Bernie spent 3.5 years trying to get gov't run healthcare for Vermont

[Tamorlane]

I was born and raised in a country with public healthcare, so I know exactly how dumb and inefficient it is

So was I, and yet you conveniently gloss over the benefits of a universal coverage system. Americans pay more than double the rest of the developed world in health care yet still don't have universal coverage. The number one cause for bankruptcies and foreclosures in the US is due to medical bills, that doesn't happen in developed countries.

U.S. health system costs four times more to run than Canada’s single-payer system
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...e-payer-system

The funny thing is that even these people can't deny the fact that our public administration is terrible.

Yet it can always be improved upon for efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability. It always makes me laugh when right wing Americans demonize public administration while their entire ideology is to get rid of it and let corporations and their lobbyists write the bills.

Case in point: republicans put people at the head of departments that they want to no longer exist so they can sabotage them.

Every time I have this conversation I ask to give me examples of something on this scale that our government has run efficiently. Funny enough they disappear from the discussion when I do.

The military, police departments, emergency services:

"I recently attended the wedding of one of the Marines who serve under my husband and fell into conversation with a retired colonel. He was effusive in his gratitude for my family’s nearly 20 years of service, and during the course of our conversation, cocktails in hand under the dappled shade of California live oaks, he became agitated, railing about how important my husband’s continued service was in light of “all the socialists in our government.”

It was the second time in a week I’d heard some form of this complaint from retired service members, and though I don’t watch cable news, I can only imagine that it has been a recent talking point there. I knew the wedding wasn’t an appropriate venue for doing so, but I couldn’t help but gently call attention to his hypocrisy. He had spent a career reaping the rewards of social welfare benefits provided by taxpayer dollars, and the elected representatives he condemned that evening are advocates of, among other things, similar policies for a wider swath of the population.

Let me be clear: I believe that colonel earned those benefits and his pension, and so does he; he wasn’t about to renounce them simply because they’re the product of democratic socialist–style policies.

In American society, “social welfare benefits” are often conflated with the theory of and colloquially referred to as “socialism” in a way that’s designed to evoke images of the Soviet Union or famine in Mao’s China. This intentional muddying of the waters and impoverishment of our vocabulary and thus our understanding has led to fearmongering and red-baiting, leaving us unable to talk about these issues or debate them with the seriousness they deserve. This, as a result, has led many in the military community to misunderstand the reality in which we live: a curious mix of authoritarian hierarchy and a welfare state.

Since my marriage at 23 to a career Marine officer, I have never had to exist in the messiness of what we in the military community refer to as living “on the economy.” I have benefited from a tax-free housing allowance; the ability to shop for wholesome, subsidized food at the commissary; nearly free health care; and generous tuition assistance, which my husband and I were able to use to help pay for our master’s degrees. When my husband retires from the service, he will still have income in the form of a pension. This is the very definition of social welfare."

https://www.thenation.com/article/so...ates-military/

China recently ran fiber optic networks throughout it's entire country for 21st century development. Experts cited the socialist benefit of central planning and funding for the remarkable feat. In the US, left-wing candidate Bernie Sanders recently proposed a plan to make internet a public utility, coast to coast and in areas the ISP's wont go because it isn't profitable, with more affordable prices across the board. The reaction from the right wing was negative.

[Tamorlane]

You are on the same low level as Tamorlane. Some of the worst and most hated posters on this forum. Congratulations to you and Tammy the Resident Retard.

Anyone viewing here from a neutral perspective can see that we are higher quality posters than some guy who sounds like an anti-soviet propaganda poster from the 1970s

[isingmodel]

You are on the same low level as Tamorlane. Some of the worst and most hated posters on this forum. Congratulations to you and Tammy the Resident Retard.

Funny how when you don't have someone to copy and paste, you can't actually produce an original thought and explain your position like I asked you to. And all you can ever retort with is "I have more fwends on the R/P than you!".

That's the kind of thing small children do, although small children are not plagiarising frauds incapable of original thought, in the same way you are.

