New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What a shock, progressive policy leads to (bad) unintended consequences...

BitterPill

The Shoe Cometh
Supporting Member
Wow so failure will bring even more failure and this is supposed to be good...how funny errr sad
I know you get your medical treatment from the ER under an alias and pass the cost on to the rest of us, and while that system works well for you, the rest of us don't like it so much.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Medicare works well, but it can be improved. For one, let Medicare negotiate lower drug prices, but I know you are a big fan of corporate welfare.

Perhaps the problem is you.
And medicare needs no govt subsidy...lets see what happens without govt paying into medicare
 

BitterPill

The Shoe Cometh
Supporting Member
Oh it was intended alright. That's progressives for you - if they can't get what they want they will break the mfer so bad that the only way left to go is into their preferred policy response. Whether it's a "good consequence" or not remains to be seen. As I pointed out, there's always unintended consequences and a severe degradation in quality and fiscal insolvency are the most likely from "single payer."

I mean, seriously, why should we listen to you progressives again on this? You told us Obamacare was going to fix health care and that was a flat out lie. It is time we simply stop listening to you people...
The ACA is better than what it replaced, which was basically go to the ER. Sadly, it's not perfect, better but not perfect.

I think we should go for perfect.
 
So Obama intended failure...hmmm okay

Liz Fowler ensured failure for any public option plan within the ACA:
"When the legislation that became known as 'Obamacare' was first drafted, the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted it..."

"What was most amazing about all of that was that, before joining Baucus' office as the point person for the health care bill, Fowler was the Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs (i.e. informal lobbying) at WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurance provider (before going to WellPoint, as well as after, Fowler had worked as Baucus' top health care aide)..."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1
"Whatever one's views on Obamacare were and are: the bill's mandate that everyone purchase the products of the private health insurance industry, unaccompanied by any public alternative, was a huge gift to that industry; as Wheeler wrote at the time: 'to the extent that Liz Fowler is the author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well.'"
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Medicare is single-payer, and it works remarkably well, so I think you are full of garbage yet again.
it only works if govt chips in 835 billion..it can't stand on itself..the HI funds and SMI funds will require more taxation...this sucks.
 
Yes, what could possibly go wrong with giving Medicare to everyone...for free?

View attachment 28770
If society can provide better access to health care at lower costs to consumers through taxes as opposed to premiums paid to for-profit corporations, why continue the current free lunch for the investor class?
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
"In 2014, U.S. health care spending increased 5.3 percent following growth of 2.9 percent in 2013 to reach $3.0 trillion, or $9,523 per person. The faster growth experienced in 2014 was primarily due to the major coverage expansions under the Affordable Care Act, particularly for Medicaid and private health insurance. The share of the economy devoted to health care spending was 17.5 percent, up from 17.3 percent in 2013."
 

Lukey

Senator
If society can provide better access to health care at lower costs to consumers through taxes as opposed to premiums paid to for-profit corporations, why continue the current free lunch for the investor class?
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
"In 2014, U.S. health care spending increased 5.3 percent following growth of 2.9 percent in 2013 to reach $3.0 trillion, or $9,523 per person. The faster growth experienced in 2014 was primarily due to the major coverage expansions under the Affordable Care Act, particularly for Medicaid and private health insurance. The share of the economy devoted to health care spending was 17.5 percent, up from 17.3 percent in 2013."
Because it's socialism, and socialism always fails:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/22/no-such-thing-as-free-health-care-in-canada

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/04/28/were-sick-of-broken-health-care
 
https://berniesanders.com/medicare-for-all/
"SIGN IF YOU AGREE

“'The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people,' Sanders said. 'Meanwhile, we spend far more per capita on health care with worse results than other countries. It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system.'”

Since socialism is a transitory phase between capitalism and communism, it has never failed because it has never been attempted in appropriate circumstances.
"For Marxists, socialism or, as Marx termed it, the first phase of communist society, can be viewed as a transitional stage characterized by common or state ownership of the means of production under democratic workers' control and management, which Engels argued was beginning to be realised in the Paris Commune of 1871, before it was overthrown.[35]

"Socialism to them is simply the transitional phase between capitalism and 'higher phase of communist society'. Because this society has characteristics of both its capitalist ancestor and is beginning to show the properties of communism, it will hold the means of production collectively but distributes commodities according to individual contribution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Marxism_and_the_socialist_movement
 

Lukey

Senator
https://berniesanders.com/medicare-for-all/
"SIGN IF YOU AGREE

“'The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people,' Sanders said. 'Meanwhile, we spend far more per capita on health care with worse results than other countries. It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system.'”

Since socialism is a transitory phase between capitalism and communism, it has never failed because it has never been attempted in appropriate circumstances.
"For Marxists, socialism or, as Marx termed it, the first phase of communist society, can be viewed as a transitional stage characterized by common or state ownership of the means of production under democratic workers' control and management, which Engels argued was beginning to be realised in the Paris Commune of 1871, before it was overthrown.[35]

"Socialism to them is simply the transitional phase between capitalism and 'higher phase of communist society'. Because this society has characteristics of both its capitalist ancestor and is beginning to show the properties of communism, it will hold the means of production collectively but distributes commodities according to individual contribution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Marxism_and_the_socialist_movement
You have no "right" to the labors of others. That is, in effect, slavery. I would think a Marxist would be against that sort of thing, but what do I know???
 
