Spock;1836005 wrote:listen

Single payer in this country is not the same as some other countries. there are 300 million people here. The single payer system in a country like Holland where there are 4 million people wont work here.

Are you ever correct?

The Netherlands has a population of 17 million.

QuakerOats;1836006 wrote:There are no successful single payer models anywhere in the world, if you want to count all attributes and outcomes.

When people want the best healthcare, they come to U.S.

If you want BIG government to completely destroy great healthcare, then keep doing what your are doing.

Lies. Tell yourself that lie long enough and it becomes true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_healthcare_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

Cheaper:

The United States spends much more money on healthcare than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[6] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on healthcare in that year; Canada spent 10.0%

One of the most important differences between the two countries is the much higher cost of drugs in the United States. In the U.S., $728 per capita is spent each year on drugs, while in Canada it is $509.[94] At the same time, consumption is higher in Canada, with about 12 prescriptions being filled per person each year in Canada and 10.6 in the United States.[96] The main difference is that patented drug prices in Canada average between 35% and 45% lower than in the United States, though generic prices are higher.[97] The price differential for brand-name drugs between the two countries has led Americans to purchase upward of $1 billion US in drugs per year from Canadian pharmacies.[98]

Better outcomes:

In the World Health Organization's rankings of healthcare system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd

In terms of population health, life expectancy in 2006 was about two and a half years longer in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 79.9 years and Americans 77.5 years.[120] Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the U.S.

Facts don't care about your feelings. Stop lying.

QuakerOats;1836009 wrote:Spoken like someone who might care about alleviating present-day infanticide.

So you don't disagree right? You are already paying for these people.

Again, facts don't care about your feelings. Get in the game!

isadore;1835960 wrote:Hail Trump! Even Government Lawyers arguing for the immigrant ban say ignore what the President had to say.
"A government lawyer urged a federal appellate panel not to consider comments by Donald Trump and his advisers about wanting to ban the entry of Muslims into the United States, arguing that they should only look at the text of his executive order banning travel from seven majority Muslim nations in considering its legality under the Constitution."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/government-lawyer-urges-9th-circuit-not-to-consider-trumps-muslim-ban-comments-013335035.html

Kind of like when the Obamacare penalty was a tax, then it wasn't a tax, but when argued in the SCOTUS it was a tax?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/08/sean-spicer-makes-up-atlanta-islamist-attack.html

Spicer now making up Islamic attacks. The propaganda machine continues and Republicans defend it.

The only fake news is the White House. Sad!

sleeper;1836008 wrote: And it will always be this way unless you advocate for mass genocide against people who can't afford healthcare.

I'm okay with that.

fish82;1836037 wrote:I'm okay with that.

Ah the unicorn does exist; an honest Republican!

sleeper;1836008 wrote:And it will always be this way unless you advocate for mass genocide against people who can't afford healthcare.

Not forcing someone to prevent another's death isn't equitable to killing the latter.

If I refrain from giving you something, I am not stealing it from you, whether it's necessary for life or not. One requires force. The other does not.

O-Trap;1836054 wrote:Not forcing someone to prevent another's death isn't equitable to killing the latter.

If I refrain from giving you something, I am not stealing it from you, whether it's necessary for life or not. One requires force. The other does not.

You are right. It's the Christian thing to let someone suffer because they are poor. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.

sleeper;1836041 wrote:Ah the unicorn does exist; an honest Republican!

Well, you got the honest part right, anyway.

sleeper;1836059 wrote:You are right. It's the Christian thing to let someone suffer because they are poor. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.

The belief that one shouldn't be forced doesn't release anyone from a certain moral obligation. It means that governmental bodies shouldn't enforce those moral obligations by threats of fines or imprisonment.

It seems like you think that if a person doesn't think government should enforce something, it shouldn't be done at all. I have no idea how you arrived at such a conclusion.

