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.

 

Kamalla Harris "i will get rid of private health care".

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
And the fools cheer and applaud this I'm sure.
*smh*




posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: narrator

You do seem to be in agreement with quite a few unusual posters for you today.

Who are you, and what did you do with narrator?


TheRedneck


Right? Twilight Zone.



Nah, you were red pilled but just don't know it... lol.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wardaddy454


What countries have you been studying that implement it so well that its worth considering now?

Quite a few. There are advantages over US healthcare in Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, and the Czech Republic, just to name a few off the top of my head. There are also advantages in the US, of course, but I fail to see why we shouldn't at least discuss improving our system by implementing advantages found in other countries.

I am NOT speaking of anything that comes close to Obamacare... that was a pure disaster.

However, I do not see an issue with improving access to healthcare. The trick is that these other countries do not rely on insurance... they typically use a single-payer system administered through the government. We cannot use that, because we have spent our money on other things... a world-wide military police force, a grossly inefficient public education system, a bloated court system to deal with our extreme greed and almost complete lack of common sense, and continual support for anyone who thinks they want to walk across our border, just to name a few. I didn't mention the money we use to research the mating habits of the South American Tse-Tse fly...

Socialism in itself is not a bad thing when restrained. There are many areas where it is actually a benefit. Imagine if poor parents had no other choice but to pay college-level prices to get their kids a high school diploma? Or if every time you drove your car you had to stop every few hundred yards to pay a toll to the landowner? Imagine if there were no mail to rural areas and messages had to be delivered by private courier? The public education system, highways, and post office (at least initially) are all examples of socialized programs that worked (although the public education system has become a disaster in itself, but that's because of apathy and corruption, not the socialistic nature itself).

Too much socialism is a disaster. And yes, I will mention Venezuela, just for narrator, because Venezuela is a great modern example of runaway socialism. As long as socialist policies are applied in moderation, socialism is a good thing, but apply too much and it becomes a mess. People have to have "skin in the game" to get what they want, else getting what they want means nothing.

Now, is healthcare a want or a need?

I'd call it a need, because the alternative is kinda nasty. Parts of it are wants... elective cosmetic surgery, for example. Treatment of minor ailments is a want and not a need. But life-threatening issues are needs and thus are a legitimate discussion for a plan that allows all legal residents access to healthcare. As we have it right now, only criminals and illegal aliens really get good health care, both paid for by others. In that light, our healthcare system is already socialized by necessity, because of the need for it.

Life is not black and white, hoss. We do not live in a completely capitalistic society either, and I for one am thankful we don't. You should be too... pure capitalism, like runaway socialism, is a disaster in the making.

TheRedneck


Then why don't we just take the private sector back to pre Obamacare, and create a subsidie for the uninsurable, allow insurance to be bought across state lines and so on?

You're asking too much for restrained socialism. Which I presume is more socialism than what we have already. How long before people ask "what if we take it a little further. Now, a little more"? How long before someone just swings the flood gates wide open?



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I'd love to get rid of (or at least minimize) private health care and let the free market /invisible hand bring down prices and sway competition...

Oh wait, not what she meant? Federal Government controls it all? We're taxed out of every possible orifice?

Yeah, no thanks.
edit on 30-1-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wardaddy454


What countries have you been studying that implement it so well that its worth considering now?

Quite a few. There are advantages over US healthcare in Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, and the Czech Republic, just to name a few off the top of my head. There are also advantages in the US, of course, but I fail to see why we shouldn't at least discuss improving our system by implementing advantages found in other countries.

I am NOT speaking of anything that comes close to Obamacare... that was a pure disaster.

However, I do not see an issue with improving access to healthcare. The trick is that these other countries do not rely on insurance... they typically use a single-payer system administered through the government. We cannot use that, because we have spent our money on other things... a world-wide military police force, a grossly inefficient public education system, a bloated court system to deal with our extreme greed and almost complete lack of common sense, and continual support for anyone who thinks they want to walk across our border, just to name a few. I didn't mention the money we use to research the mating habits of the South American Tse-Tse fly...

Socialism in itself is not a bad thing when restrained. There are many areas where it is actually a benefit. Imagine if poor parents had no other choice but to pay college-level prices to get their kids a high school diploma? Or if every time you drove your car you had to stop every few hundred yards to pay a toll to the landowner? Imagine if there were no mail to rural areas and messages had to be delivered by private courier? The public education system, highways, and post office (at least initially) are all examples of socialized programs that worked (although the public education system has become a disaster in itself, but that's because of apathy and corruption, not the socialistic nature itself).

