Democrats have nothing to offer Americans but false "racism" claims and fake personal scandals; no good policies. - Politics Discussion

[–] Topcat81 (222) 5 years ago

Democrats are scum.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

False, single payer would save trillions in the long run, and would cut medical costs exponentially. Nothing “socialist” about it. Sadly, most democrats are concerned over offering a “public option” as a compromise, which defeats the entire purpose.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

True.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

No, it's dishonest marketing to tag it "Medicare" For All for reasons given, but single payer, nationalizing one-fifth of the economy, is literally textbook socialism. It would create rationing, longer waiting lines, and lower quality care. Maybe most importantly it would stifle the greatest engine of medical innovation, the for profit system that has been carrying the rest of an ungrateful world for decades, leading to a medical dark age.

What good is "coverage" if there's nothing to buy? Socialism isn't any better for healthcare than it would be for food, manufactured goods, or any other sector. The free market is why the USA has an unmatched diversity of plentiful, affordable options at the grocery store. Healthcare should be more like that. The healthcare problems we do have in our hybrid system, like the broken college tuition mess, are largely due to the half-baked government interventions we already have. We're too often missing price signals and flexibility. Per treatment prices are all over the place and consumers typically aren't even told what they are.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11779) 5 years ago

Nailed it. All Americans will be taxed. Only the worst will work in the government run healthcare system. The wealthiest will still be able to afford top tier private health care.

Exactly the way our crappy public education system works.

Nothing the government does is efficient or quality.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Nothing the government does is efficient or quality.

Lmfao, kind of ironic that Republicans are some of the biggest proponents of government spending then, LoL

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

The only thing Republicans typically favor more spending on than Democrats is national defense, the primary legitimate reason government exists and yet a sector that's gone from a majority of the federal budget in 1960 to less than one fifth of the budget today.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

It’s still half of discretionary spending, one third of all global defense spending, and is higher than it’s been at any point since be Cold War. It’s also notoriously inefficient and no one knows where the money actually goes. Maybe throwing money at the issue doesn’t actually increase national security.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

The US has more than one third of the global defense responsibilities as the planet's dominant superpower and doesn't get as much bang for our buck as nations...like say...China and Russia that don't give a shit about their troops and view them as cannon fodder. In addition to funding cutting edge technological R&D that helps keep us and our allies ahead, America pays extra to enhance troop safety and living quality, so those simplistic bumper-sticker talking points are misleading garbage.

I agree with the inefficiency comment, which reinforces Gd5150's post about government in general, but not only is the military more able than the civilian government to cut through red tape and get important things done when needed, again, it's the main justification for government existing in the first place. Getting that inefficient government involved in all those other spheres of daily life is the problem.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

In addition to funding cutting edge technological R&D that helps keep us and our allies ahead, America pays extra to enhance troop safety and living quality, so those simplistic bumper-sticker talking points are misleading garbage.

Oh please. Defense spending is clearly unaffordable and actually decrease national security rather than the opposite. The cost of upkeep is tremendous and comes right out of taxpayer wallets. Money that could be used for things like education, healthcare, public infrastructure, etc.

----- but not only is the military more able than the civilian government to cut through red tape and get important things done when needed------

The military is notoriously inefficient. The Pentagon has even managed to misplace trillions of dollars. That's right, they just lost it.

---- Getting that inefficient government involved in all those other spheres of daily life is the problem. -----

No more inefficient than the broken healthcare system. Besides, are you talking about the Federal government or state governments?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Oh please. Defense spending is clearly unaffordable and actually decrease national security rather than the opposite.

😄 You feel defense spending hurts national security?!? We'll have to agree to disagree.

but not only is the military more able than the civilian government to cut through red tape and get important things done when needed, again, it's the main justification for government existing in the first place.

The military is notoriously inefficient.

Sure, it's the government. But you didn't contradict what I said.

Getting that inefficient government involved in all those other spheres of daily life is the problem.

No more inefficient than the broken healthcare system. Besides, are you talking about the Federal government or state governments?

The problems in our healthcare system are mostly caused by the government intervention we already have. Obamacare in particular was terrible, though such intervention is decades old. Much of the recent virus response has necessitated emergency slashing of mountains of rigid regulations blocking common sense, flexible actions at local levels. This crisis cast a spotlight on much of that but such government micromanagement is always a problem.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

You feel defense spending hurts national security?!? We'll have to agree to disagree.

Let's agree that you agree with me. It's quite obvious that paying for bases on every corner of the globe just contributes to political instability across the world and makes the USA more enemies in the long run. Why else do you think the worst attack after Pearl Harbour occured on American soil? Not to mention the military industrial complex leading the US into inopportune and bungled conflicts that overall make the country and the world less safe.

>>>Sure, it's the government. But you didn't contradict what I said.<<<

I didn't need to. I'm just reinforcing my point. Quite simple really.

>>>The problems in our healthcare system are mostly caused by the government intervention we already have.<<<

Absolutely. Congress being lobbied by insurance and pharmaceutical interest groups to further turn the healthcare system into just another money-making scam. I mean, when you have people who can't qualify for coverage because they're unemployed, don't qualify for medicare/medicare, and slip through the cracks because they can't afford to see a doctor, and 44 million uninsured you know there is something wrong. That's what happens when you have employer-dictated healthcare.

>>>Obamacare in particular was terrible<<<

Probably because the ACA was weak-sauce, and was actively dismantled by Republicans at every turn. But that's beside the point....

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

No, no, let's agree that you agree with me.

Uh...except I don't.

It's quite obvious that paying for bases on every corner of the globe just contributes to political instability across the world and makes the USA more enemies in the long run. Why else do you think the worst attack after Pearl Harbour occured on American soil? Not to mention the military industrial complex leading the US into inopportune and bungled conflicts that overall make the country and the world less safe.

When America withdraws from the world we get the ISIS caliphate, Syrian civil war, worst refugee crisis since WW2, Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.. You're forgetting that unsavory powers like China, Russia, Iran, etc. move into the vacuum, which would affect US and global interests.

Overall the period of US superpower dominance since WW2 has been the most peaceful among major powers since the ancient Pax Romana. Small wars happen and Islamist terrorism was allowed to rise (through US restraint and inaction), but international sea lanes and the overall planet is much more stable with US protection than without it.

But then you want a totalitarian power to dominate the world, so you and I have different interests.

That's what happens when you have employer-dictated healthcare.

One narrow item we might agree on, though it's a slanted tax structure that pushed people onto employment healthcare.

Probably because the ACA was weak-sauce, and was actively dismantled by Republicans at every turn. But that's beside the point....

No, it was like seasoning your turkey with turpentine. Obamacare robbed patients, doctors, and insurance companies of choice through a mountain of rigid, poorly conceived regulations, diminishing market flexibility. Its taxes hurt the economy and the healthcare system. I wish Republicans had dismantled it. Too much of it is still in place.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Uh...except I don't.

Are you sure? Seems we agree on some things here.

When America withdraws from the world we get the ISIS caliphate, Syrian civil war, worst refugee crisis since WW2, Taliban, Al Qaeda

Other way around brother. Military intervention has caused most of these problems. Besides, I thought Trump was trying to be an "isolationist." Not that the US ever really was.

Overall the period of US superpower dominance since WW2 has been the most peaceful among major powers since the ancient Pax Romana

I guess the threat of mutually assured destruction can do that.

But then you want a totalitarian power to dominate the world, so you and I have different interests.

They already do dominate. The New World Order has basically been upon us for a while now.

One narrow item we might agree on, though it's a slanted tax structure that pushed people onto employment healthcare

Well I have more to say about the tax structure needing reformation, but I guess I could always PM you that.

Obamacare robbed patients, doctors, and insurance companies of choice through a mountain of rigid, poorly conceived regulations, diminishing market flexibility

The ACA was a clear example of putting the cart before the horse. The main reason was that the healthcare system is more geared towards spending on chronic illnesses than preventative care, and wastes money as a result. Also some 40% Americans didn't even qualify for it and just fell through the cracks.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Other way around brother. Military intervention has caused most of these problems.

Wrong, at least not US intervention. You've been misled.

I guess the threat of mutually assured destruction can do that.

You mean the US extending its nuclear umbrella protection to Western Europe and other allies around the world? (intervention) A conventional superpower navy guaranteeing freedom of international waterways and a strong Army/Air Force deterring adventurous thoughts help too.

They already do dominate. The New World Order has basically been upon us for a while now.

Hey, you're the one arguing for massive expansions of government control. So which brand of conspiracy theorist are you?

The ACA was a clear example of putting the cart before the horse. The main reason was that the healthcare system is more geared towards spending on chronic illnesses than preventative care, and wastes money as a result.

That's another myth that's been debunked. Citing "preventative care" was an easy leftist talking point in the 2000s but it doesn't really mean anything in the real world. Studies show Americans are screened at vastly high rates for cancers and other afflictions, which is the only form of real "preventative" care I've heard cited.

Americans also have more access to things like heart stints, diabetes treatments, etc..

Also some 40% Americans didn't even qualify for it and just fell through the cracks.

Qualify for what? What cracks? Before Obamacare almost all Americans were either privately insured, covered by Medicaid, eligible for Medicaid but not signed up (because you're allowed to sign up even after getting sick there was no rush until you needed it), or voluntarily uninsured despite making enough money to buy insurance if you wanted it (many were rich and didn't need it). The tiny percentage of the truly involuntarily uninsured could have been taken care of with tweaks rather than flipping the entire system over to pursue some arrogant socialist pipe dream built on lies. Even they already had access to healthcare through free emergency rooms, charities, pro bono doctor treatments, and various other means.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Wrong, at least not US intervention. You've been misled

No you.

You mean the US extending its nuclear umbrella protection to Western Europe and other allies around the world?

None of that would matter without nukes. The US is not responsible for world peace, nuclear fission is.

Studies show Americans are screened at vastly high rates for cancers and other afflictions, which is the only form of real "preventative" care I've heard cited.

Buddy, there's a whole bunch of easily preventable conditions like heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents from unintentional injuries, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and influenza that are wasted with treatment.

Hey, you're the one arguing for massive expansions of government control

Lol what? How?

What cracks?

The fact that 40% of Americans didn't qualify because they rose above the poverty line, and it the ACA (it's proper name btw) didn't factor in underlying costs.

The tiny percentage of the truly involuntarily uninsured could have been taken care of with tweaks rather than flipping the entire system over

I mean, I guess we agree then? When you gonna realize both parties are the problem man?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

None of that would matter without nukes. The US is not responsible for world peace, nuclear fission is.

I'll try to spell out it out for you again. There's no "mutually assured destruction" guaranteeing peace without the US extending its nuclear umbrella of protection over other nations (intervention). "Nuclear umbrella" means attacking that nation triggers automatic retaliation by the US. If the US had just stayed within its borders minding its own business after WW2, even with nuclear weapons for its own protection, there wouldn't have been that Pax Americana alluded to earlier. The Soviets would have run roughshod over the rest of the planet.

Buddy, there's a whole bunch of easily preventable conditions like heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents from unintentional injuries, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and influenza that are wasted with treatment.

You listed afflictions, buddy. I cited preventative care measures like cancer screenings that Americans access at by far the highest rates in the world. The US vaccinates a lot too, if that's what you had in mind with influenza.

Hey, you're the one arguing for massive expansions of government control

Lol what? How?

All the times you've called for more government control, denounced the free market and "neoliberalism", and praised socialist systems. You're practically cheer leading for China here, lol.

the ACA (it's proper name btw)

Its proper name is the Obamacare Cluster Fuck, or OCF for short.

I mean, I guess we agree then? When you gonna realize both parties are the problem man?

We do? Ok. Then I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. And I never said I agree with all Republicans.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

"Nuclear umbrella" means attacking that nation triggers automatic retaliation

Yeah, exactly. In this day and age we don't need "pax americana" for that.

The Soviets would have run roughshod over the rest of the planet.

You know it's not 1949 anymore, you can join the 21st century.

You listed afflictions, buddy

They're diseases sparky,

I cited preventative care measures like cancer screenings that Americans access at by far the highest rates in the world.

Yeah, you can thank the ACA for that. LoL the irony

All the times you've called for more government control

Name one

You're practically cheer leading for China here, lol.

How? China is neoliberal too.

Obamacare Cluster Fuck

Oh my sides!

We do? Ok. Then I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

Was I? I was just responding to your questions. Or why else did you post the topic if not looking for an argument?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Yeah, exactly. In this day and age we don't need "pax americana" for that.

Because soon every country will have massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, lol? Unfortunately not every regime is as rational and keen to avoid suicide.

I won't mention any names....

You know it's not 1949 anymore, you can join the 21st century.

I'd rather it not be the Chinese Century.

They're diseases sparky,

Diseases are afflictions and you listed things like cancer and stroke, Chico, so my word is more apt and your sad attempt at pedantry fails. Your English isn't terrible but better master its nuances before trying to preach about it.

Yeah, you can thank the ACA for that. LoL the irony

No, those stats long predate Obamacare. If anything things have gotten worse since then.

Name one

Already have. I'm done repeating myself.

How? China is neoliberal too.

China has one party communist rule and no human rights. The government controls everything and everyone in China one way or another. Most of the hundred or so Chinese companies on the global Forbes 500 are officially state owned, and the nominally "private" companies are subject to government whims of any kind at any time because there are no checks or balances. Economically they may effectively be operating with more of a national socialist model now, but it's not remotely "neoliberal".

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Because soon every country will have massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, lol?

They.... already do?

Unfortunately not every regime is as rational and keen to avoid suicide. I won't mention any names

I assume you mean India and Pakistan, because they're the most likely. Where's your sanctions against them?

I'd rather it not be the Chinese Century.

Diseases are afflictions and you listed things like cancer and stroke, Chico, so my word is more apt and your sad attempt at pedantry fails. Your English isn't terrible but better master its nuances before trying to preach about it.
Less grammar nazi, more not dodging the original point

No, those stats long predate Obamacare. If anything things have gotten worse since then.

Oboomercare increased the number of cancer screening visits. I was just pointing out the irony. The reason things have "gotten worse" is because of partisan infighting.

Already have. I'm done repeating myself.

I mean that's all you're really good at.

The government controls everything and everyone in China one way or another.

Listen pal, China is mostly in the private sector, chill.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Listen pal, China is mostly in the private sector, chill.

😄 There is no real "private sector" in a totalitarian society, as I just explained. At least address my points.

"Many of China's largest companies are state-owned enterprises, due to the significant presence of the governing Chinese Communist Party in the national economy.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Chinese_companies#cite_note-4

Indeed almost every Chinese company in the above list is officially government owned, setting aside the effective, unofficial government ownership of the nominally "private" companies.

Less grammar nazi, more not dodging the original point

You were the one who tried (and failed) to correct my word usage. You're also the one dodging the point, which is that you listed a bunch of afflictions, not preventative treatments for those afflictions. I cited actual treatments.

I assume you mean India and Pakistan, because they're the most likely. Where's your sanctions against them?

Pakistan could be dicey if hard core Islamist groups get hold of their nukes, but I mostly had in mind Iran and its apocalyptic gang of psycho mullahs. They're the #1 terrorist sponsor in the world and they routinely hold regime directed "Death to America! Death to Israel!" rallies.

There are actually a lot of nations and groups who would gladly use nuclear weapons if they ever acquired them.

Oboomercare increased the number of cancer screening visits. I was just pointing out the irony.

I haven't seen that data, and when I challenged your claim you just repeated your assertion. Given your claim lower that repeating myself is all I'm really good at, oh the irony.

Regardless, the US rate is higher than countries with more socialized systems.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

unofficial government ownership of the nominally "private" companies

You don't seem to understand, it's still the private sector. The majority of those companies' equity are in the hands of private shareholders. The Party doesn't have any real say over their financial dealings. China is not a command economy. It's capitalist. The majority of their growth, employment, and GDP are generated by the private sector.

You're also the one dodging the point

That's some irony right there, you've dodged at least 30 of my points. Coward.

I mostly had in mind Iran and its apocalyptic gang of psycho mullahs. They're the #1 terrorist sponsor in the world and they routinely hold regime directed "Death to America! Death to Israel!" rallies.

It doesn't change the fact that only Pakistan and India are most likely to start a nuclear exchange. Sounds like you've been drinking too much hawkish koolaid. Are you John Bolton in disguise? If anything, the USA, Saudi, and Israel are the "#1 Terrorist sponsors." Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States alone have sponsored the majority of radical Islamists. Where are your sanctions against them, EH? Iran has never attacked anyone without provocation, unlike the Axis of Evil. And they have very good reason to chant "death to America" (ya know, endless sanctions, shooting down their airliners, overthrowing their democratically elected government... didn't do well in history class did ya?).

Regardless, the US rate is higher than countries with more socialized systems.

Barely. "Socialist" countries like Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden all have equally effective cancer screening programs. Btw, they're called mixed economies. The fact doesn't change that the US lags far behind in preventative care. Besides which, access to resources like cancer screening are limited based on income in the US, and minority groups are often left out of the mix

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You don't seem to understand, it's still the private sector. The majority of those companies' equity are in the hands of private shareholders. The Party doesn't have any real say over their financial dealings. China is not a command economy.

😄 Clearly you don't understand any of this. There are no checks and balances in China, so the party/regime can "command" anything it wants to anyone at any time. And I love how you totally ignored the sourced evidence I posted about almost all of China's biggest companies being officially state owned. They don't even pretend those are private. That may a Hitlerian form of "capitalism". It's not the free market.

That's some irony right there, you've dodged at least 30 of my points. Coward.

Stop lying, coward. I just gave another example of you dodging. You didn't give an example.

If anything, the USA, Saudi, and Israel are the "#1 Terrorist sponsors." Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States alone have sponsored the majority of radical Islamists. Where are your sanctions against them, EH? Iran has never attacked anyone without provocation, unlike the Axis of Evil. And they have very good reason to chant "death to America"

You’re literally endorsing “Death to America!” rallies. 😄 Are you Iranian or some Iranian sympathizing anti-Semite in Germany or some place? 😄 When you spew garbage like this it destroys your credibility. People should be worried if they find themselves on the same side of an issue as you. Iran is the centerpiece of the Axis of Evil.

(ya know, endless sanctions, shooting down their airliners, overthrowing their democratically elected government... didn't do well in history class did ya?).

You’re the one who sucks at history. I could lecture you all day about the BS 1953 ousted a “democratically elected” leader propaganda point, but since you’re probably just a halfwit troll, here I’ll only point out that Mossadegh was a Marxist thug and dictator, and he was primarily ousted not by the CIA shoestring budget Operation Ajax but by his former ally Ayatollah Kashani, the direct ideological ancestor of the 1979 revolution and today’s regime, which makes it even funnier when allies of the current mullah theocracy try to use that talking point in its anti-American propaganda. They’re the ones who turned against Mossadegh and ousted him, helped by millions of others in massive national uprisings.

The fact doesn't change that the US lags far behind in preventative care

That’s not a “fact”. That’s a BS claim you’ve failed to support. The only preventative measures we’ve discussed are cancer screenings, and you concede the US beats other nations in those (by a large degree in most cases).

access to resources like cancer screening are limited based on income in the US, and minority groups are often left out of the mix

Actually, as with many other things, there’s a lot of charity (something else Americans rank #1 in overall by a huge margin) out there that provides free screenings to people who show up. You see them advertised all the time.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Socialism isn't any better for healthcare than it would be for food, manufactured goods, or any other sector.

Your entire argument is based off a misconception that has been peddled by corporatists for years. Again, there is nothing “socialist” about Medicare for All.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Government seizing control of one-fifth of the US economy? I disagree. The misconception is yours. In fact leftists have often taken the opposite rhetorical tack by arguing that even real Medicare shows how harmless and popular "socialism" is, the implication being that Americans should therefore embrace it in other areas too. Of course even real Medicare is beset by problems, limited in scope, and quickly going insolvent, but "Medicare For All" is a misnomer and would be nothing like real Medicare as laid out above.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Exactly how would the government “seize control” of one fifth of the US Economy (despite the fact that government spending is already 40% of the GDP)?

You would still have private hospitals, private doctors, etc. but it would just cut out the middleman and get rid of unnecessary price-gouging, red tape, and unnecessary administrative costs. The system we have right now is simply unaffordable. But again, none of this is “socialist.”

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

It'd be over 60% then, with more to come given the precedent and trajectory established. It would place government regulators in the role of administrator, destroying both consumer and provider choice, the for profit system, and any flexibility left. Even Obamacare has done damage by going down the socialist road some, depriving people of the freedom to choose the plans that work best for them and seeing the doctors they want. What's falsely called "Medicare For All", but wouldn't be anything like Medicare due to the rationing and lack of choice involved, would be even worse.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

----- It would place government regulators in the role of administrator, destroying both consumer and provider choice, ------

How exactly? All it would do is remove unnecessary bureaucratic machinery and price-gouging. Private insurance companies are one of the main reasons the healthcare system is so inefficient.

----- the for profit system ------

Healthcare shouldn't be a business.

----- by going down the socialist road some------

There's nothing "socialist" about it.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Healthcare shouldn't be a business.

How about the food business? Profit motive drives innovation and productivity. There's a reason the USA has been primarily responsible for new drugs and the key medical innovations of the past several decades, benefiting and helping prop up foreign socialist systems in the process. Imagine how much more advanced we might be if most of Europe and the rest of the world weren't largely free loading off Americans?

There's nothing "socialist" about it.

Yes there is.

Private insurance companies are one of the main reasons the healthcare system is so inefficient.

"Private" insurance companies operate within hedgerows of society-skewing government regulations, some of that destructive intervention I've been talking about.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

How about the food business?

Health is a basic human right and shouldn't be determined based upon your income. But while we're on the subject, there's a lot of problems with the food industry as well (such as contributing to pollution, overfishing, worker exploitation, and waste production). The free market isn't a solution for everything.

Profit motive drives innovation and productivity

Well arguably there hasn't been as much innovation as their could be with this economic model, not least because of Big Pharma abusing the patent system, stifling competition, and advocating profit over people's health or welfare.

new drugs and the key medical innovations of the past several decades

Maybe ages ago, sure. But the neoliberal mindset does not favour innovation, because there is not much profit in it. The majority of the benefits go to consumers, not the producers. Not to mention that inequality slows down productivity.

Prop up socialist systems

So... Canada? Denmark? Germany? Their healthcare systems are arguably superior to the US. Just look at how Germany has handled this crisis.

Imagine how much more advanced we might be if most of Europe and the rest of the world weren't largely free loading off Americans

Yes, the world would probably be much more advanced if the IMF and World Bank weren't strangling developing economies, and the US stopped propping up authoritarian regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia, but that's beside the point. The US borrows most of their money from China anyway.

Yes there is

Not really.

"Private" insurance companies operate within hedgerows of society-skewing government regulations, some of that destructive intervention I've been talking about.

Well I'm glad you saw the light and agree with my main point.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Health is a basic human right and shouldn't be determined based upon your income. But while we're on the subject, there's a lot of problems with the food industry as well (such as contributing to pollution, overfishing, worker exploitation, and waste production). The free market isn't a solution for everything.

Well food is even more fundamental to human survival than healthcare, LOL, but apparently you do feel food production should be nationalized. Socialism has a sorry history of killing millions through mass famine, from the USSR, to Maoist China's "Great Leap Forward", to 1970s/80s Ethiopia, to North Korea, to Venezuela, and numerous other places, so there's a mountain range of empirical historical evidence screaming that you're wrong.

Well arguably there hasn't been as much innovation as their could be with this economic model, not least because of Big Pharma abusing the patent system, stifling competition, and advocating profit over people's health or welfare.

More like government regulations stifling innovation, but there's way more innovation in the US than in other nations.

So... Canada? Denmark? Germany? Their healthcare systems are arguably superior to the US.

LOL! No, not honestly. Such arguments often take the form of "Canada has cheaper drugs!" Yes, because they impose government price controls after buying them at bulk rate from the US companies that invented the drugs, R&D prices shouldered by Americans. That free loading off the US I mentioned. Despite that Americans have vastly more access to pharmaceuticals than Canadians or those other countries you mentioned.

If the US adopted a socialist system it would hurt the entire world, plunging us into a medical dark age.

Yes, the world would probably be much more advanced if the IMF and World Bank weren't strangling developing economies, and the US stopped propping up authoritarian regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia, but that's beside the point. The US borrows most of their money from China anyway.

LOL! Without the US and Israel driving up the world’s standard of living other nations would be even poorer than they are.

Did you really just call Israel, the only free, stable democracy in the region, an "authoritarian regime"?

It sounds like you’re just posting a hodgepodge of random Marxist and Islamist propaganda, some of it dated.

"Private" insurance companies operate within hedgerows of society-skewing government regulations, some of that destructive intervention I've been talking about

Well I'm glad you saw the light and agree with my main point.

That government regulations are a problem, lol? That’s been my point from the beginning. You’ve got it backwards.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

but apparently you do feel food production should be nationalized.

That's a false equivalence. I mean, that is the worst strawman I've ever seen. You've got to try harder than that. I pretty much stopped reading the paragraph after that.

so there's a mountain range of empirical historical evidence screaming that you're wrong.

What the blue f-k does this have to do with universal healthcare? And you're acting like only "Communist" countries have committed genocide (disregarding the fact that equating Marxism/Communism to Stalinism or Maoism is truly brainlet logic).

More like government regulations stifling innovation

I'm curious to know exactly how (I mean, that's only because of big money and neoliberal ideology utterly ruining the democracy) when the unchecked private market is the main reason for the majority of the problems we're seeing in the news.

That free loading off the US I mentioned.

That's hardly free loading, it's called the supply chain and division of labor. In fact, the US isn't even the largest exporter of pharmaceuticals.

Despite that Americans have vastly more access to pharmaceuticals than Canadians or those other countries you mentioned.

LoL, most can't even afford insulin. The US is approaching third rate banana republic.

Without the US and Israel driving up the world’s standard of living other nations would be even poorer than they are.

Lmao, Israel isn't even top ten. If anything they're a money drain on the US economy, and just a huge hemorrhoid on the region. Anyway, China outranks the US by a large margin (oh nooo, here come those Commies), and global growth is slowing down anyway. Not surprising considering the US bullies other countries over price regulations, and throws up tariffs like no tomorrow. And all the debt. I guess the US doesn't REALLY appreciate the free market after all.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

That's a false equivalence. I mean, that is the worst strawman I've ever seen. You've got to try harder than that. I pretty much stopped reading the paragraph after that.

No, if you're arguing the government should run healthcare because it's supposedly "a basic human right" (whatever that even means to a Marxist), then your same logic applies even more to food, since that's even more fundamental to human survival. You already basically agreed with that above, attacking the free market's impact on food production and distribution.

It's a point worth making because it's easier to see the catastrophic impact socialism has on food, because that's a daily necessity while healthcare is used infrequently if at all, and deficiencies in medical innovation can be partly masked by new innovations from another system (the USA) benefiting the entire world.

(disregarding the fact that equating Marxism/Communism to Stalinism or Maoism is truly brainlet logic).

😄 They all share the pertinent socialist collectivization of food and mass famines we're discussing. Seriously, your post is peppered with dumb comments like that.

Israel isn't even top ten. If anything they're a money drain on the US economy, and just a huge hemorrhoid on the region.

Now Israel is a "hemorrhoid" on the region? Oh wow, you really hate Jews don't you? Are you a European anti-Semite? Islamist socialist? Arab nationalist? Iranian propagandist? I'm just curious.

Anyway, China outranks the US by a large margin

Not in per capita GDP. It's not even close. Chinese people are dirt poor compared to Americans. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Chinese system.

In fact, the US isn't even the largest exporter of pharmaceuticals

It’s the leader in R&D. There’s a difference between inventing the drugs and where you end up manufacturing them later (cheap labor).

The rest of your post is a bunch of non sequiturs and random false claims that read like garbled propaganda. Maybe something got lost in translation, but they merit no response.
.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

No, if you're arguing the government should run healthcare because it's supposedly "a basic human right" (whatever that even means to a Marxist), then your same logic applies even more to food, since that's even more fundamental to human survival. You already basically agreed with that above, attacking the free market's impact on food production and distribution.

I'm trying to analyze this comment but I can't even begin to understand what you're saying or implying here. Apparently I don't respect human rights(?), and then you draw a massive strawman that I never made. It's so fallacious it's funny. Start over with this paragraph, it's a mess.

It's a point worth making because it's easier to see the catastrophic impact socialism has on food,

Bruh, the food production line is fine. You're more likely to be impacted by food shortages if you're living in Yemen being bombed by Saudi jetfighters dropping bombs made in the USA. It's also hilariously ironic you calling me dated, your brain seems to be permanently stuck in 1985.

Oh wow, you really hate Jews don't you? Are you a European anti-Semite? Islamist socialist? Arab nationalist? Iranian propagandist? I'm just curious

Nah, actually a Jew said this to me once. In fact, most Jews despise Israel.

It's not even close. Chinese people are dirt poor compared to Americans

They own 34% of the global economy. With that many people they will soon surpass the US GDP.

It’s the leader in R&D. There’s a difference between inventing the drugs and where you end up manufacturing them later (cheap labor).

Yeah but without that "cheap labour" we wouldn't have it in the first place. It's a yin/yang situation. The US is the largest importer of drugs in the world.

The rest of your post is a bunch of non sequiturs and random false claims that read like garbled propaganda. Maybe something got lost in translation, but they merit no response.

You seem awfully infatuated with me. What other gossip do you have?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Nah, actually a Jew said this to me once. In fact, most Jews despise Israel.

😄 Are you seriously this ignorant or just putting way too much effort into trolling? What propaganda outfit fed you that lie?

Not in per capita GDP. It's not even close. Chinese people are dirt poor compared to Americans. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Chinese system.

They own 34% of the global economy. With that many people they will soon surpass the US GDP.

Because they have 5 times as many people, not because their system is worth emulating. You do know what "per capita" means, don't you?

Yeah but without that "cheap labour" we wouldn't have it in the first place.

Yes we would. It might cost slightly more, but without the US R&D it wouldn't exist at all.

Bruh, the food production line is fine. You're more likely to be impacted by food shortages if you're living in Yemen being bombed by Saudi jetfighters dropping bombs made in the USA

It's fine where, "bruh"? More likely than where? What country are you talking about? It's not fine in Venezuela, North Korea, or lots of other socialist leaning places around the world. Off topic but Yemen was torn apart by Islamists, some of the worst ones Iranian backed. Strange how you only want to blame the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia for everything, "degree7".

You seem awfully infatuated with me.

LOL! You're the one who bumped this thread I started months ago to repeatedly reply to me. Seems like you're projecting.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Are you seriously this ignorant or just putting way too much effort into trolling? What propaganda outfit fed you that lie?

No it's true, plenty of Jews think Israel is simply a bad idea. Just like most people thought apartheid was a terrible idea.

not because their system is worth emulating.

What's that? Capitalism?

You do know what "per capita" means, don't you?

I guess you don't know "overtake" means. And yeah, their population IS the reason they will overtake the US. Good job. slow clap

Yes we would. It might cost slightly more, but without the US R&D it wouldn't exist at all.

The US as we know it wouldn't exist at all without other economies to trade with. Seems all your replies return to this circular reasoning.

It's not fine in Venezuela, North Korea, or lots of other socialist leaning places around the world

Ah the old knee jerk manta. "b-b-b-but what about Venezuela," and honestly no one cares about North Korea other than slight amusement at their antics.

Off topic but Yemen was torn apart by Islamists

Yeah, Saudi Arabia. Your "ally"

some of the worst ones Iranian backed.

Hardly, they receive more a cheering from the sidelines. Lmao

blame the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia for everything

It's beautiful you can admit to the Axis of Evil

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

About half the world's Jews live in Israel and the other half live in the US. Only tiny pockets live elsewhere. Most of them definitely do not hate Israel.

You're only posting mindless gibberish. No effort. And you never answered what type of conspiracy theorist/America hater/socialist/Israel hater you are. Oh well. Doesn't really matter I guess.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

I wasn't talking about Zionists. There's only about 4 million Zionists in the world, so the rest obviously despise Israel.

And you never answered what type of conspiracy theorist/America hater/socialist/Israel hater you are.

What conspiracy? Everything I ever wrote was the honest truth.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

No, almost all Jews live in either the US or Israel itself, and the majority in both nations support Israel.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

The majority of Jews are not Zionists. Only Zionists are the problem.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Sounds like you've got a solution to this "problem". A final solution.

I would love for you to produce evidence that the majority of Jews "despise Israel". You realize Iranian state tv isn't a reliable source, don't you?

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Does that mean all the holocaust survivors have a solution too?

You goose, anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Which Jewish person did you talk to? What country was this in?

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Canadian Jew. The USA.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Now go talk to others.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

It sounds like you’re just posting a hodgepodge of random Marxist propaganda, some of it dated

It's sad you're too blissfully unaware that Marxism is just an advanced form of capitalism.

>>>That government regulations are a problem, lol<<<

You agreed that private insurance companies are destructive intervention. I was just commending you for admitting it.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

It's sad you're too blissfully unaware that Marxism is just an advanced form of capitalism.

That nonsense statement is too far gone to even be untrue.

You agreed that private insurance companies are destructive intervention.

No, I said the government regulations are a destructive intervention. Context clues.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

That nonsense statement is too far gone to even be untrue.

I know it's difficult to accept, but your entire existence has been a lie.

No, I said the government regulations are a destructive intervention. Context clues.

I think you just had cognitive dissonance when you wrote that sentence and were trying to drop me a hint.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I know it's difficult to accept, but your entire existence has been a lie.

You're saying that philosophy teacher was right?

As for the rest, I won't kick you about your poor reading comprehension while you're down.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

A man of culture I see.

I just though I'd let you know you had it backwards. You already subconsciously agree with me.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Nope, you just misread it.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Naw, I've got you psychologically pinned. Just admit what you know to be true.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 5 years ago

Can you show me the math how it would save trillions of dollars?

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

https://truthout.org/articles/new-study-shows-medicare-for-all-would-save-us-5-1-trillion-over-ten-years/

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 5 years ago

First of all, the article cites Robert Pollin as the the lead author. He is a known leftist economist, which is an immediate red flag to biased reporting.

So the article says it would save $5.1 trillion in a decade. Okay. Now how much is it going to cost? About $30-35 trillion. So the best case scenario is it's still going to cost $25 trillion over a decade. And how is he going to pay for it?

It also cites that these savings are mostly coming from prescription drugs and admin costs. Admin costs? Wouldn't we get more "members" since all the people that don't have health insurance will now have it? Aren't govt workers paid higher than private admin workers? Again, there's no hard data so I can't see it myself, but this sounds like wishful thinking.

3.75% sales tax on non-essentials? Where are the revenues going to come from when people buy less stuff? Where are the income tax revenues going to come from, when businesses lay people off because they are now overstaffed? That is basic cause and effect.

.38% net worth tax after the 1st million? A lot of millionaires will leave the country just to avoid this tax.

Long term capital gains as ordinary income? Long term means 1 year and over. You know that's going to affect US investments big time, right? It seems like you want to fast track a recession.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

First of all, the article cites Robert Pollin as the the lead author. He is a known leftist economist, which is an immediate red flag to biased reporting.

You don't have to take his word for it. There was also a study done by Yale University that reached the same conclusion. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext#%20

----- And how is he going to pay for it? ------

Same way we managed to pay for two multi-trillion dollar wars. It would also be less expensive than the current model.

----- when businesses lay people off because they are now overstaffed?-----

Oof, this comment didn't age well, LOL

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14495) 5 years ago

This sums up how liberals "win" arguments perfectly:

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0896b85f52e50939bc68ed90d8a5e4037f25e50647ea755d47329f639dd7d9b5.jpg

They do it because they can't really win on the main controversies being debated in today's politics, so they just use personal attacks instead. I've seen it in action on this very website.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 5 years ago

Personal attacks!?!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

And it's not just argument tactics. They've established entire institutions on campus and elsewhere dedicated to churning out this garbage 24/7 forever. It's no longer clear that today's US leftists are capable of thinking outside of the "ist-phobe"/personal scandal box. Instead they float in an insulated bubble of constant hysteria over made up crap, an echo chamber where critical thinking isn't permitted.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14495) 5 years ago

They also believe in a lot of "myths," and yet claim Republicans are idiotic enough to believe in conspiracy theories.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

As jaded as I already was regarding the left, seeing them pivot from a century of working with communist Moscow to betray America, pushing the false "McCarthyism" myth for decades, and even appeasing Putin for 8 years to suddenly pretending to be anti-Russian hawks and baselessly accusing Republicans of somehow being Russian spies just to advance a narrative excusing their election loss is one the most surreal, Orwellian developments I've ever witnessed.

Their leaders and major media organs spend years pushing the most idiotic, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories imaginable, and then have the gall to label every Republican position they disagree with a "conspiracy theory". No matter how much the left degenerates, it still always finds new ways to amaze.

They also accuse Republicans of being "anti-science", while they reject biological sex realities, empirical economic history, and important new technologies from nuclear power to fracking.

Self proclaimed "progressives" spend most of their time stoking fear to try to roll civilization backwards.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14495) 5 years ago

The rotten cur wrote a list of "conspiracy theories" Republicans believe in. Think you or I should do a counter thread about the myths the other side falls for?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Actually he copied it from a leftist site. Go for it. Unlike him, we're both capable of writing up posts like that ourselves.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14495) 5 years ago

I know! It's like he can't even count! He pasted 1-6 twice and at least 2 or 3 "conspiracies" were pasted twice as well! The guy couldn't edit to save his life!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL, really? That's funny but not surprising. I only skimmed a few and saw they were moronic, written by some immature hack who doesn't even know what the term "conspiracy theory" means. It's telling that Doggiedaddie's own skills are so weak that he was impressed enough to copy that rather than confident enough to compose his own list.

It's sad that someone like Doggiedaddy who's semi-literate at best posts more than anyone else on this board by an insane margin.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14495) 5 years ago

I have a surprise to show you guys. I normally don't make posts in this section, but I felt compelled today. Please feel free to add here: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5e4c882dff1d11097af04926/43-Common-Myths-Democrats-Believe-In?reply=5e4c886eff1d11097af04927

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

WOW - my thread really crawled up your ass. Another victory lap for me! LOL!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Ha Ha I know you're desperate, Doggiedaddy, but no. We're talking about the thread where I ignored the op and only mocked you for bringing me up out of the blue because I'm living rent free in your head. After claiming your next "11" "conspiracy theories" should be ones I supposedly push, you embarrassed yourself by failing to name a single one when I called you on your BS.

Have fun on your defeat lap down the toilet.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sure. We believe you. (wink, wink). You did give me a workout today with all those victory laps around you. Thank you!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

*FLUSH*

Doggiedaddy got owned again, as always. Bye.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Don't go ! I'm in the best shape ever taking victory laps around you! Stick around and contribute more, please ! You're the best exercise program for America!!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Doggiedaddy...is that you? We can barely hear you. Are you shouting up from the sewer after taking your defeat lap? Watch out for alligators down there!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I thought you had me on ignore ?

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

You are such a racist for pointing this out.

How Dare You!!!

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11779) 5 years ago

This garbage started with The Clinton’s and their War Room. Claims of a nonexistent recession. And then Perot making it possible for Bubba to get in with 37%. Such a shame.

Soon Hillary was caught in the White House with 800 FBI flies on her enemies and the rest has been history. She should’ve gone to jail for that.

The world will be such a better place when the Clinton scum is gone. They have nothing inspiring or useful to offer. Which sadly goes for the entire Democrat party as well.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 5 years ago

So true, krl!

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

When you find yourself with KRL as your only friend...…..rope....gun...death by cop....

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

Warren is doing something right! That young college kid gave her three dollars. There is no way that that did not happen. It really did happen. HONEST.

Warren is a gift. She's a lying bat-shit crazy B. I'll be sad to see her go away.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

[deleted]