People SHOULD be charitable to the less fortunate in our society. We SHOULD help look after children whose mothers cannot or will not do so. We SHOULD pool resources to help our communities stay clean and protect victims of violent crime and fund emergency services.

Those are all good things. But it doesn't mean that a bureaucratic agency to oversee them being done is necessary. Nor does it mean there should be legislation that forces them to be done to a specific level and punishes those who cannot.

What many people attempt to do through governmental channels is good, but the fact that we go through government agencies corrupts the intentions of those who support these actions. It restricts the cents on the dollar actually going toward the cause, because the channel has infrastructure and salary needs.

There is nothing anti-Christian about advocating for something without advocating for it to be done through force.

Charity is a moral obligation when one has the means, but it ceases to be charity when it is done with others' property, taken by force with threat of fines or imprisonment.

O-Trap;1836068 wrote:

The belief that one shouldn't be forced doesn't release anyone from a certain moral obligation. It means that governmental bodies shouldn't enforce those moral obligations by threats of fines or imprisonment.

It seems like you think that if a person doesn't think government should enforce something, it shouldn't be done at all. I have no idea how you arrived at such a conclusion.

People SHOULD be charitable to the less fortunate in our society. We SHOULD help look after children whose mothers cannot or will not do so. We SHOULD pool resources to help our communities stay clean and protect victims of violent crime and fund emergency services.

Those are all good things. But it doesn't mean that a bureaucratic agency to oversee them being done is necessary. Nor does it mean there should be legislation that forces them to be done to a specific level and punishes those who cannot.

What many people attempt to do through governmental channels is good, but the fact that we go through government agencies corrupts the intentions of those who support these actions. It restricts the cents on the dollar actually going toward the cause, because the channel has infrastructure and salary needs.

There is nothing anti-Christian about advocating for something without advocating for it to be done through force.

Charity is a moral obligation when one has the means, but it ceases to be charity when it is done with others' property, taken by force with threat of fines or imprisonment.

Oh, so there is available charities to pay for our poor people to have healthcare and food? Sorry, but there isn't Your fantasy doesn't line up with reality and Single Payer Healthcare run by the government is THE CHEAPEST healthcare on the planet and has BETTER OUTCOMES for its citizens. Cut the wet dream.

sleeper;1836073 wrote:Oh, so there is available charities to pay for our poor people to have healthcare and food? Sorry, but there isn't Your fantasy doesn't line up with reality and Single Payer Healthcare run by the government is THE CHEAPEST healthcare on the planet and has BETTER OUTCOMES for its citizens. Cut the wet dream.

Your first point operates under the same flaw as the "who built the roads" objection. Just because one does it, particularly if they forcibly insist on doing it, that doesn't mean they're the only one who can or would if their absence created a vacuum.

What you call reality is akin to someone saying they do things a certain way because they've done them a certain way to date. That's nonsensical.

Moreover, it actually has been done to a degree. Prior to the creation of Medicare, charitable organizations did, indeed, pick up a fair bit of slack. Plus, there were and are hospitals that turn nobody away, and these existed prior to any tax-funded assistance. Beyond this, there are families, communities, churches, clubs, etc. that can (and should) help as well.

What you're advocating for still amounts to "Hey you, pay for them, or we're going to take more of your money and maybe throw you in prison."

O-Trap;1836080 wrote:Your first point operates under the same flaw as the "who built the roads" objection. Just because one does it, particularly if they forcibly insist on doing it, that doesn't mean they're the only one who can or would if their absence created a vacuum.

What you call reality is akin to someone saying they do things a certain way because they've done them a certain way to date. That's nonsensical.

Moreover, it actually has been done to a degree. Prior to the creation of Medicare, charitable organizations did, indeed, pick up a fair bit of slack. Plus, there were and are hospitals that turn nobody away, and these existed prior to any tax-funded assistance. Beyond this, there are families, communities, churches, clubs, etc. that can (and should) help as well.

What you're advocating for still amounts to "Hey you, pay for them, or we're going to take more of your money and maybe throw you in prison."

