Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 72

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #31
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    ...
    I think at this point in time, most people of voting age who actually vote think that what Bernie Sanders is saying about "socialism" is a one-way ticket to the hell of a totalitarian communism like in the peak of the Cold War, such as, the People's Republic of China, the USSR and Cuba, etc.... ...They believe that they will get taxed out of house & home and more!
    I think 'people of voting age who actually vote' is code for old people. Not to quibble too much, you are sort of right, but there are plenty of voters who don't remember the USSR, or think of Mao when they think of the PRC -- they think of a capitalist-looking empire for one, and a kleptocracy for the other, not any form of socialist paradise. At best, those with some political awareness think of Venezuela as the scary socialist boogeyman. But we'll find out soon whether or not socialism is on the average considered a good thing
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by:

  3. TopTop #32
    rossmen
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!



    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    OK, so please elaborate, what's your strategy?
    The electoral college was put in place by the founding peeps for states rights, remember the name of our nation? Why should we go for pop election and ditch the state's who have the most land? The land is more important than people, why should not our people with most land have more electoral power than us? That was part of the original plan.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #33
    cyberanvil
    Guest

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    So Medicare for All is the answer, but what flavor are we talking about here?
    Food for thought --------------

    Medicare-for-All Is Not Medicare

    https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-actually-mean
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #34
    M/M's Avatar
    M/M
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  7. TopTop #35
    Cynthia Poten's Avatar
    Cynthia Poten
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    I think it would be more to the point, more neutral at least, to have this thread titled

    "Is Medicare for All a Losing General Election Position?"

    The media, and centrist Democrat talking heads are all over the title you're using, a form of promotion for continuing the most expensive and least effective medical system in the world. And for continuing profit as the measure of U.S. medical care via private insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The arguments supporting the 'losing position for the general election' argument do not strike me as objective. They do not explain how medicare for all could work, only why it won't.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 9 members:

  9. TopTop #36
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Cynthia Poten: View Post
    ...The arguments supporting the 'losing position for the general election' argument do not strike me as objective. They do not explain how medicare for all could work, only why it won't.
    It's not about whether MFA will work or not, or how good it will be. It's about that enough people will resist voting for a candidate supporting MFA that will force them to change their insurance, regardless if it will work and will cost less, because they are uncomfortable with the idea... And the Republicans, and the health care industry, will make them downright scared about MFA, that we will loose the election.

    There's a simple answer: A Public Option which provides universal coverage which is the most important thing. People should have a choice to choose, even if you think it is a bad choice.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-04-2019 at 01:56 PM.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #37
    Meinvelt
    Guest

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    I don't fully understand your comment. I agree with Cynthia's thoughts...

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    It's not about whether MFA will work or not, or how good it will be. ...
    Last edited by Barry; 12-04-2019 at 01:57 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #38
    forveterans49's Avatar
    forveterans49
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Not surprised and very pissed off. I won't vote for any one who does not want Medicare for All. Just my opinion.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. Gratitude expressed by:

  14. TopTop #39
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Meinvelt: View Post
    I don't fully understand your comment. I agree with Cynthia's thoughts...
    I don't disagree with Cynthia, I just think her point is irrelevant. I think so does Barry. If I understand his point, it's all about perception, not about fact.

    I tend to agree with the line of thought that elections aren't really about policy and facts. Most voters vote for someone they're comfortable, and against someone who they fear or distrust. Actually, all voters do that, it's just that some of us (I hope I'm one but you never can tell...) are better at analyzing our attitudes vis a' vis actual data, and hopefully changing our ideas if they're unjustifiable.

    Clearly, Trump voters were not at all swayed by objective reality. Devout religious people went all in for a foul-mouthed lying lecher; fiscal conservatives went for a kleptocrat, workers needing a job went for someone who's famous for the phrase "you're fired!". His appeal is emotional and aimed at fearful people who are worried about losing what they have.

    Obama was the opposite; he represented progress and progressive ideals even though he was in bed with the financial status quo and great-powers politics. And Hillary Clinton represented every woman in authority you'd had since kindergarten, making it easy for those who she wanted to represent to instead find a reason to resent her.

