I am not understanding why single payer would be bad

[antagon]

No. Economics will be the death of socialized everything. All British colonies in America that started out with socialism nearly died out their first year because they could not grow enough food to last the winter. If it weren't for the Indians (stupidly) bailing them out, they would have all died out by the second and third winter. Some did.

All those that changed over to a capitalist system (See Jamestown for one excellent example) went from megafail bust to a boom in one year.

Why do you need more proof? The only reason we've lasted THIS long is that we haven't gone whole hog into socialism like they did 400 years ago and we have a lot more reserves to burn through. But we're almost there.

Socialism will be removed from the body politic like a malignant tumor as economies fall. But they never seem to get all the cells and a relapse always seems to occur 2-3 generations hence. At least I'll be alive to see this tumor burned out of the world by the chemo of global economic collapse. Starvation is a great sterilizer of political frivolity.

sue your history teacher, fitz. british colonial socialists 400 years ago?

My bad.

The Jamestown Settlement Colony was the first successful English settlement on the mainland of North America.[1] Named for King James I of England, Jamestown was founded in the Colony of Virginia on May 14, 1607

That would be Four Hundred and THREE years ago.

I figured you wouldn't quibble over being off by three years.

This nation just didn't spring into existance in 1760, you know. Or when the Puritains landed on Plymouth Rock (or there abouts).

As for the functionality of modern socialism, it is nearly indistinguishable from full blown feudalism. Nobles at the top, Serfs at the bottom doing all the work. Much like the prolitariat supporting the 'party' except without that messy God thing and even messier lines of succession.

So... who should be suing who's history teacher?

its not the date, it is your claim that jamestown or any british colony was socialist. this makes you a comedian.

you dont know what you are talking about with socialism, communism or feudalism. why do you bother trying to make historical characterizations on those lines?

your history teacher should catch a lawsuit, fitz. this 400 y/o british colonial socialism fantasy of yours is the pinnacle of ignorance.

 

[Zander]

any twit could answer. what constitutes a requirement or force in the law?

You are acting like a twit yourself!

Here is what happens if you refuse to purchase health insurance before ObamaCare - Nothing. You cannot be forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine for refusing.

What will happen under Obamacare if you refuse to purchase health insurance? Well, starting in 2014- our friendly tax collectors - Those nice folks at the IRS - will have another task: making sure all Americans have health insurance. Under the law, Americans who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it will face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5% of their income, whichever is higher.

Twit indeed.

there we go zander, so silly video arguments about shit not being sold as a tax don't carry water in this matter. it is a tax. absurd arguments that there is constitutional issues with the law dont hold any water either. it is a tax.

with the constitution-based nonsense of yours put to rest, there's the politically inept fantasy about a repeal. why even debate the point, we're a month or so from your new order we could just wait and see. i'm willing to place my bet that there wont be much political momentum behind that agenda, nor the political power to affect it, particularly over a veto.

Sorry, but your are wrong. The case is not settled and the complaint brought by 20 states is very strong. I believe that eventually this case will be decided by the SCOTUS.

The complaint avers that in passing the ObamaCare statutes, the federal government (the legislative and executive branches) exceeded its constitutional authority and therefore the law is of no legal effect. The precision craftsmanship of the complaint has even some liberal legal minds musing about the possibility of a decision in favor of the states.

The fulcrum upon which the matter turns is whether or not Congress may regulate inactivity — that is to say, no one would argue that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate activity (interstate commerce), but doesn’t the principle of enumerated and reserved powers as set forth in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, therefore prohibit Congress from attempting to regulate anything else?

The case at bar specifically impugns the so-called individual mandate. This provision of ObamaCare requires every American, regardless of income or personal preference, to purchase a qualifying health insurance policy or face tax penalties. If the power to regulate commerce or impose taxes is broad enough to justify this provision, then is there anything that would lie outside the boundaries of that power? Congress, theoretically, could compel citizens upon penalty of law to purchase any number of imaginable commodities and thus it would be “extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex,” just as James Madison foretold.

In the interim, we'll see what Congress does. Either way, this battle is far from over.

 

[Big Fitz]

its not the date, it is your claim that jamestown or any british colony was socialist. this makes you a comedian.

you dont know what you are talking about with socialism, communism or feudalism. why do you bother trying to make historical characterizations on those lines?

your history teacher should catch a lawsuit, fitz. this 400 y/o british colonial socialism fantasy of yours is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Communal work, administered by elites.

