• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont Bails on Single-Payer Healthcare

Paschendale said:
So how is it the rest of the industrialized world is affording it just fine? And having more social mobility? And being generally healthier and longer lived? And having just as much liberty in their lives as we do?
Click to expand...
I suspect that the difference is that somewhere along the line, the advocates of single payer were honest about what it would provide and what it would cost. That doesn't happen in the US. When the actual cost to each taxpayer is laid out there, as it was in Vermont, it is rejected even by liberals. If you really want the program you must first find an honest broker to pitch it to the nation. The only trouble is the liberal shysters who peddled the fraud that is Obamacare have set the liberal dream of single payer back by a generation.
 
Paschendale said:
So how is it the rest of the industrialized world is affording it just fine? And having more social mobility? And being generally healthier and longer lived? And having just as much liberty in their lives as we do?
Click to expand...

They aren't. the rest of the industrialized world is raising taxes and cutting back on services to try and keep their healthcare costs in line. they are urging more and more people to use their private insurance before the government.

I don't see how paying 40% of what you make to the government as liberty.
 
Paschendale said:
So how is it the rest of the industrialized world is affording it just fine? And having more social mobility? And being generally healthier and longer lived? And having just as much liberty in their lives as we do?
Click to expand...

OK, so how come of the industrialized economies, including the US, why is it that the US economy is the one that is recovering and performing the strongest? Typically the shortest in recession, I believe.
 
ludin said:
They aren't. the rest of the industrialized world is raising taxes and cutting back on services to try and keep their healthcare costs in line. they are urging more and more people to use their private insurance before the government.
Click to expand...

That is a very inaccurate statement of the economic hardships that other countries are facing. Very little of it comes from healthcare for the general population. Most of it comes from the additional costs of an aging population and rebuilding their economics after international private interests screwed everything up during the previous decade. Most nations with universal healthcare systems pay for them easily and have significantly better results and higher approval among their citizens than our system does.

I don't see how paying 40% of what you make to the government as liberty.
Click to expand...

As it turns out, liberty has nothing to do with money in your pocket. It has to do with the options you have to determine the direction of your life. I can see why you resent taxation. Most of your taxes (and mine) go to making rich people richer. But that's a flaw in the priorities of our government (which would be solved by a stronger, not weaker, public sphere), not in the principle of public interest. Those nations get a lot more value for their tax money than we do. That's because they believe in robust public spending, rather than insane defense spending (which is a corporate windfall), a public healthcare system based around increasing the power of private healthcare (which is a corporate windfall), and huge corporate subsidies (which are a corporate windfall). If our tax money was being spent on the public like theirs is, you'd probably feel a lot better about spending it.
 
ludin said:
They aren't. the rest of the industrialized world is raising taxes and cutting back on services to try and keep their healthcare costs in line. they are urging more and more people to use their private insurance before the government.

I don't see how paying 40% of what you make to the government as liberty.
Click to expand...

" Liberty " to a Liberal is the illusion of " freedom " that comes with putting all your trust in Government

Its the opposite of true freedom.
 
Paschendale said:
That is a very inaccurate statement of the economic hardships that other countries are facing. Very little of it comes from healthcare for the general population. Most of it comes from the additional costs of an aging population and rebuilding their economics after international private interests screwed everything up during the previous decade. Most nations with universal healthcare systems pay for them easily and have significantly better results and higher approval among their citizens than our system does.



As it turns out, liberty has nothing to do with money in your pocket. It has to do with the options you have to determine the direction of your life. I can see why you resent taxation. Most of your taxes (and mine) go to making rich people richer. But that's a flaw in the priorities of our government (which would be solved by a stronger, not weaker, public sphere), not in the principle of public interest. Those nations get a lot more value for their tax money than we do. That's because they believe in robust public spending, rather than insane defense spending (which is a corporate windfall), a public healthcare system based around increasing the power of private healthcare (which is a corporate windfall), and huge corporate subsidies (which are a corporate windfall). If our tax money was being spent on the public like theirs is, you'd probably feel a lot better about spending it.
Click to expand...


Wow, if " international private interest " can nearly bankrupt all these Socialist powerhouses how strong and well run can they possibly be ?
 
Mycroft said:
Perhaps he's thinking this move will help him in the run-off next month. Or maybe...just maybe...he's one Democrat who actually puts the financial health of his State before a destructive liberal agenda item.

Too bad he didn't have the lobby muscle he needed to suck more money out of the rest of us taxpayers...or should that be considered a good thing?
Click to expand...

Yes, confiscatory taxation and medical rationing are always a good thing. Aren't they? :roll:
 
Paschendale said:
A sad day. The United States will continue to lag behind the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to health.
Click to expand...

Right, except that we don't. Yet. But you guys are working on that. Oh, and please spare me the WHO bull****. They rate countries on what their policy intends, not what it actually produces.
 
Ah...did the esteemed governor finally come to the disappointing realization that the great state of Vermont doesn't have its own currency printing press or central banking cartel?
 
Paschendale said:
That is a very inaccurate statement of the economic hardships that other countries are facing. Very little of it comes from healthcare for the general population. Most of it comes from the additional costs of an aging population and rebuilding their economics after international private interests screwed everything up during the previous decade. Most nations with universal healthcare systems pay for them easily and have significantly better results and higher approval among their citizens than our system does.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke - Businessweek
Waiting times at five-year high in British National Health Service - World Socialist Web Site
Germany cuts health care spending, raises premiums - Washington Times

They are cutting services and raising taxes to pay for their healthcare system. no they don't pay for the easily or else they wouldn't be cutting services and raising taxes, and pushing private healthcare.

So not only people in Europe have to pay high taxes for their so called "free" healthcare (what a joke that is) they also have to pay for private insurance to cover what the government won't pay for.

As it turns out, liberty has nothing to do with money in your pocket.
Click to expand...
you would be wrong.

It has to do with the options you have to determine the direction of your life.
Click to expand...
hard to do that when 40% of my check goes to the government in taxes.

I can see why you resent taxation. Most of your taxes (and mine) go to making rich people richer.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't. the majority of my tax money goes to people on SS, welfare and other social services. it is ok that you don't understand how the system works.

But that's a flaw in the priorities of our government (which would be solved by a stronger, not weaker, public sphere), not in the principle of public interest. Those nations get a lot more value for their tax money than we do. That's because they believe in robust public spending, rather than insane defense spending (which is a corporate windfall), a public healthcare system based around increasing the power of private healthcare (which is a corporate windfall), and huge corporate subsidies (which are a corporate windfall). If our tax money was being spent on the public like theirs is, you'd probably feel a lot better about spending it.
Click to expand...

every nation on earth offers tax deductions for all sorts of businesses.
in fact most of Europe has a corporate tax rate of 25%. the US 35% or so.

no not really. I prefer the money be in my pocket so I can spend it on my family that is why I work. to provide for my family not give it to you.
 
countryboy said:
Yes, confiscatory taxation and medical rationing are always a good thing. Aren't they? :roll:
Click to expand...

Are you actually asking me?

Or are you just using my post as a jumping off point to make some obscure or, maybe, sarcastic statement?
 
Paschendale said:
That is a very inaccurate statement of the economic hardships that other countries are facing. Very little of it comes from healthcare for the general population. Most of it comes from the additional costs of an aging population and rebuilding their economics after international private interests screwed everything up during the previous decade. Most nations with universal healthcare systems pay for them easily and have significantly better results and higher approval among their citizens than our system does.



As it turns out, liberty has nothing to do with money in your pocket. It has to do with the options you have to determine the direction of your life. I can see why you resent taxation. Most of your taxes (and mine) go to making rich people richer. But that's a flaw in the priorities of our government (which would be solved by a stronger, not weaker, public sphere), not in the principle of public interest. Those nations get a lot more value for their tax money than we do. That's because they believe in robust public spending, rather than insane defense spending (which is a corporate windfall), a public healthcare system based around increasing the power of private healthcare (which is a corporate windfall), and huge corporate subsidies (which are a corporate windfall). If our tax money was being spent on the public like theirs is, you'd probably feel a lot better about spending it.
Click to expand...

The big beneficiaries are healthcare providers, not insurance companies. Health insurance lines hold around 1/14th to 1/15th the reserves that life insurance lines do. It is reflective of it being a money in-money out type of insurance that relies heavily on premiums and not investments to cover costs. On a side note, this is also why low interest rates are bad for some companies. Close to 70% of the combined reserves of all insurance companies are invested in bonds.
 
Blue_State said:
I think our priorities should be the Constitution and Bill of Rights, how about you?
Click to expand...

The government is allowed to annex private property into the commonwealth as long as it provides compensation at a fair market value. Pre-14th amendment state governments could have taken this to the extent of going full socialist if they wanted to.

In this case, it sounds like the single payer system was going to compete with private insurance. It might strike some as bad taste to for a civic institution that draws a huge revenues through taxes to compete with private businesses who have harder resource limits, but there's no constitutional right to non-competitive behavior from the commonwealth, particularly in an era where private corporations are threatening to uproot their wealth and migrate to a different state or country when posed with the first inconvenience.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
The government is allowed to annex private property into the commonwealth as long as it provides compensation at a fair market value. Pre-14th amendment state governments could have taken this to the extent of going full socialist if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

That power should stripped from the government, and frankly, the only fair compensation is one that is agreed upon.

In this case, it sounds like the single payer system was going to compete with private insurance. It might strike some as bad taste to for a civic institution that draws a huge revenues through taxes to compete with private businesses who have harder resource limits, but there's no constitutional right to non-competitive behavior from the commonwealth, particularly in an era where private corporations are threatening to uproot their wealth and migrate to a different state or country when posed with the first inconvenience.
Click to expand...

So instead of acting in civil manner and giving companies a reason to not leave to less controlling/less taxed/lower wage states or countries the solution is that the public sphere should compete with the private sphere? I can't say I'm surprised so many people agree with your view. Personally though, I think its very sad that people are leaning more and more on government.
 
Paschendale said:
As it turns out, liberty has nothing to do with money in your pocket. It has to do with the options you have to determine the direction of your life.
Click to expand...

So when a man is robbed his options in life aren't limited? Interesting. So basically if everything in my home gets stolen somehow all the things I could have done with that property taken from me I can still do. I was unaware that if my TV was stolen that I could still watch it. Pretty epic. Gosh, I guess I shouldn't worry about a considerable sum of my earnings being taken by the government because I can still spend it like that never happened according to you.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That power should stripped from the government, and frankly, the only fair compensation is one that is agreed upon.
Click to expand...

There have been moments where I could almost agree, but rarely on behalf of the rich and powerful.

So instead of acting in civil manner and giving companies a reason to not leave to less controlling/less taxed/lower wage states or countries the solution is that the public sphere should compete with the private sphere? I can't say I'm surprised so many people agree with your view. Personally though, I think its very sad that people are leaning more and more on government.
Click to expand...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, plus other expressions about, "playing with fire." Towns and states suffering from capital flight rarely have the ability to give companies a reason to stay other than moral reasons like, "your business is part of our community, and part of our identity as a people -- we've invested in each other and helped one another grow, " which shareholders rarely find convincing.

Fact is, having wealth and political standing entails making hard power calculations about how the people around you are going to respond to your actions in the long term and whether they'll attempt to displace your way of life with a different system of economic organization. That's the case in anarchy as well as representative democracy.
 
Mycroft said:
Are you actually asking me?

Or are you just using my post as a jumping off point to make some obscure or, maybe, sarcastic statement?
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm.
 
Fenton said:
Not killing your local economy with massive tax increases IS having your priorities in order.
Click to expand...

Supporting private sector health care is more resource inefficient in the long term. The public of Vermont will be spending much more money on that over the course of lives than they would have on taxes.
 
Morality Games said:
Supporting private sector health care is more resource inefficient in the long term. The public of Vermont will be spending much more money on that over the course of lives than they would have on taxes.
Click to expand...

Credible source for that statement?
 
countryboy said:
Credible source for that statement?
Click to expand...

It

Although I'm not sure how you could expect things to be different. You're a car salesman's best friend if you buy a new car every year. The purpose of private health care is to make you pay as much as the market can humanly endure, whereas governments are answerable to the people for making the most economic use of tax revenue; a politician who fails to make the single payer system work is out of the job, whereas human biology requires that there will always be a surplus consumption for private health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom