Wealth gap is at critical mass

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'd much rather pay more taxes and not have ridiculous premiums and deductibles. You know, kinda like how every other country has worked things out.

If you make the decision to smoke, you should pay higher penalties. If you, without a genetic condition, get ridiculously obese you should pay more.

But remember how I talked of prevention? We don't focus on that in our current healthcare system. If the government pays for it you better believe Democrats and Republicans are going to want to make sure we prevent those conditions as a cost control measure.

Except that is not how it works. You pay more into the black hole of DC, and your premiums and deductibles will still be ridiculous. You live on Fantasy Island if you truly believe otherwise.

 

[1972 Grad]

First off, the ACA cut uninsured rates in half though I agree that it wasn't the best.

Democrats shouldn't have caved and took out the public option. Better yet, they should have just provided single payer.

Second, NEVER did I say the country was horrid. I said inequality in the country was horrid. But nice try parsing my words to fit your agenda.

Deregulation? Let me guess you still kneel at the altar of trickle down economics? Makes sense that you call everything you don't like socialism.

You are likely to die off long before me bud so hold off while you can, but the future marches on.

I would be careful about making predictions based on age. I'm sure that if you are young, you think that you're invincible, but you could be dead tomorrow.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Funny... I thought based on varying tax rates and welfare programs... The government already controls wealth by your rational.

I would have thought this thread is about how much inequality is too much and solutions to fix that.

You have no idea how to fix 'inequality' or more importantly that inequality is even bad. I'll bet you cannot even define what inequality is with any degree of rationality.

 

[1972 Grad]

You have no idea how to fix 'inequality' or more importantly that inequality is even bad. I'll bet you cannot even define what inequality is with any degree of rationality.

They have been spoon fed wealth envy by the Democrats from the time they left the womb. I guess that they think everyone should be rich.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

They have been spoon fed wealth envy by the Democrats from the time they left the womb. I guess that they think everyone should be rich.

Troof. THey think everyone should go to college. Everyone should have free healthcare. Everyone should be able to shoot under par and make the cut at the PGA. Everyone should have a killer jumpshot and be able to hit a 90 mph fastball.

 

[zaqhhh]

Lol the government wants to control cost on an industry they control? You really are that naive. More problems means more money in their pockets.

Prevention starts and ends with the patient. Period. You dont need a doctor to not eat fast food the majority of your meals. You dont need a doctor to spend an hour outside.

And your conclusion is false sense we have millions of people with preventable diseases already going to the doctors. And looking at our collective fat asses it doesnt look like it's working. The reason is, it's not more doctors we need. Or even access to them. It's more personal responsibility.

I was told I had a vitamin D deficiency. Doc gave me a script. I asked isnt this what my body produces from sunlight? Sure enough it was. Why the eff I need a script for something I get for free? But yeah sure Dr Seuss is going to get the Smith family from eating a big mac for breakfast lunch and dinner.

Only way it works is if the government steps in. Pretty funny you made fun of hog for thinking the government was going control everything. And then in this post you call for the government controlling us to keep us healthy.

LMAO, Do you know what single payer means? The government is taking over costs and insurance. They still have to pay costs to hospitals/etc. So yes they want to control costs... They don't want to pay more. Lobbyists for private care is what you are thinking of...which is the system we have now.

So if prevention is only based on the individual... Why do other countries with these systems do so much better on prevention than we do? It's about instilling a culture.

If 100 people know by common sense that brushing their teeth several times a day is the good thing to do. 75 might, 25 might decide not to.

If 100 people go to the dentist and hear "you need to brush your teeth because you are at risk of developing cavities, gingivitis, and yellowing." Then that number is likely going to rise to 90-95.

So yes it starts with the individual but that is far from the only factor.

Personal responsibility only goes so far. Yes some people with preventable diseases do go to the doctor and still end up with it, but many more do not. It's not going to fix everything, but would it improve it hell yes!

One issue in your logic is that the current system where there is little collective responsibility means there isn't a collective (and thereby individual) cost.

Healthcare costs are collective regardless because hospitals can't deny care to someone who needs it. So if someone gets a preventable condition and needs care, they still get it and when they can't pay for it. The hospital covers it and the cost gets passed along to insurance companies who raise it on the rest of us.

