Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ike

Jesus the media is really against Bernie, fuck CNN

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

The funniest part is all this talk out of Bernie about the working class American and how he's for the worker yet he wants to take away our privatised healthcare which is better in spades, he wants to implement socialized healthcare which would add tens of trillions in taxes, and he wants to cancel student debt and make college "free" adding even more tens of trillions in taxes.

 

To any human being with the least bit of sense and real work ethic they understand that none of this adds up.

It actually does.

 

Single payer healthcare would cost 33 trillion dollars over 10 years.

 

Which

would

be

2

trillion

dollars

less

 

than what our current system would cost over that same period of time.

 

Do you know who did that study?  The Koch Brothers funded the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.

 

They tried to make Bernie's plan look bad.........but their own study said that it would be 2 trillion dollars less than our current plan, and Medicare for All would cover everybody in America, Zero Dollar deductible, 0% Co-Insurance.

 

They immediately buried the report the moment Bernie's people started thanking them. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jehurey said:

It actually does.

 

Single payer healthcare would cost 33 trillion dollars over 10 years.

 

Which

would

be

2

trillion

dollars

less

 

than what our current system would cost over that same period of time.

 

Do you know who did that study?  The Koch Brothers funded the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.

 

They tried to make Bernie's plan look bad.........but their own study said that it would be 2 trillion dollars less than our current plan, and Medicare for All would cover everybody in America, Zero Dollar deductible, 0% Co-Insurance.

 

They immediately buried the report the moment Bernie's people started thanking them. LOL

Our current system is privately funded, our current system ensures peak care, it ensures no ques or waits, it ensure you can get done what you need and when you need, it ensures I can go where I want and visit the doctor I want. It ensures that you're directly paying for your costs and your costs alone and not a bunch of other people regardless of their contributions.

 

I couldn't care less if it cost 100 trillion, it's a choice, I can choose to pay into it or not, it revolves around me. It doesn't revolve around the wants of other people and it doesn't fund other people, there's no options and you can't opt out.

 

No thanks communists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Our current system is privately funded, our current system ensures peak care,

No it isn't.  Every still pays.

 

You still pay for everyone.

 

Sweetie, I guess I have to spoonfeed it to you.

 

People who don't have insurance go the emergency room.

The hospital eats the loss.

Where do you think the Hospital OFFSETS THE LOSS FROM?

 

teststrip.jpg

 

They offset the losses by over-inflating..........GROSSLY over-inflating, the cost of every single little thing on the bills of patients who do have insurance.

 

You

Pay

 

Let me repeat that again.

 

YOU

PAY.

 

And you do it, in the most inefficient way possible.

 

Secondly.................Universal Healthcare does not affect the hospitals, as they are run. Its merely a PAYMENT METHOD, it does not take over the existing hospital system. So Bernie's plan maintains the SAME QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE, because he's only talking about the method in which insurance premiums are collected and paid out.........via a tax percentage of your income (that's going to be less than the amount you're paying now through your employer + your pre-tax deduction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I couldn't care less if it cost 100 trillion, it's a choice, I can choose to pay into it or not, it revolves around me. It doesn't revolve around the wants of other people and it doesn't fund other people, there's no options and you can't opt out.

 

No thanks communists!

I don't care that you don't like it.

 

If 51% of the country votes for it................you don't have a fucking choice.

 

You can leave the country.

 

Its not my problem if you don't actually understand how democracy works.

 

By your logic...............I want the government to return whatever portion of my taxes is used on the military. Oh wait, I don't get that choice.

 

Because funding a military through automatic taxation is also socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Our current system is privately funded, our current system ensures peak care, it ensures no ques or waits, it ensure you can get done what you need and when you need, it ensures I can go where I want and visit the doctor I want. It ensures that you're directly paying for your costs and your costs alone and not a bunch of other people regardless of their contributions.

 

I couldn't care less if it cost 100 trillion, it's a choice, I can choose to pay into it or not, it revolves around me. It doesn't revolve around the wants of other people and it doesn't fund other people, there's no options and you can't opt out.

 

No thanks communists!

So tell me, are you ok with a socialist military, socialist law enforcement, socialist fire departments, socialist roads, socialist education system, socialist coastguard, socialist space exploration, etc etc. But you draw the line at healthcare? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ike said:

BTW Deeno, don’t you work a city government? 

If that's true, it would put him in a super-elite level of absolute hypocrite bitches who don't are supremely stupid and don't know jackshit about how their country, or the real-world, works.

 

I thought I had read that he works in the same field his dad does...........which immediately makes me think he hasn't actually accomplished anything for himself, and he only got to where he was because daddy got him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cookester15 said:

So tell me, are you ok with a socialist military, socialist law enforcement, socialist fire departments, socialist roads, socialist education system, socialist coastguard, socialist space exploration, etc etc. But you draw the line at healthcare? 

Those things aren't socialist. They're meant to work within the capitalist system. Bernie wants to replace capitalist healthcare with government run healthcare and that's socialist. 

 

socialist != government. 

 

Socialism is a political movement to bring about more government until capitalism is replaced. The action of socialism is performative: inanimate objects aren't socialist--the people are.

 

We dislike socialism because it's inefficient, removing the powers of the free market pricing and distribution system until it's a bureaucratic disaster.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

Those things aren't socialist

yes they are.

 

  • The government controls it.
  • Its not privitized.
  • People are automatically taxed for it.
  • The institutions are governed through law
  • The employees at those institutions are government employees (bureaucrats) to fulfill the processes of said institutions
  • You don't have a choice but to have your tax money spent on it, as governed by law, created by lawmakers.

That's socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

Those things aren't socialist. They're meant to work within the capitalist system. Bernie wants to replace capitalist healthcare with government run healthcare and that's socialist. 

 

socialist != government. 

 

Socialism is a political movement to bring about more government until capitalism is replaced. The action of socialism is performative: inanimate objects aren't socialist--the people are.

 

We dislike socialism because it's inefficient, removing the powers of the free market pricing and distribution system until it's a bureaucratic disaster.   

Uhh hahaha no dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

yes they are.

 

  • The government controls it.
  • Its not privitized.
  • People are automatically taxed for it.
  • The institutions are governed through law
  • The employees at those institutions are government employees (bureaucrats) to fulfill the processes of said institutions
  • You don't have a choice but to have your tax money spent on it, as governed by law, created by lawmakers.

That's socialism.

Socialism doesn't exist as an economic system. It's just government. There's nothing socialist about government other than socialists like to use it. 

 

Socialism isn't even about government--in theory socialism is supposed to replace capitalism without any government. Have you not heard of a socialist anarchist? Socialism is supposed to exist as the next economic stage beyond capitalism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_the_state

 

Quote

Karl Marx's ideas about the state can be divided into three subject areas: pre-capitalist states, states in the capitalist (i.e. present) era and the state (or absence of one) in post-capitalist society. Overlaying this is the fact that his own ideas about the state changed as he grew older, differing in his early pre-communist phase, the young Marx phase which predates the unsuccessful 1848 uprisings in Europe and in his mature, more nuanced work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

Socialism doesn't exist as an economic system. It's just government. There's nothing socialist about government other than socialists like to use it. 

 

Socialism isn't even about government--in theory socialism is supposed to replace capitalism without any government. Have you not heard of a socialist anarchist? Socialism is supposed to exist as the next economic stage beyond capitalism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_the_state

 

 

So basically you're saying if a Republican government brought in a national healthcare system it wouldn't be socialist? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

Socialism doesn't exist as an economic system. It's just government.

 

Socialism isn't even about government-

 

Oh my god, you're an idiot.

 

You're contradicting yourself in your own post.

 

Socialism is a method to provide services. Its providing benefits to citizens (or to whomever you wish to provide it to, like an elite class for example) as a tax benefit.

 

Once again.........you're trying to stretch it to communism and, basically, Authoritarianism.

 

Yet perfectly democratic countries have plenty of social programs and STILL remain captilistic countries.

 

Bernie Sanders still wants America's economic model to function as capitalism.......you either are listening to that, or just deciding not to listen.

 

Bernie Sanders isn't even trying to implement 20% of what Karl Marx would've wanted. You can try these misleading tactics all you want, they just aren't going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cookester15 said:

So basically you're saying if a Republican government brought in a national healthcare system it wouldn't be socialist? 

Yes, but the catch is they wouldn't do that because they believe it is inefficient.

 

It is why I don't like people calling Obamacare socialist, it's just wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cookester15 said:

So basically you're saying if a Republican government brought in a national healthcare system it wouldn't be socialist? 

he really is stupid.

 

He thinks a payment method is a government ideology.

 

and half of his own weblinks actually contradict what he's trying to prove. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

A new study reveals the US could save $600 billion in administrative costs by switching to a single-payer, Medicare For All system

Jan 8, 2020, 9:26 AM

 

The US spent $817 billion on healthcare administrative costs in 2017, $600 billion more than Canada, which has a smaller population than the US but also has much lower per capita healthcare costs: For example, the US spends an average of $2,479 per patient on admin costs, compared with $551 per capita under Canada's single-payer system, according to a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Researchers conclude that this cost discrepancy is primarily the result of bureaucratic hoops US healthcare providers must jump through to fulfill complex billing arrangements — a defining feature of the US' fractured private health insurance system: An increase in overhead from private insurers caused spending as a percentage of total US healthcare costs to surge from 31% in 1999 to over 34% in 2017, which equates to an added $100 billion burden each year over that same period. 

 

The US' sky-high healthcare costs are driven in no small part by the oversized admin spending burden private insurance places on hospitals and other providers — and these costs could have negative implications on patient health.

 

Nearly half of all US health spending is tied to admin management, per a 2018 JAMA report — and the cost burdens associated with private insurance are being passed along to US consumers, making treatment an unmanageable expense. Patients are coughing up large portions of their budget on health, with the average nonelderly US family spending $8,200 per year on healthcare — or 11% of their income.

 

And when we consider that 67% of all US bankruptcies are due to exorbitant healthcare costs, according to a 2019 study from the American Journal of Public Health, it's critical to recognize that the admin burden from private insurers — contributing to a rise in overall healthcare spending by US patients — is at least partially to blame for why health costs have become so unmanageable for so many people.

 

 

To emphasize, because the headline didn't mention this..................per year.

 

Six. Hundred. Billion. in administration costs would be saved..............per year.

 

By switching over to a single-payer system. Now a whole bunch of fat ladies who answer phone calls in cubicles working at BlueCrossBlueShield, Aetna, Cigna and other private health insurance companies may end losing their jobs.

 

But A.) Those aren't important jobs with any actual skills, and B.) They can be fat and sit in cubicles and sell Home and Auto insurance at some other company.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

Yes, but the catch is they wouldn't do that because they believe it is inefficient.

 

It is why I don't like people calling Obamacare socialist, it's just wrong.  

What is efficient about the US healthcare system as is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Voidler said:

What is efficient about the US healthcare system as is?

This guy must be doing an act.  I mean, no one is that stupid organically.

 

Everybody knows that when you add FOR-PROFIT MIDDLEMEN into any transaction...........prices remain low.:idid:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×