Pox: Why We Have Nothing to Fear From A Sanders Presidency

Archive From The 'Tank
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Skyweir wrote:As much as I can applaud the pragmatism ... in the real world people dont apply sufficient intelligence and deliberation to all life choices made πŸ˜‰
Why should I have to pay for someone else's poor choices? Some other couple getting pregnant is not my problem--they did that on their own so they can pay for it out of their own pocket, don't steal the money out of my pocket to pay for "medical coverage for everyone".
Exactly. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. I should not be liable for anyone's poor judgement and/or choices.

If someone goes to Vegas and gambles all their money away I shouldn't be liable for their mortgage. Why on Earth should I have to pay for someone's pregnancy?
Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Consider also Type II Diabetes, which used to be called "adult onset diabetes", which even then was short for "you were eating a craptastic diet of processed fatty, salty, and/or sugary foods for years, washing it down with carbonated beverages as opposed to a healty mix of grains, vegetables, and lean meats". That diet was a choice so that person must put up with the consequences.

Why are people going broke trying to pay for medical coverage? The answer is ironic: because insurance companies are having to pay out claims on all those pre-existing conditions which used to be excluded the premiums keep going up and the deductibles keep getting higher. People screeched for those things, so they got enacted in to law, and now people are screeching because they cannot afford medical coverage--you fucking demanded it, jackass!

This is the midyear for Baby Boomers to turn 65; after this year more of them will be older than 65 than not, a phenomenon which will still continue for 9 more years. Their somewhat improved health condition compared to their parents means the majority of them will probably live into their mid-80s--Medicare and Medicaid are going to continue to struggle to keep up and yet we are supposed to want to put everyone on it, as well? Sanders is literally advocating the nationalization of the entire medical coverage industry and, by extension, the medical industry itself--if the only coverage is through Medicare then the only payor is Medicare and so the medical industry becomes entirely dependent upon Medicare, which means that all providers essentially become government employees.

When you become dependent upon the Federal Government for your money and your health care, they will have you by the balls. How are you ever going to put up any sort of resistance to that?
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

A very small minority of any population is ever wholly dependent on their government for money and healthcare.

So thats a minority argument but lets for arguments sake πŸ˜‰ unpack it and see where it leads.

So the crux of your position is you not being RESPONSIBLE for the poor life choices of others. 100 percent agree. You are NOT responsible for others wrong, bad, negligent, irresponsible choices.

You are both right ... many illnesses and life scenarios are the direct result of an individuals actions or inactions.

You believe Medicare is not your responsibility.. ok I get that sentiment. But youre not Medicare. Yes the government is, for want of a better descriptor.

You claim to be concerned about aborting foetuses .. are you concerned about aborting foetuses with congenital defects? If a person cannot afford to care for a child with high medical needs ... who can? Who will?

Would you assist an individual to raise a child with high medical dependencies? To save that child from abortion?

What about illnesses that are NOT caused by inaction or action? What about non causative cancer, like Leukaemia, breast cancer, prostrate cancer, you cannot blame a persons life choices for getting cancer. What about leprosy, the flu, tuberculosis, Parkinsons, Muscular dystrophy or MS?

My point, in case its lost on you ... is that not all illness is a result of a human action.

Those that are, there is a compelling argument that they ought not be covered under a public health system like Medicare.

However, is it not in the nations interest for a people to be educated and healthy? Is it not in the interests of broader public health?

My perspective is different to yours ... I see that personal individual responsibility is a positive but I also see that there are those that are struck down with diseases, health conditions that they could literally not, through any actions of their own avoid.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:Why on Earth should I have to pay for someone's pregnancy?
You wouldn't be. The government would be paying. Perhaps some tiny portion of the tax you pay anyway would be allocated to healthcare, but you're not paying for it, any more than you're paying for the bullets used to shoot at insurgents in Iraq, etc. etc.

And given your spending and national debt, my guess is that it's a very tiny fraction.

