The Reality of Socialized Medicine

[gunthernehmen]

Hello Russian bot!

Anybody that doesn't share the liberal hive-mind is surely a Russian bot

 

[jomar]

Anybody that doesn't share the liberal hive-mind is surely a Russian bot

LOL, hardly. Have you seen her post history?

 

[gunthernehmen]

LOL, hardly. Have you seen her post history?

Ah. I'm so used to being called a Russian bot around here I just assumed you meant me. At least that creep that kept calling everybody a racist hasn't been around much lately.

 

[YDB95]

I think you're missing out on a couple points. We're 22 trillion dollars in debt, why? because politicians can't make tough decisions or balance a budget ( both parties ).

Or because Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cut taxes and still balance the budget, and because people are selfish, they choose to believe that nonsense. And while people SAY they want leaders who will make tough choices, they almost always punish those who do. When Bill Clinton got his first budget through Congress that took the first crucial steps towards a balanced budget just three years later, the voters "rewarded" him by...electing record numbers of Republicans.

Republicans hate government, and their whole approach to drumming up support for that point of view is to "starve the beast" so it CAN'T function well, and then say, "See, government can't do anything right". No one can do a very good job if you make a point of depriving them of the resources needed to do it. Bottom line, there is no reason to think single payer couldn't work, provided we fund it appropriately. And the reality that one of the major parties has made a point of lying to the public for decades about how they can balance the budget should not be mistaken for "politicians can't make tough decisions". How about we start rewarding those who do, instead of punishing them?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Or because Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cut taxes and still balance the budget, and because people are selfish, they choose to believe that nonsense. And while people SAY they want leaders who will make tough choices, they almost always punish those who do. When Bill Clinton got his first budget through Congress that took the first crucial steps towards a balanced budget just three years later, the voters "rewarded" him by...electing record numbers of Republicans.

Republicans hate government, and their whole approach to drumming up support for that point of view is to "starve the beast" so it CAN'T function well, and then say, "See, government can't do anything right". No one can do a very good job if you make a point of depriving them of the resources needed to do it. Bottom line, there is no reason to think single payer couldn't work, provided we fund it appropriately. And the reality that one of the major parties has made a point of lying to the public for decades about how they can balance the budget should not be mistaken for "politicians can't make tough decisions". How about we start rewarding those who do, instead of punishing them?

And the scary part is, I think you might actually believe all that malarkey.

 

[YDB95]

And the scary part is, I think you might actually believe all that malarkey.

If it's "malarkey", it ought to be the easiest thing in the world for you to debunk. I note without surprise that you make no effort at all to do that.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If it's "malarkey", it ought to be the easiest thing in the world for you to debunk. I note without surprise that you make no effort at all to do that.

There was nothing to debunk. You spouted a torrent of opinions. You mixed in one or two facts but then you posited some crazy conspiracy theory as the conclusion.

Here:

Or because Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cut taxes and still balance the budget,

Let's stipulate Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cuts taxes (actually probably much longer than that) and still balance the budget.

Ok, half truth. Bush The First quacked "read my lips" but rescinded that rather quickly. I'm sure others have made the claim, though, so let it stand.

But then you say:

and because people are selfish, they choose to believe that nonsense.

You're introducing opinion and a conclusion based on the opinion but trying to tie it to the original statement as if you've proved something.

Honestly, sometimes you make good points and arguments. I don't generally agree with you but that's got nothing to do with the quality of the argument.

But that post was just opinion posing as fact and thus malarkey.

It wasn't your best work.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There was nothing to debunk. You spouted a torrent of opinions. You mixed in one or two facts but then you posited some crazy conspiracy theory as the conclusion.

Here:

Or because Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cut taxes and still balance the budget,

Let's stipulate Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cuts taxes (actually probably much longer than that) and still balance the budget.

Ok, half truth. Bush The First quacked "read my lips" but rescinded that rather quickly. I'm sure others have made the claim, though, so let it stand.

So the budget is balanced? I'm not in the states, but I recall the last Tax cut added in a couple trillion to the debt, how is that balanced?

But then you say:

and because people are selfish, they choose to believe that nonsense.

You're introducing opinion and a conclusion based on the opinion but trying to tie it to the original statement as if you've proved something.

I think he hit the nail on the head pretty well, I understand what he pointed out, I never take facts as opinions.

Honestly, sometimes you make good points and arguments. I don't generally agree with you but that's got nothing to do with the quality of the argument.

