Bernie, I have an idea for you that'll sweeten the deal for taxpayers. Take as much as you can out of the NSA's budget and put [i]that[/i] towards your plan. Nobody in the real world likes the NSA and their incessant spying, and honestly, pulling their funding and putting it towards healthcare solves two problems at once. You lessen the tax burden on the average joes(Saving them even more over insurance) AND you pretty much gut the invasive spying.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49554239]I agree with lowering costs first.
People dont realize much that hospitals can just buy a trashcan for $5 a pop at walmart. They have to buy SPECIAL trashcans that are more like 50-100$ a pop yet are exactly the same.
Apply this to like absolutely anything in a hospital.
Thats the type of shit ASIDE from actual pharmaceutical work that costs a fuckload. Little metal trays that should be $10 can be $200 because they are special medical ones, yet at the end of the day, means fuck all.
And yes, while I am for a free market majorally, I am not for a free market in Medicine/Food/Water, being able to jack up medical prices by 500% should be as illegal as murdering someone if that medicine is needed for serious reasons.
And yeah, ER costs need to go way down.
Id rather some politician fix all that, before touching insurance.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have this first. An extra 2.2% on my taxes is offset, positively so, by not having to have a deduction on my already pathetic paycheck for health insurance that isn't really worth having in the first place, and it's a damn sight better than being on the 'don't get hurt' health plan I grew up on.
[QUOTE=TestECull;49559221]Bernie, I have an idea for you that'll sweeten the deal for taxpayers. Take as much as you can out of the NSA's budget and put [i]that[/i] towards your plan. Nobody in the real world likes the NSA and their incessant spying, and honestly, pulling their funding and putting it towards healthcare solves two problems at once. You lessen the tax burden on the average joes(Saving them even more over insurance) AND you pretty much gut the invasive spying.
I'd rather have this first. An extra 2.2% on my taxes is offset, positively so, by not having to have a deduction on my already pathetic paycheck for health insurance that isn't really worth having in the first place, and it's a damn sight better than being on the 'don't get hurt' health plan I grew up on.[/QUOTE]
Gutting the NSA is a bad move imo. The NSA as a whole is an insanely useful and beneficial organization, they're extremely important for security purposes and some of their work (see Equation Group) is just incredible. Having those types of tools at our disposal is fantastic for us as a country, the issue is that they're using those tools against American citizens. On a global scale though, the NSA is really important, and we should support them in a general sense. They just need way more oversight and controls in place to keep them out of regular people's lives.
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
Anybody remotely interested in security or NSA business should check this out: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog[/url]
Obviously they're very scary tools to be deployed unnecessarily against regular people, but you can't deny the technology is valuable for our country's espionage needs.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49554239]I agree with lowering costs first.
People dont realize much that hospitals can just buy a trashcan for $5 a pop at walmart. They have to buy SPECIAL trashcans that are more like 50-100$ a pop yet are exactly the same.
Apply this to like absolutely anything in a hospital.
Thats the type of shit ASIDE from actual pharmaceutical work that costs a fuckload. Little metal trays that should be $10 can be $200 because they are special medical ones, yet at the end of the day, means fuck all.
And yes, while I am for a free market majorally, I am not for a free market in Medicine/Food/Water, being able to jack up medical prices by 500% should be as illegal as murdering someone if that medicine is needed for serious reasons.
And yeah, ER costs need to go way down.
Id rather some politician fix all that, before touching insurance.[/QUOTE]
You think it's different in other places? I work in nuclear power plant construction. Did you know that there is "Nuclear Grade Duct Tape" that's no different than regular duct tape? However, federal regulations require the use of nuclear grade materials in the construction of a nuclear power plant. It's the same thing in the medical industry.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49559295]You think it's different in other places? I work in nuclear power plant construction. Did you know that there is "Nuclear Grade Duct Tape" that's no different than regular duct tape? However, federal regulations require the use of nuclear grade materials in the construction of a nuclear power plant. It's the same thing in the medical industry.[/QUOTE]
You don't even have to go that far. I worked in fast food for my first couple jobs and we got a mark from the health inspector because our ice scooper wasn't FDA approved.
[QUOTE=TestECull;49559221]Bernie, I have an idea for you that'll sweeten the deal for taxpayers. Take as much as you can out of the NSA's budget and put [i]that[/i] towards your plan. Nobody in the real world likes the NSA and their incessant spying, and honestly, pulling their funding and putting it towards healthcare solves two problems at once. You lessen the tax burden on the average joes(Saving them even more over insurance) AND you pretty much gut the invasive spying.[/QUOTE]
The entire NSA budget is ~$10 billion. "Gutting" it would be essentially irrelevant when you're talking about the costs involved in single payer healthcare.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49559383]When will blackmarket hospitals happen?
Is that something that happens?[/QUOTE]
In the first world? It'll never happen. Medicine is highly skilled and specialized labor requiring years of education and certification, and the pay and benefits reflect that most of the time. There's no incentive for skilled medical professionals to work in the black market and risk imprisonment as well as an immediate and permanent end to their medical career that they've worked for years to foster.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;49557501]That's damn tragic. Especially when you consider that USA is the richest and likely the most technologically advanced country on this planet. In Sweden money is never on your mind when you're getting a medical checkup or treatment. It just happens.[/QUOTE]
Well, we almost had it happen a long time ago. At the end of 1945, after the end of the war, Truman proposed a national healthcare program that would've given coverage to everybody. We could've been living like you Europeans for decades now if we'd been smart enough to approve of it.
[quote]This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.
[url=http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm]The Truman Library[/url][/quote]
It also would've built new hospitals, established a national standards system to eliminate this states' rights bullshit we've seen claimed here in recent years since the Affordable Care Act was successfully passed, allocated money for medical research, and also was going to help educate and train more doctors, nurses, dentists, technicians (medical personnel in general) to address national shortages that affected in particular rural communities (which made up a huge swathe of the country at the time and continues to today).
We need this. Desperately. The idea we're the world's greatest superpower, it's richest and most powerful and advanced civilization in the history of human existence, and not be able to provide affordable medical treatment and healthcare coverage for all our citizens is absurd to the point of being a disgraceful travesty. Also, we need to close the gap between medical care and dental; they're one in the same. Your teeth have a huge impact on your overall health, and for people in this country who need to have theirs fixed (and there's a lot who do, [url=http://www.hrsa.gov/publichealth/clinical/oralhealth/advancingoralhealth.pdf]tens of millions in fact[/url]), they should be able to do so without having to spend a fortune or worry about insurance.
The amount of shit we need to be doing, could be doing, and yet are not doing is infuriating to say the least.
[QUOTE=TestECull;49559221]Bernie, I have an idea for you that'll sweeten the deal for taxpayers. Take as much as you can out of the NSA's budget and put [i]that[/i] towards your plan. Nobody in the real world likes the NSA and their incessant spying, and honestly, pulling their funding and putting it towards healthcare solves two problems at once. You lessen the tax burden on the average joes(Saving them even more over insurance) AND you pretty much gut the invasive spying.[/QUOTE]
You just cant move money like that. Not to mention it wouldnt be enough. Not to mention that would never pass congress.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49558197]The problem is that the rich don't pay their fair share. Its why government offices are understaffed and using ancient technology, etc.
The US government can't even adequately collect taxation.[/QUOTE]
Depends on what you consider a fair share. The top 1% in the U.S. contribute roughly 25% of all income tax, while the rest of the top 20% contribute another ~40% of all income tax. The top 20% therefore pay roughly two-thirds of all personal income tax.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49560054]Depends on what you consider a fair share. The top 1% in the U.S. contribute roughly 25% of all income tax, while the rest of the top 20% contribute another ~40% of all income tax. The top 20% therefore pay roughly two-thirds of all personal income tax.[/QUOTE]
The top 1% hold 99% of wealth. Granted, being in the top 1% just means reasonably well off middle class (doctor etc) because figures are skewed by the top 0.01% holding 90% of wealth, but between the 1% and the 0.01%, paying 25% of tax still seems fairly low.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49560320]The top 1% hold 99% of wealth. Granted, being in the top 1% just means reasonably well off middle class (doctor etc) because figures are skewed by the top 0.01% holding 90% of wealth, but between the 1% and the 0.01%, paying 25% of tax still seems fairly low.[/QUOTE]
Income, not wealth is what we tax, and the top 1% make about 20% of the income. So they are paying more than their share of the income (whether that's a "fair share" is totally subjective). Also, according to this study ([URL]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116370[/URL]) here are some facts about top earners:
- 70% of people will spend at least 1 year in the top 20% of income
- 53% will spend at least 1 year in the top 10% of income
- 11.1% will spend at least 1 year in the top 1% of income
Yes, there are always people at the top, but which people are at the top is constantly changing. It's not like a monolithic group of top earners.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49560384]Income, not wealth is what we tax, and the top 1% make about 20% of the income. So they are paying more than their share of the income (whether that's a "fair share" is totally subjective). Also, according to this study ([URL]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116370[/URL]) here are some facts about top earners:
- 70% of people will spend at least 1 year in the top 20% of income
- 53% will spend at least 1 year in the top 10% of income
- 11.1% will spend at least 1 year in the top 1% of income
Yes, there are always people at the top, but which people are at the top is constantly changing. It's not like a monolithic group of top earners.[/QUOTE]
In those brackets they change.