Last year, just the defence budget alone accounted for 40% of the total tax income of the government, and it's $46 billion higher this year.

Personally, as I've said before, I'd be fine if my government stopped using tax money to enrich politicians and spent it on improving healthcare instead.

--A
User avatar
aTOMiC
Lord
Posts: 24588
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:48 am
Location: Tampa, Florida
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Post by aTOMiC »

Avatar wrote:
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:Why on Earth should I have to pay for someone's pregnancy?
You wouldn't be. The government would be paying. Perhaps some tiny portion of the tax you pay anyway would be allocated to healthcare, but you're not paying for it, any more than you're paying for the bullets used to shoot at insurgents in Iraq, etc. etc.

And given your spending and national debt, my guess is that it's a very tiny fraction.

Last year, just the defence budget alone accounted for 40% of the total tax income of the government, and it's $46 billion higher this year.

Personally, as I've said before, I'd be fine if my government stopped using tax money to enrich politicians and spent it on improving healthcare instead.

--A
Now wouldn't that be something. What if we all agreed to pay taxes but we had a say in what our individual tax money was allocated for.
You would fund healthcare, others would fund national defense, still others would fund the arts. Everyone would pay taxes but no one would be bitching about paying for something they don't want to pay for. Fair and logical so therefore impossible because infrastructure and national defense could be over funded while government funded reproductive and preventive healthcare would be under funded because that could ultimately be the will of the people.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
Image

"There is tic and toc in atomic" - Neil Peart
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Avatar wrote:
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:Why on Earth should I have to pay for someone's pregnancy?
You wouldn't be. The government would be paying.
You do understand that the government works for us, right? When the ACA went into effect out healthcare costs soared. In full government takeover the numbers are even higher according to both Sanders and Warren.

"Health insurance" should not be compelled to cover poor life choices.
Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Skyweir wrote:What about illnesses that are NOT caused by inaction or action? What about non causative cancer, like Leukaemia, breast cancer, prostrate cancer, you cannot blame a persons life choices for getting cancer. What about leprosy, the flu, tuberculosis, Parkinsons, Muscular dystrophy or MS?
If you notice, I never mentioned any of those.

The reason Obama has not endorsed anyone yet is because everyone running, except Biden, is essentially stating that the ACA, arguably his signature legislation, was an abject failure and they want to do away with it. Barack, face it--you were a snapshot in time but the Democrat Party has moved on since you have been gone.

Enact Medicare for All tomorrow and I guarantee you that by the end of the week ERs across the nation would be flooded and overwhelmed as everyone rushes there for every little sniffle, scrape, and boo-boo because they know they don't have to pay for any of it. Yes, most of those people would flood ERs because that is all they know.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

You understand Nhilo that ... that is not what was said when presenting you an alternative view point, right?

The citizenry of a nations appoints a government to govern, right?

The government tax its citizenry and with that public revenue they aquit its responsibilities re national defence, and whatever else it is that your government is responsible for lol πŸ˜‚

It is in the national interest that national security threats are addressed, national health threats are addressed ... that a nations citizenry are educated, that there exists necessary infrastructure etc.

Av made a brilliant point about your tax dollars ... the government doesnt come a calling for you to personally foot the bill for bullets used to shoot at insurgents in Iraq, right?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Skyweir wrote:Av made a brilliant point about your tax dollars ... the government doesnt come a calling for you to personally foot the bill for bullets used to shoot at insurgents in Iraq, right?
If it did, then a lot of shit we pay for now would stop overnight because people wouldn't want to pay for it.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Yeah cuz people are pretty stupid πŸ˜‰ plus they love to winge about everything

But thats NOT how it works ... and a good thing too.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9194
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

I have always said that taxes would be lower if every week a tax guy showed up at work. You were then given your gross income. Then you went table to table giving money off the top until you taxes were paid.

