DIY Cheap Charlie

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, mike324 said:

I'm sure nobody wants to cut the defense budget, cutting a small percentage of defense budget can pay for all the free schooling and healthcare Americans will need each year.

 

No, no it wont. Schooling and healthcare runs around the 30 TRILLION mark. 

[expatfromwyoming]

All I saw was jingoism, racism, fear mongering and these are the ways of appealing to people if you're trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them. Democratic societies can't force people one way or the other. Therefore they have to control what they think.

[expatfromwyoming]

This crowd of Leftists reminds me of the Paul Ryan type republicans, who are/were, in my view, the most dangerous and savage group in the country, busy implementing programs that they have been talking quietly about for years. Very savage programs, which have very simple principles. One, be sure to offer to the rich and powerful gifts beyond the dreams of avarice, and [two], kick everyone else in the face especially small business. And it’s going on step by step 

[mike324]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

No, no it wont. Schooling and healthcare runs around the 30 TRILLION mark. 

Free schooling I was referring to college. After some research, it would cost $170 billion per year. Its not as small as I thought it was as I was looking at the figures Bernie quoted which was $70 billion. Perhaps a subsidize 30% tuition would be more sustainable.

 

I was thinking of basic healthcare for citizens, of course you can't cover everything. But you are right we can't cover both with a small cut to the defense budget which currently is at over 700 billion.

 

The healthcare spending per year is $3.2 trillion according to CDC figures. So your 30 trillion figure is way off the mark.

 

$3.2 trillion is total healthcare spending. Even with just basic healthcare it would be beneficial and save money down the road. America healthcare is out of control, the pricing for service and medicine is almost double compare to other develop nations in Europe. A lot of money can be saved if healthcare costs are cap. 

[Thainesss]

10 minutes ago, mike324 said:

Free schooling I was referring to college. After some research, it would cost $170 billion per year. Its not as small as I thought it was as I was looking at the figures Bernie quoted which was $70 billion. Perhaps a subsidize 30% tuition would be more sustainable.

 

I was thinking of basic healthcare for citizens, of course you can't cover everything. But you are right we can't cover both with a small cut to the defense budget which currently is at over 700 billion.

 

The healthcare spending per year is $3.2 trillion according to CDC figures. So your 30 trillion figure is way off the mark.

 

$3.2 trillion is total healthcare spending. Even with just basic healthcare it would be beneficial and save money down the road. America healthcare is out of control, the pricing for service and medicine is almost double compare to other develop nations in Europe. A lot of money can be saved if healthcare costs are cap. 

 

3.2 Trillion for Medicare/Medicaid and that’s mostly the elderly, not the entire nation of over 320 million people. You’re at 3.2 Trillion already and only a small fraction of the population. There are 180 million people on private insurance alone. 

 

It is a fact that to implement healthcare for all and remove student loan debt/provide “free” college - would be around the 30 Trillion dollar mark. 

 

The USA is a wealthy nation and only spends around 2.4% of its GDP on Defence. If you completely removed Defence and repurposed the funds you would barely even scratch the total costs of healthcare for all and “free” college. 

 

Do I think we can do better? Yes. But it’s how we go about it that’s the arguing point. We spend hundreds of billions on the ecosystem supporting illegal aliens in the USA - that would be a fantastic place to start. 

 

The left wants to continue the status quo and increase everyone’s taxes. That’s a problem for most people. 

[expatfromwyoming]

I really do wonder how some people of this world, forget the fact that these people are running for president. I mean, like Trump , they are all deeply unimpressive.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

3.2 Trillion for Medicare/Medicaid and that’s mostly the elderly, not the entire nation of over 320 million people. You’re at 3.2 Trillion already and only a small fraction of the population. There are 180 million people on private insurance alone. 

 

It is a fact that to implement healthcare for all and remove student loan debt/provide “free” college - would be around the 30 Trillion dollar mark. 

 

The USA is a wealthy nation and only spends around 2.4% of its GDP on Defence. If you completely removed Defence and repurposed the funds you would barely even scratch the total costs of healthcare for all and “free” college. 

 

Do I think we can do better? Yes. But it’s how we go about it that’s the arguing point. We spend hundreds of billions on the ecosystem supporting illegal aliens in the USA - that would be a fantastic place to start. 

 

The left wants to continue the status quo and increase everyone’s taxes. That’s a problem for most people. 

