Can Universal Healthcare Save America? What Would JV Do?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: JesseVentura

Position like this, which demonstrate how strongly you support socialist policy, will ensure that you never "sit at that table" in Orlando, Jesse Ventura.
www.mediaite.com...

There is absolutely NO rationale for an individual to consider themselves a Libertarian while endorsing the single payer system. My God, single payer is even more draconian and Big-brotherish than Obamacare is... "Give the money to the government and they will provide for us." I believe you need to look for a table at the statist party whenever and wherever they hold their nominee party.

The "concept" of Single-Payer is not merely a simple left or right leaning "ideology", as you are proposing. It is an actual administrative function, that BOTH conservative and liberal leaders can use EFFECTIVELY when making operational management and policy decisions for large organizations.

Are you opposed to Medicare too?

What kind of education do you have, if any?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JesseVentura

Would you support universal healthcare?

No, I would not, however, I would support reform that would make it more affordable.

every American has the right to health...

I don't recall reading about that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Could you please reference the section of our founding documents that state our right to health care? I wasn't able to find it using Google.

There’s nothing in the constitution saying we have to have car insurance either but get caught without it and go on complaining of your rights as they take you to jail

a reply to: JesseVentura

We don't have universal healthcare because the wealthy would never pay their share that would be required to fund it and the politicians that they've bought know that very well. If everybody just paid 10% of their income, across the board, this problem would be solved.

I would love to have only 10% of my pretax income go to healthcare instead of the 40% that goes into it now. That would be awesome. The 1% won't stand for it; it pays off great for me (not quite middle class with a slew of chronic health problems), but not so great for them, and they determine policy.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Ever.

National single payer health insurance is just the humane and decent thing to do in a modern civilized society.

But of course we know that America, with GOP conservative philosophy so prominent and ruling the country and their selfish, inhumane doctrine, IS NOT CIVILIZED. Its based on universal selfishness and greed.


Unlike other modern countries that all have universal health insurance, this so-called greatest and richest country in the history of mankind, doesn’t have the simple and fundamental decency and humanity to have for their citizens this basic human need.

It illustrates why every day in America some nut shoots at least 4 strangers to death.

The conflict and insanity of the mixed message of conservative doctrine is so crazy and inhumane it rubs off on the mental illness of the citizens.


GUNS GUNS GUNS

NO HEALTH CARE NO HEALTH CARE

SAVE THE RICH SAVE THE RICH FROM TAXES

Is their mantra

Mantra of death

Fitting for America

...and they call themselves Christians

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Some of these are an idea from 1976 or 1977, I was a debator in HS, and one year the topic was National Health Care, with the statistics published then we funded it through the legalization and taxation of weed and prostitution, regulations would need to put in place, but almost 40 years later I think it is an idea that needs to be looked at.

NOBODY, with real power, wants to be the one whom starts a domino effect that will lead to a 21st century equivalent of the period that followed the passage of the 13th Amendment. A single payer healthcare system would eliminate a big portion of the general populations need and desire to work for employers as non-exempt employees. Meaning, the country would have a few years of absolute chaos in the labor markets, as people choose to suddenly not work for big government or big business as Full Time Equivalent employees. Contracting departments all over the country would not be able to handle the significantly increased load of incoming contract workers that immediately quit working, full-time, upon the introduction of a Single Payer Heath Insurance system. In states without robust healthcare policies, hospitals would be overloaded, private companies would become understaffed, billable hourly rates would drop in all sectors and state/local tax revenues would fall.

The introduction of a Single Payer Healthcare system in the 21st century USA, will be akin to the USA freeing slaves in the 19th century and the consequences of doing such won't be all that much different from what was experienced back then either.

That is why nobody with any money or power is doing anything about this and why we got the convoluted ACA instead of Single Payer.

I am reading a horrendous scenario, will you please provide me a source, so that I can do some investigation.

originally posted by: boohoo
The "concept" of Single-Payer is not merely a simple left or right leaning "ideology", as you are proposing. It is an actual administrative function, that BOTH conservative and liberal leaders can use EFFECTIVELY when making operational management and policy decisions for large organizations.

Are you opposed to Medicare too?

What kind of education do you have, if any?

Where did I mention left or right leaning anything? Libertarianism = LIBERTY! You get out of life what YOU put into it.

In idealized theory, Medicare is a system which all workers pay into and have available to them, commensurate to what they paid in, after the age of 65. I am opposed to Medicaid and to Medicare being used for ANYONE who did not pay into it, yes.

I have a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering with minors in math and economics (macroeconomic-centric), am a couple of credits shy of a Master's degree in structural engineering, and would have an honest to god bachelor's in economics if it wasn't for my stubborn refusal to take the foreign language required by the degree program. What's your education (if any)?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

my question would be that in reality, it cost the slaveholders more to buy and sustain their slaves than the northern states spent on their labor, so I kind of think that its a wrong assumption in that part.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I have a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering with minors in math and economics (macroeconomic-centric), am a couple of credits shy of a Master's degree in structural engineering, and would have an honest to god bachelor's in economics if it wasn't for my stubborn refusal to take the foreign language required by the degree program. What's your education (if any)?

Very similar actually, but I got the advance management and policy degrees so I move into the owner side of the business. I find that your political position is actually quite common among engineers, for some reason, whom have spent their whole careers "designing" and "leading small teams" for individual projects, but at the end of the day don't know jack about where the financing comes from to fund the projects, nor how that funding is negotiated for in the first place.

Also despite Jessie Venture not having the same level of education as us, HE HAS CERTAINLY SEEN, FIRST HAND, how these deals are made behind closed doors, due to his past political experience as a governor.

I give people like him credit for that unique experience and in turn, regularly discount, your type of middling, dime a dozen, work experience as a "doer".