I suspect it would start a different kind of revolution than Bernie wants.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Enact Medicare for All tomorrow and I guarantee you that by the end of the week ERs across the nation would be flooded and overwhelmed as everyone rushes there for every little sniffle, scrape, and boo-boo because they know they don't have to pay for any of it. Yes, most of those people would flood ERs because that is all they know.
Factor in too the immediate addition to the unemployment number of all the people who work for health insurance companies, as well as the people in the billing offices at hospitals and doctor's offices.

The one bright spot is that if by some bizarre twist Bernie does get the nomination and get elected, the House will still flip. He'll be impeached, likely in a stunning display of bipartisanship, before his first SOTU speech.



For the uninformed, our healthcare is currently not paid by taxes, it's paid through health insurance, and the ACA mandates for coverage have driven the prices paid by consumers up dramatically.
Image
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

Medicare for all is total bullshit...
I worked 30 years as a state employee and had
26 quarters in SSI.
I have to pay the FULL MONTHLY COST of part A and B.
That runs $602 per month.(Up 50 from the previous year)
That is the cost that is going to be for those who will get it
I didn't get a partial credit for the cost of the Medicare
but some shitheads made a rule that you have to pay if you don't have
the required time in.
So...... they will make people pay.
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:The one bright spot is that if by some bizarre twist Bernie does get the nomination and get elected, the House will still flip. He'll be impeached, likely in a stunning display of bipartisanship, before his first SOTU speech.
Republicans should be equitable--the first attempt at impeaching Trump was in May 2017, so Sanders should have that long, as well.
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:For the uninformed, our healthcare is currently not paid by taxes, it's paid through health insurance, and the ACA mandates for coverage have driven the prices paid by consumers up dramatically.
Yes--it is working exactly as was intended from the start.
Ur Dead wrote:So...... they will make people pay.
You silly goose--it isn't your money in the first place, but the government's. They just let you borrow it from time to time but now they need more of it back. They will supply all your needs if only you just sit there quietly, don't protest, don't stand up for yourself, and do as you are told.

Didn't you get the memo?
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

aTOMiC wrote: Now wouldn't that be something. What if we all agreed to pay taxes but we had a say in what our individual tax money was allocated for.
You would fund healthcare, others would fund national defense, still others would fund the arts. Everyone would pay taxes but no one would be bitching about paying for something they don't want to pay for. Fair and logical so therefore impossible because infrastructure and national defense could be over funded while government funded reproductive and preventive healthcare would be under funded because that could ultimately be the will of the people.
Can't work like that I'm afraid. Everybody pays into the kitty, and the government uses that kitty to pay for stuff the country needs / needs to do.

That's why I say you won't be paying for it. Once you pay it to the government, it's not yours anymore. It's theirs. And they can do whatever they want with it. Currently they want to spend 720-odd billion of it on defence. :D

@Ex, the government doesn't work for you. :) That's the lie they tell people to convince them to keep electing governments. If they worked for you, couldn't you go and tell them to change a specific policy if you disagreed with it?

Government works for itself, and in general, the perpetuation of the status quo. In theory, the people who control it's apparatus (or some of them anyway) are chosen by the consensus of the people. But once you have chosen them, how much control do you have over what they do?

Oh right...you can vote them out next time, and somebody else will get chosen to make decisions over which you have no further control, other than getting to decide who makes them.

--A
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Yeah, but it's the difference between higher taxes to cover a public healthcare program vs lower taxes to not do so.
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

We may not have to worry about a Sanders Presidency given how well Joe's campaign performed today.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

ur-Nanothnir wrote:Yeah, but it's the difference between higher taxes to cover a public healthcare program vs lower taxes to not do so.
You think your taxes will go down because you don't have universal healthcare?

--A
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

No, I think my taxes will stay the same/go down if I don't vote Democrat. Then again, I never had to pay taxes before. :lol:
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Haha, good luck with that. In my experience, they're very reluctant to lower taxes usually. :D They'll just use that money for something else. (More defence in your case probably. ;) )

--A
Locked

Return to β€œCoercri”