Do republican voters even have a solution to healthcare?

[Rustic]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Insurance/single payer is not healthcare... dip shit

 

[Rustic]

Infrastructure, that's a false parallel you're drawing. The government typically takes care of infrastructure, which healthcare is not. Food Stamps also is not infrastructure, the difference here is that what the government is doing when implementing these programs is redistributing people's wealth to others, who it decided need it more.

I'd like you to show me evidence of children being the majority on Food Stamps.

Can you explain to me how not having a thing, entitles a person to someone else's money paying for that thing? What do you think entitles a person to another's hard earned money?

Also, hey Billy, it's really nice to see you<3

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

This is so painfully dumb... My eyes bleed when I read it.

Why not just accept the fact that you made a really stupid analogy? Roads are mostly and sometimes more than paid by gas taxes. In fact, those who own cars will usually pay more than their share of taxes to all the usual regressive causes.

Even if this wasn't so I have no idea what you are getting at? Privatize the roads? I have no problem with that, but it's completely outside the topic which was HEALTH CARE, moron.

lol hold on, so you are unaware of the many examples of infrastructure? It goes well beyond triads. Also, even if it were all paid for with gas taxes, you are still - you know - paying taxes.

You keep getting more and more retarded every post. Your whole argument was that car owners do not pay for the roads and thus get a "free ride" with other people's money - that is false.

Only thing left is accepting that you were full of shit, and that no free shit of any kind should be provided for you, or any able-bodied American.

This isn't hard to grasp. Your yearly tax contribution is a tiny faction of the overall budget of infrastructure that's already underfunded. In addition, a good portion of your revenue doesn't go to government services you benefit from. That means someone else is paying for your shit. A single payer healthcare system works the SAME way. We're just adding another program to the budget. And yeah, to pay for it, everyone's taxes across the board would go up, but that wouid replace private insurance premiums. It could also be paid for by cutting our ridiculous defense budget that you repubs love so much.

The federal government involved in personal issues like healthcare and financial is a nonstarter. Shit for brains

 

[BrokeLoser]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Translation:
"Republicans are so stupid....they can't even come up with a better more streamline method to funnel more free shit to our bottom feeding human pets....what losers"
Do these ******* Loons ever once stop to listen to themselves? Hilarious shit!

 

[Billy000]

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

This is so painfully dumb... My eyes bleed when I read it.

Why not just accept the fact that you made a really stupid analogy? Roads are mostly and sometimes more than paid by gas taxes. In fact, those who own cars will usually pay more than their share of taxes to all the usual regressive causes.

Even if this wasn't so I have no idea what you are getting at? Privatize the roads? I have no problem with that, but it's completely outside the topic which was HEALTH CARE, moron.

lol hold on, so you are unaware of the many examples of infrastructure? It goes well beyond triads. Also, even if it were all paid for with gas taxes, you are still - you know - paying taxes.

You keep getting more and more retarded every post. Your whole argument was that car owners do not pay for the roads and thus get a "free ride" with other people's money - that is false.

Only thing left is accepting that you were full of shit, and that no free shit of any kind should be provided for you, or any able-bodied American.

This isn't hard to grasp. Your yearly tax contribution is a tiny faction of the overall budget of infrastructure that's already underfunded. In addition, a good portion of your revenue doesn't go to government services you benefit from. That means someone else is paying for your shit. A single payer healthcare system works the SAME way. We're just adding another program to the budget. And yeah, to pay for it, everyone's taxes across the board would go up, but that wouid replace private insurance premiums. It could also be paid for by cutting our ridiculous defense budget that you repubs love so much.

Please, take an IQ test, I bet the reading you would get is "not pass".

Of course my car tax contribution isn't supposed to pay for EVERYONE'S roads. It only pays for MY SHARE of the bill. Your single payer health care on the other hand, is supposed to take my premiums and pay the bill of others with it, especially profit hungry government employees.

You must have fluked math... at first grade.

lol none of that changes the fact that government programs you utilize are being paid for by other tax payers. That is just the nature of how it works. Your slice of the revenue pie doesn't contribute to every government service that is provided.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Pay for your own healthcare and stop mooching off me. I'm also not interested in paying for your food, your housing, your toilet paper, toothpaste, booze, drugs, your electric bill, or any of your other bills. Get a job, get two jobs, don't be a sponge.