I'm not so sure the 0.01% richest changes much, if at all.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49560510]In those brackets they change.
I'm not so sure the 0.01% richest changes much, if at all.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they don't change nearly as much, but when they do change it's a huge percentage since there are only a very small number. So averaged over, say, 30 years I wouldn't be surprised if it changes quite a bit.
Also, the top 0.01% are pretty irrelevant when it comes to taxation. While they make a ton of money there just aren't enough people to have their income matter that much on their own. That's why you often see those who want to raise taxes talking about $250,000+, which is around the top 3%.
Sanders would ruin this country though, he wants to double the minimum wage which would be terrible for small businesses, Sanders' complete lack of understanding of basic economics and is infuriating and the amount of my peers all for Sanders because DUDE FREE STUFF is mind-boggling. But at least when he doesn't get the nomination the resulting butthurt will be glorious.
[QUOTE=wystan;49560636]Sanders would ruin this country though, he wants to double the minimum wage which would be terrible for small businesses, Sanders' complete lack of understanding of basic economics and is infuriating and the amount of my peers all for Sanders because DUDE FREE STUFF is mind-boggling. But at least when he doesn't get the nomination the resulting butthurt will be glorious.[/QUOTE]
Example of what happens when you read right wing Facebook pages for 6 hours
If you read his extensive plans on how he's paying for all this, you'll realise it's smart and durable. You tax the 1% and close loopholes which will bring in a mega ton of profit and use that to pay for new things
Also that whole "raising the minimum wage will hurt small business" thing is utter bullshit. Ask any country (like mine) and I can confidentially tell you small businesses cope well
[QUOTE=wystan;49560636]Sanders would ruin this country though, he wants to double the minimum wage which would be terrible for small businesses, Sanders' complete lack of understanding of basic economics and is infuriating and the amount of my peers all for Sanders because DUDE FREE STUFF is mind-boggling. But at least when he doesn't get the nomination the resulting butthurt will be glorious.[/QUOTE]
Will he though? How do you know?
The minimum wage clearly isn't enough, it's not a living wage for many people. The very nature of the current economy is unsettling and the fact we have as many people as we do screaming that helping the ever growing impoverished of your nation is just wrong.
[QUOTE=wystan;49560636]Sanders would ruin this country though, he wants to double the minimum wage which would be terrible for small businesses, Sanders' complete lack of understanding of basic economics and is infuriating and the amount of my peers all for Sanders because DUDE FREE STUFF is mind-boggling. But at least when he doesn't get the nomination the resulting butthurt will be glorious.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster[/url]
The department of labor doesn't find your concerns to be true. You know, the people whose job it is to have a basic understanding of economics.
You lack a basic understanding of economics. You fail to realize the ridiculous amount of money in the United States. It isn't "free stuff", it is "there is a ridiculous amount of income that isn't taxed being given to people who wouldn't even remotely suffer from being taxed."
We are, as a nation, obscenely wealthy, and yet we fail to provide some of the most basic services to our people. Explain that. Our GDP is absolutely insane compared to the majority of the world, but we can't provide healthcare to people who need it? Really?
[QUOTE=wystan;49560636]Sanders would ruin this country though, he wants to double the minimum wage which would be terrible for small businesses, Sanders' complete lack of understanding of basic economics and is infuriating and the amount of my peers all for Sanders because DUDE FREE STUFF is mind-boggling. But at least when he doesn't get the nomination the resulting butthurt will be glorious.[/QUOTE]
Raising the minimum wage isn't going to devastate small businesses as it isn't going to be done instantly. No minimum wage increases are done in massive jumps anywhere to avoid just that problem. And besides, if people have more money to spend, these businesses are likely to receive more custom to pay their employees. This is how every minimum wage change has gone down since forever.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49560718][URL]http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster[/URL]
The department of labor doesn't find your concerns to be true. You know, the people whose job it is to have a basic understanding of economics.
You lack a basic understanding of economics. You fail to realize the ridiculous amount of money in the United States. It isn't "free stuff", it is "there is a ridiculous amount of income that isn't taxed being given to people who wouldn't even remotely suffer from being taxed."