Where is this not socialism? Walks, talks, quacks, swims and shits like a duck. It's a duck regardless of plumage.

I also stated it was abandoned for a capitalist system where men were not forced to put all profit in the communal kitty. This is accurate as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

sue your history teacher, fitz. british colonial socialists 400 years ago?

My bad.

The Jamestown Settlement Colony was the first successful English settlement on the mainland of North America.[1] Named for King James I of England, Jamestown was founded in the Colony of Virginia on May 14, 1607

That would be Four Hundred and THREE years ago.

I figured you wouldn't quibble over being off by three years.

This nation just didn't spring into existance in 1760, you know. Or when the Puritains landed on Plymouth Rock (or there abouts).

As for the functionality of modern socialism, it is nearly indistinguishable from full blown feudalism. Nobles at the top, Serfs at the bottom doing all the work. Much like the prolitariat supporting the 'party' except without that messy God thing and even messier lines of succession.

So... who should be suing who's history teacher?

its not the date, it is your claim that jamestown or any british colony was socialist. this makes you a comedian.

you dont know what you are talking about with socialism, communism or feudalism. why do you bother trying to make historical characterizations on those lines?

your history teacher should catch a lawsuit, fitz. this 400 y/o british colonial socialism fantasy of yours is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Actually, both Jamestown and Plymouth started out as communist, not socialist.

Struggling From One Peril to the Next, the Jamestown Settlers Planted the Seeds of the American Spirit; Trouble in the Melting Pot; Idealism on Cape Cod; Mapping New France; A 40-Year Head Start - US News and World Report

"Far more useful was Dale's decision to junk what amounted to communism. Since Jamestown's start, all land was held and worked in common, with rations distributed evenly from a central storehouse. There was no incentive for an individual to work harder. Dale assigned colonists plots and let them grow for their own benefit."

 

[antagon]

My bad.

That would be Four Hundred and THREE years ago.

I figured you wouldn't quibble over being off by three years.

This nation just didn't spring into existance in 1760, you know. Or when the Puritains landed on Plymouth Rock (or there abouts).

As for the functionality of modern socialism, it is nearly indistinguishable from full blown feudalism. Nobles at the top, Serfs at the bottom doing all the work. Much like the prolitariat supporting the 'party' except without that messy God thing and even messier lines of succession.

So... who should be suing who's history teacher?

its not the date, it is your claim that jamestown or any british colony was socialist. this makes you a comedian.

you dont know what you are talking about with socialism, communism or feudalism. why do you bother trying to make historical characterizations on those lines?

your history teacher should catch a lawsuit, fitz. this 400 y/o british colonial socialism fantasy of yours is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Actually, both Jamestown and Plymouth started out as communist, not socialist.

Struggling From One Peril to the Next, the Jamestown Settlers Planted the Seeds of the American Spirit; Trouble in the Melting Pot; Idealism on Cape Cod; Mapping New France; A 40-Year Head Start - US News and World Report

"Far more useful was Dale's decision to junk what amounted to communism. Since Jamestown's start, all land was held and worked in common, with rations distributed evenly from a central storehouse. There was no incentive for an individual to work harder. Dale assigned colonists plots and let them grow for their own benefit."

despite that article's claim, i dont think that communism was exactly the goal and certainly not the deliberate layout of jamestown. remember that this colony was originally an outpost to facilitate captain smith's search for a route to india out the other end of the continent, or gold deposits like the spanish had going in the caribbean and south america. when none of that panned out, england had little aspiration for the colony for several years. if there was communal life there, it was out of need, having been established without a means of subsistence and reliant on resupply from england.

one think is for certain, there was no such a concept as socialism at the time, and the only formal communal societies were the natives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

its not the date, it is your claim that jamestown or any british colony was socialist. this makes you a comedian.

you dont know what you are talking about with socialism, communism or feudalism. why do you bother trying to make historical characterizations on those lines?

your history teacher should catch a lawsuit, fitz. this 400 y/o british colonial socialism fantasy of yours is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Actually, both Jamestown and Plymouth started out as communist, not socialist.

