If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?.

[dblack]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for simply being unemployed; how would our market based system be less efficient and not more efficient?

 

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for simply being unemployed; how would our market based system be less efficient and not more efficient?

co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;

could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.

 

[dblack]

co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;

could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.

Just a three-hour tour....

 

[danielpalos]

co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;

could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.

Just a three-hour tour....

even a hospital could bill for it.

 

[dblack]

co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;

could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.

Just a three-hour tour....

even a hospital could bill for it.

But what if the weather starts getting rough?

 

[danielpalos]

co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;

could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.

Just a three-hour tour....

even a hospital could bill for it.

But what if the weather starts getting rough?

economics are self-taught simply for the self-interest of saving money by learning about more cost effective financial products and services.

 

[dblack]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

 

[danielpalos]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.

 

[Skylar]

Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.

It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

Not necessarily. As single payer system can create a system of national insurance. Not necessarily a nationally run healthcare system where the government employs all doctors.

The industry in question is the health insurance industry. That's what single payer would be nationalizing.

Except that it doesn't necessarily have to. Medicare for all wouldn't be the 'nationalization of healthcare'. It would be a single payer national insurance. The system providing the healthcare would still be private.

That's why I said "conservatives and libertarians", and not "Republicans". The Republicans had their chance to repeal ACA, and declined.

Unless conservatives and republicans are mutually exclusive, that argument doesn't work.

I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.

 

[dblack]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.

Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!

 

[dblack]

I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.

First you address mine. I pointed out that health care reform hasn't been focused on safety nets. It's been focused on nationalizing health insurance. And you responded with the usual schtick about how doctors wouldn't be working, directly, for the government etc... All irrelevant to my point.

Liberal health care reform isn't about safety nets - its about centralizing control over health insurance. If it were simply a matter of expanding the safety net, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Skylar]

I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.

First you address mine. I pointed out that health care reform hasn't been focused on safety nets.

You've *claimed* that healthcare reform hasn't been focused on safety nets. But that's simply not true. The propositions most commonly forwarded aren't nationalization of all healthcare, like a giant VA system for all citizens. But instead, Medicare for all..... a national health insurance. Where we have a single payer for all healthcare costs.

This isn't the 'nationalization of an entire industry'. Your characterization is simply wrong.

It's been focused on nationalizing health insurance.

No, it hasn't. Its been focused on medicare for all. On a national health insurance program where payment for services is done by the federal government through a national insurance program, while the services themselves are delivered through private vendors.

And you responded with the usual schtick about how doctors wouldn't be working, directly, for the government etc... All irrelevant to my point.

Your 'point' is factually inaccurate. Nationalization of all healthcare would be more like what the UK has, or what the VA delivers. Where everyone is an employee of the federal government and the federal government owns most of the hospitals. Instead, this would be a national insurance program where the government pays for services that are delivered through private vendors.

Like Medicare does now.

Liberal health care reform isn't about safety nets - its about centralizing control over health insurance.

Health insurance is only a part of the Health Insurance industry. You're claim is that its the nationalization of the entire industry. That's factually inaccurate.

If it were simply a matter of expanding the safety net, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Of course we would. As we are describing merely the expanding of the Medicare safety net. And yet, we're still having this discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.

Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!

market friendly products at market friendly prices!

 

[dblack]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.

Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!

market friendly products at market friendly prices!

We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !

 

[danielpalos]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.

Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!

market friendly products at market friendly prices!

We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !

everybody understands prices and menus, man.

 

[night_son]

Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?

Cult Deprogramming Therapy followed by lots of beer and mandatory binge watching Bruce Campbell horror movies.

 

[dblack]

I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.

First you address mine. I pointed out that health care reform hasn't been focused on safety nets.

You've *claimed* that healthcare reform hasn't been focused on safety nets. But that's simply not true. The propositions most commonly forwarded aren't nationalization of all healthcare, like a giant VA system for all citizens. But instead, Medicare for all..... a national health insurance. Where we have a single payer for all healthcare costs.

This isn't the 'nationalization of an entire industry'. Your characterization is simply wrong.

Right. It's nationalizing health insurance. You don't seem to deny that, but yet you don't want to admit it. What gives?

Your 'point' is factually inaccurate. Nationalization of all healthcare...

Please try to pay attention. Your strawman is kaput. I claimed liberal health care reform is an effort to nationalize health care insurance. We seem to agree on that. But you don't much like the optics.

Liberal health care reform isn't about safety nets - its about centralizing control over health insurance.

Health insurance is only a part of the Health Insurance industry. You're claim is that its the nationalization of the entire industry.

No. That's not my claim. Read again.

Of course we would. As we are describing merely the expanding of the Medicare safety net. And yet, we're still having this discussion.

No, you're not. Expanding Medicare would be more along the lines of the public option. Single payer is nationalizing health insurance. How can we discuss the differing proposals if you won't even admit what you're after?

 

[dblack]

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!

the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.

Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!

market friendly products at market friendly prices!

We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !

everybody understands prices and menus, man.

Groovy, man. Give me the special.

 

[night_son]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station.

Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of liberty not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.

 

[Skylar]

Your 'point' is factually inaccurate. Nationalization of all healthcare...

Please try to pay attention. Your strawman is kaput. I claimed liberal health care reform is an effort to nationalize health care insurance. We seem to agree on that. But you don't much like the optics.

What you've claimed is this:

"It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion."

Healthcare is one of life's necessitities. Health insurance is merely a means of paying for said necessity. You're equating the method of payment with the service itself. They're not the same thing.

Why would a national health insurance be a bad thing? Most industrialized nations have a single payer system. And most nations have longer life spans, most satisfiaction with their healthcare, and spend less per capita than we do.

What would is your basis of 'bad'? Mine would be cost, satisfaction and health outcomes. We pay more per capita than any nation on earth. We have low satisfaction levels. And we have poor health outcomes.

Single payer systems generally have better results on all fronts.

There's also the business angle. Businesses in most industrialized nations aren't burdened with healthcare costs like US businesss are. By providing funding through a single payer system, businesses would be freed from this burden and presumably, be more profitable.

So I ask again, why would a national health insurance be a bad thing? The process has been tested repeatedly, dozens and dozens of times around the world. Single payer works. Not only works, but by the standards of cost, satisfaction and health outcome, generally work better than what we have now.