• 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

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.

This is satire, right?
 
Didn't happen to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Occasionally people will buy that tax increases are justified. But if that doesn't happen, the politician is out of the job.
 
Not killing your local economy with massive tax increases IS having your priorities in order.

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.

In Vermont's case, as in too few others where fuzzy-headed wrong-wing government giveaways are concerned, the analysis was done with regard to what it would take to pay for it, and what impact it would have on the economy. It was determined the degree to which taxes would have to be raised in order to pay for this program; and it was determined that this level of taxation would be destructive to Vermont's economy, causing harm that would far exceed the value of the claimed benefits of this program.

However inefficient you might claim the current health care system n Vermont is, the economy has been able to sustain it and survive it, and can be expected to continue to do so.

To claim that a government-run health care system would be more efficient than one based on private enterprise requires pretty much the same irrational degree of wrong-wing folly and naïvetté that it takes to support any other form of socialism; but such folly and naïvetté aside, the objective facts are clear in this case—Vermont's economy simply cannot afford such a program.
 
Occasionally people will buy that tax increases are justified. But if that doesn't happen, the politician is out of the job.

LOL!!

Are you saying Obamacare...with all of its myriad tax increases...is popular? The polls don't...and never have...supported that. So your simplistic formula is just that...simplistic...and therefore, useless.
 
In Vermont's case, as in too few others where fuzzy-headed wrong-wing government giveaways are concerned, the analysis was done with regard to what it would take to pay for it, and what impact it would have on the economy. It was determined the degree to which taxes would have to be raised in order to pay for this program; and it was determined that this level of taxation would be destructive to Vermont's economy, causing harm that would far exceed the value of the claimed benefits of this program.

However inefficient you might claim the current health care system n Vermont is, the economy has been able to sustain it and survive it, and can be expected to continue to do so.

To claim that a government-run health care system would be more efficient than one based on private enterprise requires pretty much the same irrational degree of wrong-wing folly and naïvetté that it takes to support any other form of socialism; but such folly and naïvetté aside, the objective facts are clear in this case—Vermont's economy simply cannot afford such a program.

This is all very nice, but I know that pharmaceutical companies finance product design for a treatment based approach to health care specifically because that model of economic organization has proved more lucrative than the alternative where you fix someone and they don't come back to your business for years or decades. Curing diabetes would cause a recession in the medical industrial complex.

You don't have to consider the problem long before you realize that isn't right.
 
Back
Top Bottom