Other people already pay for your public roads, emergency services, and the people who fight your wars for you. Under single payer, everyone would pay for taxes for it like any other government service.

Think about how many government services you already take advantage for. Your tax contribution alone is a tiny fraction of what's spent per year on those programs. This amounts to trillions per year. Meanwhile, you complain about a program like food stamps that costs 60 billion per year. By the way, the large majority of people on food stamps are children. The disabled and veterans also benefit from that program. Should we just say "**** you" to all those people?

Infrastructure, that's a false parallel you're drawing. The government typically takes care of infrastructure, which healthcare is not. Food Stamps also is not infrastructure, the difference here is that what the government is doing when implementing these programs is redistributing people's wealth to others, who it decided need it more.

I'd like you to show me evidence of children being the majority on Food Stamps.

Can you explain to me how not having a thing, entitles a person to someone else's money paying for that thing? What do you think entitles a person to another's hard earned money?

Also, hey Billy, it's really nice to see you<3

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

 

[Norman]

This is so painfully dumb... My eyes bleed when I read it.

Why not just accept the fact that you made a really stupid analogy? Roads are mostly and sometimes more than paid by gas taxes. In fact, those who own cars will usually pay more than their share of taxes to all the usual regressive causes.

Even if this wasn't so I have no idea what you are getting at? Privatize the roads? I have no problem with that, but it's completely outside the topic which was HEALTH CARE, moron.

lol hold on, so you are unaware of the many examples of infrastructure? It goes well beyond triads. Also, even if it were all paid for with gas taxes, you are still - you know - paying taxes.

You keep getting more and more retarded every post. Your whole argument was that car owners do not pay for the roads and thus get a "free ride" with other people's money - that is false.

Only thing left is accepting that you were full of shit, and that no free shit of any kind should be provided for you, or any able-bodied American.

This isn't hard to grasp. Your yearly tax contribution is a tiny faction of the overall budget of infrastructure that's already underfunded. In addition, a good portion of your revenue doesn't go to government services you benefit from. That means someone else is paying for your shit. A single payer healthcare system works the SAME way. We're just adding another program to the budget. And yeah, to pay for it, everyone's taxes across the board would go up, but that wouid replace private insurance premiums. It could also be paid for by cutting our ridiculous defense budget that you repubs love so much.

Please, take an IQ test, I bet the reading you would get is "not pass".

Of course my car tax contribution isn't supposed to pay for EVERYONE'S roads. It only pays for MY SHARE of the bill. Your single payer health care on the other hand, is supposed to take my premiums and pay the bill of others with it, especially profit hungry government employees.

You must have fluked math... at first grade.

lol none of that changes the fact that government programs you utilize are being paid for by other tax payers. That is just the nature of how it works. Your slice of the revenue pie doesn't contribute to every government service that is provided.

What's the "lol" for? Do you always laugh when suffering an embarrassing defeat after putting forth an embarrassingly bad argument?

Anyway, it appears not to be enough. Your comeback argument, is indeed, even MORE stupid than the original one (maybe you should be regarded with some seriousness as this is quite the feat). Yes, it's not even an argument, I already told you that I was against free loading (while you of course, find it virtuous, and think that if I support even one policy where free loading occurs - then I will have to support them all/communism).

Incredible demonstration of stupidity. I can see why you need free shit, you wouldn't get out of bed without.

 

[Billy000]

Other people already pay for your public roads, emergency services, and the people who fight your wars for you. Under single payer, everyone would pay for taxes for it like any other government service.

Think about how many government services you already take advantage for. Your tax contribution alone is a tiny fraction of what's spent per year on those programs. This amounts to trillions per year. Meanwhile, you complain about a program like food stamps that costs 60 billion per year. By the way, the large majority of people on food stamps are children. The disabled and veterans also benefit from that program. Should we just say "**** you" to all those people?

Infrastructure, that's a false parallel you're drawing. The government typically takes care of infrastructure, which healthcare is not. Food Stamps also is not infrastructure, the difference here is that what the government is doing when implementing these programs is redistributing people's wealth to others, who it decided need it more.

I'd like you to show me evidence of children being the majority on Food Stamps.