Where do you get these numbers from? The Dept. of Making Things Up?  To prove they're wrong is simple. All I had to do was google 4 questions. 1) How much was US GDP in 2018? 2) What percentage of US GDP was spent on healthcare in 2018? 3) How much was spent on Medicare in 2018? 4)How much was spent on Medicaid in 2018?

 

In 2018 US GDP was reckoned to be 20.41 trillion

Health care spending was reckoned to be 17.8 % of that.

That means about 4.37 trillion was spent on all US healthcare in 2018

Medicare spending in 2018 was 711 billion

Medicaid spending in 2017 (couldn't find 2018 figures) was 557 billion.

Nothing at all like the massively exaggerated figures you claim.

Edited July 6, 2019 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

The USA is a wealthy nation and only spends around 2.4% of its GDP on Defence. If you completely removed Defence and repurposed the funds you would barely even scratch the total costs of healthcare for all and “free” college. 

 

Do I think we can do better? Yes. But it’s how we go about it that’s the arguing point. We spend hundreds of billions on the ecosystem supporting illegal aliens in the USA - that would be a fantastic place to start. 

 

The left wants to continue the status quo and increase everyone’s taxes. That’s a problem for most people. 

The US spends over 50 percent of its discretionary spending on defence. Which comes to about 3.33 percent of GDP. (And that doesn't include spending on veterans which the Defense Dept. has cleverly removed from its budget. That's about 200 billion.) So more fake numbers from you. 

 

And what is the hundreds of billions spent "on the ecosystem supporting illegal aliens in the USA" Got any actual independently verifiable facts to back that up?

 

Actually, most people, including Republicans, think taxes on the rich are too low.

Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending

At the same time, there is broad support for increasing taxes on the wealthiest families. Voters support tax increases on families making over $10 million annually by a 46-point margin (70 percent favor-24 percent oppose), and support a hike on those making over $1 million by 36 points (65-29 percent).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-taxing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending

[Scott]

Off-topic, bickering posts and replies have been removed.  

 

[expatfromwyoming]

The perfect ticket for 2020

[expatfromwyoming]

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The US spends over 50 percent of its discretionary spending on defence. Which comes to about 3.33 percent of GDP. (And that doesn't include spending on veterans which the Defense Dept. has cleverly removed from its budget. That's about 200 billion.) So more fake numbers from you. 

 

And what is the hundreds of billions spent "on the ecosystem supporting illegal aliens in the USA" Got any actual independently verifiable facts to back that up?

 

Actually, most people, including Republicans, think taxes on the rich are too low.

Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending

At the same time, there is broad support for increasing taxes on the wealthiest families. Voters support tax increases on families making over $10 million annually by a 46-point margin (70 percent favor-24 percent oppose), and support a hike on those making over $1 million by 36 points (65-29 percent).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-taxing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending

In the United States, thanks largely to Bernie Sanders, the term single-payer health care has become more or less synonymous with the phrase "universal healthcare." This stems partially from the fact that "single-payer" is the term most often used to refer to foreign systems of universal healthcare, and also because most Americans know virtually nothing about how foreign healthcare systems work.

Moreover, when it comes to interacting with foreigners, Americans most often encounter the writings and opinion of other English speakers — which mostly means Canadians and British subjects. And it so happens both Canada and the UK employ single-payer healthcare systems.

This is also especially important to recognize because UK and Canadian single-payer healthcare systems are some of the worst systems in regards to freedom of choice and healthcare quality. This is because the primary benefit of single-payer healthcare — as so often recounted by its supporters — is that it is cheap. But "cheapness" is not exactly the best criteria for judging a healthcare system, and the shortcomings of single-payer systems in UK and Canada make this abundantly clear.

A "cheap" healthcare system can certainly be achieved by imposing price controls, and cutting out pricey treatments deemed un-economical by bureaucrats. But this often results in long waiting times and loss of quality. Not surprisingly, wait times for treatment have been shown to be significantly longer in Canada and UK than in Germany, Switzerland, and France who employ multi-payer systems .

The innovation, quality improvements, and timely care offered by competing private firms in the US would be largely destroyed by adopting a single-payer system as is the case in Canada and UK. Although these advantages have been  preserved by multi-payer systems that allow some of the advantages of a free marketplace, those now clamouring for a single-payer system would have us believe this all must be abolished in favour of near-total government control.

[bristolboy]

56 minutes ago, expatfromwyoming said:

In the United States, thanks largely to Bernie Sanders, the term single-payer health care has become more or less synonymous with the phrase "universal healthcare." This stems partially from the fact that "single-payer" is the term most often used to refer to foreign systems of universal healthcare, and also because most Americans know virtually nothing about how foreign healthcare systems work.