[dhawkeye1980]

Anyone viewing here from a neutral perspective can see that we are higher quality posters than some guy who sounds like an anti-soviet propaganda poster from the 1970s

Funny how when you don't have someone to copy and paste, you can't actually produce an original thought and explain your position like I asked you to. And all you can ever retort with is "I have more fwends on the R/P than you!".

That's the kind of thing small children do, although small children are not plagiarising frauds incapable of original thought, in the same way you are.

You 2 are so uneducated and unskilled IRL that ypu need the government to run your lives

Sad

[Mark1T]

Here is what is hilarious. Anyone posts on a subject that honestly portrays socialism as a loser that does not work and who have no clue about history; and, the lowest poster on the forum come by like vultures in their attacks to try and discredit you, but provide ZERO proof or even evidence where socialism has ever successfully worked.

In contrast, I and others have provided documented facts where countries were driven into the ground in their experiments with socialism.

Tammy, the Village Resident Idiot, negs me because he wants to believe socialism is the answer to everything, yet cannot answer my challenge of where socialism has succeeded. isingmodel just changes the subject and again, cannot answer my challenge of where socialism has succeeded.

Conclusion: Make a thread that that brutally and honestly describes socialism with actual facts and the buzzards come out with their lies.

[Mark1T]

Anyone viewing here from a neutral perspective can see that we are higher quality posters than some guy who sounds like an anti-soviet propaganda poster from the 1970s

Again, to the lowest-level poster on this forum - that would be you, Tamm, see post #106.

[Tamorlane]

Here is what is hilarious. Anyone posts on a subject that honestly portrays socialism as a loser that does not work and who have no clue about history; and, the lowest poster on the forum come by like vultures in their attacks to try and discredit you, but provide ZERO proof or even evidence where socialism has ever successfully worked.

In contrast, I and others have provided documented facts where countries were driven into the ground in their experiments with socialism.

Tammy, the Village Resident Idiot, negs me because he wants to believe socialism is the answer to everything, yet cannot answer my challenge of where socialism has succeeded. isingmodel just changes the subject and again, cannot answer my challenge of where socialism has succeeded.

Conclusion: Make a thread that that brutally and honestly describes socialism with actual facts and the buzzards come out with their lies.

You guys make the strawman argument suggesting that we want to fundamentally change the way Western democracies work by eradicating private property and replacing the entire country with government-run everything. This is not what I support at all. I support a country working for the majority of the people collectively instead of a few with the most wealth. The US has been overthrown by corporate power in a long and slow-paced coup d'etat. The only candidates who would do anything about it are the ones like Sanders who talk about it. Trump is another corporate crony proved by all of the environmental rollbacks he did so the giants in energy can keep damaging the country long term for some short term personal profits. That's what happens when corporations own the government.

Giving power to the working class in the form of unions can be looked as an aspect of socialism because it's giving power and rights to the workers as a collective against the capitalist employer, who according to socialist ideology would seek to exploit their workers as much as possible, including unsafe working conditions and lowest pay possible. In the 1950's one-third of working Americans were in unions. Today it's around 10% because of corporate efforts to bust them apart and prevent them from organizing. But the records show when unionization is higher, the wealthiest at the top don't get to hoard as much and that wealth gets redistributed to the workers (better pay, compensation, benefits, etc.) and redistributed back into the economy instead of being sent to an off shore tax haven.

for people who like to bitch and complain about socialism, they sure do like to enjoy it's benefits:

"I recently attended the wedding of one of the Marines who serve under my husband and fell into conversation with a retired colonel. He was effusive in his gratitude for my family’s nearly 20 years of service, and during the course of our conversation, cocktails in hand under the dappled shade of California live oaks, he became agitated, railing about how important my husband’s continued service was in light of “all the socialists in our government.”

It was the second time in a week I’d heard some form of this complaint from retired service members, and though I don’t watch cable news, I can only imagine that it has been a recent talking point there. I knew the wedding wasn’t an appropriate venue for doing so, but I couldn’t help but gently call attention to his hypocrisy. He had spent a career reaping the rewards of social welfare benefits provided by taxpayer dollars, and the elected representatives he condemned that evening are advocates of, among other things, similar policies for a wider swath of the population.

