuts were rather large and required long recoveries, healing, and rehabilitation. That was until
Intuitive Surgical invented their DaVinci system that makes the smallest cut possible and the surgeon
Guides the robot to cut and remove what must be removed. The cuts are much smaller, more precise,
And much less recovery time is needed.
Did the investors in Intuitive Surgerical make a ton of money, absolutely ! However, more important
To patients is the much improved, higher success rate, and quicker recovery times. If fact most people
Don't even realize just how much research went into developing Robotic surgery, but they sure benefit
From the product.
In short , I believe that you are wrong in stating : " Free markets belong nowhere near the elements of life.... such as healthcare. "

 

[theskibro]

You answered your own questions. People get too caught up in identifying as one party or the other and can't make AMERICAN choices. I'm not registered as a R but honestly the 2 best choices were John Kasich and Bernie. The problem is Kasich seems too democratic for hard righties and Bernie gets labeled as "socialist" and a "communist" because he wants the top 2% to pay their fair share. People who think the United States of America will ever become a socialist country are delusional. We are who we are because of free markets and capitalism. There will ALWAYS be "socialism" services mixed in with a capitalism country.

For those who thought electing a man who valued the almighty dollar more than his children were foolish. By the end of 4 years there will be a lot of funny business going on in the Trump family. These are entanglements never thought of during the Obama years. Say what you want about the last 8 years, mistakes were made but they were made in the process of trying to help Americans, not make someone rich.

What an fffin joke -- " Say what you want about the last 8 years, mistakes were made but they were made in the process of trying to help Americans"

Sure. That's why Obama commuted the sentence of hundreds of criminals and let terrorists go free from Guantanamo

That's why illegal immigrants have killed many innocent Americans.

Your statement is total bs.

 

[Quest4Twelve]

What an fffin joke -- " Say what you want about the last 8 years, mistakes were made but they were made in the process of trying to help Americans"

Sure. That's why Obama commuted the sentence of hundreds of criminals and let terrorists go free from Guantanamo
- Umm,every president does that. Also I think you meant George W. Bush regarding gitmo but nice try.

That's why illegal immigrants have killed many innocent Americans.
- Welcome to 2017's new reason to never leave the house "immigants"

Your statement is total bs.

 

[theskibro]

If u r gonna post nonsense, done waste our time. Obama let high profile terrorists go free from Gitmo

Innocent citizens have been killed because of Obama and holders policies on immigration.
This is fact

 

[8th Man]

If u r gonna post nonsense, done waste our time. Obama let high profile terrorists go free from Gitmo

Innocent citizens have been killed because of Obama and holders policies on immigration.
This is fact

We help create refugees and then turn our backs on those innocent women and children. We have become a nation of cowards.

 

[BGI User 1596]

We help create refugees and then turn our backs on those innocent women and children. We have become a nation of cowards.

No wonder crime and homocide rates went through the roof!

 

[8th Man]

No wonder crime and homocide rates went through the roof!

 

[BGI User 1596]

 

[8th Man]

Time for some semi-automatic weapon restrictions.

 

[BGI User 1596]

Time for some semi-automatic weapon restrictions.

Public Executions!

 

[47WimanND]

Miss America has walked back her healthcare statement but the real fact is that humans were not born with the right to have all of their problems solved for them by government. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of an equal result of those pursuits for everyone.

A civilized society should have a safety net for those of us that are physically or mentally unable to fend for ourselves, but the system becomes bloated and unmanageable when it encourages people to NOT try to help themselves.

In the past if you didn't hunt or gather you died. Obviously that's extreme, but it is not unreasonable to ask those that CAN to get off their asses and work for a living.

 

[voltz99]

Liberal policies fail.

THE DREAM is not to collect welfare or working at McDonalds..

Hillary's econ plan was for Mcdonalds to pay more and liberals wonder why she lost.

 

[Telx1]

Obamacare may not survive in its current form, but one thing is certain: it has changed the parameters of the debate, such that the U.S. will never go back to a health care regime where a person can be denied insurance coverage due to preexisting conditions. The country (by an overwhelming majority) has moved on from that.

This may result in the inability of health insurance companies to survive (although it doesn't have to, e.g. the Switzerland approach), but if it does, then it does. Other countries do just fine without private health insurance carriers.

Just now read recent posts here, and some good conversation for sure. Chose to reply to this post because I think providing for preexisting conditions is the single most important issue in this debate, and how we choose to address this will in fact determine whether we have a semi market driven healthcare system or socialized medicine. Simply mandating that Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and removing any ownership and consequences for healthcare insurance decisions we make, will lead to socialized medicine. That seems the path we are on as the whole narrative has been shaped in the context of how unfair and inhumane it is for insurance companies to deny coverage for the poor neighbor diagnosed with cancer who faces financial ruin, etc... thus far, all the GOP solutions for this are along the lines of providing some form of financial bail out to cover the added insurance exposure this represents.

Personally, I hope a solution emerges that has some element of holding us accountable for the insurance decisions we make. I'm all for providing healthcare via Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but I'm not supportive of any system that allows a healthy gainfully employed individual to decide to forgo the expense of healthcare insurance until such time that a major healthcare issue develops, and then allows that individual to gain unfettered access to coverage. This is akin to deciding to skip the expense of car insurance until after you have an accident, and then mandate insurance coverage after the fact. It makes no sense and it is totally at odds with the fundamental concept of insurance.

Perhaps the narrative needs to change to ask if we want a system where a young Silicon Valley millionaire can forgo the expense of healthcare insurance for many years and then opt in after they develop a major health issue, while the insurance premiums for everyone else is necessarily high to cover the insurance exposure this represents. If that's the narrative, perhaps the discussion would shift to ideas on how to hold that individual to account financially for the decision to forgo the expense of insurance. I'm all for a an affordable healthcare system that covers the majority of expenses for folks with preexisting conditions who have no insurance coverage through no fault of their own, but I'm not for a system that allows, and in fact encourages, gainfully employed individuals to forgo the expense of insurance until they have a health problem.

 

[IrishHerb]

Just now read recent posts here, and some good conversation for sure. Chose to reply to this post because I think providing for preexisting conditions is the single most important issue in this debate, and how we choose to address this will in fact determine whether we have a semi market driven healthcare system or socialized medicine. Simply mandating that Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and removing any ownership and consequences for healthcare insurance decisions we make, will lead to socialized medicine. That seems the path we are on as the whole narrative has been shaped in the context of how unfair and inhumane it is for insurance companies to deny coverage for the poor neighbor diagnosed with cancer who faces financial ruin, etc... thus far, all the GOP solutions for this are along the lines of providing some form of financial bail out to cover the added insurance exposure this represents.

Personally, I hope a solution emerges that has some element of holding us accountable for the insurance decisions we make. I'm all for providing healthcare via Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but I'm not supportive of any system that allows a healthy gainfully employed individual to decide to forgo the expense of healthcare insurance until such time that a major healthcare issue develops, and then allows that individual to gain unfettered access to coverage. This is akin to deciding to skip the expense of car insurance until after you have an accident, and then mandate insurance coverage after the fact. It makes no sense and it is totally at odds with the fundamental concept of insurance.

Perhaps the narrative needs to change to ask if we want a system where a young Silicon Valley millionaire can forgo the expense of healthcare insurance for many years and then opt in after they develop a major health issue, while the insurance premiums for everyone else is necessarily high to cover the insurance exposure this represents. If that's the narrative, perhaps the discussion would shift to ideas on how to hold that individual to account financially for the decision to forgo the expense of insurance. I'm all for a an affordable healthcare system that covers the majority of expenses for folks with preexisting conditions who have no insurance coverage through no fault of their own, but I'm not for a system that allows, and in fact encourages, gainfully employed individuals to forgo the expense of insurance until they have a health problem.

I think the issue with preexisting conditions and health insurance surfaced after the last economic disaster in 2008. A lot of people lost their jobs ... jobs where they had health insurance ... when they got new jobs or tried to buy health insurance on their own, they ran into problems if they had some problems like diabetes, cancer, etc ... either were denied insurance or had to pay much higher premiums. This is what I feel has to be addressed ... if one paid for health insurance, or his/her job did, for years ... then pre-existing conditions should not be an issue if one changes jobs, etc.

I can agree, if one simply avoids paying for health insurance until a problem surfaces ... then TOUGH SHIT.

 

[Telx1]

I think the issue with preexisting conditions and health insurance surfaced after the last economic disaster in 2008. A lot of people lost their jobs ... jobs where they had health insurance ... when they got new jobs or tried to buy health insurance on their own, they ran into problems if they had some problems like diabetes, cancer, etc ... either were denied insurance or had to pay much higher premiums. This is what I feel has to be addressed ... if one paid for health insurance, or his/her job did, for years ... then pre-existing conditions should not be an issue if one changes jobs, etc.

I can agree, if one simply avoids paying for health insurance until a problem surfaces ... then TOUGH SHIT.

We are in agreement.

 

[perseverare]

is this the political question thread?

I have one:

this whole Russian / Election thing
Was there Russian influence and pressuring as to the potential result?