Struggling From One Peril to the Next, the Jamestown Settlers Planted the Seeds of the American Spirit; Trouble in the Melting Pot; Idealism on Cape Cod; Mapping New France; A 40-Year Head Start - US News and World Report

"Far more useful was Dale's decision to junk what amounted to communism. Since Jamestown's start, all land was held and worked in common, with rations distributed evenly from a central storehouse. There was no incentive for an individual to work harder. Dale assigned colonists plots and let them grow for their own benefit."

despite that article's claim, i dont think that communism was exactly the goal and certainly not the deliberate layout of jamestown. remember that this colony was originally an outpost to facilitate captain smith's search for a route to india out the other end of the continent, or gold deposits like the spanish had going in the caribbean and south america. when none of that panned out, england had little aspiration for the colony for several years. if there was communal life there, it was out of need, having been established without a means of subsistence and reliant on resupply from england.

one think is for certain, there was no such a concept as socialism at the time, and the only formal communal societies were the natives.

Sounds like a whole lotta smoke to try to obscure the point.

 

[Big Fitz]

Communism... socialism. A distinction without meaning. They operate functionally the same as the rest of the leftist rainbow which has it's roots in feudalism: Total government control of the lives of people who aren't in power.

 

[Greenbeard]

This would be because it's not the entire nation of 300 million-plus people in the system. Try a comparison that's a little more apropos.

To quote you again:

Anytime people believe someone else is paying for something, they tend to overuse it. This will inevitably require the government to ration health care in order to control costs. This is no joke, nor is it an "exaggeration", as the left likes to claim. Study after study conducted by medical journals in various countries have shown that single-payer systems lead to greater suffering and sometimes even death for people forced to wait for the health care they need.​

Your claim is that single-payer (public) coverage will lead to overutilization, which in turn will lead to "rationing" (however, you mean that). That's a statement about behavioral responses to guaranteed coverage and public responses to the burdens of that guarantee, not about scalability.

At this point I'm not sure what you're arguing. In an absolute sense, our single-payer system, while limited to a specific demographic and not population-wide, is larger than that of Canada, the nation most notorious for adopting population-wide single-payer coverage. American Medicare is covering more than 46 million people this year; the entire population of Canada is around 33 million.

So what is it about its relative size that insulates Medicare from the impulse of beneficiaries toward overutilization and insulates CMS from "rationing"? Why has Medicare not only avoided the suffering and death you're warning of but actually generated better patient satisfaction than private coverage? And why isn't it scalable?

 

[Trajan]

Anytime people believe someone else is paying for something, they tend to overuse it. This will inevitably require the government to ration health care in order to control costs. This is no joke, nor is it an "exaggeration", as the left likes to claim. Study after study conducted by medical journals in various countries have shown that single-payer systems lead to greater suffering and sometimes even death for people forced to wait for the health care they need.

We've been running an experiment in the United States for 45 years in which citizens in one particular demographic are eligible for benefits under a single-payer system. Despite the fact that this demographic is much more susceptible to chronic conditions and generally in poorer health than the general population, the result has not been greater suffering.

gee, that sounds wonderful!!!!! any like you know, cost issues with that prgm.?

 

[Greenbeard]

gee, that sounds wonderful!!!!! any like you know, cost issues with that prgm.?

I should've guessed one of the reactionaries would show up soon enough to offer their brilliant solution of "stop treating people."

You're right, treating sick elderly people costs money. Who knew?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm on the post office. Do you think a private company could fullfill all the USPS's duties cheaper than the USPS does?

Drive by every mailbox in the USA 6 days a week? Deliver a letter as cheaply as they do? Be as reliable as they are?

Yep, no way a private company could possibly compete with the post office. I wonder why UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, and all those other companies even try. they should just admit defeat and let the USPS reign supreme.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anytime people believe someone else is paying for something, they tend to overuse it. This will inevitably require the government to ration health care in order to control costs. This is no joke, nor is it an "exaggeration", as the left likes to claim. Study after study conducted by medical journals in various countries have shown that single-payer systems lead to greater suffering and sometimes even death for people forced to wait for the health care they need.

We've been running an experiment in the United States for 45 years in which citizens in one particular demographic are eligible for benefits under a single-payer system. Despite the fact that this demographic is much more susceptible to chronic conditions and generally in poorer health than the general population, the result has not been greater suffering.

How do those numbers compare to a study of private insurance?

 

[Charles_Main]

the way I see it:

1) I want healthcare and pay for it already

2) Their be more "choice" in which doctors you can see since virtually all of them would enroll in the single payer system

3) Giving everyone preventive care early will save us millions in not having to treat them for cancer and other expensive illnesses

4) the single payer system wouldn't drop you for "pre-existing conditions" or any other nonsense they make up at the time like private insurers can

5) I would rather pay into a pool that helps other people in need rather than further enrich immoral millionaires that run the current insurance companies

what about any of these are bad and what would be so bad about single payer?