Can you explain to me how not having a thing, entitles a person to someone else's money paying for that thing? What do you think entitles a person to another's hard earned money?

Also, hey Billy, it's really nice to see you<3

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do republican voters even have a solution to healthcare?


Yea , repeal Obamacare..

 

[Billy000]

lol hold on, so you are unaware of the many examples of infrastructure? It goes well beyond triads. Also, even if it were all paid for with gas taxes, you are still - you know - paying taxes.

You keep getting more and more retarded every post. Your whole argument was that car owners do not pay for the roads and thus get a "free ride" with other people's money - that is false.

Only thing left is accepting that you were full of shit, and that no free shit of any kind should be provided for you, or any able-bodied American.

This isn't hard to grasp. Your yearly tax contribution is a tiny faction of the overall budget of infrastructure that's already underfunded. In addition, a good portion of your revenue doesn't go to government services you benefit from. That means someone else is paying for your shit. A single payer healthcare system works the SAME way. We're just adding another program to the budget. And yeah, to pay for it, everyone's taxes across the board would go up, but that wouid replace private insurance premiums. It could also be paid for by cutting our ridiculous defense budget that you repubs love so much.

Please, take an IQ test, I bet the reading you would get is "not pass".

Of course my car tax contribution isn't supposed to pay for EVERYONE'S roads. It only pays for MY SHARE of the bill. Your single payer health care on the other hand, is supposed to take my premiums and pay the bill of others with it, especially profit hungry government employees.

You must have fluked math... at first grade.

lol none of that changes the fact that government programs you utilize are being paid for by other tax payers. That is just the nature of how it works. Your slice of the revenue pie doesn't contribute to every government service that is provided.

What's the "lol" for? Do you always laugh when suffering an embarrassing defeat after putting forth an embarrassingly bad argument?

Anyway, it appears not to be enough. Your comeback argument, is indeed, even MORE stupid than the original one (maybe you should be regarded with some seriousness as this is quite the feat). Yes, it's not even an argument, I already told you that I was against free loading (while you of course, find it virtuous, and think that if I support even one policy where free loading occurs - then I will have to support them all/communism).

Incredible demonstration of stupidity. I can see why you need free shit, you wouldn't get out of bed without.

Yes, all fluff and no rebuttal. You're done.

 

[Norman]

Infrastructure, that's a false parallel you're drawing. The government typically takes care of infrastructure, which healthcare is not. Food Stamps also is not infrastructure, the difference here is that what the government is doing when implementing these programs is redistributing people's wealth to others, who it decided need it more.

I'd like you to show me evidence of children being the majority on Food Stamps.

Can you explain to me how not having a thing, entitles a person to someone else's money paying for that thing? What do you think entitles a person to another's hard earned money?

Also, hey Billy, it's really nice to see you<3

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive.

Stopped reading there. The agricultural system is also private industry. By this guy's logic everything should be government owned. No surprises there, he's a communist... and don't we all know how that works out?

Ticket to Venezuela would be a great gift... to this country.


Why he hates the voluntary free market? Because, he doesn't produce anything worthwhile for anyone, thus others' property must be taken to pay for his sore loser existence.

 

[Billy000]

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive.

Stopped reading there. The agricultural system is also private industry. By this guy's logic everything should be government owned. No surprises there, he's a communist... and don't we all know how that works out?

Ticket to Venezuela would be a great gift... to this country.

No, actually. I just think private industry should not run certain government services. I don't all advocate for getting rid of the free market

 

[Norman]

You keep getting more and more retarded every post. Your whole argument was that car owners do not pay for the roads and thus get a "free ride" with other people's money - that is false.

Only thing left is accepting that you were full of shit, and that no free shit of any kind should be provided for you, or any able-bodied American.

This isn't hard to grasp. Your yearly tax contribution is a tiny faction of the overall budget of infrastructure that's already underfunded. In addition, a good portion of your revenue doesn't go to government services you benefit from. That means someone else is paying for your shit. A single payer healthcare system works the SAME way. We're just adding another program to the budget. And yeah, to pay for it, everyone's taxes across the board would go up, but that wouid replace private insurance premiums. It could also be paid for by cutting our ridiculous defense budget that you repubs love so much.

