Politics Wednesday's Nevada Debate

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
TorturedBlazerFan said:
The problem with these is that people can throw together whatever numbers they want to match want they want to show. They always have a ton of assumptions, and the reality we won't know until it happens if it saves anyone's life, it costs someone their life, or what the true costs are. You listen to some people they say oh 25 trillion dollars! You listen to others it'll save trillions of dollars. There is a lot of cognitive bias going on with what we chose to believe with this stuff. Heck, I don't know what the truth will eventually be if we go towards universal healthcare and I'm not saying they're, "wrong", just that these types of studies I always take with a massive block of salt.
Click to expand...

^^^This.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
No one person needs or deserves to have 64 billion dollars, to use Bloomberg as an example. It is obscene and immoral and represents a failure of society. Of course there will still be people richer than other people, no one is against that. Smarter, harder working people will still be more successful.
Click to expand...
I struggle to understand how it's immoral or a failure of society. I think some people get rich by being "immoral or because of failures in society", but I think if someone is really smart or makes something people want to buy and they get "obscenely rich" from it, that doesn't make them immoral...
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I struggle to understand how it's immoral or a failure of society. I think some people get rich by being "immoral or because of failures in society", but I think if someone is really smart, or makes something people want to buy and they get "obcenely rich" from it, that doesn't make them immoral...
Click to expand...
Simply having 64 billion dollars that you will never ever need or even want to spend while others struggle to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads is immoral, in my opinion. No one deserves to make that much money, in comparison to how poor the lowest people are, no matter how good their product was. The free market isn't a moral beast.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Simply having 64 billion dollars that you will never ever need or even want to spend while others struggle to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads is immoral, in my opinion. No one deserves to make that much money, in comparison to how poor the lowest people are, no matter how good their product was. The free market isn't a moral beast.
Click to expand...
So here's an example, is Dame Immoral if when he ends his career he's worth half a bill doesn't need like 1/10th of that money so the other 9/10ths should go to the government? Another the guy who made Minecraft sold it to Microsoft a few years ago for 2 billion dollars, was it immoral of him to take it? Why? What's the line? Why do we think we should get to define what the line is for others in terms of what they can make off of their image, their products, their businesses. I think most athletes have been making the argument they should be able to make as much as their worth for what they do, is all of that immorality as well?

How much is it on Bloomberg, or Gates, or whomever to make sure that everyone has a roof over their heads or to eat. I think what's immoral here is when people like bloomberg or Gates use their immense wealth to keep poor people poor, that is immoral to me. Simply having more money then they can ever spend isn't immoral IMO and I am not sure it should be up to you and I or the government to determine what the cap is on how wealthy someone can be before they become "immoral" in our eyes.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
No one person needs or deserves to have 64 billion dollars, to use Bloomberg as an example, while our poorest people struggle as much as they do. It is obscene and immoral and represents a failure of society. Of course there will still be people richer than other people, no one is against that. Smarter, harder working people will still be more successful. Bernie's plans represent evening the playing field just a bit, giving poor people more of a chance to lead better lives.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't get your premise at all. Who's to say how much someone can make...and where is the cutoff on earnings?

To someone who lives in poverty, pro athletes making millions per year is obscene and immoral.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
No one person needs or deserves to have 64 billion dollars, to use Bloomberg as an example, while our poorest people struggle as much as they do. It is obscene and immoral and represents a failure of society. Of course there will still be people richer than other people, no one is against that. Smarter, harder working people will still be more successful. Bernie's plans represent evening the playing field just a bit, giving poor people more of a chance to lead better lives.
Click to expand...
If Paul Allen hadn't made billions by being innovative and productive, we wouldn't have our Blazers and Seattle would have lost their Seahawks.
Economist will tell you money isn't capital, its the tool or implement you purchase, thats capital.
Im grateful that we've had billionaires in this country that have used their fortunes to help people and most give their fortunes away.
There is a reason that many from socialist countries want to come to the USA.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
So here's an example, is Dame Immoral if when he ends his career he's worth half a bill doesn't need like 1/10th of that money so the other 9/10ths should go to the government? Another the guy who made Minecraft sold it to Microsoft a few years ago for 2 billion dollars, was it immoral of him to take it? Why? What's the line? Why do we think we should get to define what the line is for others in terms of what they can make off of their image, their products, their businesses. I think most athletes have been making the argument they should be able to make as much as their worth for what they do, is all of that immorality as well?

How much is it on Bloomberg, or Gates, or whomever to make sure that everyone has a roof over their heads or to eat. I think what's immoral here is when people like bloomberg or Gates use their immense wealth to keep poor people poor, that is immoral to me. Simply having more money then they can ever spend isn't immoral IMO and I am not sure it should be up to you and I or the government to determine what the cap is on how wealthy someone can be before they become "immoral" in our eyes.
Click to expand...

TB, the other thing that some might not even consider is that people like Bloomberg, Gates, Bezos, et al, is that they are providing jobs to millions of employees.
 
RR7 said:
Saw the discussion about independents. I'm not an official Independent, but undeclared. Sometimes similar or lumped together. I do it because I just hate getting election mail, so I forfeit my right to vote in democratic primaries, for the ability to not get all sorts of political fliers in the mail. Only reason.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...I get all the more being undeclared/independent in Iowa because you can change your party at the door to participate in the caucus, so the candidates fight for the independent vote really hard...I'm so glad the caucus is over.
 
yankeesince59 said:
TB, the other thing that some might not even consider is that people like Bloomberg, Gates, Bezos, et al, is that they are providing jobs to millions of employees.
Click to expand...
There is a Golden Goose that lays golden eggs!
 
Hoopguru said:
If Paul Allen hadn't made billions by being innovative and productive, we wouldn't have our Blazers and Seattle would have lost their Seahawks.
Economist will tell you money isn't capital, its the tool or implement you purchase, thats capital.
Im grateful that we've had billionaires in this country that have used their fortunes to help people and most give their fortunes away.
There is a reason that many from socialist countries want to come to the USA.
Click to expand...
He could have had both teams with about 10% of his wealth.
 
crandc said:
He could have had both teams with about 10% of his wealth.
Click to expand...
Thats true! But he also had been giving away his fortune behind the scenes and investing in science for humanity.
 
I don't think individuals are immoral for being super-ultra-rich (unless they specifically did immoral, unethical things). I think it's a reasonable position to say that a system that allows for such massive, unfathomable wealth disparity is immoral. Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, society has been grappling with the morality of capitalism, which is why no nation has completely unfettered capitalism (we've put in place many regulations, on child labor, on monopolistic practices, etc). So this is an evolving discussion and it wouldn't surprise me even a little bit if a hundred years from now, people look back on this era the way many today look back at the Gilded Age--a period of rapid economic expansion but also deeply problematic and exploitative practices leading to huge wealth disparities.

I don't think anyone will ever propose a hard cap on income or total wealth, but we already have the equivalent of what's called a "luxury tax" in sports--the more you go over a certain threshold, the more you pay in tax (for the portion over the threshold). Bear in mind, we've had 90% marginal tax rates as recently as the '50s and '60s. Let's also remember that no one talks about that era as a dark age economically (obviously, the Vietnam War was a terrible thing at the time and various race relations issues). In fact, many conservatives wax nostalgically about what a golden era the 1950s were and how we should get back to that. Life was fine economically when the ultra-rich paid massive tax on their third billion. Sanders is no more of a revolutionary than FDR or JFK or LBJ--all proponents of massive top-end marginal tax rates and expansions of the social state. It only seems extreme and revolutionary today after tax cut after tax cut starting in the 1980s. If you don't want higher top-end marginal tax rates and more social programs, that's one thing--lots of conservatives didn't want them back then, either. But it's hardly something unusual to our history or destructive in our past.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
It wasn't a lie and it also doesn't really mean anything. Bernie doesn't want to make it so nobody can have three houses. He never pretends that he's poor. He just wants to help poor people not struggle as much and equal the playing field a little bit so they have a better chance to lead happier lives.
Click to expand...
Ok? But everyone who makes over 29k a year will have to pay a higher tax rate to support those under 29k. 29k is FAR from “rich” it’s on the upper level of poverty at best and that’s the bottom of his progressive tax plan to pay for all this shit... why do we have to make middle class America suffer to give poor America a happier life?

The rich getting taxed a shit ton may be annoying to them but it doesn’t effect their ability to pay their bills...

I don’t mean to be disrespectful towards you and your post, it’s just... Bernie’s policies frustrate the hell out of me.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
Ok? But everyone who makes over 29k a year will have to pay a higher tax rate to support those under 29k. 29k is FAR from “rich” it’s on the upper level of poverty at best and that’s the bottom of his progressive tax plan to pay for all this shit... why do we have to make middle class America suffer to give poor America a happier life?
Click to expand...

Yes, but what that analysis leaves out is that, with universal health care for example, it would replace health insurance premiums, which are extremely high. The taxes required to pay for universal health care can be held significantly lower than private insurance premiums because a universal health care system doesn't need to turn a profit, as private businesses do, and there are efficiency gains in a single system with a single infrastructure, as opposed to every company needing to set up their own infrastructure.

This will "hurt" those who currently choose to go without health insurance, as they will effectively now be forced to pay for (and receive) health insurance, but it's a very small percentage of people who choose to go without (as opposed to not being able to afford it).

And, of course, the less you make, the less you pay into it. It may start at 29k, but people just over 29k will pay almost nothing into it.
 
Minstrel said:
Yes, but what that analysis leaves out is that, with universal health care for example, it would replace health insurance premiums, which are extremely high. The taxes required to pay for universal health care can be held significantly lower than private insurance premiums because a universal health care system doesn't need to turn a profit, as private businesses do, and there are efficiency gains in a single system with a single infrastructure, as opposed to every company needing to set up their own infrastructure.

This will "hurt" those who currently choose to go without health insurance, as they will effectively now be forced to pay for (and receive) health insurance, but it's a very small percentage of people who choose to go without (as opposed to not being able to afford it).

And, of course, the less you make, the less you pay into it. It may start at 29k, but people just over 29k will pay almost nothing into it.
Click to expand...
Besides the fact that Medicare for all (plus illegals) being basically economic suicide... let’s say it happens, what will happen to MY current health insurance? Will my provider be abolished essentially? Will I still be guaranteed to keep my current doctor or will I be forced to pay for something with no guarantee of my wants and needs?
 
VanillaGorilla said:
No one person needs or deserves to have 64 billion dollars, to use Bloomberg as an example, while our poorest people struggle as much as they do. It is obscene and immoral and represents a failure of society. Of course there will still be people richer than other people, no one is against that. Smarter, harder working people will still be more successful. Bernie's plans represent evening the playing field just a bit, giving poor people more of a chance to lead better lives.
Click to expand...
Immoral though it may be, is it society's responsibility to ensure that people are incapable of behaving according to this particular immorality? Are we essentially going so far as to criminalize "excessive" wealth?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Immoral though it may be, is it society's responsibility to ensure that people are incapable of behaving according to this particular immorality? Are we essentially going so far as to criminalize "excessive" wealth?
Click to expand...
One could argue that being excessively wealthy is the American Dream, in theory anyone can become that.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
Besides the fact that Medicare for all (plus illegals) being basically economic suicide...
Click to expand...

The data from around the world shows the US spends on average twice as much per person on healthcare - and our healthcare is not as highly rated as other countries with universal health - so I am calling this statement as bunk and wrong, plain and simple.

The rest of your points are worth discussing and are specific implementation points - but this point is just wrong.

If anything, the US's current heath system is an economic drag of epic proportion on our economy.
 
andalusian said:
The data from around the world shows the US spends on average twice as much per person on healthcare - and our healthcare is not as highly rated as other countries with universal health - so I am calling this statement as bunk and wrong, plain and simple.

The rest of your points are worth discussing and are specific implementation points - but this point is just wrong.

If anything, the US's current heath system is an economic drag of epic proportion on our economy.
Click to expand...
I’m just trying to figure how the government is gonna pay for a $20+ trillion program while also being $20+ trillion in debt... and that’s not even touching the other programs such as College, Student loan payback, green new deal, etc.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
I’m just trying to figure how the government is gonna pay for a $20+ trillion program while also being $20+ trillion in debt... and that’s not even touching the other programs such as College, Student loan payback, green new deal, etc.
Click to expand...

Why is it government - it is the people that pay for that via their taxes and through economy of scale and legislation - you do not allow big health providers and pharma to overcharge you. If the solution is a US citizen on average to pay an extra $5K in taxes a year, but get the same or better health care as she does now without paying $10K privately - it is a win. (The numbers are from 2017, average US health spending per person was $10,224 - the UK with a national health service spent $4227 per year and the WHO and multiple other organizations consider the UK health-care 18th best in the world, the US - 27th).
 
andalusian said:
Why is it government - it is the people that pay for that via their taxes and through economy of scale and legislation - you do not allow big health providers and pharma to overcharge you. If the solution is a US citizen on average to pay an extra $5K in taxes a year, but get the same or better health care as she does now without paying $10K privately - it is a win. (The numbers are from 2017, average US health spending per person was $10,224 - the UK with a national health service spent $4227 per year and the WHO and multiple other organizations consider the UK health-care 18th best in the world, the US - 27th).
Click to expand...
I only pay about $720 a year for my health insurance, then a $500 deductible... I’d be more than pissed to have to pay an extra $4k per year...
 
GhostOfPGA said:
I only pay about $720 a year for my health insurance, then a $500 deductible... I’d be more than pissed to have to pay an extra $4k per year...
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between average and individual entries that are used to calculate this average?
 
andalusian said:
Do you understand the difference between average and individual entries that are used to calculate this average?
Click to expand...
Dumb post on my end, I admit. My point essentially is, I HIGHLY doubt my insurance would be cheaper if we did go universal as a country.

I’m definitely not saying the system is perfect now, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. I personally rather see free market competition than government mandates. I just do not trust our federal government to provide a good service.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
Dumb post on my end, I admit. My point essentially is, I HIGHLY doubt my insurance would be cheaper if we did go universal as a country.

I’m definitely not saying the system is perfect now, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. I personally rather see free market competition than government mandates. I just do not trust our federal government to provide a good service.
Click to expand...

Well, we have proof that the system is less efficient than just about any modern country out there - so, no disrespect, your personal feelings about it are not a reasonable argument about the costs and the ability to afford it.

As for the federal government not being able to provide a good service - I will take it seriously when I hear people calling for the privatization of the military - until that happens, this is just people employing "scary terms" from the 1950s to suppress logical thought.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
let’s say it happens, what will happen to MY current health insurance? Will my provider be abolished essentially? Will I still be guaranteed to keep my current doctor or will I be forced to pay for something with no guarantee of my wants and needs?
Click to expand...

There's no way for me to answer specifics like that with certainty. Medicare as it already exists allows for outside, private insurance providers so I'd assume that some private health insurance would still exist for any supplementary things you want. As for your own doctor, Medicare doesn't disallow particular doctors or providers. Some doctors (rarely, in my understanding) don't accept Medicare but I assume that wouldn't be the case if Medicare were universal.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
Dumb post on my end, I admit. My point essentially is, I HIGHLY doubt my insurance would be cheaper if we did go universal as a country.
Click to expand...

Why? As I mentioned in a previous post, there are specific reasons of scale and lack of profit motive to believe taxes for universal health care would be lower than current insurance premiums. As andalusian posted, we already see that we pay more for similar or worse care than other nations with universal health care pay.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
I only pay about $720 a year for my health insurance, then a $500 deductible... I’d be more than pissed to have to pay an extra $4k per year...
Click to expand...

That seems really cheap for an individual plan - I pay more than that, even with my employer paying ~80% of the cost of my (employer provided) coverage.

barfo
 
barfo said:
That seems really cheap for an individual plan - I pay more than that, even with my employer paying ~80% of the cost of my (employer provided) coverage.

barfo
Click to expand...
It basically comes out to 60 bucks a month taken out of my check. Extremely affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top