Ballooning National Debt.

Nuff said.

 

[antagon]

You are acting like a twit yourself!

Here is what happens if you refuse to purchase health insurance before ObamaCare - Nothing. You cannot be forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine for refusing.

What will happen under Obamacare if you refuse to purchase health insurance? Well, starting in 2014- our friendly tax collectors - Those nice folks at the IRS - will have another task: making sure all Americans have health insurance. Under the law, Americans who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it will face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5% of their income, whichever is higher.

Twit indeed.

there we go zander, so silly video arguments about shit not being sold as a tax don't carry water in this matter. it is a tax. absurd arguments that there is constitutional issues with the law dont hold any water either. it is a tax.

with the constitution-based nonsense of yours put to rest, there's the politically inept fantasy about a repeal. why even debate the point, we're a month or so from your new order we could just wait and see. i'm willing to place my bet that there wont be much political momentum behind that agenda, nor the political power to affect it, particularly over a veto.

Sorry, but your are wrong. The case is not settled and the complaint brought by 20 states is very strong. I believe that eventually this case will be decided by the SCOTUS.

The complaint avers that in passing the ObamaCare statutes, the federal government (the legislative and executive branches) exceeded its constitutional authority and therefore the law is of no legal effect. The precision craftsmanship of the complaint has even some liberal legal minds musing about the possibility of a decision in favor of the states.

The fulcrum upon which the matter turns is whether or not Congress may regulate inactivity — that is to say, no one would argue that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate activity (interstate commerce), but doesn’t the principle of enumerated and reserved powers as set forth in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, therefore prohibit Congress from attempting to regulate anything else?

The case at bar specifically impugns the so-called individual mandate. This provision of ObamaCare requires every American, regardless of income or personal preference, to purchase a qualifying health insurance policy or face tax penalties. If the power to regulate commerce or impose taxes is broad enough to justify this provision, then is there anything that would lie outside the boundaries of that power? Congress, theoretically, could compel citizens upon penalty of law to purchase any number of imaginable commodities and thus it would be “extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex,” just as James Madison foretold.

In the interim, we'll see what Congress does. Either way, this battle is far from over.

"The fulcrum upon which the matter turns is whether or not Congress may regulate inactivity" -

i think these lawsuits are acts of political obstruction, and dont have any real legal basis. there is so much on the books to establish the use of government mandates for HMO-based healthcare and the right of congress to levy taxes and excises that there's no basis left to countermand it. they've even gone through the trouble to be certain that the tax provisions are revenue-based with their CBO estimates. i fail to even see what standing states would have in the matter, either. i would imagine it would require a private taxpayer to raise the issue.

these lawsuits and birther lawsuits are devices for raising money from teaparty-grade americans -- playing off their gullibility, and advancing some political agendas while their at it.

 

[antagon]

Communism... socialism. A distinction without meaning. They operate functionally the same as the rest of the leftist rainbow which has it's roots in feudalism: Total government control of the lives of people who aren't in power.

this is how you are an ignoramus though, fitz. capitalism has its roots in feudalism. communism and socialism both have their roots in capitalism.

 

[antagon]

This would be because it's not the entire nation of 300 million-plus people in the system. Try a comparison that's a little more apropos.

To quote you again:

Anytime people believe someone else is paying for something, they tend to overuse it. This will inevitably require the government to ration health care in order to control costs. This is no joke, nor is it an "exaggeration", as the left likes to claim. Study after study conducted by medical journals in various countries have shown that single-payer systems lead to greater suffering and sometimes even death for people forced to wait for the health care they need.​

Your claim is that single-payer (public) coverage will lead to overutilization, which in turn will lead to "rationing" (however, you mean that). That's a statement about behavioral responses to guaranteed coverage and public responses to the burdens of that guarantee, not about scalability.

At this point I'm not sure what you're arguing. In an absolute sense, our single-payer system, while limited to a specific demographic and not population-wide, is larger than that of Canada, the nation most notorious for adopting population-wide single-payer coverage. American Medicare is covering more than 46 million people this year; the entire population of Canada is around 33 million.