Please, take an IQ test, I bet the reading you would get is "not pass".

Of course my car tax contribution isn't supposed to pay for EVERYONE'S roads. It only pays for MY SHARE of the bill. Your single payer health care on the other hand, is supposed to take my premiums and pay the bill of others with it, especially profit hungry government employees.

You must have fluked math... at first grade.

lol none of that changes the fact that government programs you utilize are being paid for by other tax payers. That is just the nature of how it works. Your slice of the revenue pie doesn't contribute to every government service that is provided.

What's the "lol" for? Do you always laugh when suffering an embarrassing defeat after putting forth an embarrassingly bad argument?

Anyway, it appears not to be enough. Your comeback argument, is indeed, even MORE stupid than the original one (maybe you should be regarded with some seriousness as this is quite the feat). Yes, it's not even an argument, I already told you that I was against free loading (while you of course, find it virtuous, and think that if I support even one policy where free loading occurs - then I will have to support them all/communism).

Incredible demonstration of stupidity. I can see why you need free shit, you wouldn't get out of bed without.

Yes, all fluff and no rebuttal. You're done.

Only an argument would deserve a rebuttal. Disconnected gibberish would not warrant such a thing.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Infrastructure, that's a false parallel you're drawing. The government typically takes care of infrastructure, which healthcare is not. Food Stamps also is not infrastructure, the difference here is that what the government is doing when implementing these programs is redistributing people's wealth to others, who it decided need it more.

I'd like you to show me evidence of children being the majority on Food Stamps.

Can you explain to me how not having a thing, entitles a person to someone else's money paying for that thing? What do you think entitles a person to another's hard earned money?

Also, hey Billy, it's really nice to see you<3

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

"who can't help themselves"
You seem to have all the answers....What percentage of bottom feeders "can't help themselves" vs. aren't willing to help themselves?

 

[Norman]

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive.

Stopped reading there. The agricultural system is also private industry. By this guy's logic everything should be government owned. No surprises there, he's a communist... and don't we all know how that works out?

Ticket to Venezuela would be a great gift... to this country.

No, actually. I just think private industry should not run certain government services. I don't all advocate for getting rid of the free market

So, then by your own admission you have a terrible argument, first thing we have come to an agreement about yet.

 

[Billy000]

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive.

Stopped reading there. The agricultural system is also private industry. By this guy's logic everything should be government owned. No surprises there, he's a communist... and don't we all know how that works out?

Ticket to Venezuela would be a great gift... to this country.

No, actually. I just think private industry should not run certain government services. I don't all advocate for getting rid of the free market

So, then by your own admission you have a terrible argument, first thing we have come to an agreement about yet.

No, you're just not smart enough to see a nuanced perspective.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is the democrat voter solution:

The solution is of course to get government out of health care.

Does this logic of yours mean you never drive on public roads?

You couldn't elaborate on this idea of yours if your life depended on it.

Who paid for the public roads?

 

[Norman]

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive.

Stopped reading there. The agricultural system is also private industry. By this guy's logic everything should be government owned. No surprises there, he's a communist... and don't we all know how that works out?

Ticket to Venezuela would be a great gift... to this country.

No, actually. I just think private industry should not run certain government services. I don't all advocate for getting rid of the free market

So, then by your own admission you have a terrible argument, first thing we have come to an agreement about yet.

No, you're just not smart enough to see a nuanced perspective.

By nuanced you must mean illogical, stupid perspective.

USA is 20 trillions in debt and has a other 120 trillions in unfunded liabilities, your idea is a fairy-tale either way. We can't even pay for the old government free shit stupidity, let alone for any new "brilliant ideas". There is some "nuance" for you.

If you wonder how well this government system would work, you need to do no more than look at how the old programs are run. A disaster in every front. Free market voluntary solutions guarantee the best outcomes, frothing for free shit at everyone else's expense gets no one anywhere.

 

[dblack]

No, actually. I just think private industry should not run certain government services.

Private industry shouldn't run any government services.

 

[oreo]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Clearly they don't have a solution to health care. Obamacare didn't get repealed or replaced and they had 7 long YEARS to come up with a new health care plan and couldn't get it done.

 

[Ame®icano]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Tell us first, what is the healthcare policy?