CDZ Nationalized Healthcare

[danielpalos]

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

And? Is food not a natural right?

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

If you convert anything into a right, then you do nothing but just shake it down on successful people. A form of robbery. This is why anything national, especially healthcare is unethical.

Capitalism is public policy. Who's fault is it, it can't solve simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

The Malthusian law prohibits a solution to poverty. As soon as you provide something to the poor, the number of the poor rises to compensate for it. Even before you consider what a waste that is of monies of successful people.

Not everyone is going to Want to stay Poor under Capitalism, if all that may be required is a Job.

 

[sartre play]

Every one seems to forget how the cost of health care was growing including those having to declare bankrupt over medical bills. stop talking & fix it.

 

[dblack]

There is one solution that is already in place. If those attending medical school are receiving government-provided tuition, include a clause that, upon graduation, they will serve a two-year period in general medicine in areas where medical care is limited. After that, they can go and do anything they want.

NO! This is a pattern I've seen developing over the years - namely using entitlements as leverage, to force the recipients to do as they're told. It's an insidious practice and will eventually put government in charge of everything we do. They'll just keep giving us "free shit" and then demanding favors in return. Enough already.

 

[dblack]

Every one seems to forget how the cost of health care was growing including those having to declare bankrupt over medical bills. stop talking & fix it.

Yep. Artificially inflated health care costs are the problem. Unfortunately, the solutions offered so far (ACA, et. al) only make that problem worse.

 

[anotherlife]

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

And? Is food not a natural right?

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

If you convert anything into a right, then you do nothing but just shake it down on successful people. A form of robbery. This is why anything national, especially healthcare is unethical.

Capitalism is public policy. Who's fault is it, it can't solve simple poverty.

Capitalism may be a public policy in today's centralized nation states. But it is nobody's fault that poverty is not solved, because poverty is never solvable. Malthus and others have successfully proven this even mathematically. Any political pressure group that claims to solve poverty is a socialist con to empty your pocket only.

 

[anotherlife]

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

The Malthusian law prohibits a solution to poverty. As soon as you provide something to the poor, the number of the poor rises to compensate for it. Even before you consider what a waste that is of monies of successful people.

Not everyone is going to Want to stay Poor under Capitalism, if all that may be required is a Job.

Maybe but resources are always finite, in contrast to the number of the poor which doesn't need limits. So in a shrinking globalize world, for every one coming out of poverty there is two going in.

 

[anotherlife]

Every one seems to forget how the cost of health care was growing including those having to declare bankrupt over medical bills. stop talking & fix it.

This is because the government blindly underwrites all policies that the too big o fail insurers ever want.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

And? Is food not a natural right?

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

If you convert anything into a right, then you do nothing but just shake it down on successful people. A form of robbery. This is why anything national, especially healthcare is unethical.

Capitalism is public policy. Who's fault is it, it can't solve simple poverty.

Capitalism may be a public policy in today's centralized nation states. But it is nobody's fault that poverty is not solved, because poverty is never solvable. Malthus and others have successfully proven this even mathematically. Any political pressure group that claims to solve poverty is a socialist con to empty your pocket only.

The problem is social. The right wing insists on the socialism of a work ethic in modern capital times.

Only capital has to work under capitalism.

The ready reserve labor force, should not.

 

[anotherlife]

And? Is food not a natural right?

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

If you convert anything into a right, then you do nothing but just shake it down on successful people. A form of robbery. This is why anything national, especially healthcare is unethical.

Capitalism is public policy. Who's fault is it, it can't solve simple poverty.

Capitalism may be a public policy in today's centralized nation states. But it is nobody's fault that poverty is not solved, because poverty is never solvable. Malthus and others have successfully proven this even mathematically. Any political pressure group that claims to solve poverty is a socialist con to empty your pocket only.

The problem is social. The right wing insists on the socialism of a work ethic in modern capital times.

Only capital has to work under capitalism.

The ready reserve labor force, should not.

This sounds quite impossible. It is only by working that any individual can keep his foothold in the world. Okay that or by killing his neighbor, but murder has been outlawed for some time now.

 

[anotherlife]

Okay my socialist friends, I have invented an idea for the world unemployment, underemployment, and poverty problem. Quite unrealistic, but as good as socialism.

Here it is. Begin nationally to recognize religious prayer as work. Muslim countries do this as well as medieval Europe used to and collected tide. Then, business entities and corporations, including multinationals would start paying tides. Not taxes which is a financial and moral failure, but tide instead of taxes. From the tide then, a universal income can be distributed to everybody who prays devoutly daily. And all of this only on a day by day basis, no accumulation of monies. Quite unrealistic, but would work better than socialism.

Would work better than socialism, because human instinct and biology includes both conning and faith, so it is better to provide for the masses of folks through faith than through con.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

If you convert anything into a right, then you do nothing but just shake it down on successful people. A form of robbery. This is why anything national, especially healthcare is unethical.

Capitalism is public policy. Who's fault is it, it can't solve simple poverty.

Capitalism may be a public policy in today's centralized nation states. But it is nobody's fault that poverty is not solved, because poverty is never solvable. Malthus and others have successfully proven this even mathematically. Any political pressure group that claims to solve poverty is a socialist con to empty your pocket only.

The problem is social. The right wing insists on the socialism of a work ethic in modern capital times.

Only capital has to work under capitalism.

The ready reserve labor force, should not.

This sounds quite impossible. It is only by working that any individual can keep his foothold in the world. Okay that or by killing his neighbor, but murder has been outlawed for some time now.

capital has to work not people. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment for people.

 

[danielpalos]

Okay my socialist friends, I have invented an idea for the world unemployment, underemployment, and poverty problem. Quite unrealistic, but as good as socialism.

Here it is. Begin nationally to recognize religious prayer as work. Muslim countries do this as well as medieval Europe used to and collected tide. Then, business entities and corporations, including multinationals would start paying tides. Not taxes which is a financial and moral failure, but tide instead of taxes. From the tide then, a universal income can be distributed to everybody who prays devoutly daily. And all of this only on a day by day basis, no accumulation of monies. Quite unrealistic, but would work better than socialism.

Would work better than socialism, because human instinct and biology includes both conning and faith, so it is better to provide for the masses of folks through faith than through con.

we already have unemployment compensation that should be used more effectually.

 

[Care4all]

Well, if you cut out 35% of the cost of healthcare for shuffling paper bills by the insurance companies, that reduces the cost of health care to us, immediately.

Then you cut out all the money we spend on health care, the cost of Obama care, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of Medicare, the cost of CHIP...children's insurance, the cost of the VA healthcare, the cost of Tricare for Military retirees, the cost of healthcare for the Military at home spent, the cost we pay for health care clinics that we put up for the poor, the cost of what we give/pay hospitals for the uninsured poor, etc etc etc and then add in the amount of money employers are paying now to insure their employees, and some of what we spend right now for our own health care insurance....

And add all those things we spend on health care already, plus the savings from not having all these insurance companies to shuffle paper....

we probably could have a 'medicare for all' type system....

 

[task0778]

Well, if you cut out 35% of the cost of healthcare for shuffling paper bills by the insurance companies, that reduces the cost of health care to us, immediately.

Then you cut out all the money we spend on health care, the cost of Obama care, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of Medicare, the cost of CHIP...children's insurance, the cost of the VA healthcare, the cost of Tricare for Military retirees, the cost of healthcare for the Military at home spent, the cost we pay for health care clinics that we put up for the poor, the cost of what we give/pay hospitals for the uninsured poor, etc etc etc and then add in the amount of money employers are paying now to insure their employees, and some of what we spend right now for our own health care insurance....

And add all those things we spend on health care already, plus the savings from not having all these insurance companies to shuffle paper....

we probably could have a 'medicare for all' type system....

And you don't think that the several studies that have been done so far haven't taken all that into consideration? Even the left-leaning Urban Institute says that nationalized healthcare would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. That's TRILLION with a "T". Why do you think our current nationalized healthcare system for our military vets, otherwise known as the VA, totally sucks? Why do you think it failed in Vermont, and the people in Maryland, Colorado, and even California have decided against it?

And it's not just the cost, it's the availability. How in the world can you provide quality health care to 320 million people with the same number of providers and facilities? You've no doubt heard of the wait times in Canada and elsewhere that have a single payer system, what makes you think it won't be as bad and likely worse if we did it here? Do you really think it's anywhere close to feasible? If you do then IMHO you are somewhat divorced from reality.

 

[Care4all]

Well, if you cut out 35% of the cost of healthcare for shuffling paper bills by the insurance companies, that reduces the cost of health care to us, immediately.

Then you cut out all the money we spend on health care, the cost of Obama care, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of Medicare, the cost of CHIP...children's insurance, the cost of the VA healthcare, the cost of Tricare for Military retirees, the cost of healthcare for the Military at home spent, the cost we pay for health care clinics that we put up for the poor, the cost of what we give/pay hospitals for the uninsured poor, etc etc etc and then add in the amount of money employers are paying now to insure their employees, and some of what we spend right now for our own health care insurance....

And add all those things we spend on health care already, plus the savings from not having all these insurance companies to shuffle paper....

we probably could have a 'medicare for all' type system....

