Single Payer Healthcare = Raise Standard of Living & Liberty

[Dystopia]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, right.

When has any full-blown monopoly on anything resulted in lower prices, more efficient service and the more freedom for anyone?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, right.

When has any full-blown monopoly on anything resulted in lower prices, more efficient service and the more freedom for anyone?

Never?

 

[Dystopia]

Yeah, right.

When has any full-blown monopoly on anything resulted in lower prices, more efficient service and the more freedom for anyone?

Have you ever used the Federal Interstate System? Have you ever used the Federal Court System? Have you ever used the Federal Election System? Have you ever used the Federal Money?

Would you feel you have more liberty as an American Citizen if private business controlled the Interstate System? If we sold the Interstate System, the business can charge you to drive the highway or even if they want to reject you from travel.

Would you feel you have more liberty as an American Citizen if private business controlled the Federal Court System. If we sold the Federal Court System, the business can charge you to use the courts or even to reject your case or if you are under arrest reject your freedom.

Would you feel you have more liberty as an American Citizen if private business controlled the Federal Money? Would you really feel you have liberty if your money is connected to a business and there is thousands of different type of money being used.

Hint hint, the United States Military like the Army and the Navy we could sell that off too as that is a national government run program. What would Wal-Mart do if they purchased nuclear weapons and was able to sell them?

 

[Oddball]

Get real....The two are nowhere near analogous.

And the Fed money monopoly is, to a great extent, responsible for the financial mess we're currently in.

If you cannot come up with better examples, we'll just assume you don't have any.

 

[Dystopia]

Yeah, right.

When has any full-blown monopoly on anything resulted in lower prices, more efficient service and the more freedom for anyone?

Never?

Kevin, how much are you charged to vote during the Presidential Election? If I am right, the government has a monopoly on the election of the President of the United States of America. So tell me, with this monopoly how much are you charged. Kevin please tell me how much you paid to vote in the monopoly in the Presidential Election of 2008? Please, tell me how much I would have to pay to vote?

Kevin, now tell me how much you think it would cost me to pay to vote for the President of the United States of America if businesses ran the election. Love to own a company to take care of the election of the President of the United States of America to break the monopoly of the government.

Kevin, can you tell me that businesses would be cheaper to run the election of the President of the United States of American then the government having a monopoly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, right.

When has any full-blown monopoly on anything resulted in lower prices, more efficient service and the more freedom for anyone?

Never?

Kevin, how much are you charged to vote during the Presidential Election? If I am right, the government has a monopoly on the election of the President of the United States of America. So tell me, with this monopoly how much are you charged. Kevin please tell me how much you paid to vote in the monopoly in the Presidential Election of 2008? Please, tell me how much I would have to pay to vote?

Kevin, now tell me how much you think it would cost me to pay to vote for the President of the United States of America if businesses ran the election. Love to own a company to take care of the election of the President of the United States of America to break the monopoly of the government.

Kevin, can you tell me that businesses would be cheaper to run the election of the President of the United States of American then the government having a monopoly.

Well that depends on how much of my tax dollars went to fund those elections. The locations, the machines, the workers, the paper ballots, etc...

 

[Oddball]

IOW, he has no example.

 

[California Girl]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

Neither of those 'benefits' has happened anywhere in the world with single payer. Therefore, your conclusion is, basically, crap.

 

[driveby]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

ummmm, no ....

 

[Dystopia]

Get real....The two are nowhere near analogous.

And the Fed money monopoly is, to a great extent, responsible for the financial mess we're currently in.

If you cannot come up with better examples, we'll just assume you don't have any.

Better examples, every time in the history of the republic that an increase in universal rights or universal benefits to the American citizens and others within the United States of American has increased personal liberty.

The first ten amendments, the civil war amendments, Amendment 17 with the election of Senators by popular vote, Amendment 19 with the Women’s Suffrage, the Amendment 23 with the Presidential vote for the District of Columbia, Amendment 24 with the Poll Tax being banned and Amendment 26 with the voting age set at eighteen years of age. Even the acts of Congress, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act with other actions of Congress of the United States of America to increase Liberty.

The federal government is not evil, as it has checks and balances with the people during the time of a election. You say the monetary system with the money is in a mess. Well then, since it is run by the government then vote or run for political office. Now if the monetary system is run by a business or businesses then you cannot vote or do anything.

 

[Oddball]

Get real....The two are nowhere near analogous.

And the Fed money monopoly is, to a great extent, responsible for the financial mess we're currently in.

If you cannot come up with better examples, we'll just assume you don't have any.

Better examples, every time in the history of the republic that an increase in universal rights or universal benefits to the American citizens and others within the United States of American has increased personal liberty.

The first ten amendments, the civil war amendments, Amendment 17 with the election of Senators by popular vote, Amendment 19 with the Women’s Suffrage, the Amendment 23 with the Presidential vote for the District of Columbia, Amendment 24 with the Poll Tax being banned and Amendment 26 with the voting age set at eighteen years of age. Even the acts of Congress, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act with other actions of Congress of the United States of America to increase Liberty.

The federal government is not evil, as it has checks and balances with the people during the time of a election. You say the monetary system with the money is in a mess. Well then, since it is run by the government then vote or run for political office. Now if the monetary system is run by a business or businesses then you cannot vote or do anything.

Again, stupid and irrelevant examples.

None of those things made the federal gubmint the central provider of any service of quantifiable value.

The monetary system is run by a private banking cartel, with the feds acting as the enforcer of its monopoly over the issuance of currency.

You're exceptionally ignorant of the issues here, and really should quit while you're behind.

 

[Dystopia]

Well that depends on how much of my tax dollars went to fund those elections. The locations, the machines, the workers, the paper ballots, etc...

Since you are a taxpayer, you are taxed with a number of government benefits even if you choice not to use them. If a business ran the election, they can only charge people that want to vote and with a business their goal is to produce a profit. Therefore, as a taxpayer you pay less to vote then going to vote with a business looking to produce a profit.

 

[Oddball]

Well that depends on how much of my tax dollars went to fund those elections. The locations, the machines, the workers, the paper ballots, etc...

Since you are a taxpayer, you are taxed with a number of government benefits even if you choice not to use them. If a business ran the election, they can only charge people that want to vote and with a business their goal is to produce a profit. Therefore, as a taxpayer you pay less to vote then going to vote with a business looking to produce a profit.

"I have absolutely NFI what I'm talking about" is a lot more direct and honest.

 

[Dystopia]

Neither of those 'benefits' has happened anywhere in the world with single payer. Therefore, your conclusion is, basically, crap.

You should go to the United Kingdom, as they have a national healthcare without anyone being charged walking out of the hospital. In fact, the United Kingdom has a higher standard of living then the United States of America. In fact, Germany and Japan that lost World War II to the United States of America after being destroyed and invaded and occupied by the United States of America has a national healthcare and a higher standard of living then we do.

In fact, I would rather live in a country that lost World War II then being in a country that won World War II.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well that depends on how much of my tax dollars went to fund those elections. The locations, the machines, the workers, the paper ballots, etc...

Since you are a taxpayer, you are taxed with a number of government benefits even if you choice not to use them. If a business ran the election, they can only charge people that want to vote and with a business their goal is to produce a profit. Therefore, as a taxpayer you pay less to vote then going to vote with a business looking to produce a profit.

One talking point to another, I see.

 

[Oddball]

Neither of those 'benefits' has happened anywhere in the world with single payer. Therefore, your conclusion is, basically, crap.

You should go to the United Kingdom, as they have a national healthcare without anyone being charged walking out of the hospital. In fact, the United Kingdom has a higher standard of living then the United States of America. In fact, Germany and Japan that lost World War II to the United States of America after being destroyed and invaded and occupied by the United States of America has a national healthcare and a higher standard of living then we do.

In fact, I would rather live in a country that lost World War II then being in a country that won World War II.

Then you should go to the UK, Germany or Japan and leave the rest of us alone, if they have such a hot deal going.

 

[dilloduck]

Neither of those 'benefits' has happened anywhere in the world with single payer. Therefore, your conclusion is, basically, crap.

You should go to the United Kingdom, as they have a national healthcare without anyone being charged walking out of the hospital. In fact, the United Kingdom has a higher standard of living then the United States of America. In fact, Germany and Japan that lost World War II to the United States of America after being destroyed and invaded and occupied by the United States of America has a national healthcare and a higher standard of living then we do.

In fact, I would rather live in a country that lost World War II then being in a country that won World War II.

Who rebuilt Japan and Germany ?

 

[Dystopia]

Better examples, every time in the history of the republic that an increase in universal rights or universal benefits to the American citizens and others within the United States of American has increased personal liberty.

The first ten amendments, the civil war amendments, Amendment 17 with the election of Senators by popular vote, Amendment 19 with the Women’s Suffrage, the Amendment 23 with the Presidential vote for the District of Columbia, Amendment 24 with the Poll Tax being banned and Amendment 26 with the voting age set at eighteen years of age. Even the acts of Congress, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act with other actions of Congress of the United States of America to increase Liberty.

The federal government is not evil, as it has checks and balances with the people during the time of a election. You say the monetary system with the money is in a mess. Well then, since it is run by the government then vote or run for political office. Now if the monetary system is run by a business or businesses then you cannot vote or do anything.

Again, stupid and irrelevant examples.

None of those things made the federal gubmint the central provider of any service of quantifiable value.

The monetary system is run by a private banking cartel, with the feds acting as the enforcer of its monopoly over the issuance of currency.

You're exceptionally ignorant of the issues here, and really should quit while you're behind.

Yes, there is no value for all genders, all races, all having the right to vote at the age of eighteen. Glad you also pointed out that the NRA members do not have value with their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Would you please go to a NRA member and tell them they do not have any liberty and their rights are in your words irrelevant examples.

 

[Oddball]

I get it....You're being dense on purpose.

Our rights don't come from gubmint...They pre-exist those overdressed street thugs, and the protection of which are their only reason that they're in office.

If you want to be a subject, there are plenty of other places you can go live.