What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Even Koch-funded operations not so stupid as to think Medicare For All wouldn't ultimately save money

why the fuck are republicans separated from trump voters, what, is that supposed to be the McMullin contingent
For the sake of pedantry and to prevent the 'not all Republicans' excuse so people can dismiss data.
 
@Heresy, you've just given support for it being a vocal minority. Even if we extended "strong Trump supporters" to mean all Republicans, that data would show that under 6 percent of the population supports neo-Nazis (while the general Republican figure gives 3% of the general population), while less than 10 percent are pro-White Nationalism. As for whites being discriminated against, they're getting nothing as preferential biases and outright privileges are being handed to ethnic minorities, as seen with Affirmitive Action. At best, they're being ignored by support structures. Which, given that white, urban poor exist, is very much a bad thing.

The violence in Charlettesville, if you'd actually pay attention to the timeline of events, can be ultimately blamed on the counter-protesters, because they came later and with the explicit purpose of shutting down the white supremacists. By unlawful force. The right-wing group followed all legal procedures for the gathering, while the counter-protesters just showed up to silence them with no procedures followed. Bad ideas can only survive in violence, so don't give them the fucking chance. Let them be shout down publicly and ostracized every time they speak, allowing that speech so you actually have something ready to point to.

If the counter-protesters didn't show up, there wouldn't be violence. Simple as that. They made the choice to show up to a rally of their extremist political enemies with intent to silence.
 
@Heresy, you've just given support for it being a vocal minority. Even if we extended "strong Trump supporters" to mean all Republicans, that data would show that under 6 percent of the population supports neo-Nazis (while the general Republican figure gives 3% of the general population), while less than 10 percent are pro-White Nationalism. As for whites being discriminated against, they're getting nothing as preferential biases and outright privileges are being handed to ethnic minorities, as seen with Affirmitive Action. At best, they're being ignored by support structures. Which, given that white, urban poor exist, is very much a bad thing.

The violence in Charlettesville, if you'd actually pay attention to the timeline of events, can be ultimately blamed on the counter-protesters, because they came later and with the explicit purpose of shutting down the white supremacists. By unlawful force. The right-wing group followed all legal procedures for the gathering, while the counter-protesters just showed up to silence them with no procedures followed. Bad ideas can only survive in violence, so don't give them the fucking chance. Let them be shout down publicly and ostracized every time they speak, allowing that speech so you actually have something ready to point to.

If the counter-protesters didn't show up, there wouldn't be violence. Simple as that. They made the choice to show up to a rally of their extremist political enemies with intent to silence.
Do you enjoy being ignorant or what? Affirmative Action has benefited white woman the most.

So drop the poor 'muh white discrimination!' Shit because laws that help fix the economic disparity between minorities and whites aren't fucking reverse racism.
 
"fix the economic disparity" is reverse racism if a certain qualifier is met. Mainly discrimination against whites. Same thing will happen to asians given sufficient time.

As for this whole thing, what to do about population implosion? It's been brought up in this thread but it doesn't seem to be answered at all. We're already expecting social security to be completely drained in 15 years, i don't see medicare-for-all surviving that long either.
 
"fix the economic disparity" is reverse racism if a certain qualifier is met. Mainly discrimination against whites. Same thing will happen to asians given sufficient time.

As for this whole thing, what to do about population implosion? It's been brought up in this thread but it doesn't seem to be answered at all. We're already expecting social security to be completely drained in 15 years, i don't see medicare-for-all surviving that long either.
Can you not read? I already mentioned white women are the group that has benefited the most from AA, and population implosion isn't a problem with the US thanks to immigrants Europe and Asia though not so much.
 
Can you not read? I already mentioned white women are the group that has benefited the most from AA, and population implosion isn't a problem with the US thanks to immigrants Europe and Asia though not so much.
That assumes that immigration will always happen. When it doesn't, what then? This graph is a pretty interesting example.

SPT-Europeans2018-F2-trans-750x366.png


As these country's standard of living reached that of the United States, fewer immigrants make the journey. Immigration is on the rise from Asian countries, but how long will that happen?

Also, those immigrants are going to age as well! We'd have to expect them to have tons of children, but we see that after the first generation that's not the case.

And if immigration is the solution, then why is social security still expected to be completely bankrupt in a few years?
 
Shit because laws that help fix the economic disparity between minorities and whites aren't fucking reverse racism.
It's that they specifically target the minority status, not the economic disparity, that makes it racist policy. Preferential treatment is, in fact, bigoted (though technically not oppressive). If they were actually concerned about poverty, it'd be a general assistance inversely proportionate to family income, not streamlining things for ethnic minorities. It doesn't safeguard against already-wealthy, or at least middle class, blacks from using it to cheat tuition fees or get in when they have little business doing so, and mostly gets used by them anyways because it's actually usually not enough to get the urban poor in.
 