You have no "right" to the labors of others. That is, in effect, slavery. I would think a Marxist would be against that sort of thing, but what do I know???
I always chuckle whenever a capitalist complains about theft, slavery...or child labor.
"The UK government's Factory Act of 1833 attempted to reduce the hours adults and children worked in the textile industry. A fifteen-hour working day was to start at 5.30 a.m. and cease at 8.30 p.m. Children of nine to thirteen years could be worked no more than 9 hours, and those of a younger age were prohibited."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Robert_Owen
Haven't you noticed how capitalists believe they have a right to the labor of others?
 

Lukey

Senator
I always chuckle whenever a capitalist complains about theft, slavery...or child labor.
"The UK government's Factory Act of 1833 attempted to reduce the hours adults and children worked in the textile industry. A fifteen-hour working day was to start at 5.30 a.m. and cease at 8.30 p.m. Children of nine to thirteen years could be worked no more than 9 hours, and those of a younger age were prohibited."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Robert_Owen
Haven't you noticed how capitalists believe they have a right to the labor of others?
I always chuckle when a Marxist pretends the Soviet communists didn't use forced labor...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union
 
Last edited:

connieb

Senator
Medicare doesn't work that way, so there is no reason single-payer would.

Do you live in the US?
Medicare doesn't work that way and the result is - it is going broke and running out of money. Cost controls will be put in place, there is or will be no way around it. And, many other "single payer" systems DO work that way. The systems in the various provinces in Canada work that way.The system in GB works that way. You can not pay out of pocket for better or faster care - to see a premium Dr. etc in either of those places. Everyone gets to see who they get to see when they get to see them. That is crap. Furthermore, many Drs. here are not accepting new medicare patients. That means longer wait times, etc. Why are they not because the reimbursement rate is crap and they make more money by seeing patients who have private insurance. And, why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands on their education to not make millions over the life of their careers? So the result will likely be more of a shortage of primary are drs. we already have.

I swear to goodness you all can not get your heads our of your arses long enough to actually think through every facet of a problem. It is surreal.

connie
 

Lukey

Senator
Medicare doesn't work that way and the result is - it is going broke and running out of money. Cost controls will be put in place, there is or will be no way around it. And, many other "single payer" systems DO work that way. The systems in the various provinces in Canada work that way.The system in GB works that way. You can not pay out of pocket for better or faster care - to see a premium Dr. etc in either of those places. Everyone gets to see who they get to see when they get to see them. That is crap. Furthermore, many Drs. here are not accepting new medicare patients. That means longer wait times, etc. Why are they not because the reimbursement rate is crap and they make more money by seeing patients who have private insurance. And, why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands on their education to not make millions over the life of their careers? So the result will likely be more of a shortage of primary are drs. we already have.

I swear to goodness you all can not get your heads our of your arses long enough to actually think through every facet of a problem. It is surreal.

connie
Exactly! There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how much the progressives insist that there is. Which is why they eventually run out of other people's money...
 

connieb

Senator
Exactly! There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how much the progressives insist that there is. Which is why they eventually run out of other people's money...
Absolutely. You only have a "right" to what you can afford on your own. Its that simple. If out of kindness and charity people want to give to you of their labors, or pay for someone's labors to be used for you. Then recognize it for what it is charity. You are owed nothing other than the right to life and liberty, simply because of your existence. No one wants anyone to starve to death, freeze to death, die of exposure or die of a relatively minor illness that can be easily treated.

But, does that mean that everyone is entitled to a home of their own? No. Does that mean that everyone is entitled to the best medical technology that exists, quite simply, no. So sure, hand out antibiotics for treatable infections. Sure, treat common ailments that are communicable and pose a health risk to other people. Sure, treat people who have accidents, etc.

But, should you get years of chemotherapy on someone else's dime, where the end result will still be death, just you may "surivive" for two or three years? Should you get a knee replacement on someone else's dime that was a result of your poor health management and abuse you put your own body through for decades? I don't know. Personally, I don't understand the arrogance and sense of entitlement of a person who would think that someone else should pay for that kind of thing for them.

connie
 

Lukey

Senator
Absolutely. You only have a "right" to what you can afford on your own. Its that simple. If out of kindness and charity people want to give to you of their labors, or pay for someone's labors to be used for you. Then recognize it for what it is charity. You are owed nothing other than the right to life and liberty, simply because of your existence. No one wants anyone to starve to death, freeze to death, die of exposure or die of a relatively minor illness that can be easily treated.

But, does that mean that everyone is entitled to a home of their own? No. Does that mean that everyone is entitled to the best medical technology that exists, quite simply, no. So sure, hand out antibiotics for treatable infections. Sure, treat common ailments that are communicable and pose a health risk to other people. Sure, treat people who have accidents, etc.

But, should you get years of chemotherapy on someone else's dime, where the end result will still be death, just you may "surivive" for two or three years? Should you get a knee replacement on someone else's dime that was a result of your poor health management and abuse you put your own body through for decades? I don't know. Personally, I don't understand the arrogance and sense of entitlement of a person who would think that someone else should pay for that kind of thing for them.

connie
Yes, indeed. Charity is how to deal with those who cannot afford to pay their own way. Anything else is enslavement of the taxpayers. And once you start down that road this is where you are heading:

http://en.europenews.dk/German-Govt-considers-forcing-German-youth-to-service-muslim-invaders-127923.html
 
Top