Where is the charity that has billions of dollars to take care of our poorest citizens? Name it.

Your fantasy doesn't line up with reality.

O-Trap;1836080 wrote:Your first point operates under the same flaw as the "who built the roads" objection. Just because one does it, particularly if they forcibly insist on doing it, that doesn't mean they're the only one who can or would if their absence created a vacuum.

What you call reality is akin to someone saying they do things a certain way because they've done them a certain way to date. That's nonsensical.

Moreover, it actually has been done to a degree. Prior to the creation of Medicare, charitable organizations did, indeed, pick up a fair bit of slack. Plus, there were and are hospitals that turn nobody away, and these existed prior to any tax-funded assistance. Beyond this, there are families, communities, churches, clubs, etc. that can (and should) help as well.

What you're advocating for still amounts to "Hey you, pay for them, or we're going to take more of your money and maybe throw you in prison."

For example, planned parenthood existed over 50 years prior to receiving federal funding.

sleeper;1836085 wrote:Where is the charity that has billions of dollars to take care of our poorest citizens? Name it.

Your fantasy doesn't line up with reality.

The manipulation of that system is what has caused it to balloon and require billions in the first place.

Stop making it "free money" and watch that number shrink.

The amounts needed in the '50s and '60s were, even with taking inflation into account, not nearly as bloated.

O-Trap;1836090 wrote:The manipulation of that system is what has caused it to balloon and require billions in the first place.

Stop making it "free money" and watch that number shrink.

The amounts needed in the '50s and '60s were, even with taking inflation into account, not nearly as bloated.

Right it's just free money. Free money to provide basic healthcare, shelter, food; how horrible.

Grow up.

sleeper;1836091 wrote:Right it's just free money. Free money to provide basic healthcare, shelter, food; how horrible.

Grow up.

First, you're violating the law of identity again (which you've been doing a lot lately). "Basic healthcare, shelter, food" are not all that are covered. Therein lies the objection. Unchecked infrastructure, bureaucratic salaries, excess to maintain budgets requests, and potentially other additional expenses will far and away prevent it from being just about "basic healthcare, shelter, food."

And again, what you're advocating includes potentially imprisoning people for not being able to contribute. But I guess the prison system does provide basic healthcare, shelter, and food.

Moreover, the abuse to which I was referring had less to do with the ones spending it and more to do with the ones billing it.

I'm referencing two eras of healthcare and making a comparison. I've noted that there were not more people per capita who struggled with affording healthcare prior to tax-subsidized healthcare. I've noted that costs for "basic" healthcare were affordable out of pocket for most, and for those who couldn't afford it (a fraction of the number who wouldn't be able to today), there were indeed charitable organizations who picked up the slack in the form of donation funding to help afford the care or to provide the care themselves.

The two objections, logically speaking, would be these:

I'm not taking an articulable variable into account (and if you make this claim, the burden of proof is on you to reveal it and demonstrate why it is relevant).

-OR-

The claims I've made are factually untrue, and you have articulable claims to the contrary (again, the burden of proof would be on you).

Finally, given the fact that we don't have a history in this country of a single-payer system, for you to make the claim that such a system would be less financially taxing AND provide better healthcare to more people, you must demonstrate why such claims can be made. Once more, the burden of proof is on you. And lest you wish to default to the claim that it's working for another country, I would once again point you to the law of identity and suggest that the medical care system in this country is notably different, more expensive, more itemized, and more prompt. After all, having a career in professional basketball worked for LeBron James, but that doesn't mean it will work the same way for me.

O-Trap;1836095 wrote:First, you're violating the law of identity again (which you've been doing a lot lately). "Basic healthcare, shelter, food" are not all that are covered. Therein lies the objection. Unchecked infrastructure, bureaucratic salaries, excess to maintain budgets requests, and potentially other additional expenses will far and away prevent it from being just about "basic healthcare, shelter, food."