It's that they specifically target the minority status, not the economic disparity, that makes it racist policy. Preferential treatment is, in fact, bigoted (though technically not oppressive). If they were actually concerned about poverty, it'd be a general assistance inversely proportionate to family income, not streamlining things for ethnic minorities. It doesn't safeguard against already-wealthy, or at least middle class, blacks from using it to cheat tuition fees or get in when they have little business doing so, and mostly gets used by them anyways because it's actually usually not enough to get the urban poor in.
But schools aren't allowed to discriminate or be selective with regards to race anyway. Like a girl in texas took that bullshit you spouted all the way to the Supreme Court and the court ruled she was full of shit because the Texas university took in 42 white students over a bunch of black and latino students that were more qualified than both them and her.

To put further egg on your face if anyone gets an unfair racial advantage it's whites due to programs such as legacy admissions that were created specifically because universities were talking in more minorities and women than white men and they sought to correct that.

So again your full of shit and I don't know why in the fuck you keep saying your a leftist when you shill right-wing talking points all the time.
 
Covenant Health based out of Knoxville, Tennessee is one spitting image of why we need this more than ever.
 
*sees the thread being upped*

*sees this*
Actually, universal healthcare has been proven economically, statistically and mathematically incapable of causing overall healthcare costs to go down. Single-payer systems for general treatment that operate as close to at-cost as possible without taking risks of not being able to pay doctors or afford medicines (similar to how the pre-privatization London Underground was run) do cause healthcare costs to be lower than open market healthcare on a case-by-case basis (though I blame this on a lack of regulation, the amount of price-gouging in healthcare is insane), but ultimately cause the amount of money in it to balloon because the number of cases skyrocket after a few decades.
Meanwhile, in the real world:

K3f9ua3.png
Health_systems_comparison_OECD_2008.png


Universal healthcare. Cheaper. Better. Saner.

1*pYeCxkbk_UgkeT6-JjXMKw.jpeg
imrs.php


p2001e0cfg136001.jpg


Open-market healthcare. Not even once.​
EDIT: spoilered my triggered reaction. ^^
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Congratulations, you just gave me citations on something I accepted nearly two fucking months ago, a total of four posts after the one you quoted:
Here's an article from The Atlantic about how end-of-life care is an absolutely massive proportion of healthcare spending and the economic issues caused by that. By adopting universal healthcare, you immediately need to start planning out all this treatment qualification, because in the US, it's nearly a fifth of the GDP at current rates. And universal healthcare without those qualifiers like the UK has means everyone gets these treatments, without exception, and that costs vast sums of money. Combined with the US's existing state of health being much worse, due in part to a refusal to use healthcare services because of the cost, and that refusal won't change overnight. The consumption habits responsible for most of the rest aren't likely to change for any reason connected to universal healthcare.

If you take a look at US population statistics, particularly income by age (I think this is a good graph to illustrate the problem with universal healthcare, demonstrating that it's the 65+ age bracket getting most of the GDP increase, with no similar increase at the border of it), this is not the sort of time to have a huge increase in taxation, as a vast chunk of the tax revenue is going to go up in smoke soon as all the rich old people who reaped the benefits of the postwar economy die or enter actual retirement. Because the income brackets mean that dividing that income between the younger generations will cause a pretty significant dip in tax revenue, and all those old people are in an excellent position to consume a huge chunk of the new single-payer costs.

In the US, we have the nearly-$10,000-per-capita healthcare costs in spite of people constantly dodging appointments to avert the high cost of healthcare. And here's a handy Wikipedia page on countries by per-capita healthcare costs. Defaults to alphabetical order, click one of the years once to get ascending order and twice to get descending order for that year. The following bar chart to the text chart(?), by the way, shows that the US has almost the same per-capita compulsory and public spending as some of the Scandinavian countries. Unless there are vast improvements in the cost of providing, which would likely take years to sort out, going single-payer would cause the tax burden to inflate massively. And keeping it working is likely to be an exercise in futility, given what happened to the Affordable Care Act. American politics are not able to work with something as delicate as single-payer healthcare.

There's a bundle of steps involved in making it actually affordable that are not inherent to the process of going single-payer, because nothing assures that the government will actually get better deals, or that those deals will be good enough to make up for the increase in coverage. Look at what student loans did to college tuition, the government being the one to pay might well just cause prices to rise even higher because they "know" they're getting their money (it's not like colleges are actually investing those rising tuitions in quality education, given the increasingly-extreme and blatant political bias, to the point of having classes that are solely indoctrination into extremist progressivism by any reasonable metric). And now is not a good time to shift what's currently 18% or so of the GDP to government spending, because a huge chunk of the tax revenue is in line to vanish in the next decade while a sizable population segment is set to need all that super-expensive care.

