[mike777]

ldrews, on 2017-February-28, 19:39, said:

The U.S has had a functioning single payer health system for years, Medicare. Why not just extend Medicare to cover everyone?

I suggested this many years ago...see my previous posts from years ago.

the half ass answer is....bucks...usa bucks


20 trillion in debt and counting

[mike777]

Trinidad, on 2017-February-28, 13:37, said:

The reason is simple:

Followers of populists are not looking at the results. They are happy with the fact that what they think is put on the agenda.

I am an engineer. When I see a problem, I will categorize it instantaneously: Is it solvable or is it not solvable? If it isn't, it isn't an interesting problem anymore. You just have to live with it. If it's solvable then it is a question on whether I want to spend my time and resources on actually solving it.

Polulist leaders pick problems that are unsolvable and that the population simply has to live with. The "technocrats" ignore those problems, since there is little one can do about them and they see worrying about them as a waste of time. The populist, however mentions those problems (and it doesn't even matter whether they are real or perceived problems), and the population is happy that finally somebody is bringing this up. Hooray!!

The next step is that the (real or perceived) problems cannot be solved (after all, they were unsolvable). Some would think that the populist leader would return to his voters and say: "Sorry, it was harder than I thought." But no, the populist leader knew up front that the problem couldn't be solved, so everything is still going according to plan. The next step is to blame his opponents for blocking the solution of the problem. The opponents can be political opponents (technocrats, "the elite") or foreign opponents (in Europe that means "Brussels") or others (the media, the judicial system). Whoever they are, they are blocking the solution of the problem.

Blaming others from blocking the solutions is the way to keep the electorate happy: "He is working hard at it, but the ... (fill in) making it impossible to do his job." and they will vote for the populist again.

The "Muslim ban" is an example: Terrorism is a problem. There are no simple solutions. So, the populist starts by placing it on the agenda and making it as big as possible. Then, he comes with a "solution": Banning people from 7 countries. (Of course, this doesn't solve the problem and the populist knows that.) Unfortunately, simply banning people is illegal and the judicial system stops the ban. From now on, terrorism is their fault, even if the next terrorist attack is committed by someone from Faroer (an island group north of Scotland). "He tried to prevent it, but the judges didn't let him."

Rik

the truly hard part of being an engineer is saying if that bridge fails then I die....my loves ones die...not just those on the bridge.


If not then 1) don't build that bridge...or 2) don't be an engineer


being an engineer is hard really really hard, you die often die

if you work for a king then:

being a king is hard...kings die...often die often

[cherdano]

You made post #5000 for THIS?

[WellSpyder]

mike777, on 2017-February-28, 23:54, said:

AND YOUR POINT IS WHAT? you have a solution or you do not?


fwiw I am not even sure what the problem is you are trying to solve?

Good to see that you have at least solved the problem of the CAPS LOCK key getting stuck.

[ldrews]

mike777, on 2017-February-28, 23:51, said:

YOU LEAVE OUT 2 IMPORTANT POWER CENTERS.....SO THE REST OF WHAT YOU WRITE DOES NOT FOLLOW

Is there a reason you are SHOUTING?

The other power centers are not germane to the conversation. Please focus.

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-28, 18:36, said:

You do realize, don't you, that you have laid out an argument for single payer?

No, there needs to be a completely new system. Why should rural areas pay the same as urban areas? Prices should be based on the cost of living in that area.
In San Francisco there's Healthy San Francisco. Only about 8% of San Franciscans use it. Those with access to good health insurance don't need it. It is a inexpensive form of healthcare. No access to the top doctors. I favor using nurse practitioners.

No way the US taxpayer can afford Medicare for all.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2017-February-28, 23:57, said:

I suggested this many years ago...see my previous posts from years ago.

the half ass answer is....bucks...usa bucks


20 trillion in debt and counting

Jubilee (debt forgiveness) is the answer proposed by those that wish to perpetuate the status quo of debt-induced slavery to the current economic model.