And again, what you're advocating includes potentially imprisoning people for not being able to contribute. But I guess the prison system does provide basic healthcare, shelter, and food.

Moreover, the abuse to which I was referring had less to do with the ones spending it and more to do with the ones billing it.

I'm referencing two eras of healthcare and making a comparison. I've noted that there were not more people per capita who struggled with affording healthcare prior to tax-subsidized healthcare. I've noted that costs for "basic" healthcare were affordable out of pocket for most, and for those who couldn't afford it (a fraction of the number who wouldn't be able to today), there were indeed charitable organizations who picked up the slack in the form of donation funding to help afford the care or to provide the care themselves.

The two objections, logically speaking, would be these:

I'm not taking an articulable variable into account (and if you make this claim, the burden of proof is on you to reveal it and demonstrate why it is relevant).

-OR-

The claims I've made are factually untrue, and you have articulable claims to the contrary (again, the burden of proof would be on you).

Finally, given the fact that we don't have a history in this country of a single-payer system, for you to make the claim that such a system would be less financially taxing AND provide better healthcare to more people, you must demonstrate why such claims can be made. Once more, the burden of proof is on you. And lest you wish to default to the claim that it's working for another country, I would once again point you to the law of identity and suggest that the medical care system in this country is notably different, more expensive, more itemized, and more prompt. After all, having a career in professional basketball worked for LeBron James, but that doesn't mean it will work the same way for me.

Google 'Wealth Inequality in the United States'. That's why people need more assistance because rich people aren't paying their taxes.

But yes, keep telling poor people that they don't deserve basic healthcare, food and shelter because there are some mythical charities that can cover the need.

The data for Single Payer is already out there and I already provided the data a few posts back. It is CHEAPER and OUTCOMES are better. Reality, it really is a thorn in your side of libertarian fantasy land.

Otrap just feeding the troll. Giving logical thought processes backed up by statistics, facts, history will just make a troll's head spin like the exorcist.

jmog;1836102 wrote:Otrap just feeding the troll. Giving logical thought processes backed up by statistics, facts, history will just make a troll's head spin like the exorcist.

What's there to debate?

One person thinks we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens through a realistic system and the other wants poor people to die in the street until charitable organizations in fantasy land step in.

You'll never guess which one is the atheist and which one is the Christian. Bizarre world we live in.

sleeper;1836106 wrote:What's there to debate?

One person thinks we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens through a realistic system and the other wants poor people to die in the street until charitable organizations in fantasy land step in.

You'll never guess which one is the atheist and which one is the Christian. Bizarre world we live in.

And you're ok with one party having complete control of our healthcare?

like_that;1836107 wrote:And you're ok with one party having complete control of our healthcare?

Do you ask the same question about Medicare?

sleeper;1836106 wrote:What's there to debate?

One person thinks we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens through a realistic system and the other wants poor people to die in the street until charitable organizations in fantasy land step in.

You'll never guess which one is the atheist and which one is the Christian. Bizarre world we live in.

Ah, strawman fallacy at it's finest. Congratulations, you couldn't have built a better strawman if you were in the Land of Oz.

sleeper;1836101 wrote:Google 'Wealth Inequality in the United States'. That's why people need more assistance because rich people aren't paying their taxes.

Prove this is the WHY, or you're wrong.

sleeper;1836101 wrote:But yes, keep telling poor people that they don't deserve basic healthcare, food and shelter because there are some mythical charities that can cover the need.

Feel free to show me where I said everyone shouldn't have their basic needs met. I said authorities shouldn't do it with the proverbial business end of a gun.

sleeper;1836101 wrote:The data for Single Payer is already out there and I already provided the data a few posts back. It is CHEAPER and OUTCOMES are better. Reality, it really is a thorn in your side of libertarian fantasy land.

No. You provided a third-party's metrics about a country that isn't the United States.

Until you can provide the data as to why it would work in the US, you've not met the burden of proof.

Why do I feed the troll?