The Great Socialism Gap: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other..

[Mac-7]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

 

[forkup]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

Another wise man once said to not judge a book by the cover. Since we are using platitudes. As to judging what they do. Bernie has never suggested that autocracy is actually a good idea. Do you know who has? The guy you support. Bernie has never suggested that people who protest Fascism are just as bad as the fascist even after one of the latter killed one of the former. Do you know who has? The guy you support.

Are you absolutely sure you want people to be judged by their actions?

 

[Mac-7]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

Another wise man once said to not judge a book by the cover. Since we are using platitudes. As to judging what they do. Bernie has never suggested that autocracy is actually a good idea. Do you know who has? The guy you support. Bernie has never suggested that people who protest Fascism are just as bad as the fascist even after one of the latter killed one of the former. Do you know who has? The guy you support.

Are you absolutely sure you want people to be judged by their actions?

Bernie is an open book titled “The Communist Manesto”

I would not lie to you

bernie did go to moscow not copenhagen

 

[forkup]

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

Another wise man once said to not judge a book by the cover. Since we are using platitudes. As to judging what they do. Bernie has never suggested that autocracy is actually a good idea. Do you know who has? The guy you support. Bernie has never suggested that people who protest Fascism are just as bad as the fascist even after one of the latter killed one of the former. Do you know who has? The guy you support.

Are you absolutely sure you want people to be judged by their actions?

Bernie is an open book titled “The Communist Manesto”

I would not lie to you

bernie did go to moscow not copenhagen

Did I ever said I don't believe you? I've been to Istanbul does that make me a supporter of Erdogan? I've been to Germany on multiple occasions. Does that make me a supporter of Hitler? I've been to Italy. Does that make me a fan Mussolini? Maybe you have been to Chicago? I'm intelligent enough to not therefor to presume you're a fan of Ted Kaczynski. But hey you do you.

 

[Mac-7]

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

Another wise man once said to not judge a book by the cover. Since we are using platitudes. As to judging what they do. Bernie has never suggested that autocracy is actually a good idea. Do you know who has? The guy you support. Bernie has never suggested that people who protest Fascism are just as bad as the fascist even after one of the latter killed one of the former. Do you know who has? The guy you support.

Are you absolutely sure you want people to be judged by their actions?

Bernie is an open book titled “The Communist Manesto”

I would not lie to you

bernie did go to moscow not copenhagen

Did I ever said I don't believe you? I've been to Istanbul does that make me a supporter of Erdogan? I've been to Germany on multiple occasions. Does that make me a supporter of Hitler? I've been to Italy. Does that make me a fan Mussolini? Maybe you have been to Chicago? I'm intelligent enough to not therefor to presume you're a fan of Ted Kaczynski. But hey you do you.

Bernie has added words to back up his actions

besides if I worshiped democratic socialism copenhahen is the obvious place to go and learn

instead he went to the lair of communism to go naked and sing the Soviet Union national anthem

 

[Mac-7]

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

Another wise man once said to not judge a book by the cover. Since we are using platitudes. As to judging what they do. Bernie has never suggested that autocracy is actually a good idea. Do you know who has? The guy you support. Bernie has never suggested that people who protest Fascism are just as bad as the fascist even after one of the latter killed one of the former. Do you know who has? The guy you support.

Are you absolutely sure you want people to be judged by their actions?

Bernie is an open book titled “The Communist Manesto”

I would not lie to you

bernie did go to moscow not copenhagen

Did I ever said I don't believe you? I've been to Istanbul does that make me a supporter of Erdogan? I've been to Germany on multiple occasions. Does that make me a supporter of Hitler? I've been to Italy. Does that make me a fan Mussolini? Maybe you have been to Chicago? I'm intelligent enough to not therefor to presume you're a fan of Ted Kaczynski. But hey you do you.

And after that bernie went to havana instead of stockholm

do you see a pattern emerging here?

I do

 

[forkup]

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

A wise man once advised, judge what people do, not what they say

bernie went to moscow not copenhagen because thats where his mind and his heart were

Another wise man once said to not judge a book by the cover. Since we are using platitudes. As to judging what they do. Bernie has never suggested that autocracy is actually a good idea. Do you know who has? The guy you support. Bernie has never suggested that people who protest Fascism are just as bad as the fascist even after one of the latter killed one of the former. Do you know who has? The guy you support.

Are you absolutely sure you want people to be judged by their actions?

Bernie is an open book titled “The Communist Manesto”

I would not lie to you

bernie did go to moscow not copenhagen

Did I ever said I don't believe you? I've been to Istanbul does that make me a supporter of Erdogan? I've been to Germany on multiple occasions. Does that make me a supporter of Hitler? I've been to Italy. Does that make me a fan Mussolini? Maybe you have been to Chicago? I'm intelligent enough to not therefor to presume you're a fan of Ted Kaczynski. But hey you do you.