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-February-28, 19:39, said:

The U.S has had a functioning single payer health system for years, Medicare. Why not just extend Medicare to cover everyone?

Isn't that what Obama originally wanted? But Congress wouldn't even allow such a proposal on the table. A big part of Obamacare is an extension of Medicare to more people, but many Republican governors refused to take the additional money.

One of the problems is that Medicare for everyone is basically socialized medicine, and too many people are scared of anything that smacks of socialism, thinking that it's equivalent to communism. Republicans have drunk the Kool-Aid that the free market is the solution to everything.

And there's also the problem of how to pay for it -- someone's taxes will have to go up.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-March-01, 07:45, said:

No, there needs to be a completely new system. Why should rural areas pay the same as urban areas? Prices should be based on the cost of living in that area.
In San Francisco there's Healthy San Francisco. Only about 8% of San Franciscans use it. Those with access to good health insurance don't need it. It is a inexpensive form of healthcare. No access to the top doctors. I favor using nurse practitioners.

No way the US taxpayer can afford Medicare for all.

Taxation and spending is simply about priorities - who do you tax, which groups pay the most, and on what do you spend that revenue.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-March-01, 10:07, said:

Taxation and spending is simply about priorities - who do you tax, which groups pay the most, and on what do you spend that revenue.

Taxation is also about morality. Since the collection of taxes in inherently coercion, it should be, in my opinion, minimized and stringently justified, not seen as a never-ending cornucopia for centralized solutions.

[jogs]

The gov't always requires too much redundant paperwork. Medical chips embedded onto the body. Read only access for the consumer. Providers can both read and write. Should reduce the paperwork.

All insurance type healthcare models require referrals to see specialists. That happens with 3rd party payers. There needs to be a model where the consumer pays directly. Then he can choose to go directly to the specialist.

[jogs]

I favor community solutions. The fed gov't should only step in when the community is clearly in the bottom 1%.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 10:12, said:

Taxation is also about morality. Since the collection of taxes in inherently coercion, it should be, in my opinion, minimized and stringently justified, not seen as a never-ending cornucopia for centralized solutions.

Or you could simply flee to Mexico.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-March-01, 12:43, said:

Or you could simply flee to Mexico.

And exactly what has that got to do with our discussion? Trying to divert attention from a losing position?

[Cyberyeti]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 10:12, said:

Taxation is also about morality. Since the collection of taxes in inherently coercion, it should be, in my opinion, minimized and stringently justified, not seen as a never-ending cornucopia for centralized solutions.

It is indeed about morality. Many of the people who are most vociferous in their opinions that taxes should be really low and thus less should be distributed to the poor claim to be Christians. The Christian moral code suggests that you should treat the poor well, massive hypocrisy.

[ldrews]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-01, 13:39, said:

It is indeed about morality. Many of the people who are most vociferous in their opinions that taxes should be really low and thus less should be distributed to the poor claim to be Christians. The Christian moral code suggests that you should treat the poor well, massive hypocrisy.

But using taxation to give to the poor is like: If you don't voluntarily give to poor we will forcibly take your money/property from you and give it to the poor. Not exactly a Christian moral act.

[jogs]

The democratic party leadership looks like a ACBL club game.

[Cyberyeti]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 13:46, said:

But using taxation to give to the poor is like: If you don't voluntarily give to poor we will forcibly take your money/property from you and give it to the poor. Not exactly a Christian moral act.

The tithe to the church to give away is as old as the church, taxation is a fact of life

[ldrews]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-01, 14:06, said:

The tithe to the church to give away is as old as the church, taxation is a fact of life

If it is by government it is by force. If it is by the church it is inherently voluntary. A church member who does not tithe may receive opprobrium from his fellow members, but no one comes with weapons to take the tithe from him.

[Cyberyeti]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 14:13, said:

If it is by government it is by force. If it is by the church it is inherently voluntary. A church member who does not tithe may receive opprobrium from his fellow members, but no one comes with weapons to take the tithe from him.

No, he got excommunicated