Let me be clear: I believe that colonel earned those benefits and his pension, and so does he; he wasn’t about to renounce them simply because they’re the product of democratic socialist–style policies.

In American society, “social welfare benefits” are often conflated with the theory of and colloquially referred to as “socialism” in a way that’s designed to evoke images of the Soviet Union or famine in Mao’s China. This intentional muddying of the waters and impoverishment of our vocabulary and thus our understanding has led to fearmongering and red-baiting, leaving us unable to talk about these issues or debate them with the seriousness they deserve. This, as a result, has led many in the military community to misunderstand the reality in which we live: a curious mix of authoritarian hierarchy and a welfare state.

Since my marriage at 23 to a career Marine officer, I have never had to exist in the messiness of what we in the military community refer to as living “on the economy.” I have benefited from a tax-free housing allowance; the ability to shop for wholesome, subsidized food at the commissary; nearly free health care; and generous tuition assistance, which my husband and I were able to use to help pay for our master’s degrees. When my husband retires from the service, he will still have income in the form of a pension. This is the very definition of social welfare."

https://www.thenation.com/article/so...ates-military/

"nobody likes Bernie"

[Mark1T]

You guys make the strawman argument suggesting that we want to fundamentally change the way Western democracies work by eradicating private property and replacing the entire country with government-run everything. This is not what I support at all. I support a country working for the majority of the people collectively instead of a few with the most wealth. The US has been overthrown by corporate power in a long and slow-paced coup d'etat. The only candidates who would do anything about it are the ones like Sanders who talk about it. Trump is another corporate crony proved by all of the environmental rollbacks he did so the giants in energy can keep damaging the country long term for some short term personal profits. That's what happens when corporations own the government.

Giving power to the working class in the form of unions can be looked as an aspect of socialism because it's giving power and rights to the workers as a collective against the capitalist employer, who according to socialist ideology would seek to exploit their workers as much as possible, including unsafe working conditions and lowest pay possible. In the 1950's one-third of working Americans were in unions. Today it's around 10% because of corporate efforts to bust them apart and prevent them from organizing. But the records show when unionization is higher, the wealthiest at the top don't get to hoard as much and that wealth gets redistributed to the workers (better pay, compensation, benefits, etc.) and redistributed back into the economy instead of being sent to an off shore tax haven.

for people who like to bitch and complain about socialism, they sure do like to enjoy it's benefits:

Strawman? You are describing what Britain tried and failed horribly in the early 80s. By the way, I never spoke about property acquisition by the government.

You are against capitalism because you falsely believe it only benefits the rich and the owners. Without owners and entrepreneurs, what kind of economy would we have?

I am all for paying employees more and I pay my employees much higher than market and they were surprised at how much I valued them at hiring by telling them individually what I believe they are worth. It was more than they 'worthed' themselves. Not all businesses however have that luxury because their margins are thin. My margins are relatively high, yet I maintain great value for my customers.

I am also for improving healthcare, but I am opposed to nationalizing it to the government like Obamacare. Besides exceedingly high costs and ridiculous deductibles, the call centers for Obamacare were made up of untrained and non-licensed individuals who were and are incompetent. Next, socialism or nationalizing an industry prevents competition which helps keep pricing in check. That was another factor in the sky-high costs of Obamacare.

Even though we completely disagree here, Tam, as usual, I appreciate at least your attempt to support your position - for once.

[Tamorlane]

I never spoke about property acquisition by the government.

That's essentially what socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

You are against capitalism because you falsely believe it only benefits the rich and the owners. Without owners and entrepreneurs, what kind of economy would we have?

I'm not against capitalism and private property. According to Karl Marx, capitalism is an inevitably unsustainable stage of the evolution of civilization that will eventually collapse and be replaced with communism.