Too much socialism is a disaster. And yes, I will mention Venezuela, just for narrator, because Venezuela is a great modern example of runaway socialism. As long as socialist policies are applied in moderation, socialism is a good thing, but apply too much and it becomes a mess. People have to have "skin in the game" to get what they want, else getting what they want means nothing.

Now, is healthcare a want or a need?

I'd call it a need, because the alternative is kinda nasty. Parts of it are wants... elective cosmetic surgery, for example. Treatment of minor ailments is a want and not a need. But life-threatening issues are needs and thus are a legitimate discussion for a plan that allows all legal residents access to healthcare. As we have it right now, only criminals and illegal aliens really get good health care, both paid for by others. In that light, our healthcare system is already socialized by necessity, because of the need for it.

Life is not black and white, hoss. We do not live in a completely capitalistic society either, and I for one am thankful we don't. You should be too... pure capitalism, like runaway socialism, is a disaster in the making.

TheRedneck

Then why don't we just take the private sector back to pre Obamacare, and create a subsidie for the uninsurable, allow insurance to be bought across state lines and so on?


That's what I've been calling for since 2009, When ObamaCare was close to being signed into law. Let the uninsurable people buy into Medicare. If they can't afford $400 a month for Medicare, they enroll in free Medicaid. 90% of Americans who aren't covered on the job, qualify for free-market private health insurance.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Then why don't we just take the private sector back to pre Obamacare, and create a subsidie for the uninsurable, allow insurance to be bought across state lines and so on?

That would be far better than what we have now. Unfortunately, it just ain't that simple. Obamacare is not completely reversible.

The true damage it did was that Obamacare cemented in the minds of America a desperate need for insurance. Never has any industry in which insurance became the norm lowered rates... never. Car insurance has led to an increase many fold of the cost of car repair, just in my short lifetime. Where once a car involved in a relatively minor accident could be repaired by the average driver, today that cost without insurance is astronomical. Typically cars are totaled over accidents that once would be brushed off for causing minor damage. Even the cars themselves are now made of materials that cost less to manufacture, but are many times more expensive to repair because they stretch and bend so easily.

Veterinary costs are another area where recent pet insurance is driving costs up. I remember a time when a rabies shot was only a couple of dollars, and vets would come by once or twice a year to vaccinate animals at people's homes. Now a simple rabies shot has become quite expensive and one must take in their pets... and this coincided almost exactly with the rise of pet insurance.

This is a genie which cannot be put back in the bottle.


You're asking too much for restrained socialism. Which I presume is more socialism than what we have already. How long before people ask "what if we take it a little further. Now, a little more"? How long before someone just swings the flood gates wide open?

That is a knee-jerk reaction to a word. As I have pointed out, we already have socialism for many things, and that socialism is widely accepted... even forms the basis of what we consider normal life.

Socialism can co-exist with capitalism, at least in moderation. Now, what Kamala Harris wants is not restrained socialism, but rather extreme socialism. Her plans will not work... just the idea of doing away with insurance is in itself problematic because it does the same thing Obamacare did: it focuses on insurance as the key issue, not on healthcare. Insurance is not the problem, any more than the lack of insurance was the problem. Insurance simply is not healthcare. It is a financial instrument that purports to take risk out of potential future events.

A disease need not be such a high financial risk as it is now. We have made it a high financial risk by steadily introducing insurance. As individual risk decreases, individuals tend to pay less attention to prices. That allows providers to charge more without driving off their clientele, which still equates to higher insurance premiums that are not as apparent to individuals in their tie to medical costs. In short, the economic law of supply and demand is hidden from the consumer.

Single payer policies would simply replace the present insurance companies with government insurance, which would be provided through... drum roll, please... the insurance companies. This would simply remove the individual from the cost equation even more than mandating insurance, and exacerbate the issues with Obamacare even more. It comes down to not an argument between socialism and capitalism... we could have that theoretical argument till the cows came home. It's a question of sustainability versus unsustainability.

The argument I make is for sustainability. Medical costs are simply out of line with supply and demand principles. That must be corrected or there will be a lot of people die for lack of care. That's a little more important to me than theoretical arguments.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


If they can't afford $400 a month for Medicare, they enroll in free Medicaid.