And after that bernie went to havana instead of stockholm

do you see a pattern emerging here?

I do

Yea I do see a pattern here. Don't think it's the pattern you have in mind. Mine has me questioning your mental state.

 

[peach174]

Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.

No it isn't.

I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.

If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.
The developed countries need to help with paying with the cost of research for new drugs.
We do and we are paying for that research which is expensive .

 

[forkup]

No it isn't.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.

I don't mean to condescend and I realize you probably know this but I need to formulate it like this in order to make my point. Drug prices work via a patent system. What happens that for the first 20 years any drug is exclusively the right of the patent holder. During that time these medicines are priced so the manufacturer recoups the cost of development and makes his profit. European countries pay a price reflecting that calculation. As I said no company sells their product at a loss. They sometimes choose to not cover a particular medicine in which case European customers are obligated to pay the price for that medicine themselves. Doesn't that qualify as paying for development?

 

[peach174]

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.

I don't mean to condescend and I realize you probably know this but I need to formulate it like this in order to make my point. Drug prices work via a patent system. What happens that for the first 20 years any drug is exclusively the right of the patent holder. During that time these medicines are priced so the manufacturer recoups the price and development and makes his profit. European countries pay a price reflecting that calculation. As I said no company sells their product at a loss. They sometimes choose to not cover a particular medicine in which case European customers are obligated to pay the price for that medicine themselves. Doesn't that qualify as paying for development?

No
Developed nations needs to help pay the cost for very expensive research that helps the whole world.

 

[jc456]

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.

I don't mean to condescend and I realize you probably know this but I need to formulate it like this in order to make my point. Drug prices work via a patent system. What happens that for the first 20 years any drug is exclusively the right of the patent holder. During that time these medicines are priced so the manufacturer recoups the price and development and makes his profit. European countries pay a price reflecting that calculation. As I said no company sells their product at a loss. They sometimes choose to not cover a particular medicine in which case European customers are obligated to pay the price for that medicine themselves. Doesn't that qualify as paying for development?

No
Developed nations needs to help pay the cost for very expensive research that helps the whole world.

why don't they?

 

[forkup]

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.

I don't mean to condescend and I realize you probably know this but I need to formulate it like this in order to make my point. Drug prices work via a patent system. What happens that for the first 20 years any drug is exclusively the right of the patent holder. During that time these medicines are priced so the manufacturer recoups the price and development and makes his profit. European countries pay a price reflecting that calculation. As I said no company sells their product at a loss. They sometimes choose to not cover a particular medicine in which case European customers are obligated to pay the price for that medicine themselves. Doesn't that qualify as paying for development?

No
Developed nations needs to help pay the cost for very expensive research that helps the whole world.

As I said the price we negotiate pays for the cost of development AND a profit. What negoiating like this does is that we eat into the profit margin. So again why aren't we paying for development in your opinion?

 

[Mac1958]

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

If I remember correctly, a boatload of them are due, or coming due.

The Fed has been unwinding its balance sheet and is making good headway.

This is another deal - The NY Fed has had to grease the short term lending system, BIG time.
.

 

[imawhosure]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

What are you talking about? Even the Democrats admit what this will cost. When BOTH sides agree on a price tag, the only question is how to pay for it!

So what do you actually want? The price tag? Cause if you are asking me how to explain how it is paid for, that is YOUR job, not mine-)

Adding Up Senator Sanders's Campaign Proposals So Far
This is the most accurate fact check of the cost of Sander's proposals both what the campaign suggested it would cost and their own calculation they don't match up by the way.

It's also the most accurate fact check on how the campaign proposes to pay for it again they don't match up. The shortfall according to the fact check is NOT 60 to 90 trillion but rather 18 trillion. For that 18 trillion, the US gets free education, UH, free daycare, infrastructure investments, etc., etc. This means your assessment as to what extra increased revenue it would cost to fund it is off by at least a factor of three. So either you deliberately omitted the proposed increases in revenue or didn't check it. It also has the problem that it's very hard to calculate all the variables for such an ambitious plan.

Personally I think Bernie is making the calculation that telling people the actual cost and the tax increases needed to carry it out would make him unelectable or just overpromises. He figures that after he gets elected he simply would raise taxes to make it budget neutral, or he will do what Trump did and simply don't fund the shortfall for his campaign promises. The deficit grew 50 percent under him and this during a bull market. Do you find that problematic I wonder? Having said that the guy he's running against has lied 16000 times. At least you get something back for it.