So in conclusion, I appear to have mixed up my arguments or made inferences/conjectures from incomplete data. I think its because I started from a random dive into the world of end of life healthcare and keeping the elderly alive and expanded that backwards without looking up any of the population statistics involved. But there's still several good points to be made that making America single-payer is a bad idea, such as an upcoming drop in tax revenue independent of any policy decisions and possible recession from the current wannabe-oligarchs dying of old age (there's a well-established trend of children and grandchildren pissing away the fortune, which is why "old money" isn't really a thing in the US outside of banker families, which are usually branches of European old money), the fact that those rich old people won't hesitate to siphon every penny from the system they can to live a few more days, the fact that the US has worse health before you account for healthcare differences and fixing that is a different matter from unfucking the insurance scene by going socialist on it (thankfully, middlemen positions have a long trackrecord of functioning decently well under bureaucracy) and the issue of US politics being a psychotic cesspit of trying to set timebombs for the enemy to eat the PR damage from and constantly and forever attempting to undo the other guy's work.

Essentially, the United States has just about the perfect shitshow of factors to make single payer healthcare as impractical as it can be, save that it has the money to hypothetically pay for it. Widespread presence of causes to a number of health problems, a habit of avoiding self-care due to cost, an income distribution that's about to set the taxation rates and possibly stock market into chaos, political friction quite possibly designed to make long-term projects like it impossible... Yeah, the US is a terrible place for universal healthcare at the moment. It'd need to immediately cut healthcare costs by a third to even have a chance of being a net positive quickly enough to actually fix any issues. Because you have no way of any form of certainty that the money to pay for it will be there, or that it won't be broken the next time extremist liberals or conservatives end up having the seats. Even if the overall cost of healthcare halved instantly, it would still require taxation to increase by 9% of the GDP to keep the budget balanced. And good fucking luck making that last, even the Democrats don't even try to pass it. And they love taxing people! It'd help if they, you know, bothered to pay some attention to how much it costs to add what they want...
 
Congratulations, you just gave me citations on something I accepted nearly two fucking months ago, a total of four posts after the one you quoted:
Sorry. I'll concede that the claim about healthcare is one of my triggers online. As I said in the post, I saw the thread, that post and immediately reacted. Saw it so many times on SB I tend to shoot first, shoot again, carpet-bomb the place, send a couple of stellar-killer warheads and then ask questions (only to fire a relativistic-speed kinetic duck while the other is busy answering, just to be sure).

My apologies (though I do believe the US could do it with a bit of propaganda like it does for most other social issues it wants to tackle). Edited my post to spoiler the graphs.
 
Sorry. I'll concede that the claim about healthcare is one of my triggers online. As I said in the post, I saw the thread, that post and immediately reacted. Saw it so many times on SB I tend to shoot first, shoot again, carpet-bomb the place, send a couple of stellar-killer warheads and then ask questions.

My apologies (though I do believe the US could do it with a bit of propaganda like it does for most other social issues it wants to tackle). Edited my post to spoiler the graphs.
The reason I immediately quoted myself is because... Well, this entire thread was covered in people just ignoring my near-immediate concession and explanation of details. Must've burned three hours on a post trying to get another response in but... Yeah, they really fucked up.
 
The reason I immediately quoted myself is because... Well, this entire thread was covered in people just ignoring my near-immediate concession and explanation of details. Must've burned three hours on a post trying to get another response in but... Yeah, they really fucked up.
Thing is, on a SB-related community, making this general-sounding claim is almost like using some disparaging terms to describe Athene, cheering for the murderhobos or saying that Lord Squishy is only "a bit" of an ass (or suggestings lawyers as a whole have souls that aren't stolen from orphans). It does tend to trigger a lot of us - much moreso than gun policies, actually, if only because those of us with actual understanding of the civilizational differences tend to not see the issue as black and white. Heh heh. ^_^;
 
No, it doesn't, at least by the definition of oppression I work with. It's discrimination, but oppression, to me, means that general rights are being specifically withheld.
Did you know that the Soviet world operated with a different set of rights than our world? Including the right to not starve, and the right to housing, the right to education, and the right to medical care?

"fix the economic disparity" is reverse racism if a certain qualifier is met. Mainly discrimination against whites. Same thing will happen to asians given sufficient time.

As for this whole thing, what to do about population implosion? It's been brought up in this thread but it doesn't seem to be answered at all. We're already expecting social security to be completely drained in 15 years, i don't see medicare-for-all surviving that long either.
Pay-for-beby worked in france? In fact, in most countries without econonic implosion that are first world Pay-for-bebe works? US has a limited pay-for-bebe program and it's working for the demographics it targets?
 
A lot of the problem that the US is facing when trying to make an UHC is the fact that -thanks in part to the GOP after Reagan (man, that name is going to be cursed for the rest of eternity at this rate, to the point that he'll be the next 'go back in time and assassinate him to save the world' figure ala Hitler)- the various medical companies lobbied their hardest to ensure that it never happens. Remember, an UHC isn't really a new idea in the US, one Theodore Roosevelt proposed it late 1890s and championed it until his death.
 
Back
Top Bottom