So what is it about its relative size that insulates Medicare from the impulse of beneficiaries toward overutilization and insulates CMS from "rationing"? Why has Medicare not only avoided the suffering and death you're warning of but actually generated better patient satisfaction than private coverage? And why isn't it scalable?

i agree with your quote of Cecilie's and would respond to your question by reminding that the fact that single-payer covers < 20% of americans vs. canada's > 90% is the insulating factor. the us economy, because of our substantially larger population and productivity, is capable, just hardly, of dealing with the 20% burden. what makes systems like canada and the UK resort to limiting coverage of certain drugs and procedures, is that their onus is on distributing an allocation of the largess, rather than offering supply to demand in exchange for potential profit. this is not better demonstrated than by the UK's current assault on the NHS in pursuit of austerity.

failing that example, medicare has endured a number of cuts either in service or in payments for service, to include those in the obamacare package.

 

[antagon]

Sounds like a whole lotta smoke to try to obscure the point.

quite the inverse, how i see it: a lot of smoke and mirrors to make a point.

it is a butchery of history and economics to call jamestown communist or socialist. instead, it is more historically accurate to call it a neglected colony of the world's premier mercantile power at the time.

 

[Zander]

there we go zander, so silly video arguments about shit not being sold as a tax don't carry water in this matter. it is a tax. absurd arguments that there is constitutional issues with the law dont hold any water either. it is a tax.

with the constitution-based nonsense of yours put to rest, there's the politically inept fantasy about a repeal. why even debate the point, we're a month or so from your new order we could just wait and see. i'm willing to place my bet that there wont be much political momentum behind that agenda, nor the political power to affect it, particularly over a veto.

Sorry, but your are wrong. The case is not settled and the complaint brought by 20 states is very strong. I believe that eventually this case will be decided by the SCOTUS.

The complaint avers that in passing the ObamaCare statutes, the federal government (the legislative and executive branches) exceeded its constitutional authority and therefore the law is of no legal effect. The precision craftsmanship of the complaint has even some liberal legal minds musing about the possibility of a decision in favor of the states.

The fulcrum upon which the matter turns is whether or not Congress may regulate inactivity — that is to say, no one would argue that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate activity (interstate commerce), but doesn’t the principle of enumerated and reserved powers as set forth in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, therefore prohibit Congress from attempting to regulate anything else?

The case at bar specifically impugns the so-called individual mandate. This provision of ObamaCare requires every American, regardless of income or personal preference, to purchase a qualifying health insurance policy or face tax penalties. If the power to regulate commerce or impose taxes is broad enough to justify this provision, then is there anything that would lie outside the boundaries of that power? Congress, theoretically, could compel citizens upon penalty of law to purchase any number of imaginable commodities and thus it would be “extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex,” just as James Madison foretold.

In the interim, we'll see what Congress does. Either way, this battle is far from over.

"The fulcrum upon which the matter turns is whether or not Congress may regulate inactivity" -

i think these lawsuits are acts of political obstruction, and dont have any real legal basis. there is so much on the books to establish the use of government mandates for HMO-based healthcare and the right of congress to levy taxes and excises that there's no basis left to countermand it. they've even gone through the trouble to be certain that the tax provisions are revenue-based with their CBO estimates. i fail to even see what standing states would have in the matter, either. i would imagine it would require a private taxpayer to raise the issue.

these lawsuits and birther lawsuits are devices for raising money from teaparty-grade americans -- playing off their gullibility, and advancing some political agendas while their at it.

Thanks for your opinion. However, since you are only a pompous, condescending ass on the internet and not a Supreme Court Justice, your opinion means very little to anyone except yourself.

The political backlash against this clusterfuck will manifest itself in 26 days.......Do you really think we forgot how Obamacare was passed ??

 

[topspin]

Obama obvioulsy got carried away with such weak and pussyfied competition to think that the American people would sit idly by as the stench was growing.

 

[Big Fitz]

Communism... socialism. A distinction without meaning. They operate functionally the same as the rest of the leftist rainbow which has it's roots in feudalism: Total government control of the lives of people who aren't in power.

this is how you are an ignoramus though, fitz. capitalism has its roots in feudalism. communism and socialism both have their roots in capitalism.

Explain Jakob Fugger then? A man so rich he bailed out a nation state?

Why was it that the merchant class, which didn't exist till the invention of Banking (to steal a term from Civilization) tipped the noble class on it's ear? They destroyed the 'estate' system of feudalism because it was composed of RICH members of the Third Estate (the vox populi) and exercised power like the First, and set demands to the Second

Even video games have a better historical base than your argument.

BTW, History was my minor in college as well as my hobby. I ain't perfect, but I'm better than most.