With that said capitalism has advantages such as promoting innovation, competition, high quality products for the lowest price dictated by supply and demand. Entrepreneurship is great, small businesses should be encouraged and supported. These things, along with the working class, are the backbone of the country (aka the middle class).

The problem is when money power has too much influence over the political system to the point is loses it efficacy and integrity.

[Tamorlane]

"I'm not against capitalism, but I'm just saying Karl Marx said it is unsustainable and will fail and be replaced by communism."

A person who doesn't know any better would assume capitalism is all there is. Coincidentally the more a person learns about history the more likely they are to see it as a temporary period along with slave societies, mercantalism, feudalism and capitalism. Each which was replaced.

[z4v4]

Where did i say police is capitolist? Man you are really not very smart.

Lol @ the second sentence followed by the first sentence. Hint: capital <> capitol, son.

People lived with little healthcare for hundreds of years. It is a priviledge not a right.

First learn how to spell privilege, and then we'll work on discussing it. In the meantime, a remedial English class would suit you well, son.

[isingmodel]

Strawman? You are describing what Britain tried and failed horribly in the early 80s. By the way, I never spoke about property acquisition by the government.

You are against capitalism because you falsely believe it only benefits the rich and the owners. Without owners and entrepreneurs, what kind of economy would we have?

I am all for paying employees more and I pay my employees much higher than market and they were surprised at how much I valued them at hiring by telling them individually what I believe they are worth. It was more than they 'worthed' themselves. Not all businesses however have that luxury because their margins are thin. My margins are relatively high, yet I maintain great value for my customers.

I am also for improving healthcare, but I am opposed to nationalizing it to the government like Obamacare. Besides exceedingly high costs and ridiculous deductibles, the call centers for Obamacare were made up of untrained and non-licensed individuals who were and are incompetent. Next, socialism or nationalizing an industry prevents competition which helps keep pricing in check. That was another factor in the sky-high costs of Obamacare.

Even though we completely disagree here, Tam, as usual, I appreciate at least your attempt to support your position - for once.

So if you aren't talking about property acquisition by the government or some kind of collective, why do you keep bringing up socialism?

You understand that that's literally what the definition of socialism is, right? Collective ownership of the means of production?

Having public services within a capitalist economy isn't socialism. Without being inflammatory, did you actually not know this, or do you know it but like using terms like marxism and socialism just for effect?

[z4v4]

Well ive passed numerous background checks including to protect foreign diplomats and retired as a sergeant, i was a division 1college athlete and i have skills that make me nearly 100k a year while working 3days a week. You and Lenny are uneducated, unemployed socialists who need the government to support you

You live in California making nearly $100K? I think I saw you posting from inside a tent under the 405 when I was in California last week.

[isingmodel]

Lol @ the second sentence followed by the first sentence. Hint: capital <> capitol, son.

First learn how to spell privilege, and then we'll work on discussing it. In the meantime, a remedial English class would suit you well, son.

This is honestly a bit insulting to those in remedial english. They might be a bit behind, but they aren't medically and legally retarded like our Mimsy

[sy2502]

So was I, and yet you conveniently gloss over the benefits of a universal coverage system. Americans pay more than double the rest of the developed world in health care yet still don't have universal coverage.

True, but making it public would be a cure worse than the disease.

The number one cause for bankruptcies and foreclosures in the US is due to medical bills, that doesn't happen in developed countries.

That's because Americans are famously bad at saving for the rainy day.

"Survey: Nearly 4 in 10 Americans would borrow money to cover a $1K emergency"
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/sav...-january-2020/

Frankly if people are so dumb that they spend all their saving in useless Walmart junk, I have zero sympathy if they then have no money left for what's important.

Yet it can always be improved upon for efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability. It always makes me laugh when right wing Americans demonize public administration while their entire ideology is to get rid of it and let corporations and their lobbyists write the bills.

Funny, the private sector is and has always been the best way to improve "efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability" and you forgot, costs. What are you using to post this drivel of yours? A smartphone? A tablet? A computer? You do know the reason even you can own one is free market, right? That's right, them greedy corporations are perfectly happy to lower the cost of their products thanks to free market. In the meantime are you aware of any government service whose cost has gone down over time? Right, me neither.

