Can Universal Healthcare Save America? What Would JV Do?

Why do our politicians receive single-payer healthcare, while they deny it to the people who elected them? Today, myself and my Vigilant Producer Alex Logan break down what universal, single-payer healthcare is and what it would cost to ensure every American has the right to health. Would you support universal healthcare?

It doesn't even make sense that Americans don't have Universal Health Care. Americans are stuck funding the Insurance Racket, I.e. Funding the lobbyists and politicians.

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.

The government regulates pricing (in their own way) with nearly every single facet of our lives . Except one (that I am consciously aware of) and that is health care . Aww let em go ahead and charge what they like.

What Would JV Do?

Move to Mexico.

*shrug*.

Seriously. Bring it. If you're not a bot. Which you are.

If you had the pair you expect us to believe that you do, you'd move to Los Angeles.

Please stop doing these. No one cares about your input, especially because you constantly name drop with every single title.

There really is no chance to fix the American healthcare system properly as too many people have their fingers in the pie.

The UK (NHS) system is funded via national insurance contributions taken out of your pay before you even see it along with general taxation, you can still have private healthcare insurance or pony up the cash if you want faster service but quite often you'll get seen by the same consultants etc and treated in the same hospital in the same way just you'll jump the queue a bit.

The real problem i think would be trying to unify the entire healthcare system into one 'unit', it wasn't too bad here in the UK as it was just post war and there wasn't that much other than the physical bricks and mortar to buy out and quite a bit was already in public hands due to being taken over for use in the war, the biggest hurdle was the doctors themselves as they felt they would lose money so the government let that part stay private and basically any GP is a subcontractor to the NHS and quite a few make serious dosh from it.

While they always tried to sell the NHS as a social project one of its main aims was to keep the populace fit and healthy as before both world wars they found that a lot of the recruits were suffering from simple ailments that could be easily treated but took time to recover from if left untreated so they decided that it was in the national interest to have more of the fighting force ready to go at a moments notice than spend a few months in hospital getting that gammy knee sorted etc.

what I would like to know is just how much taxmoney has been spent (federal, state, and local taxes) on the healthcare industry over the years. I've had local sales tax get raised....to fund medicaid, I've seen the state hand out giant checks to various healthcare providers, we fund medicaid, we fund medicare, we fund reasearch, we fund the healthcare for the children. Our taxes have been used to build hospitals, clinics, as well as indepentent businesses that probably were profitable enough that they didn't need any tax money, or tax breaks to stay profitable.
seems to me that the taxpayers throughout the years, have played a key role in building up this healthcare system that some tout as being the best in the world! and to be honest about it, some of us are made to feel like we're being tapped by a bunch of vampires or something, they take more than we can afford to give, and then when we do get sick or hurt, we get either have to settle for crappy care or no care because well...we don't have the money for it, even if we do have insurance. our medical records end up all over the place with long spans where there was no healthcare treatment of any kind. and gee, then, if we get bad enough that we can't work, we can't even qualify for disability because we don't have the nice clear medical records that even the poorest of the poor in this country can have on our dime.

I haven't worked in the past few years, the pain just got to be too much for me. My husband, has supported me, but well he passed away this past february. I am living in a two bedroom trailer with two of my adult sons, who well, since august have had money coming in some months, other months, they haven't. we got through the summer months solely on the money that I got by selling my husband's trucks. I called social services, they said the only thing that they could help with is maybe a little bit of food stamps and some help with the electricity, but well, they'd include my kid's on and off income, so well, I didn't bother. and, well, when I talked to them, I didn't include any discussion as far as my kids being here with me, so they were talking about just me, with no income. I called social security a couple of times, at first they told me that I would need doctor's records to validate any claims, which I already tried, and was denied because the records are spotty at best. when I told them that the first time, they said that I would need to go to the doctor.... but well, that was out, no insurance, no stable income coming in just whatever I could find to sell in the house....so I hung up rather depressed. I finally called them back since I was pretty sure that I was at least entitled to the 255 survivor's benefit. they told me I wasn't and I argued with them and finally went off on them. the next day I got a call back, and I told my situation to the person, and heck she informed me that they could have their doctor assess my condition. so I went and applied this past august. was declared disabled this october, but they could only confirm october as the start pf the disability. Finally got my 255 this past month. got a letter informing me that I was approved for disablility but because of a four or five month waiting period won't be getting any of it till the end of may. Then I get a letter telling me to expect a call next week to update the financial aspects of my situation so they can decide weather or not I can get SSI. which will probably take another month for them to decide. Only, well....one son who is living with me moved in after my husband died, I thought he was working and he did on and off for awhile, but then he only got one paycheck for the entire time and well, the guy he was working for hasn't called him back or paid him what he owes. He's finally gotten another job, which I hope lasts, and has been working for a month. The other son living with me, the one I usually can depend on, well, he has only three more classes he can take (GI Bill) and only two are being offered next semester, so his income he figures will be cut by at least half. my third son, who has been living alone, has borrowed his brother's junk car because his has broken down, so he can get to work. he saw on the news yesterday that the major company his company does work for will be laying off something like a third of their workforce this february. So he'll probably be laid off.

Gee, the only good thing I've accomplished this year is to get the crazy neighbor, who does get disability by the way, to leave me alone and quite trying to bum crap off of me!! I've been told she's been spotted walking the half mile or so to the store occasionally.... I could never walk that far!!!

And yet, my husband and me paid all these taxes to social security, to our country gov'ts (for medicaid), to our states (some of which I know went for research, hospitals, equipment, and on and on), and the federal gov't. we helped pay for our neighbors healthcare through these programs, our money was used to help the disabled, those poor single moms who's kids always had nicer clothes than ours and who's cars were newer models....

this is just an example of what our current healthcare system can cause and I can guarentee you one thing, this gov't will never get another cent out of me!!

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.

a reply to: Metallicus

It may not be in the constitution, but it's certainly a basic human right for people not to be denied healthcare. It certainly isn't Christ like to ignore someone who is sick and needs help. A civilized and caring society doesn't give to the haves and not to the have-nots. Caring for your fellow man is what life is all about.

Would you walk on by if someone on the street was in pain and asked you for your help? How about denying a person help because they don't have enough money to pay for it? Because that's exactly what our healthcare system is like in the United States. Most industrialized countries get it. You would think a country like the U.S. who boasts about human rights and is always pointing the finger at other countries would look at itself in the mirror.

Our government uses taxpayers dollars to build machines to wage war. They can sacrifice your son or daughter in times of war, but refuse them access to health care. They even turn their backs on veterans who have been psychologically scarred or maimed in overseas conflicts. A governments priority should be its citizens. Not waging war and influencing another country's government. Taxpayers deserve a return on their hard earned money.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

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.

a reply to: Metallicus

It may not be in the constitution, but it's certainly a basic human right for people not to be denied healthcare. It certainly isn't Christ like to ignore someone who is sick and needs help. A civilized and caring society doesn't give to the haves and not to the have-nots. Caring for your fellow man is what life is all about.

Would you walk on by if someone on the street was in pain and asked you for your help? How about denying a person help because they don't have enough money to pay for it? Because that's exactly what our healthcare system is like in the United States. Most industrialized countries get it. You would think a country like the U.S. who boasts about human rights and is always pointing the finger at other countries would look at itself in the mirror.

Our government uses taxpayers dollars to build machines to wage war. They can sacrifice your son or daughter in times of war, but refuse them access to health care. They even turn their backs on veterans who have been psychologically scarred or maimed in overseas conflicts. A governments priority should be its citizens. Not waging war and influencing another country's government. Taxpayers deserve a return on their hard earned money.

Health care is not a basic human right.
I do agree that we spend to much money on other things, but health care is not a basic human right.

The answer is simple, because a single payer healthcare system would eliminate many peoples need to work for large employers as non-except employees. The overall effect on American society would be similar to what happened in the period after the 13th amendment was enacted. Basically you would have a few years of chaos in the labor markets, as people choose what was better for them, instead of what was better for big government and big business. Big firms would immediately be bombarded with some of their best employees asking for contract positions, increasing to a point where their contracting departments would not be able to handle the new and permanent load of incoming contract workers.

Single payer healthcare in the 21st century USA is akin to the USA freeing the slaves in the 19th century. The "Owners of Capital" want wage slaves DEAD before turning 60. Best case scenario for them, is for someone to work 60+ hour work weeks from ages 16-60, put all of their money into a 401K, insurance payment, cars & home mortgage, neglecting to go to the doctor for decades and then suddenly dropping dead of a heart attack; all before that individual can drain their 401K's and start using earned social security & medicare benefits.

Due to the way our current economic system works, we CLEARLY have too many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of capital" to employ them for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization. In the United States, for example, its clear that the "owners of capital" have chosen NOT to employ people on a large scale, preferring "tent cities" and "jailing the homeless", INSTEAD of providing more "make-work employment" arrangements.

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level. Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a DEFINITE reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this concept because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for FULL-TIME employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone whom is looking, able to perform, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Basically due to the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 4-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it. That’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Note this will NOT be to the specific detriment of society, but as a means to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy, as the previously increased minimum education levels for employment. The real goal is decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time, but also not decreasing the supply of "potential workers" who's mere existence drive wages down for EVERYBODY. Keep in mind this cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners, SSI and the disabled on government assistance

The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern corporate, labor cost-cutting, strategies. These measures eventually will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers. Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave, waiting in the wings, doing the work for less or nothing at all. In the past, when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or flat out used slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer formal education for basic employment, off-shoring, SSI retirement, prisoners and SNAP welfare.

The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England

The "owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables, more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare

After the Black Death ran its course, in the 14th century, a Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". By 1381, the sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". This statute was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn't want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn't have to conform to demands of the market.

a reply to: WeRpeons

It certainly isn't Christ like to ignore someone who is sick and needs help.

Why bring the Christian religion into your argument? I don't follow that religion and I don't think it has any place in a public debate.

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.

Doesn't mean it's not a right.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Limiting human rights to those explicitly stated in law seems a fairly authoritarian (one might even say statist) view point.

originally posted by: coop039


Health care is not a basic human right.
I do agree that we spend to much money on other things, but health care is not a basic human right.

Why not?

I have the right to bear arms too. That doesn't mean the government is required to arm me.

Here are some excepts from an article written by Devon Douglas-Bowers, Slavery By A Different Name: The Convict Lease System

Many economic problems were considered ahead of time, before politicians willingly passed the 13th Amendment. It would be foolish for the average person to assume that similar conversations are not being had by politicians today, when discussing the consequences of introducing of a single-payer healthcare system

-The passing of the 13th amendment should be examined within the context of an economic competition between black slave labor and free white labor. The South’s economy was built around slave labor and the ability to have the slaves produce more than they were ‘worth,’ seeing as how slaves were viewed as not just general property but a long-term economic investment which helped the Southern plantation elite. Yet, due to the existence of slavery, white labor suffered as not only did they lose out on the income they were making when slavery was first introduced as well as the potential future income, but also white labor was unable to make advances within the South as slave provided a source of labor that was less expensive in the long-term

-The leasing out of state convicts to private hands has its basis in the minds of such people as John T. Milner of Alabama. Milner was no ordinary man, rather he was a Southern elite who “was in the vanguard of that new theory of industrial forced labor,” writing in 1859 that “black labor marshaled into the regimented productivity of factory settings would be the key to the economic development of Alabama and the South.” Milner’s idea of using regimented black labor can be seen in his involvement of a project for the Blue River, a railroad company, in Alabama. In 1859 he issued a plan for the laying of rail in Montgomery, “presenting statistical evidence to demonstrate the potential economic benefit to Montgomery of securing connections with Decatur,” a city north of Montgomery. He argued that the Blue River could build its own track in nearby Jones Valley with the use of slave labor. Yet, in Milner’s mind, this slave labor had to be managed by whites. He stated “A negro who can set a saw, or run a grist mill, or work in a blacksmith shop, can do work as cheaply in a rolling mill, even now, as white men do at the North, provided he has an overseer, a southern man, who knows how to manage negroes.” After the end of the Civil War, Milner’s plan changed, but he was convinced that “the future of blacks in America rested on how whites chose to manage them.” To this end, in the 1870s, he moved with purpose to acquire the black convict labor that Alabama’s prisons were offering up. He took these convicts and put them to work in coal mines, treating them barbarically