In my state, anyone who makes $401 or more per month is ineligible for Medicaid. Not many people can live on insurance and $1 a month.

If we want any Federal control of the medical industry, we must not try to add in state control as well. It's one or the other... not both.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

It does not work...

People seem to forget that "Obama care" was supposed to fix the healthcare system in the U.S., and in fact it made it worse, not better...

The promise for "passing Obamacare by all democrats" was that it would make it more affordable, and in fact made it more expensive for most people.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

There have been, and in some states still are, people who are paid $500 a month, and they still need help from their families, and these people were not/are not covered by Obamacare...

People forget the disdain Obama, and democrats behind him, have for the elderly...



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...
Socialism can co-exist with capitalism, at least in moderation. Now, what Kamala Harris wants is not restrained socialism, but rather extreme socialism. Her plans will not work... just the idea of doing away with insurance is in itself problematic because it does the same thing Obamacare did: it focuses on insurance as the key issue, not on healthcare. Insurance is not the problem, any more than the lack of insurance was the problem. Insurance simply is not healthcare. It is a financial instrument that purports to take risk out of potential future events.
...
TheRedneck


I disagree with that claim that "socialism can co-exist with capitalism." It can't, because once "some socialism is accepted in capitalist countries" eventually full blown socialism takes over.

What you call "extreme socialism," is in fact socialism.

Once "some socialism" is embraced in capitalist countries, those countries are transformed into full blown socialism.

People forget that it was the "let's allow some socialism" in Germany which eventually put in power a full blown socialist known as Hitler.

Democracy and "some socialism" are the same ideas which has transformed countries which were "capitalist," like Cuba, Venezuela, etc, into the poorer countries in the world, which disregard all individual rights "in favor for the collective."

What we are seeing today, and you call "extreme socialism" has been embraced by so many because the idea of "some socialism" was also embraced.




edit on 30-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: Outlier13

I never said we should implement it exactly as they do. I'm just giving examples that it works in countries that are very well off.

I'd argue the exact opposite of your point that prices would skyrocket. They'd go down, that's the entire point of it. America already has sky-high medical costs, the entire point is to make them affordable for everyone. Single payer is how multiple (very well-off) countries do this. Why shouldn't we try to do some form of that in order to get prices down?

Capitalism and free-market economy are what has caused the overpriced medical care we have today.

Medical care shouldn't be considered "economics". Everyone deserves to be able to afford health care.


In all seriousness you need to understand what "economics" means in the context in which I used it.

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

The context in which I used the word and the supporting arguments I provided demonstrate that a socialized medical care system in the United States would NEVER work. You are attempting to compare a country of roughly 10 million people to a country of 330,000,000 people.

New York City has a greater GMP (Gross Metropolitan Product) greater than the entire country of Sweden by 2 times greater. $1.23 trillion vs $550 billion. NYC has a population of roughly 9 million while the entire country of Sweden has a population of 10 million. You cannot begin to use Sweden as an example of socialized healthcare and say it would work in a country 30 times the size of Sweden. As a result of our population size, our expansive social systems already in place, exceptionally high taxes and one of the most over bloated governments in the world we have little to no room left for socialized systems. There's no more money to squeeze from the American taxpayer. Which is precisely where socialized healthcare would come from. The ones who are middle income shoulder 90% of the costs to run this country.

Social systems in the United States are paid for by US tax payer dollars. To implement a socialized healthcare system in the United States would require a doubling of taxes on an already over taxed population and a reduction of more than 40% cut in reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. There is an entire argument to be made on that front which candidly is too long but the short of it is exactly what I said in my previous post. You will never get quality healthcare by nationalizing healthcare and making doctors government employees.

Sweden's socialized healthcare system works primarily due to local and regional taxes and that is because Sweden is small in population and geography. If we were to implement socialized healthcare in the US and follow your example of Sweden as I said in my previous post we would have areas of the US that provide much better healthcare than other parts. Based purely on population density the largest cities who generate the most in local taxes would attract the highest number of patients. So an individual living in rural Montana would in fact not have anything remotely close to the same healthcare as someone living in NYC.