We are, as a nation, obscenely wealthy, and yet we fail to provide some of the most basic services to our people. Explain that. Our GDP is absolutely insane compared to the majority of the world, but we can't provide healthcare to people who need it? Really?[/QUOTE]
My economics degree and all my textbooks say otherwise, how are you going to help unemployment by making it twice as expensive to hire people? I work for minimum wage and I get by fine because I don't spend like an idiot. Bernie is as bad as Trump when it comes to just blaming the "the 1%" (Trump instead does the whole China thing). Also taxing rich people because they are rich is wrong, why should they be punished for being successful? I am not willing to take a tax hike so everywhere can now receive sub-par health insurance now that all medicare will be 95% underfunded and not the mention the absurd waitlists we will face. Also stop comparing the US to any other nation, we are different, we have a population of 330 million, we have to spend of things other nations don't. What's the point, the "Facepunch Census" showed this place is mostly a liberal hugbox anyway, I would never tell people who to vote for, but I'd gladly tell anyone to vote for literally anyone besides Sanders.
[QUOTE=wystan;49560817]My economics degree and all my textbooks say otherwise[/QUOTE]
You [I]are[/I] aware that a degree only guarantees that you succesfully completed your studies (By the standards of your country and whatever institution you chose to attend, that is), and not that your opinion is actually valid, right?
[QUOTE=wystan;49560817]My economics degree and all my textbooks say otherwise, how are you going to help unemployment by making it twice as expensive to hire people? I work for minimum wage and I get by fine because I don't spend like an idiot. Bernie is as bad as Trump when it comes to just blaming the "the 1%" (Trump instead does the whole China thing). Also taxing rich people because they are rich is wrong, why should they be punished for being successful? I am not willing to take a tax hike so everywhere can now receive sub-par health insurance now that all medicare will be 95% underfunded and not the mention the absurd waitlists we will face. Also stop comparing the US to any other nation, we are different, we have a population of 330 million, we have to spend of things other nations don't.[/QUOTE]
the fact that you think the minimum wage is fine because you in your area can get by on it because "You don't spend like an idiot" is absolutely ridiculous. How much economic knowledge do you really have if you're taking the anecdote of yourself in one given region as representative of a nation?
[QUOTE=T553412;49560854]You [I]are[/I] aware that a degree only guarantees that you succesfully completed your studies (By the standards of your country and whatever institution you chose to attend, that is), and not that your opinion is actually valid, right?[/QUOTE]
How can an opinion be invalid? If you want to use that argument, why not mention how Bernie wants to make college free for everybody, because that will be affordable right? You clearly believe degrees don't mean anything right and just show people can do their studies, so let's devalue all the other degrees right?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49560855]the fact that you think the minimum wage is fine because you in your area can get by on it because "You don't spend like an idiot" is absolutely ridiculous. How much economic knowledge do you really have if you're taking the anecdote of yourself in one given region as representative of a nation?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to imply that, but people complain that the current minimum wage isn't livable, when it is, don't try and say I am making generalizations when literally everyone does with the blanket statements
[QUOTE=wystan;49560817]My economics degree and all my textbooks say otherwise, how are you going to help unemployment by making it twice as expensive to hire people? I work for minimum wage and I get by fine because I don't spend like an idiot. Bernie is as bad as Trump when it comes to just blaming the "the 1%" (Trump instead does the whole China thing). Also taxing rich people because they are rich is wrong, why should they be punished for being successful? I am not willing to take a tax hike so everywhere can now receive sub-par health insurance now that all medicare will be 95% underfunded and not the mention the absurd waitlists we will face. Also stop comparing the US to any other nation, we are different, we have a population of 330 million, we have to spend of things other nations don't.[/QUOTE]
Why would I help unemployment? Our issue is underemployment. Unemployment hasn't been an issue for years.
You have an economics degree and make minimum wage. Sure.
It isn't punishing the wealthy to tax them. They can afford additional burden and remain wealthy. Placing burden on those who can't afford to house and clothe themselves, or even those who just have trouble paying for college, isn't likely going to be beneficial to society.
Hahaha, sub standard care. News flash:
American healthcare isn't even close to the best in the world. But we spend the most by a massive margin.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/[/url]
We are actually below average in MOST categories. Including fucking life expectancy.
WE ALREADY SPEND AS MUCH MONEY IN TAX DOLLARS ON HEALTH CARE AS MOST COUNTRIES WITH NATIONALIZED MEDICINE.