Hello! you damned well bet there was! And you had better think we should been prepared for it!
It is called international politics! We do it...or we damned well better be doing what would be in our interests! And we should do whatever we can...and we should be prepared and wary of vice versa! Not just the Russians but anyone making such expected and obviously anticipated efforts!

So the Dems complain the Russians attempted to infuence the election and caught the outgoing administration with pants down? Unprepared? Not paying attention? Not capable? Who did the Dems have on the watch? Hannah Wells?

geez! wth? as 348 would say: "get better"!

 

[hayaka]

Just now read recent posts here, and some good conversation for sure. Chose to reply to this post because I think providing for preexisting conditions is the single most important issue in this debate, and how we choose to address this will in fact determine whether we have a semi market driven healthcare system or socialized medicine. Simply mandating that Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and removing any ownership and consequences for healthcare insurance decisions we make, will lead to socialized medicine. That seems the path we are on as the whole narrative has been shaped in the context of how unfair and inhumane it is for insurance companies to deny coverage for the poor neighbor diagnosed with cancer who faces financial ruin, etc... thus far, all the GOP solutions for this are along the lines of providing some form of financial bail out to cover the added insurance exposure this represents.

Personally, I hope a solution emerges that has some element of holding us accountable for the insurance decisions we make. I'm all for providing healthcare via Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but I'm not supportive of any system that allows a healthy gainfully employed individual to decide to forgo the expense of healthcare insurance until such time that a major healthcare issue develops, and then allows that individual to gain unfettered access to coverage. This is akin to deciding to skip the expense of car insurance until after you have an accident, and then mandate insurance coverage after the fact. It makes no sense and it is totally at odds with the fundamental concept of insurance.

Perhaps the narrative needs to change to ask if we want a system where a young Silicon Valley millionaire can forgo the expense of healthcare insurance for many years and then opt in after they develop a major health issue, while the insurance premiums for everyone else is necessarily high to cover the insurance exposure this represents. If that's the narrative, perhaps the discussion would shift to ideas on how to hold that individual to account financially for the decision to forgo the expense of insurance. I'm all for a an affordable healthcare system that covers the majority of expenses for folks with preexisting conditions who have no insurance coverage through no fault of their own, but I'm not for a system that allows, and in fact encourages, gainfully employed individuals to forgo the expense of insurance until they have a health problem.

Telx, I agree with much of what you say. Under Obamacare, freeloaders are definitely a problem. One solution is the Swiss approach. The Swiss make it too expensive for a person not to have coverage. In Switzerland, a person that fails to buy health insurance pays a tax penalty that is much more expensive than the cost of the insurance.

Guess what? Everyone is insured there!

Why Switzerland has the world's best health care system

 

[Telx1]

[

Telx, I agree with much of what you say. Under Obamacare, freeloaders are definitely a problem. One solution is the Swiss approach. The Swiss make it too expensive for a person not to have coverage. In Switzerland, a person that fails to buy health insurance pays a tax penalty that is much more expensive than the cost of the insurance.

Guess what? Everyone is insured there!

Why Switzerland has the world's best health care system

Hayaka, thanks sharing the article. One frustration I've had with the whole national political posturing, is that there really has never been a transparent fact driven debate of the viable healthcare system alternatives and associated costs and pros and cons. Would love an extended open process where the Swiss model and the Single payer model and the Denmark hybrid model, et al are openly discussed and debated. I have a ton of knee jerk reactions as to why the Swiss model would never work here, which is why we need a serious transparent fact formed national debate. Unfortunately, Our current political leaders, and the current political environment, are ill suited for this.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Telx, I agree with much of what you say. Under Obamacare, freeloaders are definitely a problem. One solution is the Swiss approach. The Swiss make it too expensive for a person not to have coverage. In Switzerland, a person that fails to buy health insurance pays a tax penalty that is much more expensive than the cost of the insurance.

Guess what? Everyone is insured there!

Why Switzerland has the world's best health care system

Hum how much does Switzerland give in foreign aid to other countries?
How much resources do they spend keeping sea lanes open?
How easy is it to sneak across the border in Switzerland and stay there?
How many people are in Switzerland compared to the United States?
I can go on and on, but one thing is for certain every American should get the same Health Care Congress gets Period!

 

[perseverare]

^ and Congress makes people sick!

 

[hayaka]

Hum how much does Switzerland give in foreign aid to other countries?
How much resources do they spend keeping sea lanes open?
How easy is it to sneak across the border in Switzerland and stay there?
How many people are in Switzerland compared to the United States?
I can go on and on, but one thing is for certain every American should get the same Health Care Congress gets Period!

In terms of foreign aid per capita, Switzerland is 8th in the world, The U.S. is 20th. The world's #1, Sweden, provides 14 times per capita what the U.S. hands out in foreign aid.

In terms of immigrant population, 22% of Swiss residents are immigrants, compared to 13% in the U.S.

Keeping the sea lanes open? Switzerland is a land-locked country.

Yes, there are a lot more people in the U.S. than in Switzerland, which on an economy of scale basis, should actually improve the U.S. prospects for effective health care. Part of the problem for Obamacare in many of the rural counties and states is that the population is too small to create a viable health care market, whereas it is doing fine in the more populous cities.

In any event, if you combine all of the countries in western Europe with health care systems that are either single payer or the Swiss mode, the overall population is larger than the U.S. population.

 

[deadirishpoet]

In terms of foreign aid per capita, Switzerland is 8th in the world, The U.S. is 20th. The world's #1, Sweden, provides 14 times per capita what the U.S. hands out in foreign aid.

In terms of immigrant population, 22% of Swiss residents are immigrants, compared to 13% in the U.S.

Keeping the sea lanes open? Switzerland is a land-locked country.

Yes, there are a lot more people in the U.S. than in Switzerland, which on an economy of scale basis, should actually improve the U.S. prospects for effective health care. Part of the problem for Obamacare in many of the rural counties and states is that the population is too small to create a viable health care market, whereas it is doing fine in the more populous cities.

In any event, if you combine all of the countries in western Europe with health care systems that are either single payer or the Swiss mode, the overall population is larger than the U.S. population.

I'm talking g about military aid but since you want to talk per capita compared to the United States they don't Supply shit then.

In regards to immigration I was talking bout Illegal imagrints. Have you even been to Switzerland? I have and it's very difficult to renew a Visa let alone become a citizen. What do you believe the amount of illegal aliens in Switzerland is? Do you think it comes close to the so-called 20 - 11 million in this country.
Now Switzerland find themselves having problems with all the Muslim immigrants, and they want to stop the flow of immigrants ......shocker

I am aware Switzerland is landlocked so let me put it to you this way. What do you believe the per capita is to United States in military aid and assistance around the world


And in regards to all that single-payer/Switzerland model neither one of these are better than what Congress is receiving So why is it that Congress is forcing something down our throat that they don't have to live with can you answer me that?
The same can be said in regards to school choice. I doubt anyone from Congress is sending their kids to public schools that are failing.

Now brother I guess you live in California so it sounds like your state is going to try implement its own Single Payer system which they can't afford (I believe the amount was 400 billion dollars a year), and you better believe Mexico will be shipping its people there in droves for medical, Much like what happened in Vermont it will fail so there's your answer to single-payer

 

[hayaka]

I'm talking g about military aid but since you want to talk per capita compared to the United States they don't Supply shit then.

In regards to immigration I was talking bout Illegal imagrints. Have you even been to Switzerland? I have and it's very difficult to renew a Visa let alone become a citizen. What do you believe the amount of illegal aliens in Switzerland is? Do you think it comes close to the so-called 20 - 11 million in this country.
Now Switzerland find themselves having problems with all the Muslim immigrants, and they want to stop the flow of immigrants ......shocker

I am aware Switzerland is landlocked so let me put it to you this way. What do you believe the per capita is to United States in military aid and assistance around the world


And in regards to all that single-payer/Switzerland model neither one of these are better than what Congress is receiving So why is it that Congress is forcing something down our throat that they don't have to live with can you answer me that?
The same can be said in regards to school choice. I doubt anyone from Congress is sending their kids to public schools that are failing.

Now brother I guess you live in California so it sounds like your state is going to try implement its own Single Payer system which they can't afford (I believe the amount was 400 billion dollars a year), and you better believe Mexico will be shipping its people there in droves for medical, Much like what happened in Vermont it will fail so there's your answer to single-payer

I'm not following your argument about military aid vs. other types of aid. What is the difference in your mind? If anything, U.S. military aid is usually tied to the sale of armaments from U.S. manufacturers, so in many respects the "aid" goes right back into the U.S. economy, unlike humanitarian aid.

As I said before, Switzerland has a higher percentage of immigrants in its population than the U.S. Legal vs. illegal immigrants? The evidence is mixed as to the effect of illegal immigration on an economy, because while illegals use public services they also pay payroll taxes, have social security withholdings, etc., that they often never get back.

The Congress thing is a non-sequitur, so I won't get into that, other than yes, it would be nice if everyone got that kind of gold-plated coverage.

As for single payer in Cali, I seriously doubt that will occur any time soon given the lobbying strength of the insurance companies out here, and in any event Obamacare is doing fine in CA so there is no political will for that kind of change at this point.

 

[deadirishpoet]

I'm not following your argument about military aid vs. other types of aid. What is the difference in your mind? If anything, U.S. military aid is usually tied to the sale of armaments from U.S. manufacturers, so in many respects the "aid" goes right back into the U.S. economy, unlike humanitarian aid.

As I said before, Switzerland has a higher percentage of immigrants in its population than the U.S. Legal vs. illegal immigrants? The evidence is mixed as to the effect of illegal immigration on an economy, because while illegals use public services they also pay payroll taxes, have social security withholdings, etc., that they often never get back.

The Congress thing is a non-sequitur, so I won't get into that, other than yes, it would be nice if everyone got that kind of gold-plated coverage.

As for single payer in Cali, I seriously doubt that will occur any time soon given the lobbying strength of the insurance companies out here, and in any event Obamacare is doing fine in CA so there is no political will for that kind of change at this point.

There is a big difference in military aid versus other types of aid.
The United States for right or wrong is in many countries with military aid and not all of it is tied into selling military goods especially when it's the United States blood and treasure that's on the line. Bullets cost more than bread. United States Air Force flying sorties cost more than any medical Aid out there. Tomahawk cost more than houses. There is a huge cost there that Sweden does not pay and like I said for right or wrong it's what the United States does now.

Now in regards to illegals not receiving any funds either you are ignorant to the system or just in denial because illegal aliens across the country have been receiving aid of one kind or another. They are universities out there giving illegal aliens not undocumented aliens but illegal aliens free education hell some are even voting..

The point I was making about Congress is how can they main date a medical system on the public that they will not have to deal with.

Insurance companies have been living the good life for decades and President Obama I thought had the right idea how to curb the insurance companies but instead he went to bed with them.

Now in regards to California Single Payer idea is starting to grow legs but as I said it didn't work in Vermont where there was low population and it will not work in California where there is a very large population.

Something needs to be done the country is going on 20 trillion dollars in debt there's going to need to be deep cuts across the board aside from military which the Constitution says taxes must go to especially with the Specter of terrorism all around the world.

I appreciate your position and respect your thought I just wish there was a way the two parties can work this out

 

[hayaka]

So you're saying we can't afford a more effective health care system because we must continue to spend more on our military than the next 8 nations combined? Does that really make any sense? Why are we still in Germany? Whom are we deterring? Russia? Russia is less than half the size of the USSR during the Cold War, with an accompanying reduction in military strength. Whom are we deterring in Korea? The impoverished North Koreans? South Korea is three times as large as the DPRK and is fully capable of defending itself.

U.S. military spending and U.S. global strategy is a relic of an era that expired almost 30 years ago, but continues due to inertia, and the desire for the military-armaments complex to keep the gravy train rolling.

 

[deadirishpoet]

So you're saying we can't afford a more effective health care system because we must continue to spend more on our military than the next 8 nations combined? Does that really make any sense? Why are we still in Germany? Whom are we deterring? Russia? Russia is less than half the size of the USSR during the Cold War, with an accompanying reduction in military strength. Whom are we deterring in Korea? The impoverished North Koreans? South Korea is three times as large as the DPRK and is fully capable of defending itself.

U.S. military spending and U.S. global strategy is a relic of an era that expired almost 30 years ago, but continues due to inertia, and the desire for the military-armaments complex to keep the gravy train rolling.

No I'm not saying that but it would be nice if the next eight Nations combined would do a little more of the heavy lifting.

Much like the deadbeats and sponges in America sucking the fruits of our labor so is 70% of our allies sucking off of us.

In order for America not to be involved in so much of the world and to prevent trouble from coming to our front door then what would you suggest?

If we pull out of certain areas of the world then the void would be filled in with trouble.

All I'm stating is that the constitution says tax money goes towards the defense of this nation mostly everything else should be handled by the states

 

[hayaka]

The 8 countries that we spend more than combined includes China and Russia, you know. The US spends $611 billion to China's $145 Billion and Russia's $65 Billion, and a lot of their spending is to deter each other, as well as India, in the case of China.

Where would there be a void if we pulled out? Not Europe. Not Korea or Japan. Kuwait perhaps, although most of the forces assigned to Kuwait are already stateside. And that's another thing-why do we need so many stateside bases? California alone has 23 military bases. They certainly aren't there to protect against foreign attack. Most of them are little more than federal employment programs for local communities.