But you do often just give lip service to them

But that post was just opinion posing as fact and thus malarkey. It wasn't your best work.

I agree not very a very good post, considering some of the poster previous body of work.
Factual though not opinionated. Well at least in my opinion

 

[gunthernehmen]

So the budget is balanced? I'm not in the states, but I recall the last Tax cut added in a couple trillion to the debt, how is that balanced?





I think he hit the nail on the head pretty well, I understand what he pointed out, I never take facts as opinions.



But you do often just give lip service to them



I agree not very a very good post, considering some of the poster previous body of work.
Factual though not opinionated. Well at least in my opinion

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word opinion, then.

He mixed in a scattering of facts and mostly opinions, stirred them up and declared "See!"

 

[icanhelp1]

Or because Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cut taxes and still balance the budget, and because people are selfish, they choose to believe that nonsense. And while people SAY they want leaders who will make tough choices, they almost always punish those who do. When Bill Clinton got his first budget through Congress that took the first crucial steps towards a balanced budget just three years later, the voters "rewarded" him by...electing record numbers of Republicans.

Republicans hate government, and their whole approach to drumming up support for that point of view is to "starve the beast" so it CAN'T function well, and then say, "See, government can't do anything right". No one can do a very good job if you make a point of depriving them of the resources needed to do it. Bottom line, there is no reason to think single payer couldn't work, provided we fund it appropriately. And the reality that one of the major parties has made a point of lying to the public for decades about how they can balance the budget should not be mistaken for "politicians can't make tough decisions". How about we start rewarding those who do, instead of punishing them?

Ya can’t cut spending when we hire drunken sailors

We do that with education and performance gets worse every year. Money is not the problem, efficient and effective management makes the difference. Both parties are at fault.

There is a reason why single payer system won’t work, most people don’t want it. They want what’s broken fixed. They want to keep their company funded HC

Government has more than enough tax revenue they can’t manage.

YB, you lose credibility when you blame everything that’s wrong with our government on the right, people read what you write and just shut it down.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word opinion, then.

He mixed in a scattering of facts and mostly opinions, stirred them up and declared "See!"

In your Opinion.

 

[YDB95]

There was nothing to debunk. You spouted a torrent of opinions. You mixed in one or two facts but then you posited some crazy conspiracy theory as the conclusion.

Here:

Or because Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cut taxes and still balance the budget,

Let's stipulate Republicans have spent the past 40 years saying they can cuts taxes (actually probably much longer than that) and still balance the budget.

Ok, half truth. Bush The First quacked "read my lips" but rescinded that rather quickly. I'm sure others have made the claim, though, so let it stand.

It goes back at least a decade longer than that, to Reagan (who cut taxes, triggering a recession, and then raised them four times - but never stopped saying he could somehow balance the budget even as he ran up more red ink than every previous administration combined). Also, Bush broke his "read my lips" promise about a year and a half into his term. I guess reasonable people could disagree on whether that meets the definition of "rather quickly", but in my opinion it doesn't.

But then you say:

and because people are selfish, they choose to believe that nonsense.

You're introducing opinion and a conclusion based on the opinion but trying to tie it to the original statement as if you've proved something.

What do you call the fact that Walter Mondale was honest about the need to raise taxes in order to undo Reagan's then-record deficits, and he lost 49 states? Or that - as I noted in my last post - Clinton balanced the budget and the so-called "deficit hawks" hated him?

Bottom line, essentially since 1980, the Republicans have almost always run on some variation of "we can cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time." It has always led to huge deficits at best and a financial catastrophe at worst. But they still run on it and a depressingly high proportion of the electorate still believes it. That's not my opinion, it's a matter of historical record.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It goes back at least a decade longer than that, to Reagan (who cut taxes, triggering a recession, and then raised them four times - but never stopped saying he could somehow balance the budget even as he ran up more red ink than every previous administration combined). Also, Bush broke his "read my lips" promise about a year and a half into his term. I guess reasonable people could disagree on whether that meets the definition of "rather quickly", but in my opinion it doesn't.



What do you call the fact that Walter Mondale was honest about the need to raise taxes in order to undo Reagan's then-record deficits, and he lost 49 states? Or that - as I noted in my last post - Clinton balanced the budget and the so-called "deficit hawks" hated him?

Bottom line, essentially since 1980, the Republicans have almost always run on some variation of "we can cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time." It has always led to huge deficits at best and a financial catastrophe at worst. But they still run on it and a depressingly high proportion of the electorate still believes it. That's not my opinion, it's a matter of historical record.

I lack trysail's fluency with pasting graphs, but here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

Looking at that, Bush 1 had modest increases in the debt. Clinton, similar modest increases. Bush 2 accelerated the increase and Obama kicked in the Turbocharger. Trump is increasing at about the same rate as Obama.

So basically, both parties have been increasing their spending at an ever increasing rate.

You can't lay this on the Republicans and they can't lay it on the Democrats.

You COULD make a good case for both parties interfering with the other.

 

[icanhelp1]

It goes back at least a decade longer than that, to Reagan (who cut taxes, triggering a recession, and then raised them four times - but never stopped saying he could somehow balance the budget even as he ran up more red ink than every previous administration combined). Also, Bush broke his "read my lips" promise about a year and a half into his term. I guess reasonable people could disagree on whether that meets the definition of "rather quickly", but in my opinion it doesn't.



What do you call the fact that Walter Mondale was honest about the need to raise taxes in order to undo Reagan's then-record deficits, and he lost 49 states? Or that - as I noted in my last post - Clinton balanced the budget and the so-called "deficit hawks" hated him?

Bottom line, essentially since 1980, the Republicans have almost always run on some variation of "we can cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time." It has always led to huge deficits at best and a financial catastrophe at worst. But they still run on it and a depressingly high proportion of the electorate still believes it. That's not my opinion, it's a matter of historical record.

We need to fine tune the Trump tax cuts, lean towards middle class and increase corporate as well as raising capital gains and start adding transaction fees for hedge funds.

Need to consolidate redundant programs or get rid of some all together. But nobody ( politicians) can or won’t. We give away the store.

We need to reform entitlements smartly but as long as we have career politicians they won’t touch it for fear of losing an election.

 

[YDB95]

I lack trysail's fluency with pasting graphs, but here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

Looking at that, Bush 1 had modest increases in the debt. Clinton, similar modest increases. Bush 2 accelerated the increase and Obama kicked in the Turbocharger. Trump is increasing at about the same rate as Obama.

So basically, both parties have been increasing their spending at an ever increasing rate.

You can't lay this on the Republicans and they can't lay it on the Democrats.

You COULD make a good case for both parties interfering with the other.

You're looking at the debt, not the deficit. Deficits go up under Republicans and down under Democrats, but even when deficits are eliminated, there's still interest on the debt to account for. It would take years of uninterrupted balanced budgets to make a substantial reduction in the debt, and 40 years of Republicans being periodically elected on a promise to cut taxes and still balance the budget has made that impossible of late.

We need to fine tune the Trump tax cuts, lean towards middle class and increase corporate as well as raising capital gains and start adding transaction fees for hedge funds.

Need to consolidate redundant programs or get rid of some all together. But nobody ( politicians) can or won’t. We give away the store.

We need to reform entitlements smartly but as long as we have career politicians they won’t touch it for fear of losing an election.

Remarkably enough, I agree. But you can't very well blame "both parties" for decades upon decades of the Republicans arguing that progressive taxation = communism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Remarkably enough, I agree. But you can't very well blame "both parties" for decades upon decades of the Republicans arguing that progressive taxation = communism.

Wealth redistribution by the state is what it is.


Furthermore I don't see why everyone can't pay their fair share.....

 

[YDB95]

Wealth redistribution by the state is what it is.


Furthermore I don't see why everyone can't pay their fair share.....

Asking everyone to pay their fair share for the common good - which benefits us all in the long run - is what it is. And I agree completely with your second sentence, though I'm nearly certain you define that very differently than I do.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Asking everyone to pay their fair share for the common good - which benefits us all in the long run - is what it is.

No...."the common good" is subjective bullshit which leads to horrifying human atrocities.

There is nothing that "benefits us all"...that's an outright lie, no such things exist.

There are things we need to have a civilized society and things we need to protect it.

Just about everything else is a wealth redistribution scam.

And I agree completely with your second sentence, though I'm nearly certain you define that very differently than I do.

Everyone paying the same %...fair is fair, wealth redistribution is not.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You're looking at the debt, not the deficit. Deficits go up under Republicans and down under Democrats, but even when deficits are eliminated, there's still interest on the debt to account for. It would take years of uninterrupted balanced budgets to make a substantial reduction in the debt, and 40 years of Republicans being periodically elected on a promise to cut taxes and still balance the budget has made that impossible of late.




Remarkably enough, I agree. But you can't very well blame "both parties" for decades upon decades of the Republicans arguing that progressive taxation = communism.

Well, since 1929, 6 Republican years have shown a surplus and 7 Democrat years have shown a surplus, so yeah, the Dems are ahead by a hair. (technically there was one Republican year that was 0 deficit, so maybe call it 6.5:7?)

It's undeniable Clinton had a good run with the economy, although I've always felt that was more a stroke of luck than specific policies he put in place to make it so. Now THAT is an OPINION. The 6:7 score, those are facts.

The sad fact of the matter is (upcoming opinion!) neither party actually wants to have a balanced budget, reduce the debt, the size of government or anything even remotely like that.

Both sides like things the way they are and that is (in my opinion) a shame.

 

[YDB95]

No...."the common good" is subjective bullshit which leads to horrifying human atrocities.

There is nothing that "benefits us all"...that's an outright lie, no such things exist.

There are things we need to have a civilized society and things we need to protect it.

Just about everything else is a wealth redistribution scam.



Everyone paying the same %...fair is fair, wealth redistribution is not.

Agree or disagree, this proves my point as to why we don't have more progressive tax policies, and it ain't because "both sides do it". It's because one side insists that any effort at all to provide for the common good and help the poor get a fighting chance at improving their lot is "a wealth redistribution scam". Until voters stop falling for that bullshit, it's not likely to change...but that still doesn't mean both sides are to blame.

Not unless you count the Democrats' failure to counter that argument in any way, at least. But that's one of the things I like about Warren, AOC et al: for the first time in at least a generation, they're not ceding the argument and hoping to just hold the centre. They're fighting back. It's about time!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Well, since 1929, 6 Republican years have shown a surplus and 7 Democrat years have shown a surplus, so yeah, the Dems are ahead by a hair. (technically there was one Republican year that was 0 deficit, so maybe call it 6.5:7?)

It's undeniable Clinton had a good run with the economy, although I've always felt that was more a stroke of luck than specific policies he put in place to make it so. Now THAT is an OPINION. The 6:7 score, those are facts.

The sad fact of the matter is (upcoming opinion!) neither party actually wants to have a balanced budget, reduce the debt, the size of government or anything even remotely like that.

Both sides like things the way they are and that is (in my opinion) a shame.

I found a chart that goes back to 1901 and the score tips to the Republicans, 23 to 19.

Still, since somewhere around 2008 things have been skyrocketing, you're right on that.

 

[YDB95]

The sad fact of the matter is (upcoming opinion!) neither party actually wants to have a balanced budget, reduce the debt, the size of government or anything even remotely like that.

Perhaps. But it's a fact - not an opinion - that only one party, the Republicans, has been marketing itself as the party of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility for a generation now, while simultaneously pursuing policies that always cause huge deficits. Say what you will about the Democrats, they haven't been selling themselves as the exact opposite of what they really are since 1980.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I found a chart that goes back to 1901 and the score tips to the Republicans, 23 to 19.

Still, since somewhere around 2008 things have been skyrocketing, you're right on that.

Same chart shows 13 Democrat years with either no increase or a decrease in the total budget, vs 13 Republican years with either no increase or a decrease in the total budget.

And here's the really fun stat.

13 Republican years saw a double digit % increase in the federal budget (since 1901).

19 Democrat years saw a double digit % increase in the federal budget (since 1901).


Look, I'm sorry, but both parties have been about equally irresponsible with our money.

You're opining that the Republicans are keeping use from achieving a balanced budget but the only Dem president ever with a stellar track record on deficit (also the only president in my lifetime to be impeached) doesn't make up for the miserable track record of all the rest (especially Obama, who skyrocketed our debt).

 

[seeshelly]

So tragic

After I read this the first time I did some research on the topic. I am grateful that this was posted and drawn to my attention. It really goes beyond exposing the nightmare of socialized medicine. It exposes the nightmare of socialism in every aspect of life. Thank you gain for posting this.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Perhaps. But it's a fact - not an opinion - that only one party, the Republicans, has been marketing itself as the party of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility for a generation now, while simultaneously pursuing policies that always cause huge deficits. Say what you will about the Democrats, they haven't been selling themselves as the exact opposite of what they really are since 1980.

Well you're right in that the Democrats have been very open about the fact that they want to expand the government, embark on more and more comprehensive social programs and spend, spend spend. Yes, they're VERY clear on that. Got it.

Bernie and Warren are prime examples of that!