    And you think people care that when you do the spreadsheets, the bottom line is better even though they and their companies pay more in taxes? That they trust "gummint insurance" even though they hate the DMV? I'm with Barry, it's a loser issue politically. Look at the fight, starting with Bill Clinton, that it took to get any re-thinking of the health care system. This one won't be easy, people are easy to scare, and no-one will gain votes overall by being a purist about it.

    In the end, though, it's the right thing to do and it may happen -- but it won't be a winning issue in any election.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-04-2019 at 01:59 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  16. TopTop #40
    rossmen
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    I still don't get why this issue is so complicated for everyone. Years ago I cited an old Harper's article about a solution that would serve everyone. Catrostrophic Medicare for everyone. And low income gets gov coverage too. We need to pay for our own healthcare, if we can, otherwise there is no competition and we have less incentive to take care of ourselves. And health providers need to compete. A well regulated market creates the most innovation and efficiency. Think lazer eye surgery. The price has come down, quality has gone up, never covered by insurance. Prescription drugs? Insurance scam promulgated by government. We need to take care of ourselves, ie eat rite, get out of the car, love each other. And if there's a chance to live through extreme measures, sure let the government help. Of course such a solution which honors merican values and trumps universally provided health care right is not part of the question.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-05-2019 at 02:47 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #41
    M/M's Avatar
    M/M
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Additional articles:

    Democratic Naysayers Are Wrong on Medicare for All
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...g-medicare-all

    Republicans (and Even Some Democrats) Trying to Scare You Away From Medicare for All Are Peddling Rubbish https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...l-are-peddling

    Medicare for All: Medicine for a For-Profit System Addicted to Itself
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ddicted-itself

    We can be doing so MUCH more in terms of preventative medicine; cleaning environment from glyphosate, pesticides and other toxins; cleaning up water nationwide.... et cetera.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-05-2019 at 05:43 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  19. TopTop #42
    Cynthia Poten's Avatar
    Cynthia Poten
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Link to how medicare and welfare for all is done in Sweden.

    https://www.democracynow.org/2019/12...social_welfare
    Last edited by Barry; 12-05-2019 at 05:42 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  21. TopTop #43
    RicoBoccia's Avatar
    RicoBoccia
     

    Medicare For All isn't necessarily a losing position (but that's not what's important)

    It's interesting how this thread has split in two. One group wants to discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it. The other group wants to play Unpaid Political Operative and make guesses about what voters may or may not respond to. To those in the second group: You're not helping. Please go do something else.

    (I was going to say stick to watching MSNBC, but that's also a bad idea. It's a channel that pretends to be liberal, but it's very sure not to say anything not approved by its corporate bosses, the Comcast Corporation, a $100+ billion company. These days its "campaign coverage" amounts to the same kind of horse race punditry, the difference being, I suppose, that it's undertaken by actual, paid political operatives.)

    Now if you believe that M4A is simply too radical, I would encourage you to read M. L. King's Letter From Birmingham Jail of 1963. It's from a different time and in a different context, but there is a parallel. Particularly in this part:

    For years now I have heard the word "wait." It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say "wait."

    https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  23. TopTop #44
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Medicare For All isn't necessarily a losing position (but that's not what's important)

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia: View Post
    It's interesting how this thread has split in two. One group wants to discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it. The other group wants to play Unpaid Political Operative and make guesses about what voters may or may not respond to. To those in the second group: You're not helping. Please go do something else.
    ok, to respond in kind: read the thread title. Sure, there's an aside that may serve as a disclaimer, but the premise of this thread is exactly about what the voters may or may not respond to. Although you're not helping, you're welcome to stay. Just don't get snippy about those who responded to the invitation rather than are attempting to hijack the party
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  25. TopTop #45
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia: View Post
    It's interesting how this thread has split in two. One group wants to discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it. The other group wants to play Unpaid Political Operative and make guesses about what voters may or may not respond to. To those in the second group: You're not helping. Please go do something else.
    Sorry, but it is the first group that you specify ("discuss our screwed up healthcare system and how we might fix it") who are off topic. The people who support MFA, constantly want to change the topic, to why MFA is better. I'm not contesting that (although I don't see why it is better than Medicare for All Who Want it, other that it prohibits people from making what you think is a bad choice).

    The point is in a general election the difference between the Democratic candidate supporting "Medicare For All" vs "Medicare For All Who Want It", is that you are forcing people who don't want it, for whatever reason, wise or unwise, to accept it against their will. That will cost us votes! It's simple math! And whether or not we win the next election is the most important thing!

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. Gratitude expressed by:

  27. TopTop #46
    kburgess's Avatar
    kburgess
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    It is very simple ...
    Any govt run program is wasteful and inefficient, Thus MCA does not and will not ever work.
    It may sound great on the outside, but as you clearly state, w/o incentive for the individual to be health and for the administration to be efficient, waste and bloat will predominate in the system and it is doomed to fail. Also private sector is MUCH more capable in adapting to changing issues and developing plans that meed the real needs of the people and society and competition makes sure that those ideas multiply and provide the public with effective options.

    IN ADDITION ...
    It is ESSENTIAL that the govt mandates a common medical datafile format so that the personal medical records for each patient can be easily transferred electronically to all other providers when a patient changes their provider, AND that there is public, transparent and True-Cost billing of the medical facilities to the insurance companies so that there are limited hidden charges. There are probably more things to add to this list, but this is a start. Maybe some of you have other suggestions as well.

    As usual, the real waste is not so much in the overall plans, but in how those plans are implemented and carried out in a manner that does not work for the overall collective good of internal collective competition.
    Ken.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-06-2019 at 11:33 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. Gratitude expressed by:

  29. TopTop #47

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    It is not true that all government programs are wasteful; it depends entirely on how well they are managed, just like private enterprise. Large organizations generally tend to be less efficient than small ones, and a lot depends on how you measure efficiency. Private corporations are just as wasteful as public organizations, they just hide it better. Plus our fetish for competition is incredibly inefficient, since it involves both massive duplication of effort and also militates against the very standardization that you say is necessary.

    Private corporations have as their prime objective the maximization of profit, and in many cases short term profit. This is fine when you are dealing in luxuries, but there is no such thing as a free market in necessities such as health care. If I have the pill that will keep you alive, how much will you as a willing buyer pay me for it? As for incentives to keep healthy, don't you think just being healthy is sufficient incentive? Anyway the same objection holds for any insurance scheme whether public or private.

    Any health care system must at some point set a limit on how much care can be delivered: would you rather have that decision made a) by someone who is paid to minimize costs and maximize profit or b) someone who is paid to keep you healthy? Seems like a no brainer to me.

    Patrick Brinton

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by kburgess: View Post
    It is very simple ...
    Any govt run program is wasteful and inefficient, Thus MCA does not and will not ever work. ...
    Last edited by Barry; 12-06-2019 at 11:08 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  31. TopTop #48
    occihoff's Avatar
    occihoff
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    So do you think the majority of citizens of Canada, England, France, Germany, and whatever other countries out there that have government-run health care systems, dislike their systems and wish they had one more like the United States? I don't really know, just askin'---

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by kburgess: View Post
    It is very simple ...
    Any govt run program is wasteful and inefficient, Thus MCA does not and will not ever work....
    Last edited by Barry; 12-06-2019 at 11:09 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  33. TopTop #49
    kburgess's Avatar
    kburgess
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    You raise some good points:

    Can public sector programs/organizations be considered to be the same as large private sector ones?
    Both have their merits, but anything private is smaller and more agile than the public. Yes it does all depend on how it is run/managed, but the incentive in the public arena is just not the same as the private. Yes we can have hybrids and alternatives like Coop's, Trusts, Private w/Public oversight, Open Source and more but no matter how you cut it MCA is just too big to fit all the needs.

    What is the best way to maximize cost efficiency within the Health-Care/Disease-Mgt system?

    They are very different systems. Health Care is to Care for Health. That starts in the Home, Farm, School, Edu and Society and is not a direct part of Disease-Mgt. Both require research, but DM burns up a LOT more $$ and I feel that all primary DM research should be public and open and not corporate sponsored like we have now. If it truly was public and open we would have many times the number of cures and costs would be dramatically lower. Then the system becomes one of Health Support though positive life, and the distribution of innovative research to handle the odd exceptions, but MCA under our current health/disease structure would be a disaster.