Read that again. We are already spending as much per person, in tax dollars alone, in health care, as most nations with nationalized medicine. Once you fold in our private expenditures, we spend obscene sums of money for care that is already substandard.
Waitlists. Fucking please. We have fewer than the average number of doctors (2.4 vs an average 3.1) and less hospital beds (2.6 vs 3.4) per 1000 people. If there is a waitlist it is because people are getting the care they should have been getting all along, which is what should be happening right now.
[QUOTE=wystan;49560891]You clearly believe degrees don't mean anything right and just show people can do their studies, so let's devalue all the other degrees right?[/QUOTE]
In my own experience, people will seldom take you seriously by your degree alone. Way I see it, a degree only proves that you have succesfully completed an educational course. It doesn't guarantees that you can actually put that education to good use.
Now, I really wouldn't know what to tell you about Bernie's goals of affordable college and healthcare. But it [B]is[/B] a fact that the american system is terribly broken.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49560917]Why would I help unemployment? Our issue is underemployment. Unemployment hasn't been an issue for years.
You have an economics degree and make minimum wage. Sure.
It isn't punishing the wealthy to tax them. They can afford additional burden and remain wealthy. Placing burden on those who can't afford to house and clothe themselves, or even those who just have trouble paying for college, isn't likely going to be beneficial to society.
Hahaha, sub standard care. News flash:
American healthcare isn't even close to the best in the world. But we spend the most by a massive margin.
[URL]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/[/URL]
We are actually below average in MOST categories. Including fucking life expectancy.
WE ALREADY SPEND AS MUCH MONEY IN TAX DOLLARS ON HEALTH CARE AS MOST COUNTRIES WITH NATIONALIZED MEDICINE.
Read that again. We are already spending as much per person, in tax dollars alone, in health care, as most nations with nationalized medicine. Once you fold in our private expenditures, we spend obscene sums of money for care that is already substandard.
Waitlists. Fucking please. We have fewer than the average number of doctors (2.4 vs an average 3.1) and less hospital beds (2.6 vs 3.4) per 1000 people. If there is a waitlist it is because people are getting the care they should have been getting all along, which is what should be happening right now.[/QUOTE]
You see nothing wrong with forcing the wealthy to pay more just because they're wealthy? How do you rationalize that? Also I don't see the rest of your points, it sounds like you're agreeing with me, our healthcare system isn't good, why would flooding it with more people when we are clearly under equipped, why should people not have the option for better healthcare if they can afford it?
[QUOTE=wystan;49560959]You see nothing wrong with forcing the wealthy to pay more just because they're wealthy? How do you rationalize that?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure billionaires will find a way to cope after sobbing into their hundred dollar bill napkins.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49560980]I'm sure billionaires will find a way to cope after sobbing into their hundred dollar bill napkins.[/QUOTE]
Because billionaires aren't people too right? They don't deserve to have control of their own money right? Just on principle it's wrong to take money from people just because they have more than you.
[QUOTE=wystan;49560959]You see nothing wrong with forcing the wealthy to pay more just because they're wealthy? How do you rationalize that?[/QUOTE]
We all have to support our fellow citizens by paying our taxes, and the more succesful you are, the more people you have to help?
[QUOTE=wystan;49560959]You see nothing wrong with forcing the wealthy to pay more just because their wealthy? How do you rationalize that? Also I don't see the rest of your points, it sounds like you're agreeing with me, our healthcare system isn't good, why would flooding it with more people when we are clearly under equipped, why should people not have the option for better healthcare if they can afford it?[/QUOTE]
The wealthy will still be wealthy with sliding scale tax burden. They have additional burden, because they can afford additional burden. It isn't like you are taking them and taxing them until they are middle class or some ridiculous bullshit.
Our healthcare system is under equipped because do things like plant people in ridiculous amounts of debt so they can go to school and obtain their medical degree. Other nations don't do that.
We spend massive sums of money already and get nothing in return because you aren't actually paying for quality. You are paying massive sums of money because you have no choice. The "free" market has a figurative gun to your head. You want your medical condition treated, right? Well you have to pay for it or risk permanent injury or death.
Handing this over to the government instead means that standards can now be enforced. Healthcare can now be effectively governed, instead of left to fuck over people at every turn.
This isn't a complicated concept.
[QUOTE=T553412;49560998]We all have to support our fellow citizens by paying our taxes, and the more succesful you are, the more people you have to help?[/QUOTE]
Uh no? If they want to do that they should consider Philanthropy there is a reason they should be respected so much, because they are wealthy and aren't forced to help others, but they CHOOSE to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.