It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP can go to hell.

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The only reason my party is winning so many elections is because the Democrat ideas suck so horribly.

But I'm getting a gut feeling today that the tide is turning... 6 months with a Republican House/Senate/President, and not a single MAJOR piece of legislation has been signed into law.


Dorthy's dog is pulling the curtain back.. The Emperor has no clothes on... the lion is toothless!

Republican leaders are all BARK and no BITE!

The FAT LADY is warming up for my party!

If Democrats were smarter, they'd strike hard...NOW.




posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



The goal should be to allow the free market to ensure competitiveness to lower prices and increase quality of care. removing insurance companies would probably help with this. Guaranteeing everyone coverage is not the goal.


There is no such thing as a free market and ensuring everyone has access to healthcare and coverage should be our goal.



Should a heroin junkie that frivolously spends all of his money and even money from the government be guaranteed constant coverage that he can not pay for? No.


Yes, he should. Everyone should have coverage. A junky is going to go to the hospital just like anyone else and we are going to pay for it one way or another.



You literally are saying your plan is the best, would save tons of money, but anytime anyone makes criticism of other attempts at government run healthcare you deflect and say that your plan is different, but you can't discuss the details of it.


I did not say my plan is the best. I think I have good ideas and those idea are up for debate. Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?

Also, I did not say I can't discuss it. I said it is not the topic of this thread.



Will you at least admit that the only universal health care plan that can be investigated looking at this thread is Bernies, and its a disaster?


That's absurd. There are 26 or so other countries with universal healthcare that we can look at. That's why you insistence on bringing Bernie in to this is laughable. Can you not see past the end of your own nose and only see that which is right in front of you?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



The goal should be to allow the free market to ensure competitiveness to lower prices and increase quality of care. removing insurance companies would probably help with this. Guaranteeing everyone coverage is not the goal.


There is no such thing as a free market and ensuring everyone has access to healthcare and coverage should be our goal.



Should a heroin junkie that frivolously spends all of his money and even money from the government be guaranteed constant coverage that he can not pay for? No.


Yes, he should. Everyone should have coverage. A junky is going to go to the hospital just like anyone else and we are going to pay for it one way or another.



You literally are saying your plan is the best, would save tons of money, but anytime anyone makes criticism of other attempts at government run healthcare you deflect and say that your plan is different, but you can't discuss the details of it.


I did not say my plan is the best. I think I have good ideas and those idea are up for debate. Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?

Also, I did not say I can't discuss it. I said it is not the topic of this thread.



Will you at least admit that the only universal health care plan that can be investigated looking at this thread is Bernies, and its a disaster?


That's absurd. There are 26 or so other countries with universal healthcare that we can look at. That's why you insistence on bringing Bernie in to this is laughable. Can you not see past the end of your own nose and only see that which is right in front of you?


You are thinking of current free market solutions. Why are you lumping my plan in with these, mine is different.

No we as a society have no obligation to pay forever for someone who is intentionally abusing themselves.

Your system requires you to pay for them indefinitely, mine does not.

You say me comparing failures such as Bernies plan and the VA system are not applicable, but then you jump right to other countries systems.

Again, here we go. Any criticisms I bring up aren't applicable, but you bringing up other countries is.

If you outlined what plan you were endorsing, I could make criticisms of it. Yet you do not, therefore you are not to be taken seriously. You say its good ideas up for debate, but there is no debate, because you refusse to give the details of your plan.

I will continue to point out just how much Universal health plans like Bernies would cost.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You are thinking of current free market solutions. Why are you lumping my plan in with these, mine is different.


Stop being a childish smartass. There is no such thing as a free market, so it doesn't matter what your plan is. If you think it's a free market plan, it's not.



No we as a society have no obligation to pay forever for someone who is intentionally abusing themselves.


We pay for it anyway, whether you feel obligated or not.



Your system requires you to pay for them indefinitely, mine does not.


Unless your plan will not allow people with money or health coverage to see a doctor, and doctors can refuse service, then ya, we pay for them anyway.



You say me comparing failures such as Bernies plan and the VA system are not applicable, but then you jump right to other countries systems.


Yes, I said there are other places we can look for insight in to the issue. This is what you said:



Will you at least admit that the only universal health care plan that can be investigated looking at this thread is Bernies, and its a disaster?


You're wrong. We can look at the other HC systems that are current running to see that it can be done. So to say the only plan we can look at is Bernie's, is simply incorrect.



Again, here we go. Any criticisms I bring up aren't applicable, but you bringing up other countries is.


Dude. Are you really having a hard time keeping up? I brought up other countries to show that your assertion was absurd. Which it is.



If you outlined what plan you were endorsing, I could make criticisms of it. Yet you do not, therefore you are not to be taken seriously. You say its good ideas up for debate, but there is no debate, because you refusse to give the details of your plan.


Start a thread on that topic. I'll join in the debate.



I will continue to point out just how much Universal health plans like Bernies would cost.


I know. And you will dismiss other systems that are currently up and running that show it can be done.

Again, you only focus where you want to focus. Very short-sighted and ignorant.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The TRICK will be to CONVINCE those with employer provided healthcare to move off them for ones that DONT give them preferential "treatment".

THOSE people don't want single payer...AND likely vote GOP.

SIMPLE.

Cut tax breaks for employers who SUPPLY private health INSURANCE.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



You are thinking of current free market solutions. Why are you lumping my plan in with these, mine is different.


Stop being a childish smartass. There is no such thing as a free market, so it doesn't matter what your plan is. If you think it's a free market plan, it's not.



No we as a society have no obligation to pay forever for someone who is intentionally abusing themselves.


We pay for it anyway, whether you feel obligated or not.



Your system requires you to pay for them indefinitely, mine does not.


Unless your plan will not allow people with money or health coverage to see a doctor, and doctors can refuse service, then ya, we pay for them anyway.



You say me comparing failures such as Bernies plan and the VA system are not applicable, but then you jump right to other countries systems.


Yes, I said there are other places we can look for insight in to the issue. This is what you said:



Will you at least admit that the only universal health care plan that can be investigated looking at this thread is Bernies, and its a disaster?


You're wrong. We can look at the other HC systems that are current running to see that it can be done. So to say the only plan we can look at is Bernie's, is simply incorrect.



Again, here we go. Any criticisms I bring up aren't applicable, but you bringing up other countries is.


Dude. Are you really having a hard time keeping up? I brought up other countries to show that your assertion was absurd. Which it is.



If you outlined what plan you were endorsing, I could make criticisms of it. Yet you do not, therefore you are not to be taken seriously. You say its good ideas up for debate, but there is no debate, because you refusse to give the details of your plan.


Start a thread on that topic. I'll join in the debate.



I will continue to point out just how much Universal health plans like Bernies would cost.


I know. And you will dismiss other systems that are currently up and running that show it can be done.

Again, you only focus where you want to focus. Very short-sighted and ignorant.


You want me to start a thread on your healthcare plan that you won't give details of?

Yep makes sense.

If you admit the junkie gets coverage now, then whats the complaint? Merely finacial, and as has been shown, universal health care would cost far more.

Just saying it worked in other countries in no way means it would work here. Apples to oranges.

And further more, it hasn't worked in other countries as well as you claim. But you know this.

I brought up the VA to show that in the US government control of health care would fail. Same with medicare.

For some reason these criticisms arent applicable, but looking at a system in somewhere like Sweden with only 15 million people and a totally different economic structure is somehow applicable.

Again, you pick and chose what is relevant and what is not. How is the failures of every government intervention into the US market applicable?

Oh thats right, because your secret plan is different. We just have to trust you that there are no negatives to it.

And if you claim the free market doesn't exist, all the more reason to allow one to exist.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You want me to start a thread on your healthcare plan that you won't give details of? Yep makes sense.


I said start a thread on the topic of UHC and I'll jump in. To outline such things in this thread would be off topic. We're off topic enough as it is.



If you admit the junkie gets coverage now, then whats the complaint? Merely finacial, and as has been shown, universal health care would cost far more.


How do you figure it would cost more? If we eliminated insurance companies profit and administration, we could cut costs significantly.



Just saying it worked in other countries in no way means it would work here. Apples to oranges.


Of course if it could work in other countries it could work here. Unless you are implying that American's are too stupid to pull off something that simple.



And further more, it hasn't worked in other countries as well as you claim. But you know this.


Nonsense. Some of the best healthcare systems in the world are universal systems. France, Norway, Germany...etc.



I brought up the VA to show that in the US government control of health care would fail. Same with medicare.


Again, we have been through this. A universal system does not mean the government is doing the actual healthcare. They would only administer the coverage of it's citizens and the care would be done by the private sector. That would allow people to go anywhere they choose to get the best care and the idiots that fail would be run out of business.



For some reason these criticisms arent applicable, but looking at a system in somewhere like Sweden with only 15 million people and a totally different economic structure is somehow applicable.


If they can do it. So can we.



Again, you pick and chose what is relevant and what is not. How is the failures of every government intervention into the US market applicable?


That's nonsense. Is the US military a failure? Are the roads you drive on failures? The government can do much good when it is properly ran. That is no different than any private sector entity.



Oh thats right, because your secret plan is different. We just have to trust you that there are no negatives to it.


I'm not asking anyone to trust me or believe me. I'm only giving my opinion that a UHC system is what we need. It would cure many problems.



And if you claim the free market doesn't exist, all the more reason to allow one to exist.


It doesn't exist. I can give you many examples of UHC systems that are running and work well. You cannot give me one example of any free market system, let alone a healthcare free market system.

Your idea is utopian nonsense. It doesn't exist more than bigfoot does.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Keep in mind that even if you cut ten cents from medicare. The libtards will scream you are out murdering people. Please fact check these tards before buying any of their nutcases propaganda. They are almost always wrong and exaggerate to no end.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

That's absurd. There are 26 or so other countries with universal healthcare that we can look at. That's why you insistence on bringing Bernie in to this is laughable. Can you not see past the end of your own nose and only see that which is right in front of you?


In those 26 countries sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work so well. Where it works well is in a country with a small population and a large percent of that population is the work force in the private sector (the money makers). In a large population like the US you still need a large work force to fuel it all and if you don't then it fails. Many of those countries have a population less than some of our big cities...hehe



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: introvert

That's absurd. There are 26 or so other countries with universal healthcare that we can look at. That's why you insistence on bringing Bernie in to this is laughable. Can you not see past the end of your own nose and only see that which is right in front of you?


In those 26 countries sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work so well. Where it works well is in a country with a small population and a large percent of that population is the work force in the private sector (the money makers). In a large population like the US you still need a large work force to fuel it all and if you don't then it fails. Many of those countries have a population less than some of our big cities...hehe


The US does have the workforce. We only have 4.4% unemployment.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

The US does have the workforce. We only have 4.4% unemployment.


You are joking right...hehe



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: introvert

That's absurd. There are 26 or so other countries with universal healthcare that we can look at. That's why you insistence on bringing Bernie in to this is laughable. Can you not see past the end of your own nose and only see that which is right in front of you?


In those 26 countries sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work so well. Where it works well is in a country with a small population and a large percent of that population is the work force in the private sector (the money makers). In a large population like the US you still need a large work force to fuel it all and if you don't then it fails. Many of those countries have a population less than some of our big cities...hehe


The US does have the workforce. We only have 4.4% unemployment.


Oh geez.

You know that number is a sham right?

It only includes people looking for work that can't find a job.

Therefore people not of working age (the elderly and young) any disabled person, and anyone who has given up on finding work is not included.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Oh geez.

You know that number is a sham right?

It only includes people looking for work that can't find a job.

Therefore people not of working age (the elderly and young) any disabled person, and anyone who has given up on finding work is not included.


Here is the work force of which 100,000,000 do not work for one reason or another. Civilian Non-institutional Population May 2017: 254,767,000. Also Subtract Government workers of 22,000,000 (BTW almost more than all 500 fortune companies combine) and we have about 47% of the work force not working or creating new monies. When we look at the total population of 321 million we have 135 million people in jobs that create income supporting 321 million.


edit on 27-6-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You know that number is a sham right?


Of course. Conspiracy.

Fact is, we have the wealth to easily pull off a UHC system. We're already paying for everyone to have healthcare. The only difference is we are also paying for insurance companies to administer insurance programs and paying their profits. If we can pay for the most bloated, expensive military in the world, we can provide UHC.

Are you even willing to look at the potentials of such a system, or are you going to continue spitting nonsense about free markets, which you cannot provide one example of existing?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Regardless, you don't have a RIGHT to bring a healthy baby into the world. Doctors do have the right to not service you though. Insurance companies have the right to be stolen from. You have the right to get pregnant and then try to bring the baby into the world, you also have the right to pay for someone's service to aid you in that. You do NOT have the right to steal from someone to pay for someone else's service or to steal that service from someone in order to help you bring a healthy child into the world. This entitlement # has GOT TO STOP!!!!!

Jaden



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



You know that number is a sham right?


Of course. Conspiracy.

Fact is, we have the wealth to easily pull off a UHC system. We're already paying for everyone to have healthcare. The only difference is we are also paying for insurance companies to administer insurance programs and paying their profits. If we can pay for the most bloated, expensive military in the world, we can provide UHC.

Are you even willing to look at the potentials of such a system, or are you going to continue spitting nonsense about free markets, which you cannot provide one example of existing?


Of course I am willing to look at any solutions.

In fact I attempted to look at issues that may come up in those systems, and you just keep saying "Thats not my system. My system is different"

And you have yet to provide us any detail of what your system would be.

Your diatribe about free markets is absurd. Neither has their ever been total socialized medicine, so I guess we can't look at you system either.

Please. Your deflections are getting old.

Here are the facts. The government made the same argument you are making with medicare, and it 40 trillion dollars in debt.

The government has ran the VA into the ground.

Projections show that Bernie universal health care would be a disaster costing each person around 12.8% of their annual income, and would be a loss for way more people than would win.

There are many problems with the systems in Europe and other places.

And the cherry on top is that you want to have complicated economic arguments (well not really you shirk any negative costs because you say your super secret plan is different) and you actually believe real unemployment is 4.4%?

You are so naive it is unbelievable.


edit on 27-6-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dawnstar

Once again... who said that you can't get insurance that covers childbirth?



IF you have an "accidental" pregnancy, despite being careful (like my husband and I did with hour child who needs all the surgeries, etc.), then you are NOT covered for ANY part of the pregnancy. You are NOT covered for the child's prenatal care.


Aside from wellness care, the major reason anyone needs health insurance is for unexpected or "accidental" events. If there is any chance of a pregnancy occurring, you would be wise to pony up the the extra premium. I live in SoCal and my homeowner's insurance has an earthquake clause, should I skip paying the extra $$ if I believe the big one won't happen in my lifetime?
Had our own "surprise" kid 10 years after we were done BTW. Pregnancy was covered, we just had high out-of-pocket and co-pay burdens to deal with. Now we've been forced onto Obamacare and our health coverage has never been higher. Competition is the only hope for getting health care costs under control.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Everyone said Medicare would do a great deal of good, but it is 40 TRILLION (yes trillion with a "t") and costs have gone up substantially since it was implemented.


You counted the cost -- now how about counting how much they put back into the economy.

This isn't money shoveled into a group of vegetables in a nursing facility. This is business owners and productive workers, health care givers, and children (with conditions like childhood diabetes) able to grow up and enter the workforce.

Heck if we used your metric, NOTHING would be worth spending money on. Ford Company (for example) costs around $20 billion per year to operate. If you look only at the cost and not what is gained (cars, jobs, businesses, economic boost) then Ford looks like a sinkhole

Salary for the Packers (football team) is $17 million per year yet cities and states offer huge tax breaks and other benefits to bring a sports team to a location.

If you're growling about "how much Medicare costs" you are shutting your eyes to "how much does the economy and the nation gain from it?"



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: dawnstar

Regardless, you don't have a RIGHT to bring a healthy baby into the world.

So... Americans don't have the right to be healthy?


Doctors do have the right to not service you though.

That's against the Hippocratic Oath that they take.


Insurance companies have the right to be stolen from.

I have never heard of the "right to be stolen from." Where is this mentioned in the Constitution or in the laws?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Your diatribe about free markets is absurd.


It's not absurd. It's true. You cannot provide one example of a true free-market system or free-market healthcare.

It's a utopian idea, not rooted in reality.



And you have yet to provide us any detail of what your system would be.


Actually, I have provided some details. Look back at my posts. That is why your next statement was unnecessary, if you were paying attention.



Neither has their ever been total socialized medicine, so I guess we can'rt look at you system either.


I never said there was. I have said a few times that those providing the healthcare would come from the private sector.

But it does appear in that statement that you are actually admitting there is no such thing as a free market, which contradicts your comments about my free-market "diatribe". The use of the word "neither" is very telling.



Here are the facts. The government made the saem argument you are making with medicare, and it 40 trillion dollars in debt.


I'm not sure that number is correct. I think it may actually be higher. The problem is, the government relies on private sector companies to administer sections of the Medicare problems. They are paying for insurance companies to profit, which further illustrates my point and that is why the insurance companies liked Obamacare. They are making a killing.

Debt as a whole, though, is much more complicated then that.



The government has raan the VA into the ground.


That's why I propose to do away with the VA. Let the vets go anywhere they choose and we save a bit more money by shutting down the VA system.



Projections show that Benrie universal health care would be a disaster costing each person around 12.8% of their annual income, and would be a loss for way more people than would win.


Deflecting to Bernie again?



There are many problems with the systems in Europe and other places.


There are problems that will occur with any system. That is why you adapt and change as necessary, unless you believe in utopian ideas.



And the cherry on top is that you want to have complicated economic arguments (well not really you shirk any negative costs because you say your super secret plan is different) and you actually believe real unemployment is 4.4%?


I've not skirted any negative aspects. I know damn well there will be problems and I do not buy in to the conspiratorial nonsense.

Like I said, there will always be problems that exist. The goal should be to provide healthcare for all in a more streamlined system that can address issues and adapt.



You are so naive it is unbelievable.


Really? I'm being realistic. You're the one talking about utopian nonsense that does not even exist.

Free markets...



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join