I left out a lot because I didn't want to copy/paste the entire article. It's a good article that looks at both sides...
"This final idea may be the most controversial. After all, it’s not clear how to frame this finding. Democrats can say: Despite conservative arguments that a welfare state could destroy poor young people’s ambition, Denmark’s educational mobility is no worse than the U.S. But Republicans can say: Despite liberal arguments that Denmark is so much better than the U.S. at social mobility, its poor kids are no more likely to go to college. “There is something here for the Republicans and for the Democrats,” Heckman told me."
Socialism isn't the "Easy Button" that solves all of societies inequalities. The only way to do that is through generational improvement...want a better life for your kids? Stay home, read to them, teach them the value of work and persistence. Give them a head start through knowledge and education. Encourage them to learn a skill or a trade. Encourage them to join the military to learn respect and discipline. Encourage them to go to college. Instill these values in your children so that they pass them on to their kids, and so on.
Upward social mobility isn't something that can be instilled by the government. As the article says "...parents matter."
Thanks much. I agree. It did have a bit of both, even though the data reviewed was rather limited.
On that note:
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/...th-care-wages/
Seems like that bit of Canadian style socialism would end up saving trillions of dollars.
saving $Ts overall (assuming ALL rates are renegotiated to match Medicare rates, which is a stretch) but someone still has to pay for it. Would take higher employment taxes (paid for by business + employees), federal VAT (estimated at 20%), plus income tax hikes.
A federal VAT would wipe out almost all of the wage increase benefits they estimate and be added on top of current State rates (up to 10% in some areas). That's 30 cents in tax for every dollar! Transaction taxes affect low income people much more than high earners...
It's all a give or take. Some people will moan for paying even 1% in taxes. Some people would gladly pay in half their salary to get guaranteed healthcare coverage (sure, they don't make a lot, but that's the point).
Nice to see some civil debate. I will chip in with my own anecdote about the previous discussion about communism/socialism. I grew up in a country with a military dictatorship, and the difference really is democracy. A social democracy has nothing to do with communism, and not much to envy to a capitalist democracy (granted, depending who you ask).
Democracy is the central point though. It's an interesting point because democracy in and of itself is very socialistic in nature (in practice, it's more debatable): It's free to vote, barriers that prevent voting are largely either illegal or shunned (in any solid democracy anyways), and a vote from the rich or poor counts the same.
That three trillion a year number number being kicked around for "medicaid for all" is based on the faulty premise that they can just pay hospitals medicaid rates. Hospitals as we know them couldnt survive at those rates.
Why is that?
American for-profit health care, as we see now, will never be affordable, and will continue to be denied to 10Ms who can't pay, esp if the oligarchy totally kills ACA
for-profit health care is so wealthy and powerful (it owns legislators who are both cheap and corrupt) that it will defeat legislatively all attempts at alternatives that would reduce its payout to Capital
so
America is ed and un able
... condemned to overpay for health care by $1T+ / year while under-serving 10Ms, and of course those 10Ks who suffer and die for want of health care, and while overall obtaining worse health care outcomes than any other industrial country, including nobody in those countries going bankrupt from medical debt.
and don't forget the 50K to 100K people killed every year by avoidable medical mistakes.
All y'all's inane debates may be a fun exercise in bull , but nothing about health care will change for the better, and the Repugs are working relentlessly hard to it change for the worse.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-01-2018 at 06:50 AM.
Boo is right. Democrats are just posturing for the elections with the "medicaid for all" bull so the stupid ones will vote for them. They know there is no ing way their campaign promises will ever become legislation.
Boots the engineer and CC reporting for duty as his second in command on the ed and un able train!
I like it.
CC's point was the Dems are lying and that Medicare for all would be cheaper than for-profit health care, therefore, impossible.
While my point was the for-profit health care has been and will continue to fleece Americans over their entire lives, and that there is no possible solution.
Avg health insurance cost / year for family of 4 is approaching, inexorably, $30K.
"The total costs for a typical family of four
insured by the most common health plan offered by employers
will average $28,166 this year,
according to the annual Milliman Medical Index.
That's up from 2010, when the cost crossed $20,000.
Just two years ago, it topped $25,000.
The estimate includes the average cost of health insurance paid by employers and employees, as well as deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...our/676046002/
All those taxes!!!
I'm sure that the analysis totally didn't consider that.
Seriously though, they did.
Free up people from having to fork over 20k/year for health insurance, and it becomes affordable, not only that you aren't paying for massive amounts of overhead, and profit margins for CEOs.
A dollar out of my pocket is a dollar out of my pocket where it ends up is sort of irrelevant, and that is what your analysis is missing. Yes taxes would have to be imposed to pay for it, and yes that is not really an added burden for most people.
As I have said all along, we already have tons of inefficient cost-shifting. Our health care and health insurance system is broken and expensive relative to the alternative. We are all poorer for keeping it.
How specifically is that premise faulty?
The hospital CEO that I spoke to would be thrilled to have all the people who came in his doors actually pay their bills. He seemed pretty sure that meant he could drop prices for the people who were paying.
(full disclosure, this was years ago, when they were debating the ACA)
two identical people in the hospital for identical everything.
one pays current rates 100k for their stay.
the other pays zero.
Hospital revenue 100k.
Medicaid pays 75k, well under that 100k threshold.
both are covered.
Hospital revenue now 150k.
Tell me again how the hospital goes under? Assuming the 100k was the absolute breakeven point for the hospital?
Not sure what the exact numbers are, but this sure seems to pass the initial smell test. A good fleshing out with actual data would be more warranted than a casual dismissal.
Wow you just solved the healthcare puzzle RG
Good Job!
10 whole words. I can see you've had your coffee this morning. Try to lay off a little, I worry you might strain something.Wow you just solved the healthcare puzzle RG
Good Job!
Here is what a little thought and effort looks like. I hope my virtue signaling doesn't trigger you, snowflake.Wow you just solved the healthcare puzzle RG
Good Job!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year after year, it becomes easier and easier to point out how little American capitalism is doing to make people's lives better.
The benefits of our economy increasingly go to fewer and fewer hands.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...economy/566387The new Roosevelt Ins ute and NELP research examines public firms in three major but notoriously low-wage industries— food production, retail, and restaurants—weighing buybacks against worker compensation. Unsurprisingly, Tung and Milani found that companies were aggressive in purchasing their own shares. The restaurant industry spent 140 percent of its profits on buybacks from 2015 to 2017, meaning that it borrowed or dipped into its cash allowances to purchase the shares. The retail industry spent nearly 80 percent of its profits on buybacks, and food-manufacturing firms nearly 60 percent. All in all, public companies across the American economy spent roughly three-fifths of their profits on buybacks in the years studied. “The amount corporations are spending on buybacks is staggering,” Milani said. “Then, to look a little deeper and see how this could impact workers in terms of compensation, was staggering.”
How much might workers have benefited if companies had devoted their financial resources to them rather than to shareholders? Lowe’s, CVS, and Home Depot could have provided each of their workers a raise of $18,000 a year, the report found. Starbucks could have given each of its employees $7,000 a year, and McDonald’s could have given $4,000 to each of its nearly 2 million employees.
“Workers around the country have been pushing for higher wages, but the answer is always, ‘We can’t afford it. We’d have to do layoffs or raise prices,’” Tung said. “That is just not true. The money is there. It’s just getting siphoned out of the company instead of reinvested into it.”
That's what googling looks like. It's not hard, it's not thoughtful, and it's not productive.Here is what a little thought and effort looks like. I hope my virtue signaling doesn't trigger you, snowflake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year after year, it becomes easier and easier to point out how little American capitalism is doing to make people's lives better.
The benefits of our economy increasingly go to fewer and fewer hands.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...economy/566387
You get your bills paid off yet?
Capitalism is fantastic for Capitalist, everybody else is at risk
I am willing to fight that fight at this point. Doing jack hasn't really gotten us anywhere, but lining the pockets of the hyperwealthy.
lmao adding the "demoratic" really does take some of the stink off doesnt it
It's odd. You never see a country with universal health care trying to repeal it.Wow you just solved the healthcare puzzle RG
Good Job!
It's almost... as if it works or something.
I'm not philosophically opposed to universal healthcare as I have stated many times on this forum but first you have to have a plan. To date there is no plan for universal healthcare in the USA. Bernie and the Socialist's latest album "everything is free and we'll figure out the details later" doesn't qualify as a plan.It's odd. You never see a country with universal health care trying to repeal it.
It's almost... as if it works or something.
Actually, the conservative think tank already told us how to pay for it, through their analysis of it, and I have already outlined it here. Private health insurers will be a huge loser here, but that will come at the benefit of everybody else.
Every other industrialized country has figured it out, so there are plenty of options to pick from.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
