• 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!

The Bernie Plan (to bankrupt the country)

Several things to note...

1) No other nation has our societal health costs. Our obesity problem alone drives our costs up massively.
2) Our healthcare system, ie: medicare/medicaid, is more generous than any national health system which I am aware of in terms of the quantity, quality, and availability of care available.
3) US healthcare spending is what drives global R&D, if we suddenly had reimbursements in line with the UK for instance, who would throw billions into R&D for new drugs and therapies?
4) Government tuition views in the US are like views on healthcare. Morons in the US think universal healthcare would look like Medicare, except free, when in reality it would look nothing like that. The same is true for higher education, look at Europe. Yes, college is free, if you are in the top 10% of academic performance and also heading into a productive field. None of this free healthcare for art history majors at 60k/yr crackpot universities.

Bernie will not become the next POTUS, of that I am pretty damned certain. The DNC will kneecap him one way or another and if they don't he will lose in the general if it were to happen tomorrow. If you think older/established democrats are going to vote for Bernie you are nuts. In any case I think the Dems have a very hard general coming up. If they go with the Biden/Bloomberg theory then all the young miscreants looking or Santa Claus stay home in a huff. If the event Bernie/Warren get the nomination, older/wealthier Dems stay home.

1. our health care costs can't be explained by obesity. That does drive up costs, yes, but other nations have health issues as well.
2 it's not easy to get care if all you have is Medicaid. Payments are not as generous as you seem to think.
3. If that's so, then let's make those freeloaders pay for their own R and D.
4. No one knows what universal health care would look like, as the Congress has not even proposed such a plan. The next POTUS, whoever that is, isn't going to write the plan.

If it's down to Bernie or Trump, he just might win. I do think there are better candidates out there, though.
 
There is no such thing is gov't funded, it is always taxpayer funded and when the taxpayers have less money that impacts state and local governments and their ability to solve social problems, neither you or Bernie followers understand that

There is no free lunch.

That's true, and well understood except by the followers of the trickle down economic plan.
 
1. our health care costs can't be explained by obesity. That does drive up costs, yes, but other nations have health issues as well.
2 it's not easy to get care if all you have is Medicaid. Payments are not as generous as you seem to think.
3. If that's so, then let's make those freeloaders pay for their own R and D.
4. No one knows what universal health care would look like, as the Congress has not even proposed such a plan. The next POTUS, whoever that is, isn't going to write the plan.

If it's down to Bernie or Trump, he just might win. I do think there are better candidates out there, though.

1) No nation has our obesity problem, not even close, especially when combined with lack of physical exercise. The US breeds lazy fat sloths more than anything else.
2) I know more about healthcare than you, I am quite certain, and I am aware of medicaid reimbursements. However people on these programs still end up with more generous treatments than in universal care systems.
3) Good luck enforcing that. Most of the EU isn't carrying anything resembling their weight on defense spending either (NATO rules) and when Trump brings it up he gets lambasted by the media for "attacking allies". I am sure if you simply moved US drug reimbursement prices to the NHS level you would just see R&D slow not EU spending increase. Everyone wants their free lunch and politicians are perfectly fine creating a future problem for immediately expediency.
4) You do one way or another and if you are a senior on Medicare you should be *scared to death* of single payor. Right now Medicare is vastly superior to any option in Europe, any change to that is down, not up.

If you think Bernie beats Trump in this economy, you need to look around. The 50+ crowd is going to revolt against Bernie because he is an existential threat to them.
 
1) No nation has our obesity problem, not even close, especially when combined with lack of physical exercise. The US breeds lazy fat sloths more than anything else.
2) I know more about healthcare than you, I am quite certain, and I am aware of medicaid reimbursements. However people on these programs still end up with more generous treatments than in universal care systems.
3) Good luck enforcing that. Most of the EU isn't carrying anything resembling their weight on defense spending either (NATO rules) and when Trump brings it up he gets lambasted by the media for "attacking allies". I am sure if you simply moved US drug reimbursement prices to the NHS level you would just see R&D slow not EU spending increase. Everyone wants their free lunch and politicians are perfectly fine creating a future problem for immediately expediency.
4) You do one way or another and if you are a senior on Medicare you should be *scared to death* of single payor. Right now Medicare is vastly superior to any option in Europe, any change to that is down, not up.

If you think Bernie beats Trump in this economy, you need to look around. The 50+ crowd is going to revolt against Bernie because he is an existential threat to them.

You simply can't attribute the cost of health care in the US relative to other nations simply to "obesity." This is a complex issue that won't be solved by simplistic answers.

If obesity really is the reason for our out of control costs, then let's charge people by the pound for health insurance

As for R and D, we're not the only nation that develops new medications. Moreover, the pharmaceutical companies spend far more on marketing than they do on R and D.
 
You simply can't attribute the cost of health care in the US relative to other nations simply to "obesity." This is a complex issue that won't be solved by simplistic answers.

If obesity really is the reason for our out of control costs, then let's charge people by the pound for health insurance

As for R and D, we're not the only nation that develops new medications. Moreover, the pharmaceutical companies spend far more on marketing than they do on R and D.

It's not just obesity, but that is a huge driver of it. The other aspects are the fact that healthcare in this country is largely unrationed and incredibly available, something not true overseas. Medicare patients in the US are famous for getting $100k procedures at 90 years old. That simply doesn't happen in NHS-world.

Correct, we are not the only nation to develop new treatments, but everyone who develops treatments does so with the US market in mind. The US is approximately 20% of the global market for pharmaceuticals and biologics, yet we represent 85-88% of the profit for those companies. Imagine if we simply went to a proportional share of profits. Suddenly you see a collapse in pharma/biotech/med device profitability.

As much as it is easy to beat the crap out of Pfizer, their profitability is only marginally above utilities.
 
Exactly. Most health insurance plans are really pre paid health care, and not really insurance. If the patient paid for his own routine care, but had insurance for catastrophic events, then costs would drop.

What Medicare does is provide hospitalization free, and pays 80% of the rest for a monthly fee of around $150, depending on the age of the recipient. A supplemental plan is required if you can't pay that 20% of the $500,000 bill accrued by having cancer.

Here's the Dittohead Not! plan: Gradually drop the age for Medicare, not all at once, but a little at a time. Meanwhile, change the 80% flat payment to a floating rate from 0 to 100%, the 100% kicking in after the patient has paid 10% of his/her annual income for health care. The patient could, of course, purchase insurance to cover that 10%, or could have a health savings plan, or simply take his chances. Choices. Eventually, Medicare would start at birth. We'd have a real Medicare for all system that would cost far less than what we have now.

That seems like a much more reasonable insurance plan than M4A, but I would make that optional (the long awaited "public option"?) and also base the monthly premiums more on one's ability to pay.
 
That seems like a much more reasonable insurance plan than M4A, but I would make that optional (the long awaited "public option"?) and also base the monthly premiums more on one's ability to pay.

Until you realize that you just bankrupted 99% of hospitals in the nation. Medicare reimbursements are *below* the cost of actually providing care.
 
There is no such thing is gov't funded, it is always taxpayer funded and when the taxpayers have less money that impacts state and local governments and their ability to solve social problems, neither you or Bernie followers understand that

I can point to about 20 trillion reasons why you are wrong. As always.
 
It's not just obesity, but that is a huge driver of it. The other aspects are the fact that healthcare in this country is largely unrationed and incredibly available, something not true overseas. Medicare patients in the US are famous for getting $100k procedures at 90 years old. That simply doesn't happen in NHS-world.

Correct, we are not the only nation to develop new treatments, but everyone who develops treatments does so with the US market in mind. The US is approximately 20% of the global market for pharmaceuticals and biologics, yet we represent 85-88% of the profit for those companies. Imagine if we simply went to a proportional share of profits. Suddenly you see a collapse in pharma/biotech/med device profitability.

As much as it is easy to beat the crap out of Pfizer, their profitability is only marginally above utilities.

I'm sure the US market represents high profits for pharmaceuticals as we pay a lot more than anyone else. Sounds to me like it's time to quit subsidizing other markets. Lower our costs, raise theirs and give us a more level playing field.

I'm really not sure how much longer we can afford the system we have now.
 
You made a claim and cannot come up with one reason showing exactly what is wrong with people like you. I taught my kids personal responsibility, you apparently lost out

There's another sentence of yours that makes zero sense. Maybe you are having some little strokes or something - better get that checked out.

Earlier, you said this:

There is no such thing is gov't funded, it is always taxpayer funded and when the taxpayers have less money that impacts state and local governments and their ability to solve social problems, neither you or Bernie followers understand that

We've already gone over why this is wrong, but you always come back to it. Federal deficit spending is not taxpayer funded, period. Governents sovereign in their own currency have this power - they can crank out their own currency, and they can spend it. That spending may or may not have some other effects, but it doesn't put taxpayers on the hook for anything, including interest. And like any other dollars, government deficit spending is income to those who earn it - income that would not otherwise have existed.

Until you can grasp that simple truth, all of your arguments are going to be wrong.
 
I'm sure the US market represents high profits for pharmaceuticals as we pay a lot more than anyone else. Sounds to me like it's time to quit subsidizing other markets. Lower our costs, raise theirs and give us a more level playing field.

I'm really not sure how much longer we can afford the system we have now.

Yea, in a perfect world that makes sense. Say the world global price was 60% of what we pay in the US. That means it is 30% higher for the EU. They aren't interested in that, they would rather continue to get the low-rate price and say screw it. It really is very similar to NATO and defense spending. The wealthiest nation in Europe, refuses to get anywhere close to their spending commitments while they are snuggling up to the very nation they are demanding we protect them from.
 
Yea, in a perfect world that makes sense. Say the world global price was 60% of what we pay in the US. That means it is 30% higher for the EU. They aren't interested in that, they would rather continue to get the low-rate price and say screw it. It really is very similar to NATO and defense spending. The wealthiest nation in Europe, refuses to get anywhere close to their spending commitments while they are snuggling up to the very nation they are demanding we protect them from.

It makes sense even in an imperfect world. What doesn't make sense is paying $600 for an epi pen.
 
There is only one important difference between the U.S. and other developed countries with UHC: our politicians' careers depend upon securing as much money as possible to run for re-election, and they get a huge chunk of that re-election money from companies and other organizations. And those companies and organizations expect political favors for their money. It's not hard to understand why politicians have voted the way they have voted (especially concerning healthcare) once you see where their campaign funds are coming from.

All of the other reasons put forth are just excuses or talking points put forth by the same companies and organizations that are profiting handsomely from our present dysfunctional healthcare system. The size of the population, the level/quality of care, the various costs of living, obesity, the (false) idea that all advancements in medicine are a product of company-funded R&D - it's all crap, and you are all suckers for falling for it.
 
There's another sentence of yours that makes zero sense. Maybe you are having some little strokes or something - better get that checked out.

Earlier, you said this:



We've already gone over why this is wrong, but you always come back to it. Federal deficit spending is not taxpayer funded, period. Governents sovereign in their own currency have this power - they can crank out their own currency, and they can spend it. That spending may or may not have some other effects, but it doesn't put taxpayers on the hook for anything, including interest. And like any other dollars, government deficit spending is income to those who earn it - income that would not otherwise have existed.

Until you can grasp that simple truth, all of your arguments are going to be wrong.

Not sure where you got your education but the federal gov't gets its money from either taxes or printing it. Not sure what your parents did with you but this is embarrassing. Deficit spending has nothing to do with taxes, it has everything to do with gov't appropriations and the ability to deficit spend
 
House call visits have nothing to do with med-mal, it is just about reimbursement.

You mentioned costs. Malpractice insurance is a cost, and a major one at that for many physicians, whereas reimbursement is on the income side of the ledger, correct? So we must look at both revenues and expenses to understand what is happening. Low reimbursement rates drive doctors to increase the volume of patients they see, and this problematic for any doctor who would make house calls due to travel time. In my state (Mississippi), there is such a shortage of medical personnel that a person can get an RN license in a two-year program instead of four and nurse practitioners essentially function as surrogate doctors.
 
There is only one important difference between the U.S. and other developed countries with UHC: our politicians' careers depend upon securing as much money as possible to run for re-election, and they get a huge chunk of that re-election money from companies and other organizations. And those companies and organizations expect political favors for their money. It's not hard to understand why politicians have voted the way they have voted (especially concerning healthcare) once you see where their campaign funds are coming from.

All of the other reasons put forth are just excuses or talking points put forth by the same companies and organizations that are profiting handsomely from our present dysfunctional healthcare system. The size of the population, the level/quality of care, the various costs of living, obesity, the (false) idea that all advancements in medicine are a product of company-funded R&D - it's all crap, and you are all suckers for falling for it.

Do you have any idea what other countries components of GDP? Why don't you figure it before it is too late for you to celebrate what it means to be in this country
 
Do you have any idea what other countries components of GDP? Why don't you figure it before it is too late for you to celebrate what it means to be in this country

I'm chalking this post up to two new strokes. Call your doctor.
 
Not sure where you got your education but the federal gov't gets its money from either taxes or printing it. Not sure what your parents did with you but this is embarrassing. Deficit spending has nothing to do with taxes, it has everything to do with gov't appropriations and the ability to deficit spend

And you also said this:

There is no such thing is gov't funded, it is always taxpayer funded and when the taxpayers have less money that impacts state and local governments and their ability to solve social problems, neither you or Bernie followers understand that

Get it together, man. One position per debater.
 
I have it together, you are too blinded by a failed ideology and a very poor education

So which is it? Do taxpayers (a) pay for everything, or (b) can the government also pay for things by printing money?

Either you are wrong (a), or I have been right all along (b). I can live with either answer.
 
So which is it? Do taxpayers (a) pay for everything, or (b) can the government also pay for things by printing money?

Either you are wrong (a), or I have been right all along (b). I can live with either answer.

LOL, again, is this the education you received? when exactly does the gov't print money to pay for deficits? They sell bonds to pay for deficits and have made our deficits a Ponzi scheme where new bonds pay for payment to other bond holders when their bonds come due. I can see how you were raised and it is scary

This thread is about Bernie, and his a joke as are his followers
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom