Jump to content

Biden clashes with Warren, Sanders on healthcare in Democratic 2020 debate


webfact

Recommended Posts

On 9/13/2019 at 2:05 PM, Saint Nick said:

A Biden-candidacy would be the death- blow for the Democrats hopes!

Trump will go onto a wild ride with Uncle Joe and mop the floor with him!

(And I am not saying this, because I would like that!)

IMHO the only way, Democrats will win, is a Bernie/ Warren- ticket (maybe Bernie/ Beto or mayyyyybe Warren/ Beto)!

And please spare me the crocodile tears about the idea, you couldn't pay for universal healthcare or free college or both and more!

The money is there, you just need to reshuffle: tax the superwealthy, take a bite out of the military, end one or the other war...

The US- citizens are behind the progressive ideas on gun-control, Climate change etc!

The Democrats need to seize those sentiments!

no, the "money" is not "there",  but the 22 trillion in debt is.

 

Politicians on both sides are to blame and the unelected bureaucrats/lobbyists will never

give up their stranglehold on bloated wasteful government spending. The political class is in it for themselves, that has been true for decades.

 

And no, the US is not behind the list of progressive fools or "ideas", but hollywood and the dnc certainly are.

 

I do hope they keep up the vacuous pursuit of these "free" giveaways though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I called the statement ignorant, as is the ridiculous equation of fuel prices being "subsidised" by military spending. that is a vacuous assertion.

 

massive taxes pay for healthcare in all those "developed" countries. it is a fact.  and you want the same, it would seem.

 

 

 

Would I want "massive taxes"to pay for health care in the Us? if those "Massive taxes" were less than what I pay now, and delivered better results,

Hell yea I would! wouldn't you?

Per capita health care spending in the US, over $10,000 per year

Mortality amenable to healthcare in the US at the bottom of industrialised countries with a score of 88.7

image.png.d1959ea7c7a86814a711fb60b012234a.png

image.png.6959f11cf064aefdc487726a71a2343d.png

image.png.31d15d693b37fb8cbe75e6ba64d5749f.png

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/spending/per-capita-spending/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

so, the money (81 billion) spent keeping the shipping lanes open, that the EU should be helping with,  versus TRILLIONS for your dream of "universal" healthcare.

 

do the math

Petro dollars have litle to do with health care, You brought petro spending in your original reply to my post and I reacted. 

As far as health care is concerned I provided you with the facts in my previous reply.

We now spend over $10,000 per year , per capita in the US, and achive the worst results. 

what difference does it make who you pay the money to, if you got a better product? or wouldn't you agree that it would be better to pay lets say $8.000 more in taxes per year to a single provider, than  pay $10.000 to private industry?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2019 at 8:17 PM, sirineou said:

Petro dollars have litle to do with health care, You brought petro spending in your original reply to my post and I reacted. 

As far as health care is concerned I provided you with the facts in my previous reply.

We now spend over $10,000 per year , per capita in the US, and achive the worst results. 

what difference does it make who you pay the money to, if you got a better product? or wouldn't you agree that it would be better to pay lets say $8.000 more in taxes per year to a single provider, than  pay $10.000 to private industry?

 

It has nothing to do with the cost per capita, it has to do with the insurance lobby buying congress to keep regulations in place that they use to keep prices up. It should be mandatory for hospitals to list prices for everything. Private Hospitals charge by what particular insurance company is paying, not by actual costs. If they all paid medicare rates, do you think quality of service and qualified personnel would go up or down? 

 

 

A massive tax hike on fuel and income and goods that these "developed" countries you are so proud of will not solve issues with insurance companies and congress rigging the rules in their favor. Neither will a massive govt take over of the system improve the quality or quantity of healthcare. But then an ideology that demands the use of other people's money to satisfy a "free" service just means you are much more virtuous than those who do not agree with your preferred method of a single payer govt boondoggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2019 at 9:26 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

I just read about a pill for Diabetes that cost the NHS c. 5$ and in the US it was over $300. Capitalism is worldwide with few exceptions, it works, but every country has some basic form of social provision. The more civilized and affluent a country becomes the greater the level of social provision. Even the US surprise, surprise, has a reasonable level of it. I think the rich learned a long time ago that if you make the life of the poor intolerable then you end up on the guillotine. 

There are areas that should be run by government, and some not. Health, Social work, Prisons, the Legal system, should never be run for profit. Only those vile enough to espouse  "The obscene capitalism red in tooth and claw" would think otherwise. Sadly it appears the US has quite a few of these people.

I agree there is no necessity for government to regulate where it is not necessary, but I would have no difficulty arguing that. 

The rub comes in defining what is "necessary". 10yrs ago draconian health care/insurance industry regs were not considered necessary. Today the pendulum has swung.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 9/16/2019 at 4:01 AM, Jingthing said:

Wow. You found a way to demonize Israel on a topic that has nothing to do with Israel. Is there a prize for that?

I read it as a "for example".

 

Poster could have referenced military spending or corporate welfare or foreign aid to other countries.

 

Ultimately he is expressing a valid opinion that it may be wiser to spend at home to achieve first world health care rather than spending which does not bring direct benefits to the majority of U.S. citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mikebike said:

 

I read it as a "for example".

 

Poster could have referenced military spending or corporate welfare or foreign aid to other countries.

 

Ultimately he is expressing a valid opinion that it may be wiser to spend at home to achieve first world health care rather than spending which does not bring direct benefits to the majority of U.S. citizens.

spending like this:

 

400px-2018_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...