I'm European. My wife is an American. My tax rate is around 50 percent. The thing is after you consider the cost of living and expenses I don't have that Americans do. My actual income is probably comparable if not slightly higher. I also have a guaranteed income if I fall ill or lose my job. My kid can go to school at a very low cost all the way to college. I have healthcare that would require an American to be a millionaire to top. Etc. Etc.

I'm not a bullshitter and I would lie if I said that I believe that it would be easy or even possible for the US to emulate Europe in the way we arrange social security. There is a huge cultural gap as to how we look at society compared to you. But would it kill you to at least approach the ideas that Bernie proposes with at least enough of an open mind to not immediately just dismiss them?

That is interesting, but let me ask———> is that the price tag put forth after the government cuts healthcare professionals by a factor of 50%? And, is that also the study that assumes that Bernie is going to get his way cutting what hospitals receive by 40%?

Cause if it is and the government is going to dictate what you can make, here in the US, we call that full blown Socialism.

 

[Mac1958]

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism. Unless it's too late.

well socialism owns the MSM. There's your perversion.

Well, that's the most twisted logic I've seen in quite a while, and that's saying something.

At least I know it's all the fault of someone else.
.

 

[jc456]

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism. Unless it's too late.

well socialism owns the MSM. There's your perversion.

Well, that's the most twisted logic I've seen in quite a while, and that's saying something.

At least I know it's all the fault of someone else.
.

people in control or power are generally at fault.

 

[forkup]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

What are you talking about? Even the Democrats admit what this will cost. When BOTH sides agree on a price tag, the only question is how to pay for it!

So what do you actually want? The price tag? Cause if you are asking me how to explain how it is paid for, that is YOUR job, not mine-)

Adding Up Senator Sanders's Campaign Proposals So Far
This is the most accurate fact check of the cost of Sander's proposals both what the campaign suggested it would cost and their own calculation they don't match up by the way.

It's also the most accurate fact check on how the campaign proposes to pay for it again they don't match up. The shortfall according to the fact check is NOT 60 to 90 trillion but rather 18 trillion. For that 18 trillion, the US gets free education, UH, free daycare, infrastructure investments, etc., etc. This means your assessment as to what extra increased revenue it would cost to fund it is off by at least a factor of three. So either you deliberately omitted the proposed increases in revenue or didn't check it. It also has the problem that it's very hard to calculate all the variables for such an ambitious plan.

Personally I think Bernie is making the calculation that telling people the actual cost and the tax increases needed to carry it out would make him unelectable or just overpromises. He figures that after he gets elected he simply would raise taxes to make it budget neutral, or he will do what Trump did and simply don't fund the shortfall for his campaign promises. The deficit grew 50 percent under him and this during a bull market. Do you find that problematic I wonder? Having said that the guy he's running against has lied 16000 times. At least you get something back for it.

I'm European. My wife is an American. My tax rate is around 50 percent. The thing is after you consider the cost of living and expenses I don't have that Americans do. My actual income is probably comparable if not slightly higher. I also have a guaranteed income if I fall ill or lose my job. My kid can go to school at a very low cost all the way to college. I have healthcare that would require an American to be a millionaire to top. Etc. Etc.

I'm not a bullshitter and I would lie if I said that I believe that it would be easy or even possible for the US to emulate Europe in the way we arrange social security. There is a huge cultural gap as to how we look at society compared to you. But would it kill you to at least approach the ideas that Bernie proposes with at least enough of an open mind to not immediately just dismiss them?

That is interesting, but let me ask———> is that the price tag put forth after the government cuts healthcare professionals by a factor of 50%? And, is that also the study that assumes that Bernie is going to get his way cutting what hospitals receive by 40%?

Cause if it is and the government is going to dictate what you can make, here in the US, we call that full blown Socialism.

Let me ask you this in answer. In a free-market economy who ultimately pays for the overhead cost of those healthcare professionals? The customer right? In essence, what you are saying is that you want everybody to look at the healthcare system as a jobs program. To me, healthcare has as a function to deliver high-quality healthcare to the most amount of people for the cheapest possible price.

As to your second question. How much of what hospitals make is profit and how much is running cost? I don't know and I'm guessing neither do you.

It is as I said in my previous post, it's almost impossible to take all the variables involved in such a big change in consideration. What I do know is that EVERY single country that has a form of universal healthcare offers cheaper healthcare, most of the time with better overall results. What do you have to lose in light of that?

 

[peach174]

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.

I don't mean to condescend and I realize you probably know this but I need to formulate it like this in order to make my point. Drug prices work via a patent system. What happens that for the first 20 years any drug is exclusively the right of the patent holder. During that time these medicines are priced so the manufacturer recoups the price and development and makes his profit. European countries pay a price reflecting that calculation. As I said no company sells their product at a loss. They sometimes choose to not cover a particular medicine in which case European customers are obligated to pay the price for that medicine themselves. Doesn't that qualify as paying for development?