And you don't think that the several studies that have been done so far haven't taken all that into consideration? Even the left-leaning Urban Institute says that nationalized healthcare would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. That's TRILLION with a "T". Why do you think our current nationalized healthcare system for our military vets, otherwise known as the VA, totally sucks? Why do you think it failed in Vermont, and the people in Maryland, Colorado, and even California have decided against it?

And it's not just the cost, it's the availability. How in the world can you provide quality health care to 320 million people with the same number of providers and facilities? You've no doubt heard of the wait times in Canada and elsewhere that have a single payer system, what makes you think it won't be as bad and likely worse if we did it here? Do you really think it's anywhere close to feasible? If you do then IMHO you are somewhat divorced from reality.

no, I do not think they have taken everything in to account... they've calculated what a total cost would be, but not what the total savings would be, imo.

 

[Care4all]

Well, if you cut out 35% of the cost of healthcare for shuffling paper bills by the insurance companies, that reduces the cost of health care to us, immediately.

Then you cut out all the money we spend on health care, the cost of Obama care, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of Medicare, the cost of CHIP...children's insurance, the cost of the VA healthcare, the cost of Tricare for Military retirees, the cost of healthcare for the Military at home spent, the cost we pay for health care clinics that we put up for the poor, the cost of what we give/pay hospitals for the uninsured poor, etc etc etc and then add in the amount of money employers are paying now to insure their employees, and some of what we spend right now for our own health care insurance....

And add all those things we spend on health care already, plus the savings from not having all these insurance companies to shuffle paper....

we probably could have a 'medicare for all' type system....

And you don't think that the several studies that have been done so far haven't taken all that into consideration? Even the left-leaning Urban Institute says that nationalized healthcare would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. That's TRILLION with a "T". Why do you think our current nationalized healthcare system for our military vets, otherwise known as the VA, totally sucks? Why do you think it failed in Vermont, and the people in Maryland, Colorado, and even California have decided against it?

And it's not just the cost, it's the availability. How in the world can you provide quality health care to 320 million people with the same number of providers and facilities? You've no doubt heard of the wait times in Canada and elsewhere that have a single payer system, what makes you think it won't be as bad and likely worse if we did it here? Do you really think it's anywhere close to feasible? If you do then IMHO you are somewhat divorced from reality.

no, I do not think they have taken everything in to account... they've calculated what a total cost would be, but not what the total savings would be, imo.

it should in the least be thoroughly considered, and examined from head to toe by expert actuaries before shutting the idea down...

 

[DGS49]

It is feasible, but unconstitutional and disastrously impractical.

 

[longknife]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

 

[task0778]

Well, if you cut out 35% of the cost of healthcare for shuffling paper bills by the insurance companies, that reduces the cost of health care to us, immediately.

Then you cut out all the money we spend on health care, the cost of Obama care, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of Medicare, the cost of CHIP...children's insurance, the cost of the VA healthcare, the cost of Tricare for Military retirees, the cost of healthcare for the Military at home spent, the cost we pay for health care clinics that we put up for the poor, the cost of what we give/pay hospitals for the uninsured poor, etc etc etc and then add in the amount of money employers are paying now to insure their employees, and some of what we spend right now for our own health care insurance....

And add all those things we spend on health care already, plus the savings from not having all these insurance companies to shuffle paper....

we probably could have a 'medicare for all' type system....

And you don't think that the several studies that have been done so far haven't taken all that into consideration? Even the left-leaning Urban Institute says that nationalized healthcare would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. That's TRILLION with a "T". Why do you think our current nationalized healthcare system for our military vets, otherwise known as the VA, totally sucks? Why do you think it failed in Vermont, and the people in Maryland, Colorado, and even California have decided against it?

And it's not just the cost, it's the availability. How in the world can you provide quality health care to 320 million people with the same number of providers and facilities? You've no doubt heard of the wait times in Canada and elsewhere that have a single payer system, what makes you think it won't be as bad and likely worse if we did it here? Do you really think it's anywhere close to feasible? If you do then IMHO you are somewhat divorced from reality.

no, I do not think they have taken everything in to account... they've calculated what a total cost would be, but not what the total savings would be, imo.

Let me ask you a question: in Obama's 1st year as president he had the House and a filibuster-proof Senate, so why do you suppose they didn't push through a nationalized HC system?

I noticed you did not address the availability issue, so to repeat: How can you provide quality health care to 320 million people with the same number of providers and facilities? You've no doubt heard of the wait times in Canada and elsewhere that have a single payer system, what makes you think it won't be as bad and likely worse if we did it here, due to the large number of US citizens? Not to mention all those people streaming across our border every day, free HC for them too, I take it.