[PBVBROOK]

What about the great society, responsible for expanding our entitlement programs at expense of infrastructure?

The "great society" was a name coined for programs initiated or expanded over 45 years ago. There is a difference between what happened then and what is happening now. For example. THEN, the republican president Richard Nixon sent legislation to congress asking for universal, single payer, government health care.

Secondly. I reject the notion that expanding entitlement programs is "at the expense of infrastructure". Two different things. If your argument is that we can afford infrastructure improverments becase of social program spending I would call bullshit on you. We have plenty of money for a one trillion dollar (so far) war. You can't lump them together.

Or blocking any attempt to control illegal immigration?

There is absolutely NOTHING liberal about this notion. The money that is buying the congress to prevent meaningfull immigration laws is BUSINESS money. Do you want proof? Where is workplace enforcement. We could fire 90% of our border patrolmen and assign the other 10% to workplace enforcement and end the problem over night. How many of those wonderfull conservative businessment would allow that I wonder?


Or the recently passed healthcare bill?

Which is a total sell-out to business. The liberal agenda is for a single-payer national health care system ala the UK. That has NOTHING to do with what the demcorats passed. They passed a bill that would make the most conservative republican proud. A complete sell-out to the health care industry and the money they give to campaigns.

[DanDaMan]

We could fire 90% of our border patrolmen and assign the other 10% to workplace enforcement and end the problem over night.

By doing what exactly with the illegals?

[PBVBROOK]

^^

By removing their incentive to come here in the first place DDM.

[DanDaMan]

By removing their incentive to come here in the first place DDM.

Enforcement of what, wages?
How will higher wages incentivis leaving?

[Figlio di Moros]

I reject the notion that expanding entitlement programs is "at the expense of infrastructure". Two different things. If your argument is that we can afford infrastructure improverments becase of social program spending I would call bullshit on you. We have plenty of money for a one trillion dollar (so far) war. You can't lump them together.

A trillion dollars over ten years; check the expense of our entitlement programs, as well as other programs based on "liberal" ideology such as Dep. of Education, NEA, and housing or college benefits. Well over half our federal outlays goes towards those programs, not to mention state level expenditures. We've also seen increases in expenditure spending at the hands of the GOP, such as Medicare D. Since the Great Society, infrastructure spending has dropped from 12% of the budget, to under 3% of the budget. the reason for the cuts in infrastructure was as I said earlier- to help fund entitlement programs.

There is absolutely NOTHING liberal about this notion. The money that is buying the congress to prevent meaningfull immigration laws is BUSINESS money. Do you want proof? Where is workplace enforcement. We could fire 90% of our border patrolmen and assign the other 10% to workplace enforcement and end the problem over night. How many of those wonderfull conservative businessment would allow that I wonder?

Business is to blame, as well; however, you'll notice the Democrats and their supporters tend to take an ideological stance for open immigration. To say it isn't a liberal position, even if business supports it and buys off GOP candidates as well, is asinine.

[Zerogouki]

THEN, the republican president Richard Nixon sent legislation to congress asking for universal, single payer, government health care.

Nixon was a neo-con, not a mainstream Republican. In fact, he was to neo-cons what Doom was to first-person shooters.

China has plenty of money for our one trillion dollar (so far) war.

Fixed.

They passed a bill that would make the most conservative republican proud. A complete sell-out to the health care industry and the money they give to campaigns.

Forcing insurance companies to give coverage to anyone who asks for it, and forcing them to cover pre-existing conditions, will completely kill private health insurance.

[PBVBROOK]

Nixon was a neo-con, not a mainstream Republican. In fact, he was to neo-cons what Doom was to first-person shooters.

Not by a long shot he wasn't. Not by what people today think of neocons. Nixon was, for a short time popular with old-style liberals but we are a different breed altogeather. lWere you alive when he was president? Do you remember him? Nixon would have been appalled at today's neocons.

Forcing insurance companies to give coverage to anyone who asks for it, and forcing them to cover pre-existing conditions, will completely kill private health insurance.

Too bad. It is dying anyway. If private health insurance can't compete in the market the the government will win this free-market exercize.

Besides. We can't afford private health care. It is really as simple as that. It is a political reality that we will never abolish medicare or medicade so that debate is long over.

[DanDaMan]

Too bad. It is dying anyway. If private health insurance can't compete in the market the the government will win this free-market exercize.

What a joke. Like the private insurers can actually win against the rule makers/referee government!

Besides. We can't afford private health care. It is really as simple as that. It is a political reality that we will never abolish medicare or medicade so that debate is long over.