No
Developed nations needs to help pay the cost for very expensive research that helps the whole world.

As I said the price we negotiate pays for the cost of development AND a profit. What negoiating like this does is that we eat into the profit margin. So again why aren't we paying for development in your opinion?

Get all governments out of health care as well as education.
But the politicians want their greedy power.

 

[peach174]

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

What are you talking about? Even the Democrats admit what this will cost. When BOTH sides agree on a price tag, the only question is how to pay for it!

So what do you actually want? The price tag? Cause if you are asking me how to explain how it is paid for, that is YOUR job, not mine-)

Adding Up Senator Sanders's Campaign Proposals So Far
This is the most accurate fact check of the cost of Sander's proposals both what the campaign suggested it would cost and their own calculation they don't match up by the way.

It's also the most accurate fact check on how the campaign proposes to pay for it again they don't match up. The shortfall according to the fact check is NOT 60 to 90 trillion but rather 18 trillion. For that 18 trillion, the US gets free education, UH, free daycare, infrastructure investments, etc., etc. This means your assessment as to what extra increased revenue it would cost to fund it is off by at least a factor of three. So either you deliberately omitted the proposed increases in revenue or didn't check it. It also has the problem that it's very hard to calculate all the variables for such an ambitious plan.

Personally I think Bernie is making the calculation that telling people the actual cost and the tax increases needed to carry it out would make him unelectable or just overpromises. He figures that after he gets elected he simply would raise taxes to make it budget neutral, or he will do what Trump did and simply don't fund the shortfall for his campaign promises. The deficit grew 50 percent under him and this during a bull market. Do you find that problematic I wonder? Having said that the guy he's running against has lied 16000 times. At least you get something back for it.

I'm European. My wife is an American. My tax rate is around 50 percent. The thing is after you consider the cost of living and expenses I don't have that Americans do. My actual income is probably comparable if not slightly higher. I also have a guaranteed income if I fall ill or lose my job. My kid can go to school at a very low cost all the way to college. I have healthcare that would require an American to be a millionaire to top. Etc. Etc.

I'm not a bullshitter and I would lie if I said that I believe that it would be easy or even possible for the US to emulate Europe in the way we arrange social security. There is a huge cultural gap as to how we look at society compared to you. But would it kill you to at least approach the ideas that Bernie proposes with at least enough of an open mind to not immediately just dismiss them?

That is interesting, but let me ask———> is that the price tag put forth after the government cuts healthcare professionals by a factor of 50%? And, is that also the study that assumes that Bernie is going to get his way cutting what hospitals receive by 40%?

Cause if it is and the government is going to dictate what you can make, here in the US, we call that full blown Socialism.

Let me ask you this in answer. In a free-market economy who ultimately pays for the overhead cost of those healthcare professionals, you are referring to? The customer right? In essence, what you are saying is that you want everybody to look at the healthcare system as a jobs program. To me, healthcare has as a function to deliver high-quality healthcare to the most amount of people for the cheapest possible price.

As to your second question. How much of what hospitals make is profit and how much is running cost? I don't know and I'm guessing neither do you.

It is as I said in my previous post, it's almost impossible to take all the variables involved in such a big change in consideration. What I do know is that EVERY single country that has a form of universal healthcare offers cheaper healthcare, most of the time with better overall results. What do you have to lose in light of that?

You should check out the government run hospitals in Ireland.
They are far from being quality hospitals compared to the more expensive private ones there.

 

[forkup]

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

I agree with what you say that they negotiate their prices but disagree on the last part.
The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Thanks to the USA for research so that the world has new safe drugs.
This is not a simple solution to solve.

I don't mean to condescend and I realize you probably know this but I need to formulate it like this in order to make my point. Drug prices work via a patent system. What happens that for the first 20 years any drug is exclusively the right of the patent holder. During that time these medicines are priced so the manufacturer recoups the price and development and makes his profit. European countries pay a price reflecting that calculation. As I said no company sells their product at a loss. They sometimes choose to not cover a particular medicine in which case European customers are obligated to pay the price for that medicine themselves. Doesn't that qualify as paying for development?

No
Developed nations needs to help pay the cost for very expensive research that helps the whole world.

As I said the price we negotiate pays for the cost of development AND a profit. What negoiating like this does is that we eat into the profit margin. So again why aren't we paying for development in your opinion?

Get all governments out of health care as well as education.
But the politicians want their greedy power.

You just reiterated the original point I made that you choose to reply to. You rather pay out of the nose for medicine than admit that when it comes to certain things the government can get better results than the private sector.