Moreover, when it comes to interacting with foreigners, Americans most often encounter the writings and opinion of other English speakers — which mostly means Canadians and British subjects. And it so happens both Canada and the UK employ single-payer healthcare systems.

This is also especially important to recognize because UK and Canadian single-payer healthcare systems are some of the worst systems in regards to freedom of choice and healthcare quality. This is because the primary benefit of single-payer healthcare — as so often recounted by its supporters — is that it is cheap. But "cheapness" is not exactly the best criteria for judging a healthcare system, and the shortcomings of single-payer systems in UK and Canada make this abundantly clear.

A "cheap" healthcare system can certainly be achieved by imposing price controls, and cutting out pricey treatments deemed un-economical by bureaucrats. But this often results in long waiting times and loss of quality. Not surprisingly, wait times for treatment have been shown to be significantly longer in Canada and UK than in Germany, Switzerland, and France who employ multi-payer systems .

The innovation, quality improvements, and timely care offered by competing private firms in the US would be largely destroyed by adopting a single-payer system as is the case in Canada and UK. Although these advantages have been  preserved by multi-payer systems that allow some of the advantages of a free marketplace, those now clamouring for a single-payer system would have us believe this all must be abolished in favour of near-total government control.

For pragmatic reasons I believe that multipayer systems are the only feasible way to go in the USA. Roughly 150-180 million Americans get their healthcare that way and most are reasonably satisfied with it. So, politically speaking, single payers a no go. A Medicare for anyone option should be offered as well. The goal should be universal health care. How you get there is less important.

 

That said, your comments about the quality of health care in the UK simply aren't so. In 2017 the Commonwealth Fund ranked the healthcare systems of 11 wealthy nations. The US came in last. The UK came in first. The cost per patient in the USA was over twice that of the UK's.  And considering that the USA doesn't cover everyone in its health care, it's cost performance is, in reality,  even worse.  Canada did rank 10th. So whatever the problems with various health care systems are it doesn't seem the single payer is in and of itself the cause of the problems.

https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-scores

Edited July 7, 2019 by bristolboy

[blazes]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

For pragmatic reasons I believe that multipayer systems are the only feasible way to go in the USA. Roughly 150-180 million Americans get their healthcare that way and most are reasonably satisfied with it. So, politically speaking, single payers a no go. A Medicare for anyone option should be offered as well. The goal should be universal health care. How you get there is less important.

 

That said, your comments about the quality of health care in the UK simply aren't so. In 2017 the Commonwealth Fund ranked the healthcare systems of 11 wealthy nations. The US came in last. The UK came in first. The cost per patient in the USA was over twice that of the UK's.  And considering that the USA doesn't cover everyone in its health care, it's cost performance is, in reality,  even worse.  Canada did rank 10th. So whatever the problems with various health care systems are it doesn't seem the single payer is in and of itself the cause of the problems.

https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-scores

 

This table, from the normally reliable and reasonably impartial Commonwealth Fund, is interesting, but at the same time seems to be contrary to most people's experience of health care in the UK.

 

For some totally weird reason, the UK comes first in nearly all the categories, BUT is nearly last when it comes to the rather vague category of "healthy lives"!!!  This seems to me to be a total contradiction!

 

I am British myself, but have NEVER in the last decade read or heard anyone praise the NHS for its efficiency and prompt attention to emergencies. Quite the contrary, there are too many media accounts of the appalling experience of those unfortunate enough to have to wait in Emergency for attention.

 

 

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, blazes said:

 

This table, from the normally reliable and reasonably impartial Commonwealth Fund, is interesting, but at the same time seems to be contrary to most people's experience of health care in the UK.

 

For some totally weird reason, the UK comes first in nearly all the categories, BUT is nearly last when it comes to the rather vague category of "healthy lives"!!!  This seems to me to be a total contradiction!

 

I am British myself, but have NEVER in the last decade read or heard anyone praise the NHS for its efficiency and prompt attention to emergencies. Quite the contrary, there are too many media accounts of the appalling experience of those unfortunate enough to have to wait in Emergency for attention.

 

 

Healthy lives is about public health and getting people to smoke less, drink less, get exercise, etc.

And yes, the NHS has gotten worse thanks to the Conservative cuts in funding.

[pornprong]

On 6/27/2019 at 11:33 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

I also think that whichever political handlers told their candidates to speak Spanish didn't do their candidate any favors.

Why?

Trump already has the racist vote sewn up so nothing to lose.

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.