Single Payer just gives us greater control of a cost we are already paying.

Not going to get into your Vitamin D deficiency. Many people do need more of it, it's an incredibly vital vitamin. Could he be prescribing it to make more? Depends on what type of practice and insurance set up he has.

I made fun of hog for assuming I want the government to control every aspect of life. Should the government insure healthcare to all (and thereby increase preventative measures)? Yes absolutely.

Saying I want government to control health insurance is far different than saying I want government to say take control of every industry, all wealth, and start monitoring my living room.

 

[zaqhhh]

I would be careful about making predictions based on age. I'm sure that if you are young, you think that you're invincible, but you could be dead tomorrow.

You've said this before in previous debates we have had. Clearly I am aware at how fleeting life can be.

The law of averages dictates that the generation that wants single payer (and greater income taxes) will outlive the Boomer (and adjacent generations) that would prefer otherwise. That was the point I was making.

We can debate and I am willing to on the issue, but I want you to know where we are heading regardless.

 

[zaqhhh]

You have no idea how to fix 'inequality' or more importantly that inequality is even bad. I'll bet you cannot even define what inequality is with any degree of rationality.

So if inequality isn't bad, then one person owning 100% and another 7 billion owning 0 isn't bad.

The fact is inequality is bad, the question is how much is too much and what should we do about it. I would say most people regardless of affiliation in this thread could agree on that.

 

[1972 Grad]

Troof. THey think everyone should go to college. Everyone should have free healthcare. Everyone should be able to shoot under par and make the cut at the PGA. Everyone should have a killer jumpshot and be able to hit a 90 mph fastball.

I would settle for shooting under par.

 

[1972 Grad]

You've said this before in previous debates we have had. Clearly I am aware at how fleeting life can be.

The law of averages dictates that the generation that wants single payer (and greater income taxes) will outlive the Boomer (and adjacent generations) that would prefer otherwise. That was the point I was making.

We can debate and I am willing to on the issue, but I want you to know where we are heading regardless.

I know where you are eventually heading if you go full bore socialism in the future.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

LMAO, Do you know what single payer means? The government is taking over costs and insurance. They still have to pay costs to hospitals/etc. So yes they want to control costs... They don't want to pay more. Lobbyists for private care is what you are thinking of...which is the system we have now.

So if prevention is only based on the individual... Why do other countries with these systems do so much better on prevention than we do? It's about instilling a culture.

If 100 people know by common sense that brushing their teeth several times a day is the good thing to do. 75 might, 25 might decide not to.

If 100 people go to the dentist and hear "you need to brush your teeth because you are at risk of developing cavities, gingivitis, and yellowing." Then that number is likely going to rise to 90-95.

So yes it starts with the individual but that is far from the only factor.

Personal responsibility only goes so far. Yes some people with preventable diseases do go to the doctor and still end up with it, but many more do not. It's not going to fix everything, but would it improve it hell yes!

One issue in your logic is that the current system where there is little collective responsibility means there isn't a collective (and thereby individual) cost.

Healthcare costs are collective regardless because hospitals can't deny care to someone who needs it. So if someone gets a preventable condition and needs care, they still get it and when they can't pay for it. The hospital covers it and the cost gets passed along to insurance companies who raise it on the rest of us.

Single Payer just gives us greater control of a cost we are already paying.

Not going to get into your Vitamin D deficiency. Many people do need more of it, it's an incredibly vital vitamin. Could he be prescribing it to make more? Depends on what type of practice and insurance set up he has.

I made fun of hog for assuming I want the government to control every aspect of life. Should the government insure healthcare to all (and thereby increase preventative measures)? Yes absolutely.

Saying I want government to control health insurance is far different than saying I want government to say take control of every industry, all wealth, and start monitoring my living room.

The highlighted part shows just how naive you are.

 

[LouderVol]

Funny... I thought based on varying tax rates and welfare programs... The government already controls wealth by your rational.

I would have thought this thread is about how much inequality is too much and solutions to fix that.

Solutions through the government....
Unless you want to unleash the mobs?

 

[zaqhhh]

They have been spoon fed wealth envy by the Democrats from the time they left the womb. I guess that they think everyone should be rich.

*Everyone should have the same basic rights and necessities.

The funny thing about American politics is how radical Republicans/American Conservative are to even foreign conservatives.

Healthcare:
Foreign Conservative (FC): Healthcare is a right but benefits shouldn't be as comprehensive.
AC: Healthcare isn't a right, if you can't afford it you are a lazy, piece of excrement looking for a handout.

Climate Change:
FC: I don't want to sacrifice industry to combat it as much as progressives do.
AC: Follow the money, it is a Soros driven hoax!

Taxes/Income Inequality
FC: Taxes that high will hurt the economy
AC: The rich are entitled to whatever they make even though wealth is scarce and them having 1000x more than the working class simply means the working class isn't working hard enough or should find a better job.

Higher Ed:
(Many) FC: By investing in higher education, we are making a more competitive work force that will attract jobs and promote infrastructure.

AC: I paid my way through, why can't this generation. Always looking for a handout. Plus if everyone is educated then the degree means less! Maybe we can find a way to stop the cost from rising, but then them damn libs are still going to complain about wages from working.

 

[zaqhhh]

I could go on and on, but you get the point. It is time for American conservatives to look in the mirror and realize that they are lucky to deal with the "left" in this country. Because the "left" in this country has to deal with literal anti-science, anti-fact, 18th century thinking right wingers.

 

[zaqhhh]

I know where you are eventually heading if you go full bore socialism in the future.

You: Don't press that button, you will end up like Venezuela.

Me: Presses barely left of center healthcare solution.

You: Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[UT_VOLS13]

*Everyone should have the same basic rights and necessities.

The funny thing about American politics is how radical Republicans/American Conservative are to even foreign conservatives.

Healthcare:
Foreign Conservative (FC): Healthcare is a right but benefits shouldn't be as comprehensive.
AC: Healthcare isn't a right, if you can't afford it you are a lazy, piece of excrement looking for a handout.

Climate Change:
FC: I don't want to sacrifice industry to combat it as much as progressives do.
AC: Follow the money, it is a Soros driven hoax!

Taxes/Income Inequality
FC: Taxes that high will hurt the economy
AC: The rich are entitled to whatever they make even though wealth is scarce and them having 1000x more than the working class simply means the working class isn't working hard enough or should find a better job.

Higher Ed:
(Many) FC: By investing in higher education, we are making a more competitive work force that will attract jobs and promote infrastructure.

AC: I paid my way through, why can't this generation. Always looking for a handout. Plus if everyone is educated then the degree means less! Maybe we can find a way to stop the cost from rising, but then them damn libs are still going to complain about wages from working.

You must the World Champion at Splatoon because you paint with the largest brush ever!

 

[LouderVol]

LMAO, Do you know what single payer means? The government is taking over costs and insurance. They still have to pay costs to hospitals/etc. So yes they want to control costs... They don't want to pay more. Lobbyists for private care is what you are thinking of...which is the system we have now.

So if prevention is only based on the individual... Why do other countries with these systems do so much better on prevention than we do? It's about instilling a culture.

If 100 people know by common sense that brushing their teeth several times a day is the good thing to do. 75 might, 25 might decide not to.

If 100 people go to the dentist and hear "you need to brush your teeth because you are at risk of developing cavities, gingivitis, and yellowing." Then that number is likely going to rise to 90-95.

So yes it starts with the individual but that is far from the only factor.

Personal responsibility only goes so far. Yes some people with preventable diseases do go to the doctor and still end up with it, but many more do not. It's not going to fix everything, but would it improve it hell yes!

One issue in your logic is that the current system where there is little collective responsibility means there isn't a collective (and thereby individual) cost.

Healthcare costs are collective regardless because hospitals can't deny care to someone who needs it. So if someone gets a preventable condition and needs care, they still get it and when they can't pay for it. The hospital covers it and the cost gets passed along to insurance companies who raise it on the rest of us.

Single Payer just gives us greater control of a cost we are already paying.

Not going to get into your Vitamin D deficiency. Many people do need more of it, it's an incredibly vital vitamin. Could he be prescribing it to make more? Depends on what type of practice and insurance set up he has.