Case in point: republicans put people at the head of departments that they want to no longer exist so they can sabotage them.



The military, police departments, emergency services:

By "case in point" you mean you just made my case: politicians cannot be trusted to run things. Thank you for the assist, I couldn't have said it better myself. And yet while you complain of how corrupt they are, you want them to run your health? You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

China recently ran fiber optic networks throughout it's entire country for 21st century development. Experts cited the socialist benefit of central planning and funding for the remarkable feat. In the US, left-wing candidate Bernie Sanders recently proposed a plan to make internet a public utility, coast to coast and in areas the ISP's wont go because it isn't profitable, with more affordable prices across the board. The reaction from the right wing was negative.

You want to live in China, be my guest. I hear they do wonders with stupid concepts like "freedom" and "human rights". You'd love it!

[isingmodel]

Is Sy actually trying to argue that the reason Americans end up in medical bankruptcies, while people in every other nation do not, is because Americans just don't save as much as other nations? Not because other nations provide universal coverage at a fraction of the cost? That's a level of tone deafness I wouldn't have thought even she was capable of.

I wonder if Sy also knows that the number one reason why administrative costs are so high in the US is because of the complexities of dealing with so many different insurance providers with different insurance plans.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511963/

In this paper it mentions an example of a hospital in America with 900 beds, that needed 1300 billing staff to accurately manage patient charges and admin. Is this the cheap, innovative private sector efficiency Sy was talking about?

[vitamink7]

I am all for paying employees more and I pay my employees much higher than market and they were surprised at how much I valued them at hiring by telling them individually what I believe they are worth. It was more than they 'worthed' themselves. Not all businesses however have that luxury because their margins are thin. My margins are relatively high, yet I maintain great value for my customers.

I am also for improving healthcare, but I am opposed to nationalizing it to the government like Obamacare. Besides exceedingly high costs and ridiculous deductibles, the call centers for Obamacare were made up of untrained and non-licensed individuals who were and are incompetent. Next, socialism or nationalizing an industry prevents competition which helps keep pricing in check. That was another factor in the sky-high costs of Obamacare.

I can’t believe that someone who doesn’t understand the difference between capitalism, democratic socialism, socialism, and communism works in finance and his employees who are paid above market value. It does not compute.

The only good republicans are Never Trump republicans. Many republicans have switched to democrat so there aren’t that many Never Trump republicans left.

[Dave22reborn]

A person who doesn't know any better would assume capitalism is all there is. Coincidentally the more a person learns about history the more likely they are to see it as a temporary period along with slave societies, mercantalism, feudalism and capitalism. Each which was replaced.

Aren't there threads in the past where you praised communism?

[vitamink7]

Just one of the problems with you, ising. You go off on a tangent when you can't and have no ability to argue the original intent. The other problem with you is that you continually insult people because you know your attacks and your arguments are weak. Easy to figure you out.

You had the chance of being a halfway decent poster, but you are too much like Adam Schiff and that is not a compliment, so don't say thank you.

That’s rich that you make such an accusation when it’s you that continually insults people.

[vitamink7]

You are on the same low level as Tamorlane. Some of the worst and most hated posters on this forum. Congratulations to you and Tammy the Resident Retard.

Who gives you the authority to call people low level posters and retards? I find your posts to be filled with inaccuracies and lies.

[isingmodel]

That’s rich that you make such an accusation when it’s you that continually insults people.

Whilst I do insult people on here (comes with long time 4chan use before I got onto misc), all of my posts come with my own arguments and explanations for all of my positions, fleshed out in detail and almost always with sources, research etc to back them up.

Mark's "arguments" consist of reheated Red Scare propoganda that he copy and pastes (like everything he posts on here, see below) from someone else, where everything he doesn't like is Marxism or Venezuela something something and that's literally the extent of his debating capacities.

Then of course his usual "I have more reps and friends on the R/P than you" routine.