I agree. This is why the country will just devalue the dollar so none of those programs actually buys/does a damn thing. IE inflation will make those programs worthless.

What you will have then is a new massive class of poor and a very narrow rich class that can afford personal care.
The rich to poor divide will make a mammoth stride.
Isn't Progressivism grand!

[PBVBROOK]

^^

Have you ever taken an economics class? That is not how this works DDM. Look at per-capita health car costs in countries with universal health care. That care costs less than 50% of even worse care in the US. So. A single payer system is vastly more efficient. Your scenario is just wrong.

[Rei Murasame]

Isn't Progressivism grand!

Bringing these out again:









You have to choose at some point, whether you will let that continue forever, or whether you will finally nationalise it and have done with it.

[DanDaMan]

Have you ever taken an economics class? That is not how this works DDM. Look at per-capita health car costs in countries with universal health care. That care costs less than 50% of even worse care in the US. So. A single payer system is vastly more efficient. Your scenario is just wrong.

What percentage of America works and pays none reimbursed taxes? 46%? How long can that work?

And "efficiency" has the healthy NOT paying for healthcare they are not using. Think of it this way... how "efficient" would it be for you to buy car insurance if you do not drive?

[PBVBROOK]

What percentage of America works and pays none reimbursed taxes? 46%? How long can that work?

This number is completely untrue. How about a source? And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Take this red-herring somewhere else.

And "efficiency" has the healthy NOT paying for healthcare they are not using. Think of it this way... how "efficient" would it be for you to buy car insurance if you do not drive?

Can you really believe this nonsense? DDM. Even you can't believe that this statement makes any sense at all. Of course if you have a crystal ball........

[DanDaMan]

This what you want to see?....

Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $410,096 40.42%
Top 5% $160,041 60.63%
Top 10% $113,018 71.22%
Top 25% $66,532 86.59%
Top 50% $32,879 97.11%
Bottom 50% <$32,879 2.89%

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays- ... taxes.html

or this...

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/11/gov ... ord-level/

How do you expect sustainability even with over one third on the dole?

[Cartertonian]

Think of it this way... how "efficient" would it be for you to buy car insurance if you do not drive?

I'm all for simplification of ideas, but as PBV points out, DDM, that is mendacious nonesense. Not everyone drives. Everyone needs healthcare.
To use your own analogy, if 'healthcare' = 'car ownership', then you're 'driving your car' right now, whether you want to be, or not.

[QatzelOk]

One of the consequences of America's health care elite (the capitalist class who skim about 3000 dollars per year off people seeking health) is that the USA car industry has collapsed.

How is this so?

Well, it costs about 3000 dollars per year MORE to insure an American than a Canadian. Since car companies have to pay for this health care, it adds 3000 dollars more per year per worker to the price of making a car.

Ontario, Canada makes more cars than any state in the USA. This is primarily because of social health care.

Mind you, I hate cars. But the same economics apply to every economic sector. The skimmers who leech off American health needs are ruining the lives of everyone by sucking too much money out of the system, while producing NOTHING.

Even Adam Smith warned about the dangers posed by too many parasitic managers. Parasitic managers are what make private health care PRIVATE.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
Think of it this way... how "efficient" would it be for you to buy car insurance if you do not drive?

quote
I'm all for simplification of ideas, but as PBV points out, DDM, that is mendacious nonesense. Not everyone drives. Everyone needs healthcare.
To use your own analogy, if 'healthcare' = 'car ownership', then you're 'driving your car' right now, whether you want to be, or not.

You MAY need healthcare at some point. My point is there is no "efficiency" paying for something when it's not necessary. If you want to say you FEEL it's necessary... then you may have an argument.

[PBVBROOK]

You MAY need healthcare at some point.

Let's stop here. Your argument is wrong right from the start. You need health care all of your life and continuously. Consider only the question of preventive care. That is necessary throughout ones life. We all know what happens when this is pay-per-view.

Of course DDM, if you want to raise the minimum wage to $25.00 per hour and require everyone to purchase their own insurance, fine. But you would hate that.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
You MAY need healthcare at some point.

Let's stop here. Your argument is wrong right from the start. You need health care all of your life and continuously. Consider only the question of preventive care. That is necessary throughout ones life. We all know what happens when this is pay-per-view.

Millions have lived long lives without seeing a doctor.
As for pay per view... yes we know what can happen. If you take care of yourself you can spend very little money.

[BassHole]

If you take care of yourself you can spend very little money.

I take it that things like genetic breast cancer and countless chronic conditions don't count?

[DanDaMan]

I take it that things like genetic breast cancer and countless chronic conditions don't count?

Better start acting like a mature adult and start saving for that day then, eh?