Additionally, Sweden does not have near the number of social systems in place as the United States does. Those are systems set up for people who are below the poverty line. The money for those systems comes from middle income class citizens who already have lost 35% of their purchasing power over the past 10 years due to inflation and the massive devaluation of the US dollar. A socialized healthcare system would 100% guaranteed bankrupt the middle class.

So my earlier statement about this entire argument being about simple economics still stands.

On the other hand if you want to position that we decrease the size of our over bloated federal government, reduce our military spending by 50%, eliminate half of the politicians in DC, etc. then we would have a good start to putting US taxpayers to better use. You just can't come in and say "single payer would work" when all it would do is add yet another massive tax burden to the US citizen. You have to cut out a lot...and I mean a lot of other areas before that would even begin to be a plausible scenario.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Kamalla Harris , just another Crap Sandwich in a New and Improved Wrapper .........No Stanks .



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


I disagree with that claim that "socialism can co-exist with capitalism." It can't, because once "some socialism is accepted in capitalist countries" eventually full blown socialism takes over.

What you call "extreme socialism," is in fact socialism.

OK, let's talk about that.

Wikipedia defines socialism as

a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.

Now, considering that definition, the only way socialism could not exist in the United States is if the various governments were considered legal entities separate from the people. That seems to fly in the face of the US Constitution. The US Constitution states in the Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That tells me that the Federal government is not separate from the people, but is a social construct of the people for the purposes of government. Compare and contrast this to a kingdom, wherein a person (the King) owns the government, and it becomes clear that the US Constitution itself is a social contract and is thus socialist in that respect.

So is the Constitution evil? I say no. But that means that socialism itself cannot be evil either.

I think the biggest issue is that socialism in some respects bears a strong resemblance to communism. Indeed, Karl Marx stated, if memory serves, that socialism is a stepping stone to communism (paraphrased). I can see that reasoning; communism can be seen as a type of extreme socialism, and of course we all know that communism does not work... or does it?

My family is communist, and I assume yours is as well. Under communism, each member contributes as they are able to and receives those things they need. When I was a young child, I was unable to work and make money for food that I needed, but I didn't have to. My father did that. I was at one point too young to be able to clean the house, cook dinner, or wash clothes. I didn't have to; my mother did that. Yet, I still ate. That is communism, and it works extremely well... in small community units wherein each member has close familial ties to all others. It fails when those close familial ties are non-existent due to human greed, eventually dissolving into something akin to a dictatorship. We have seen that happen in countries all across the globe, as well as to smaller communities within the US, the communes of the hippie era of the 1960s and 1970s.

I do not believe family units are evil; therefore communism cannot be evil.

I also do not believe capitalism is evil. I have pointed out its inherent flaws above, but I still believe it is the single most stable economic system known today. Out of all the economic systems, only capitalism operates not in denial of human greed, but by embracing human greed.

In short, there are not good or evil economic systems, only economic systems which work well under certain conditions and do not work well under certain conditions. Can we at least agree on that?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:58 AM
link   
until she changes her mind to appease her true roots as a centrist-right

anyway, I find it amusing all the... "patriotic libertarians" that whine about corporations and big government, and when someone (who is lying about it anyway) but hypothetically puts forth the idea of eliminating privatised health care, those same "Patriotic Libertarians" start whining about red-scare fear mongering trash



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Short of Communism...how can a member of Congress close another person's or companies business? Even if the US Government decided to offer Health Care...can they really force other private businesses to close?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Utopia

Why does it have a long history of failing. And what genius thinks it would actually work on the scale of the whole US. Most are religious and philosophically like minded members and still fail in 5-10 years.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Wd need a hybrid system of some sort.

If, by hybrid, you mean dual (private, and public), I agree...

1. A private system for people who can afford to buy their own insurance - which would be dramatically cheaper, given three simple laws requiring:

a) 100% transparency in pricing (require all hospitals to provide pricing for all services online, in simple format making it easy to find the costs for any procedures or services),

b) allow Insurance companies to sell across State lines, and

c) allow doctors and hospitals to create/experiment with private co-op type 'buying clubs'

then

2. A government run program for anyone that cannot afford insurance (they must prove it), or is uninsurable (pre existing condition), with one little requirement:

All government employees, including but not limited to Congress and the President, must use for their own healthcare while serving in office.
edit on 1-2-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I would personally love to see universal healthcare in the US.

There is simply no need for it.

Have two separate, independent systems... see my last post for details.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join