A really **** tier poster. There are some legit good conservative posters here, it's a shame he'll never be one of them

I challenge your outdated source. It is concerning the fact that single-payer healthcare would drastically cut payments to hospitals and doctors to levels that are not sufficient to cover the costs of care.

My family is full of doctors, nurses and pharmacists. They do not want any sort of government run healthcare. Healthcare reform, yes.

The strongest argument against a single-payer system may well be the outcomes in States that have attempted to expand healthcare access through the use of government programs and mandates.

TennCare was a widely touted managed-care Medicaid program adopted by Tennessee in 1994 that was characterized as the solution to providing health insurance to most uncovered residents while simultaneously controlling costs. TennCare's subsequent collapse has been attributed to mismanagement and unrealistic fiscal planning, a perhaps predictable consequence of government administration of health care. Massachusetts enacted legislation in 2006 that was intended to move that state to near-universal health care coverage. By 2008 some 165,000 more residents were insured through a combination of employer mandates and government subsidized insurance, and overall, almost 93% of non-elderly adults had coverage by late 2007. However, because inadequate (or no) provision was made to expand the provider workforce, many of these patients had no access to care, and costs have escalated so far beyond estimates that additional financial support is required.

In addition to Europe's versions of universal healthcare that weighs heavily on the actual health of the countries, which are or near recession.

A better solution for reform is to keep what we have, giving people a choice and controlling costs.

Mark copied and pasted most of this post from an article in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. He did not attribute his source. Notice how he took care to remove the citations from the original.

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full....200906-0882ED

Covfefe

[isingmodel]

Ummm, tammy just did that.

It's worth pointing out here that believing capitalism will eventually be replaced (a statement supported by 100% of the evidence from history, and what any remotely thinking individual should believe) does not in itself mean you are anti-capitalism or think capitalism should be dismantled right now.

Not that relevant to the thread topic but I thought I'd point this out, for your benefit.

[isingmodel]

fukk off kunt. tammy is a communist.

That's nice, maybe he is, but not based on what he has said ITT. I'm just pointing that out for you given that logic doesn't appear to be your forte

[z4v4]

fukk off kunt. tammy is a communist.

Lol, from zaa to medical care, you've always have nothing to stand on and sling personal attacks instead, son.

[vitamink7]

Whilst I do insult people on here (comes with long time 4chan use before I got onto misc), all of my posts come with my own arguments and explanations for all of my positions, fleshed out in detail and almost always with sources, research etc to back them up.

Mark's "arguments" consist of reheated Red Scare propoganda that he copy and pastes (like everything he posts on here, see below) from someone else, where everything he doesn't like is Marxism or Venezuela something something and that's literally the extent of his debating capacities.

Then of course his usual "I have more reps and friends on the R/P than you" routine.

A really **** tier poster. There are some legit good conservative posters here, it's a shame he'll never be one of them

Trump has lied 16241 times as president according to the Washington Post which I consider a reliable source. Mark1T and some others get their example from Trump. The GOP has gotten much worse under Trump.

[Mark1T]

Trump has lied 16241 times as president according to the Washington Post which I consider a reliable source. Mark1T and some others get their example from Trump. The GOP has gotten much worse under Trump.

...and deeks the fruit-loop shows up. We know you secretly love Trump and if you're not in jail, you will vote for him.

[isingmodel]

Didn't I already tell you to fukk my mother

You don't need to tell me to do that bro

[z4v4]

Hey fraud brah, did you play 900 holes of golf this morning? Bet you're getting ready to drop 10k at the range this afternoon, huh?

18 holes. Earned $1200. Going to the range tomorrow. Got property I need to look at today.

[otisthebat]

Trump has lied 16241 times as president according to the Washington Post which I consider a reliable source. Mark1T and some others get their example from Trump. The GOP has gotten much worse under Trump.

You donated $2222 to the KKK.

[BullittEV]

Says the guy has has EVERYTHING because of taxpayers..

Would you go around saying this to veterans on memorial day? You seem to think it's appropriate here, so you probably do in that situation as well. Thoughts?