Tell it like it is - a nation that has unlimited funds for military and weapons and mass surveillance and world domination has plenty of money to fund full universal healthcare.
This is true even before we consider that our monetary system is a fiat currency giving governments huge latitude in money generation for national projects.
Expose the big lie and don’t let the corruptors continue their rule.
Months After GOP Approved $1.5T Giveaway to Rich, Ocasio-Cortez Shreds Those Questioning How to Pay for Bold Proposals Like Medicare for All
Tell it like it is - a nation that has unlimited funds for military and weapons and mass surveillance and world domination has plenty of money to fund full universal healthcare.
My point is, i don’t have problem getting “free healthcare”. It is people not wanting to pay for it. Somewhere between 40%-50% of us pay no federal taxes whatsoever. You gotta pay to play. Problem with single payer is that everybody wants someone else to be the payer.
She is reminiscent of Bernie when he first came into the spotlight during the previous election cycle, which makes me immediately suspicious.
It is not the first election cycle a seemingly sane leftist comes into the spotlight and for whatever reason aligns themselves with the democratic party.
The effect is that many left leaning voters and activists who may have been considering 3rd party alternatives instead go back into the democratic party one more time.
She could of course be sincere, but the democrats most certainly are not.
Here is a counterpunch article that offers up a more cautionary view.
The main reason why the UK Single Payer system is failing is not only due to under-funding, but because Theresa May’s Tory government has been working very hard to privatize the system so that it looks more like the failed AMERICAN system so that the Oligarchy in the UK can benefit while the people suffer in a system that used to be efficient, but now isn’t because they’re putting profit before the people.
So you want a single payer system like…ah Cubas’ where you have to bring your own towels, antibiotics and bandages? Or maybe Canadas’ where the well off come here to forego the waits? Or something in between?
It’s always underfunded with REgressives which again, always plays into your class warfare citing the “rich” need to pay more. Where in fact it’s the much richer target middle class that, once again, is always on the hook for these trend worn policies.
When you have a system that pays college educated MDs the same as taxi drivers(Hey Tucson Dribbler, explain how that division of labor works with Marx, will ya Big Brain?) you’re gonna get 5 managers for every doctor and ceaseless calls for more money. Every time.
What’s Radical is the Rich get freebies and Tax cuts while WE just get Cuts. This comes from corruption in both parties. We must return to normalcy at all costs. We need more people like Cortez!
Guess you didn’t read the article, Lamonte. She was making the point that if you supported the tax cut, you can’t be bitching now about social services being too expensive…and then the article pointed out that we currently pay 3 trillion per year for our for-profit system and that Medicare-for-all is estimated to cost about half that much. Two different points being made.
Funny you should bring up Cuba. On the Total Quality of Life index (a true measure) Cuba comes out better than the US in such human services as education and medical care…and so if one needs to bring towels or whatever other BS “fact” you want to bring up, at least Cubans and Canadians have access to medical care…there are lots of Americans who didn’t before Obamacare came along. I just don’t understand the mentality of people like you who can only understand things once it affects them or one of their loved ones–then suddenly, it all makes sense for a little while, just long enough for your personal emergency to be overcome. Then, it’s back to the same old “I got mine, screw you” mentality. As I’ve said a few times, if early man had been a Republican our species would have died out a long time ago because societies are built with people helping eachother, not by attempting to horde all of its wealth by a few.
I have no evidence one way or the other on the “towel & bandages” point you make but it’s a weak one at best. What we’re talking about is “access” to healthcare, not treating a hospital stay like a 5-star hotel stay. Who gives a crap about whether you need to bring your own towel when you can’t make an appointment with your own doctor because they refuse to take on any more Medicaid patients because it’s not profitable enough for them?!
The “wait time” issue is another myth pushed by the for-profit system. If you see your healthcare professional on a regular basis and take care of yourself your quality of life is improved and preventable, life-threatening conditions are avoided. When a person from Canada decides to neglect their health and suddenly needs emergency care, they generally get it because their hospitals aren’t filled to the brim with patients who also neglected their health because they couldn’t afford to see their doctor!
Then there’s the doctor vs. cab driver argument! If college professors and school teachers are supposed to suffer from constant cuts in their salaries and cuts in their retirement, tenure, and benefits because teaching is supposed to be a “calling” instead of a “profession”, why should doctors be any different? Why are doctors supposed to be millionaires? Is THAT their primary motivation? What about the doctor as “healer”?
Your argument has no teeth because doctors are already suffering financially under the current for-profit system. We already burden doctors with six-figure student loan debt so they have no choice but to sign away their souls to be drug pushers for big pharma. We already have insurance reimbursement rates that are generally at or below cost for the physician so they have to see more patients and push more drugs just to make ends meet. There’s a major shortage of primary care doctors in this country because kids in medical school see being a General Practitioner as being a one-way ticket to poverty, so the only solution left is to import doctors from India, Canada, and the EU because in those countries, their education is free so they can come to this country and actually practice medicine!
“Her plan to make tuition free at public universities and trade schools is also not revolutionary, she notes on her website.”
It certainly isn’t revolutionary. Governor Andrew Cuomo got that passed into law in NYS. All the students living in Ocasio-Cortez’s district can take advantage of it except for those with families making more than $125,000 a year. So there is no need to look to the past. It is here now.
There is no such thing as “free” college. There is only “make someone else pay for it” college.
Maybe know what you are talking about before commenting. For one, it isn’t debatable, single payer systems cost less, there is less overhead, and Medicare has a fraction of the overhead that private insurance does. All the data shows this, there is no debate to be had, and I explained to you why single payer systems will always cost less, necessarily. There are NHS systemS in the UK, four of them, you seem to be talking about the British NHS more than the other three (the one that has, far more than the others, privatized their services). The NHS systemS are not single payer systems, since in single payer systems hospitals can be private and nurses and doctors can be private as well. The NHS systemS are almost entirely public. The payment itself is not only socialized, but most of the hospitals are public and most healthcare workers work for the state. So, again, maybe study basic things about this debate, facts, how things work, before blathering on. And there has been an underfunding of the NHS systems in the UK, this is also not debatable, and the way the NHS systems work, when spending in the British NHS system is cut back, the other systems have to as well. Again, this isn’t open for debate or my opinion. The Tories have even admitted that the NHS needs some more funding, so they have increased it a tiny bit, but nowhere near where it needs to go. Grow up and have learned adult conversations. You have no argument at all, just ignorant ideological bullshit.
Despite that, wait times for most procedures in the British NHS are lower than this system, they spend far less on their system (although they should spend more) than we do, they have less waste, and there is NO, none, zip, support as far as moving towards a system like ours. Even to the extent that the Tories have privatized the delivery of services (which has not improved matters), that would be actually moving towards single payer, not this nightmare of a system.
“And when a single payer system here would reduce the number of people willing to work like slaves, would have long waiting periods for routine surgery and check ups, hospital horror stories and all of the usual crap, you’d fall back on your old tried & true, we just need more money.”
You have no clue what you are talking about. Wait times in Canada are a little longer than the US system, generally, but many single payer systems have lower wait times, and again, wait times for most procedures in the fully socialized NHS systemS are lower than our system. And tell me, do 45,000 people die a year in the NHS systemS like our system? Are massive amounts of people going into bankruptcy? Are people stuck in jobs they hate because their healthcare is tied to their job? You cannot do a comparison of that system to ours as far as the social costs either. What you will do is point out the negative parts of single payer systems or the NHS systems in the UK in isolation, and will not compare them or the scale of those problems to ours, because you know how that would turn out. Like I said, you have no argument at all. Just ignorant bullshit.
(Check out section 7 in this link):
Despite having the most expensive health care, the United States ranks last overall among the 11 countries on measures of health system equity, access, administrative efficiency, care delivery, and health care outcomes. While there is room for improvement in every country, the U.S. has the highest costs and lowest overall performance of the nations in the study, which included Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. spent $9,364 per person on health care in 2016, compared to $4,094 in the U.K., which ranked first on performance overall.
In 2013, the healthcare foundation The Commonwealth Fund examined waiting times across 11 countries, including the US. It reported that in the US a quarter of adults surveyed (26%) said they waited six or more days for primary care appointments “when sick or needing care”. The figure for the UK was just 16%. The US also underperformed on same-day or next-day appointments compared with the NHS – 48% access versus 52%. According to Robin Osborn, a researcher at the foundation, longer-term comparative trend data over a decade (2003-2013) shows “dramatic” improvements in the NHS on waiting times, including for specialists…So, assumptions that private systems automatically translate to greater efficiency and shorter waiting times for the majority are simply unconvincing and need to be assiduously challenged.
In the UK, 93.4% within four hours is regarded as a huge failure — the standard the NHS is supposed to meet is 95% of patients in four hours. Americans might feel comforted by this. In the US, an average of 95% of patients are seen within three hours, according to the CDC. You can see more data on this here.
That makes it sounds like American healthcare is faster, but there is a statistical detail that is very important here: The 93.4% number for the NHS is for the complete treatment of all patients arriving for emergency care. The 95% number for the US is the average wait time for a patient to see a doctor.
The Guardian? C’mon.
I posted pictures taken of current hospital conditions in Cuba. Filthy is being kind. Nightmarish is more appropriate.
Naturally they were called “Batista era” photos.
You guys are hopeless.
Learn about how money is created, whether or not the government needs your taxes to spend (it doesn’t), and maybe learn about the macroeconomic impacts of private debt (which is much larger than public debt). Since the government can create money whenever it wants, and you cannot, and since our economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending, what do you think the macroeconomic impacts will be if you make it so that students are massively in debt? Every dollar going towards servicing debt doesn’t go towards buying goods and services, and people with low to moderate incomes have higher propensities to spend than the rich. If you took into account the multiplier effect, that is huge. It would cost about 70 billion a year to cover everyone that wants to go to college (about the number that we INCREASED the military budget recently), and that doesn’t take into account the fact that while it would cost that for the government (not you and I and tax payers) to fund college education, there would be a roughly equal reduction in out of pocket expenditures. That number is just the total cost for our society for doing that, doesn’t say how much is spent now on college education. In regards to single payer, studies show that it would save trillions of dollars. The Friedman paper shows that single payer would save about a trillion and a half dollars a year. Even if the number were less, say it was a third of that, we as a society would in that pessimistic estimate save half a trillion per year, and I am throwing that number out for arguments sake. Even if the reduction in out of pocket expenditures weren’t taken into account in regards to universally funding college education, we could have single payer and fund universal access to college education and still as a society save 430 billion a year. I am making these arguments by using overly pessimistic estimates, far below what studies show, and still the economics of it all are iron clad. The reason why you right wingers have fought against the word socialism is because once that word loses its scare factor, you are forced to take part in policy debates, and your ideas suck. We have better ideas that would, and do in other countries, work better than anything you are offering. However, this system is corrupt, so your shitty ideas can live on even though they don’t work well and are deeply unpopular. You should cheer on corruption more than anyone.
LOL! Pictures of hospitals in Cuba. Can you go to Haiti or El Salvador and take some pictures of hospitals there? I am sure they are much better than what you would find in Santa Barbara. How does Cuba’s SYSTEM compare to other developing and poor countries’ SYSTEMS according to the UN and the WHO? How about Cuba’s healthcare missions? We are “hopeless” in the sense that we don’t accept your really poorly reasoned arguments, which also lack data.
LOL! Head back in the sand, you ignorant fool. The Commonwealth Fund? C’mon. The UN? C’mon. The WHO? C’mon. Every study in the world? C’mon. The Guardian article was based on data in an actual study, which you will ignore. There is no data in any of your posts, no comparison of the US system with other systems in DEVELOPED countries, because you know how that will turn out. Are you rich, and just hate poor people having healthcare? Is this entirely ideological? What is the reason that you are completely opposed to reality and facts?
Joan, you’re making the assumption that the government creating money by fiat is the same as creating value. When the government simply issues money, it devalues all existing money in circulation. Look at the wonders of monetary policy in Venezuela or in Wiemar Germany, or anywhere else the government just decides to run the printing presses…
My point remains - there is no such thing as “free” college - the money comes from somewhere, it simply comes from someone other than the beneficiary.
Sorry, but you really don’t know what you are talking about. For one, government spending does not necessarily lead to inflation (should be obvious) unless we are at full productive capacity and are at actual full employment. We are nowhere near either. Also, when money leaves the country via the trade deficit, or when money is given to rich people, and that money is used to buy up shares in their own companies, sits in tax shelters or sloshes around the financial markets, it also will not impact inflation. And if the quantity of money actually necessarily had a direct impact on inflation (which it doesn’t), your argument still wouldn’t make sense since single payer healthcare would save our society trillions of dollars, meaning that we as a society would spend less on healthcare. Since we as a society would spend trillions less (fact), using your own logic, single payer would be deflationary. Your argument seems to be that there are literally not enough resources, physical resources, to fund universal healthcare. Nonsensical argument. Try again.
I would love to hear you address the fact that private financial capital creates well over nine times more money in the economy than the government (look up data by the Fed and the BIS) and, as a result, is overwhelmingly responsible for inflation, and hold on to your silly free market ideas, but you aren’t capable. Doubly with the logic of using a gold-standard like system in the modern world, especially given the environmental crisis. The gold standard was around for a very short period of time and it didn’t work, it makes no sense to expand or contract the money supply based upon the amount of metals a country has backing a currency.
“Wiemar Germany, or anywhere else the government just decides to run the printing presses”
Do you know the story behind Germany? Germany had its productive capacity destroyed by the war, and after it lost the war the victors made Germany pay debts that were absolutely obscene, and it owed money in other currencies. Keynes warned against it. Germany couldn’t export its way out of debt, in large part because other countries put up protective barriers, and in 1922, guess what the government did to the entirely privatized central bank? It created a law that mandated that the entirely privatized central bank would be “independent” from the government (which you free market types call for). Since the country couldn’t export its way out of debt, the entirely privatized central bank just printed off money, and so did private banks. Studies show that about half of the money in Germany during the hyperinflation period was created not by the entirely privatized central bank but by private banks. Does that situation describe the fucking US in 2018? Again, the government spending money doesn’t necessarily lead to inflation, if more goods and services could be created with that money. However, like Germany after the war, if you cannot make more stuff and there is more money in the economy, then inflation necessarily increases. Make sense now?
“My point remains - there is no such thing as “free” college - the money comes from somewhere, it simply comes from someone other than the beneficiary.”
You are describing everything in society, from bridges to schools, to the military. God damn.
Instead of holding on to these beliefs, maybe give what I am saying a thought, research this, and be open to the fact that your thinking is way off, cause it is.
Thx for taking on the idjit. You gave a good comment.