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

[peach174]

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.

No I proposed a mixed balance of free market with certain regulations.
Not full government control.

 

[forkup]

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.

Irelands health care system is a bit less than half as expensive as the American one. List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia
They on average live a bit less than 3 years longer
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia

 

[forkup]

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.

No I proposed a mixed balance of free market with certain regulations.
Not full government control.

If you say you want ALL government out of healthcare you are not suggesting a mixed balance since it is the government who imposes regulation.

 

[jc456]

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?

and you have now posted evidence that you don't know anything about it. scootch along now.

 

[peach174]

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.

No I proposed a mixed balance of free market with certain regulations.
Not full government control.

If you say you want ALL government out of healthcare you are not suggesting a mixed balance since it is the government who imposes regulation.

I said that's what is best, none will give up that power they have now, so the best is a merge with regulations and free markets.
We don't want what Europe has.

 

[forkup]

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.

No I proposed a mixed balance of free market with certain regulations.
Not full government control.

If you say you want ALL government out of healthcare you are not suggesting a mixed balance since it is the government who imposes regulation.

I said that's what is best, none will give up that power they have now, so the best is a merge with regulations and free markets.
We don't want what Europe has.

You said what you believe is best. Although you can't rationally defend it. As I said what Europe has is cheaper more inclusive healthcare that gets better results. You believe it is better to pay more for less just so the free market can keep full control.

I believe what you believe is irrational. So do a lot of people in the US as Bernie's popularity proves. So "we" is a mischaracterization of reality. I really don't want to be insulting. You are someone who obviously wants to have a conversation and I respect that. But as I said I call things as I see them.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Are we going to help subsidize German and Cuban developments?