I made fun of hog for assuming I want the government to control every aspect of life. Should the government insure healthcare to all (and thereby increase preventative measures)? Yes absolutely.

Saying I want government to control health insurance is far different than saying I want government to say take control of every industry, all wealth, and start monitoring my living room.

Increased preventative measures would require the government monitoring your living room. How else are they going to know if it works or not?

To your first point about controlling costs, point to one effective example of the government actively achieving lower costs in a program they keep. DC has no reason to cut costs. It's not their money. Its ours. And as our debt has proven they have no problem spending our money. Even the money they dont technically have to the tune of 22 trillion.

 

[LouderVol]

So if inequality isn't bad, then one person owning 100% and another 7 billion owning 0 isn't bad.

The fact is inequality is bad, the question is how much is too much and what should we do about it. I would say most people regardless of affiliation in this thread could agree on that.

Remind me what happens to Social Security in 2034. And tell me why socialized health care will be differen?

 

[zaqhhh]

You must the World Champion at Splatoon because you paint with the largest brush ever!

While I understand the post was a generalization.

Only half of Rs believe in climate science.
Less than half believe HC is a right.
About a quarter/third believe in no or flat income tax rates.
Nearly all believe higher Ed shouldn't be fully funded.


Now while I am usually agitated by the oldies on here.

I will say young Republicans I know do give me a little hope. Many are disgusted by the climate and healthcare views of the old wing. Many even want to combat income inequality.

 

[zaqhhh]

Remind me what happens to Social Security in 2034. And tell me why socialized health care will be differen?

Glad you brought that up. First off, worst case scenario for SS even without action is that 75% of benefits get paid out.

Secondly, part of the insolvency is that the generational pyramid is skewed with boomers and that will improve in a decade or so.

Third, we could literally just lift the cap on taxable income and we'd be fine. (Or is it fair that the poor/middle class can pay a higher rate than the rich)

 

[zaqhhh]

Increased preventative measures would require the government monitoring your living room. How else are they going to know if it works or not?

To your first point about controlling costs, point to one effective example of the government actively achieving lower costs in a program they keep. DC has no reason to cut costs. It's not their money. Its ours. And as our debt has proven they have no problem spending our money. Even the money they dont technically have to the tune of 22 trillion.

No, it wouldn't. We know from other countries that simply by having more preventative visits and education it translates to better results.

If the people (Gov) are paying the price for single payer, do you not think that there are going to be demands for accountable spending/price negotiating. In fact, this is one area that once it is passed, I see Rs and D's finding common ground on.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

No, it wouldn't. We know from other countries that simply by having more preventative visits and education it translates to better results.

If the people (Gov) are paying the price for single payer, do you not think that there are going to be demands for accountable spending/price negotiating. In fact, this is one area that once it is passed, I see Rs and D's finding common ground on.

From my employment background, this is 100% correct!!! Preventive care could save an untold amount of money.

 

[LouderVol]

Glad you brought that up. First off, worst case scenario for SS even without action is that 75% of benefits get paid out.

Secondly, part of the insolvency is that the generational pyramid is skewed with boomers and that will improve in a decade or so.

Third, we could literally just lift the cap on taxable income and we'd be fine. (Or is it fair that the poor/middle class can pay a higher rate than the rich)

Link to the poor paying more than the upper?

And what happens when socialized healthcare is cut to 75%? Or even further? As we have pointed out in other threads our population doesnt have the boom it did that made SS work as long as it did. Even with immigrants it's not where it needs to be to support more socialism.

You are taking away choices from people. Which in the abortion arguments choice is what matters, not the lives.

 

[LouderVol]

No, it wouldn't. We know from other countries that simply by having more preventative visits and education it translates to better results.

If the people (Gov) are paying the price for single payer, do you not think that there are going to be demands for accountable spending/price negotiating. In fact, this is one area that once it is passed, I see Rs and D's finding common ground on.

Lol not it wont. There is no common ground on it now. Why would it change? It's still not them being effected. They dont care about costs.

When the Rs held both branches they did nothing. When the Ds have they either made it worse, ACA, or have done nothing to fix it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Lol this guy is precious reading his “solutions”. To summarize... let the government handle everything and raise taxes to whatever level they need to be to have them do that. LMFAO!