-In order to allow for the convict lease system to exist and for blacks to be reduced to their former state as a labor source, it required that the law limit the rights of blacks and criminalize black life to the point that blacks could be imprisoned on the most frivolous of offenses. Such laws took the form of Black Codes. To understand the creation of Black Codes, it is necessary to understand the social order that motivated elites to push for such legislation. North Carolina is a prime example. After the war, the elite would have preferred the system to revert back to the status quo that existed under the slave system, yet this was not possible due to the liberation of blacks and free whites caused by the destruction of the slave system. This problem was greatly exacerbated by the fact that “in suppressing the war to dissolve the Union the whites were deprived of arms while many Negroes had easily obtained them,” thus “A general feeling of insecurity on the part of the whites” resulted. Armed blacks were a threat to elite interests as by being able to defend and protect themselves; blacks would be able to ensure that they would not be re-enslaved. Furthermore, it presented a problem to the overall white power structure as having weapons would empower blacks to stand up for themselves and assert their rights not only as Americans but also as human beings and such a situation bought the memories and worries of a slave revolt back to the forefront of the minds of elites

-Another example of the law being used to punish blacks was those laws concerning vagrancy. These workers proved a problem to North Carolinian industrialists and agriculturalists as few could afford to pay workers a wage until the crop had been grown, not to mention that neither employee nor employer were familiar with a wage system. A solution was found in creating vagrancy laws. Of the workers who refused to do any labor, vagrancy laws were passed that stated that a person who had no means of survival or refused to work would be regarded a vagrant and sent to court, however, a payment could be offered which would be conditional upon the good behavior of the vagrant for one year and thus would allow the person to get off scot free. Yet if the person was unable to make such a payment, they would be convicted a vagrant and fined, imprisoned, or both. When concerning now freed slaves, the laws was much harsher as many of them, once convicted, were apprenticed to their former owners under a contract or being leased to a corporation. Overall in the South, vagrancy laws were so vaguely defined that any free black that was not under the protection of a white person could be arrested. Such laws allowed for police to “round up idle blacks in times of labor scarcity and also gave employers a coercive tool that might be used to keep workers on the job.”

-After the Civil War, such leasing began to pick up steam as corporations had access to almost free labor. Labor scarcity between states was a major problem and thus concerted efforts were made by each state to keep black prison labor within their borders. This was done be waging war on emigrant agents, people who specialized in moving labor from where it was abundant to where it was scarce

-Convict leasing, interestingly enough, resulted in power being taken from the state level and given to those on the local level to the point that sheriffs became quite powerful soon after the Civil War ended as “County sheriffs and judges had dabbled with leasing black convicts out to local farmers, or to contractors under hire to repair roads and bridges, beginning almost immediately after the Civil War.” This economic empowerment of sheriffs created an incentive for them to convict and lock up as many freedmen as possible and keep a steady supply of labor. An entire economy eventually formed around the convict lease system, including a speculative trade system in convict contracts developed

As you can see from above commentary about the USA, post the 13th Amendment, the current "Owners of Capital" are using the same solutions to keep labor costs down and their control absolute, just as they always have. These solutions include: gun control for certain groups, unjust jailing, vagrancy laws, the importation of lower cost labor that have no labor rights and top heavy organizations that push their labor to the breaking point for higher profits, etc

As for the side conversation about whether Healthcare is a "right" or not, I'd stop that discussion right now, as it has no bearing on the REAL motivations of those in power.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I can't support a 'right' that says I have to pay for YOUR health care. Join a coop or something, but pay for your own stuff and I will pay for mine.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: coop039


Health care is not a basic human right.
I do agree that we spend to much money on other things, but health care is not a basic human right.

Why not?

You are the one that says it is a right for you to make me pay for your health care. We don't have to prove a negative as the onus of proof is on YOU for calling it a right.

I would never support a LAW that makes another human being responsible for someone else. I do not consent to being responsible for YOU. If you want to be responsible for someone that is why you have children.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: coop039


Health care is not a basic human right.
I do agree that we spend to much money on other things, but health care is not a basic human right.

Why not?

You are the one that says it is a right for you to make me pay for your health care. We don't have to prove a negative as the onus of proof is on YOU for calling it a right.

I would never support a LAW that makes another human being responsible for someone else. I do not consent to being responsible for YOU. If you want to be responsible for someone that is why you have children.

AGAIN, this side conversation about whether Healthcare is a "right" or not, IS A WASTE OF TIME and has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on the REAL motivations of those in power, nor will it influence what they will choose to do eventually.

At the end of the day, IF, the "Owners of capital" want to create a single-payer healthcare system, they will proclaim it as a "right" and if they don't want to create a single-payer healthcare system, they will proclaim that "it was never a right".

a reply to: Metallicus
All rights require someone to pay for then, unless you think courts/police are cost free?
That said universal healthcare more than pays for itself, by not "paying" for others healthcare you Are actually making yourself worse off.