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: boohoo
The "concept" of Single-Payer is not merely a simple left or right leaning "ideology", as you are proposing. It is an actual administrative function, that BOTH conservative and liberal leaders can use EFFECTIVELY when making operational management and policy decisions for large organizations.

Are you opposed to Medicare too?

What kind of education do you have, if any?

Where did I mention left or right leaning anything? Libertarianism = LIBERTY! You get out of life what YOU put into it.

In idealized theory, Medicare is a system which all workers pay into and have available to them, commensurate to what they paid in, after the age of 65. I am opposed to Medicaid and to Medicare being used for ANYONE who did not pay into it, yes.

I have a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering with minors in math and economics (macroeconomic-centric), am a couple of credits shy of a Master's degree in structural engineering, and would have an honest to god bachelor's in economics if it wasn't for my stubborn refusal to take the foreign language required by the degree program. What's your education (if any)?

I am having issues with you lumping Medicaid and Medicare together. Medicare is something most of us alive now in the US have paid into for most of our lives, I have paid into for 40 years. Medicaid is for poor folks, and no one has ever paid into it, it is much like welfare and food stamps. I have no degree, but about 120 hours of college, and 40 years experience in the world of work.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: BubbaJoe

my question would be that in reality, it cost the slaveholders more to buy and sustain their slaves than the northern states spent on their labor, so I kind of think that its a wrong assumption in that part.

I am not sure what you are replying to, I have not mentioned slaves or slaveholders in any of my replies.

Double Post...

a reply to: boohoo

a reply to: boohoo


Governors tell their commissioners what they want based on political pandering and constituent expectations and the commissioners do the dirty work of figuring out *how* to do it. Most times, if a commissioner determines something isn't feasible or is flat-out a dumb idea, they're replaced with some other yes man who can make it happen by pushing the costs down the road far enough for the next guy in the governor's mansion to be the public scape goat.

Ventura entered Minnesota a a governor with a $4 Billion surplus... 4 years later he left with a $4.5 Billion deficit.
news.minnesota.publicradio.org...

As Gov. Jesse Ventura prepares to leave office, he ends a term that saw one of the most dramatic four-year shifts in Minnesota's financial picture. Ventura inherited a $4 billion surplus, and leaves office with the state facing a $4.5 billion deficit. Will he be remembered as the man at the helm when the state's economy took a nosedive? Or as a competent CEO who left a lasting stamp on state government?

Perhaps his FIRST HAND experience at how deals are made behind closed doors could shed some light on how his gubernatorial career saw his state bleed out 8.5 BILLION dollars worth of taxpayer's money?

a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not limiting human rights, it's limiting government authoritarianism really. You seem to think that it is authoritarian to not guarantee health care to all..... our Founding Fathers did not support a socialist system.
Perhaps you ought to check out the history of William Wallace and the fight for freedom. Government intrusion in our lives limits our freedoms.

a reply to: Metallicus

I'm not religious, but I used the term Christ like to explain the idea of being kind and caring to your fellow man. You totally ignored my basic examples of how our health care system denies health care to many who can't afford it. You don't have to be religious to show some kind of care and compassion to someone in need. By ignoring my examples, it sounds like you would justify letting someone agonize in pain and die. You used religion to side step the issue.

a reply to: coop039

Not a basic right? Are you kidding me? Are you that callous? How can you deny anyone who is sick and agonizing in pain or dying access to medical treatment? It's saving human life for Christ's sake! It's definitely a basic human rights issue!

Here's a definition for human rights...

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to LIFE, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression.

I would like to see how quick your perspective would change if you lost your job, lost your company health benefits and couldn't afford to pay for medical help to save your life! Even worst, saving a son or daughters life!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The world has changed since the 1700's, it is impossible to know what kind of political system that they would argue form now.

My comment about being authoritarian was in reply to the statement that your rights are only what is specifically mentioned in the constitution. I don't think it is authoritarian to not provide health care, I think it is callous, short sighted and counter productive but not authoritarian.

What little we do know about William Wallace is that he was campaigning to be ruled a home grown king rather than a foreign one, Not exactly a role model for democracy in modern times. Braveheart was a work of fiction.

Providing health care doesn't limit freedoms it massively expands them for the vast majority of the population

every American has the right to health...

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JesseVentura

I don't recall reading about that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Could you please reference the section of our founding documents that state our right to health care? I wasn't able to find it using Google.

To be fair here, you're twisting the OP's words. He didn't say "every American has the right to health"



It was a description of the video including: "what it would cost to ensure every American has the right to health"

That was very MSNBC/FoxNews of you to misquote him; you're better than that Metallicus!

a reply to: JesseVentura

Members of Congress are public employees and thus our government provides a health care plan paid for by taxpayers. While they do get a Cadillac plan evidently, what makes you think other government employees get the same Cadillac treatment and what makes you believe that if we create a single payer system to 300 plus million people that everyone will get the same Cadillac treatment as Congress when unemployment is so high and even so many who are employed are not full time and not highly paid? When something is paid for by government that means we the people pay for it out of our taxes.
This crazy plan devised by and for politicians is never going to be good for the common people. It is too convoluted, too Draconian, too invasive, and its creating all sorts of other problems.
Neither the ACA nor any other kind of single payer system is going to deliver excellent health care to all people. That is a utopian dream that will never be realized.

And hear me now. Warren Buffet and George Soros and the Rothschilds are NEVER going to pay for it no matter how much the Democrats cry that everyone needs to pay their "fair share".

I would fund universal healthcare by taxing all businesses.Publicly they may grumble,but behind closed doors I bet they would be happy to pay a tax and get rid of having hire people to implement and maintain insurance for their employees.