    I have chronic conditions and both appreciate places like UCSF and yet hate them for being so limited in the areas that they can endorse and so have to tread both worlds to find my own health and peace.
    Ken.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton: View Post
    It is not true that all government programs are wasteful; it depends entirely on how well they are managed, just like private enterprise. ...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. Gratitude expressed by:

  35. TopTop #50
    kburgess's Avatar
    kburgess
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    I think that it is mixed ...
    The US has great high tech research for certain areas of expertise and they love that side of what we do. On the other hand we are much more limited in the breadth of solutions that we will consider, that is what they dislike. They like the fact that they have a simple financial structure but do not like their taxes and wait times for treatment.

    On the things that we fund, we do great, but we have major blinders on what we will endorse. Obviously corporate sponsored research, benefits only a few. No new news.
    Thanks, Ken.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by occihoff: View Post
    So do you think the majority of citizens of Canada, England, France, Germany, and whatever other countries out there that have government-run health care systems, dislike their systems and wish they had one more like the United States? I don't really know, just askin'---
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  36. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  37. TopTop #51
    cyberanvil
    Guest

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by occihoff: View Post
    So do you think the majority of citizens of Canada, England, France, Germany, and whatever other countries out there that have government-run health care systems, dislike their systems and wish they had one more like the United States? I don't really know, just askin'---
    You know what the problem with this whole discussion is? There is not one, but many forms of MFA plans being proposed. Of course there is Joe, who is against the idea completely. So the Euro plans can't really be compared because our proposals are many and the Euro's are not homoginist in the implemented plans.

    Have you read my link? Comments?

    https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-actually-mean
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  38. Gratitude expressed by:

  39. TopTop #52
    Dogenzip's Avatar
    Dogenzip
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    In reply to kburgess on health care.
    Pls review the facts.
    The per capita health spending during 2016 in the US was $10,224 per person, whereas in Canada it was $4,826 per person - with equal or better outcomes, depending on what measure used. (Source OECD Data)
    Canada has a single payer health care system.

    Review the facts carefully and you an only conclude that European countries, Canada, NZ with single payer health care spend less and do better than the big corporate for-profit system in the US. Oh, and check out the Medicare trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $678.7 billion for 2016, of which $9.2 billion was characterized as "administrative expenses." That works out to 1.4 percent vs. that of private (and life expectancy is the lowest at 78.6 yrs vs. that of 11 developed countries averaging 82.2 yrs in 2016 and going down according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the OECD Health Statistics Database.



    Can public sector programs/organizations be considered to be the same as large private sector ones?
    Both have their merits, but anything private is smaller and more agile than the public. Yes it does all depend on how it is run/managed, but the incentive in the public arena is just not the same as the private. Yes we can have hybrids and alternatives like Coop's, Trusts, Private w/Public oversight, Open Source and more but no matter how you cut it MCA is just too big to fit all the needs.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  40. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  41. TopTop #53
    kburgess's Avatar
    kburgess
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Thanks,
    I appreciate the points.
    I only hope that what is being proposed for MCA truly is the efficient system that you are citing. I have a LOT of doubts that the dems would actually propose a system that is built with efficiency and public benefit as its core design criteria. It is not dem vs rep, but just the DC system on both sides that is rotten to the core with too many hands in too many pockets and ropes around everyones necks. Bottom line for me is that it is NOT about MCA or not, but about DC corruption in everything, and until it gets resolved, for me a private based system is more fair and equitable. Just my thinking.
    Thanks again,
    Ken.
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dogenzip: View Post
    In reply to kburgess on health care.
    Pls review the facts...
    Last edited by Barry; 12-08-2019 at 02:04 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  42. TopTop #54
    occihoff's Avatar
    occihoff
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    But my question is--do the Euros wish they had a plan more like ours? If so, why don't they change it?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil: View Post
    You know what the problem with this whole discussion is? There is not one, but many forms of MFA plans being proposed. Of course there is Joe, who is against the idea completely. So the Euro plans can't really be compared because our proposals are many and the Euro's are not homoginist in the implemented plans.

    Have you read my link? Comments?

    https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-actually-mean
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. Gratitude expressed by:

  44. TopTop #55
    cyberanvil
    Guest

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by occihoff: View Post
    But my question is--do the Euros wish they had a plan more like ours? If so, why don't they change it?
    Didn't someone ask how do the Euro's manage to finance their healthcare (maybe it was you). Well, just finished watching a short program about US and Scandinavian taxes. It was mentioned that in the Scandinavian countries if a person earns $70,000 then with the VAT tax and all, they will fork over $40,000 to the government. Yowsers!!! Not too sure I'm ready for such a thing.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  45. TopTop #56
    kburgess's Avatar
    kburgess
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil: View Post
    Didn't someone ask how do the Euro's manage to finance their healthcare ....
    That is the joy of any socialist type system ...Sooooo easy to keep raising taxes and promise more benefits, but never really have to deliver, because there is no genuine private competition. In a moderately transparent system, there are always innovators who will change the game with a better product. We see it every day with online insurance, razors, cars, food delivery, transportation/Uber/Lyft, ...We forget that all of this is private innovation and game changing innovation that does not happen in a govt run economy.This is why the rest of the world models us!!!(and also tries to rob us blind, the real truth is sickening!!!)Ken.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-10-2019 at 11:42 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  46. TopTop #57
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by kburgess: View Post
    That is the joy of any socialist type system ...
    oh, god, come on. The rest of the world most definitely does not want to model us, they do not rob us blind, and the real truth may be sickening but it's not what you seem to be claiming. We and the other colonial powers can be charged with robbing people, quite literally.

    True, we're all human and take advantage of cultural innovations from millenia past. The west, and certainly America, has no monopoly on the best innovation. We're also quite willing to put up with costs for our 'freedom' that shocks the rest of the civilized world. Been down the bike path recently? That's a particularly American innovation - not the bike path, the camping. And that cheap online insurance you're talking about? Somehow I don't think you'd find any nation anywhere that envies what we laughingly call a health-care system. We do spend a fortune on the military, so it's only fair that we get spinoffs like the internet or Tang.

    But you're falling into the trap a lot of Americans do - they treat our differences as virtues and ignore the incredible human cost. We're the place where high-achieving kids are killing themselves at high rates, where middle-age people who can't manage to turn into younger, high-achieving, well-educated jobseekers turn to people like Trump for salvation and self-medicate with opioids, and where working fifty-plus hours a week for fifty-plus hours a year seems normal. What the hell are you thinking with that scornful dismissal of 'socialism', which you seem to define incredibly broadly?
    Last edited by Barry; 12-10-2019 at 11:43 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  48. TopTop #58
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil: View Post
    Didn't someone ask how do the Euro's manage to finance their healthcare ...
    I can't say I care what goes to the government. I measure it by how much money I have left for beer, music and debauchery. If the 40 grand goes to expenses I'd be paying like rent, insurance, protection money or other fixed expenses, it's no matter to me whether it's called taxes or not. The only way to compare is to see who can have more discretionary spending on a $70K salary - me or a Swede? oh yeah, there's that quality of life thing too. How are the roads over there?
    Last edited by Barry; 12-10-2019 at 11:43 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  50. TopTop #59
    cyberanvil
    Guest

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    .. The only way to compare is to see who can have more discretionary spending on a $70K salary - me or a Swede? ...
    Not following you. With a fixed income of $70K, more taxes mean less discretionary income.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. TopTop #60
    kburgess's Avatar
    kburgess
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    oh, god, come on. The rest of the world most definitely does not want to model us, ...
    and I suppose that you are endorsing socialism?What merits does it have as a truly sustainable system of society?Yes we have our problems, but they are not caused by thoughtful community decisions, but more from executive level choices which are driven more by the banking cartel's than human/personal decision.If we truly had an un-shackled society where truth and human value were the basis for our medium of exchange, we would be in a very different place. Yes I am an idealist, but our world today is a far cry from what it could be, and yet none of it is too far from becoming a reality.Whatever you use for news is not serving you well.I do not disagree about any of the ills that you cite, but also realize that there a LOT more serious ones, and what you cite are just the symptoms of a much greater plague that has encircled the entire world and we are just the last and prize ring for the cabal to destroy.You may not buy my view of the world, but that does not make it any less true.Thanks, Ken.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 03:44 PM
  2. How the West Is Losing Turkey
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 05:21 AM
  3. Winning and Losing in Gaza
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 07:42 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2008, 09:37 AM
  5. The art of losing is...
    By SEELOVE in forum Poetry and Prose
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 07:32 AM

Bookmarks