Reply With Quote
It's like you don't understand politics at all.
Why did Kamala Harris jump on board if this bill had no purpose?
At some point Americans just have to ask themselves, why are we bothering with all this ? To guarantee incomes and profits for one sector of the economy that is so much smaller in the rest of the developed world? "Because Murica" won't keep costs down.
It's like you don't understand politics at all.
Why did Kamala Harris jump on board if this bill had no purpose?
"why are we bothering with all this ?"
The oligarchy decides how the economy is rigged, how all major sectors are optimized for highest price, the least/no compe ion, shoving "all this " at us.
There is no defense, the oligarchy is unstoppable, irreversible.
I've no problem with talking about the politics of the Democratic Party, tbh...It's the politics forum but let's not talk about the politics of the Democrat Party.
I think they'll just be way better served if somebody young and not too known (Cory Booker maybe? You get the black man bingo too) starts ascending, IMO...
Politics also involves the advancement of an individual's relevance in some cases.
People want attention so they go for it. Surely you understand this as a fervent Trumpette.
So when are you inviting the grim reaper into your life?
Just give up.
Well Booker is a co-sponsor of Bernie's bill so I take it you think the time is right for the Dems to push for single payer?I've no problem with talking about the politics of the Democratic Party, tbh...
I think they'll just be way better served if somebody young and not too known (Cory Booker maybe? You get the black man bingo too) starts ascending, IMO...
show how, in practice, you, or anybody, can change the disaster called American health care for profit?
The timing is probably dictated by Congress trying to repeal Barrycare again, tbh... but it's all pandering, per par...
Honestly, if they could get Trump to tweet more often, they would... that's basically running the campaign for them...
I am not qualified to take on a problem on this complicated.
I would expect that the top earners in all of this mess should not be very comfortable however. You seem to think they are throwing a party. I don't. The fact that Republicans are getting big pushback from their own cons uents should tell you this is in a state of flux. If you think your Democratic Party is going to go W. European overnight or not at all I suggest you think otherwise. The Democrats are eventually gonna have their turn again.
"I am not qualified to take on a problem on this complicated."
"I would expect that the top earners in all of this mess should not be very comfortable however."
"You seem to think they are throwing a party."
They are having a jolly great party fleecing Americans, with absolutely no accountability, no risk, nothing at all. fleece, fleece, fleece, fleece,
"The fact that Republicans are getting big pushback from their own cons uents should tell you this is in a state of flux."
self- ing-for-decades Repug cultists are pushing back?
I love internet, esp this forum. the insanity, the naivete, the dishonesty, the pure bull , are hilarious
^ This from the guy who thinks medicare for all is different than single payer"I am not qualified to take on a problem on this complicated."
"I would expect that the top earners in all of this mess should not be very comfortable however."
"You seem to think they are throwing a party."
They are having a jolly great party fleecing Americans, with absolutely no accountability, no risk, nothing at all. fleece, fleece, fleece, fleece,
"The fact that Republicans are getting big pushback from their own cons uents should tell you this is in a state of flux."
self- ing-for-decades Repug cultists are pushing back?
I love internet, esp this forum. the insanity, the naivete, the dishonesty, the pure bull , are hilarious
It has more to do with future elections and dem policy moving forward than passing actual policy. The Sanders, Warren, and Gabbard wing of the party is trying to distinguish itself from the Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein wing.
Free market, bro. 's not that hard.
Apparently it is, had 8 years to think about it and now have Congress and the White House and they're still trying to rush in (and so far, can't get on the same page).
But frankly, the free market wouldn't touch a old/poor/sick person with a 10 foot pole, tbh... there's no money in it. I think the GOP figured that one out a long time ago.
There's no money in it b/c you're talking about something that's not free market.
Who are you referring to exactly?"I would expect that the top earners in all of this mess should not be very comfortable however."
"You seem to think they are throwing a party."
They are having a jolly great party fleecing Americans, with absolutely no accountability, no risk, nothing at all. fleece, fleece, fleece, fleece,
A little history here, since you're apparently not aware.
We already had 'free market' hospitals denying care or transporting patients because they were too poor... Reagan, the champion of free market, thought it wasn't cool, and passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986, which, well, is a regulation that distorts the market.
But this is another conundrum about healthcare, one I've brought up many times before: strict profit motive vs state interest on access to care.
You might not think the US system is 'free market', but it's certainly the closest to 'free market' in the world today, and well, happens to be also the most expensive for similar outcomes.
I like me some free market just like the next guy, but free market isn't the solution to everything all the time, simply because realistically there's no such thing as an undisturbed free market. Not for long, anyways.
Yea, govt. mandated healthcare provided by employers and penalties for not buying health care is really close to free market. Automatic deductions on businesses and persons is surely really close to free market....
Dude, it's going way over your head. Under the premise of 'free market', there wouldn't be any Medicaid, or Medicare, *thus* no company is touching the poor/sick/old person.
That's what I'm pointing out. The free market works when there's money to be made. Unfortunately, healthcare happens to be a business that, as people age, it becomes less of a business.
That's the reason private insurance companies (both before and after Barrycare), dumped old people to the government after certain age: there's no more money to be made there, and no sane company will pick up the tab.
And yes, govt. mandated healthcare provided by employers and penalties for not buying health care is much closer to free market than any other 1st world country.
Countries like Australia, France, Germany, Canada, UK, etc, whether they use a single-payer or mixed system, go way beyond that, including strict price controls, full coverage, etc.
The UK is particularly interesting, since it has been generally a conservative country for a long time. That's what I mean with 'this is not a left-right' issue, necessarily.
Ironic; this is going way over your head. Old people would obviously be the biggest market with companies having to compete for all those savings. Again, 's not that hard.
Again, you're a little behind in the history of healthcare in America. There's an actual reason why Medicare/Medicaid exist, and insurance companies dump those patients to the government.
Don't argue for arguing, tbh, read up a bit.
And it'd be in the millions had they been allowed to do annuities with all that wasted money. Tbh, you're quite naive.
Again, you're a little behind in the history of healthcare in America. There's an actual reason why Medicare/Medicaid exist, and insurance companies dump those patients to the government.
Don't argue for arguing, tbh, read up a bit.
You can argue that single-payer is not the solution, that's valid. We can discuss that. Throwing 'free market' is also valid, except that Medicare/Medicaid didn't exist forever.
We already had a 'free market' system before Medicaid and Medicare (and even Social Security), and Medicaid/Medicare/SS were actually invented to solve actual problems that the free market couldn't tackle.
That's because the healthcare market, much like the retirement market, isn't your average economic market. At some point, the people in that market stop earning money, and depending on how they did in life, or what kind of events happened throughout their life (through fault of their own or not), they ended up with more or less money, and thus more or less access to care or anything else.
I love the free market, and I think it makes sense in almost every scenario where you have a relatively stable market. When it's not stable, you end up with access problems (that is, only the section of the market that's profitable gets the service). This is common sense capitalism, and why the government had to intervene in a bunch of markets to ensure access (another good example of this is the Universal Service fund in telecommunications).
At some point there's a state interest in the people having access to some of these services. That sometimes conflicts with the profit motive. It's a real issue that, especially on healthcare, simply has to be addressed by whatever solution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions