venezuela

[deadheadskier]

Just say you disagree

All of that red you just posted is so laughably false and made up crap that you just make yourself look like a fool. You have clearly done NO research on healthcare costs. Absolutely zero

And regards to me voicing my opinion on my ideology? So f*** what? You do it every damn day on here. You want to bomb the sh*t out of the middle East. You want a useless f*** wall. Guess what? I don't. So save that line captain garbage. You're the biggest offender on this forum about cramming your ideology down others throats and wanting people to believe your way is the right way. People tell you to stfu about it every day here.

[freeski]

Who would decide who gets covered? We can't afford insurance for all. Some people don't deserve health insurance. For example junkies and pregnant teens. Just because something works in a small socialist country doesn't mean it would work here. We need to stop giving money to The World Health Organization they are clearly up to no good.

[madhatter]

Just say you disagree

All of that red you just posted is so laughably false and made up crap yet you've failed to demonstrate that anywhere...that you just make yourself look like a fool. You have clearly done NO research on healthcare costs. Absolutely zeroyou've supplied no data, the fact that per capita costs go down means the cost went up for some ( most) and down for some ( few) otherwise its a meaningless metric that has no bearing on the quality of care or the outcome of services..., don;t need to do any research to understand that...

And regards to me voicing my opinion on my ideology? So f*** what? You do it every damn day on here. You want to bomb the sh*t out of the middle East. You want a useless f*** wall. Guess what? I don't. So save that line captain garbage. You're the biggest offender on this forum about cramming your ideology really? what exactly do I try to cram down your throat? cuz all I've asked for , continually, is to be free from YOU...you on the other hand are completely free from me, I ask nothing of you...ya see the difference?down others throats and wanting people to believe your way is the right way. again, I don;t care what you do, your input or approval is not needed...or wanted really... People tell you to stfu about it every day here.well of course they do, they're of the same ilk as you, ideas so good they're mandatory...

you crack me up, you invent a strawhatter, invent an ideology for said 'hatter then run around throwing fireballs at it thinking you've done something marvelous...the difference between you and I is that I completely understand your side of the argument, don;t care what you do and am just not interested in participating in it...you have no idea what my "ideology" is,( rest assured it isn't the lockstep groupthink stupidity you barely useful idiots engage in...) and yet you are convinced that I should abandon it in favor of your "much better one" either by free will or by force of proxy, but either way I and everyone else must, for the greater good you've deemed necessary...

[Mister Moose]

There are many industries where private industry is the way to go. Healthcare is not one of them. Americans are getting ripped off. The numbers don't lie

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor..."

Numbers don't lie, but politicians do. Yeah, I'll keep my multi source medical care, thank you. There are other ways to explore savings without going to single payer. You don't fix a flawed capitalist sector by turning it into a socialist one. You fix a flawed capitalist sector (medicine) by removing the gobbledegook, increasing transparency, increasing supply, increasing price competition through published prices and easier access. You make it a capitalist free and open market, not a crony controlled one where prices are not the basis for the consumer decision making because prices are hidden from the consumer, and prices vary depending on what club you are in.

And there's a reason the best medical care, research, drugs and talent is here in the US. It's because doctors and medical device innovators can make more money here. If you remove that incentive, where will all the innovation and risk taking go?

Still waiting on the list of Norwegian achievements and inventions, and all the other unanswered questions:

Why does the vast foreign tech intelligencia want to move here?
What did I say that was intellectually dishonest?
Do the foreign born engineers you speak of cost less than domestic?
With all the easy student loans in the US, why are there so few engineers?
How does labeling your political line of thought "Progressive" make it any better?

Madhatter does go off on a tear, has strong opinions, writes with a red crayon (can't believe he hasn't found the pink button yet) and can get crude, even a little hot tempered, but he does on occasion have a beer with us, he does ski with us, he does share food with us, and he does laugh with us. Why don't you?

[deadheadskier]

I don't care about the buy in from idiots like you. You'll never have the intelligence to understand it.

You post nonsense like it's the government restrictions fault that administrative costs are high. Actually it's not. It's the fault of private health insurance companies that create the massive headache. In Canada where they've had single payer for 50+ years and even employers like GM and Ford agree it's a better system, the amount of administrative staffing is a fraction of what our hospitals have because single payer streamlines the process and doesn't allow for private industry to muck crap up for billing profits. That lowers the cost of care for everyone.

I could go on and about what you don't know dick about, but it's a waste of my time. I could show you 2+2=4 and you're warped libertarian troll mentality will say. "in my world I keep both 2s and make it 5."

The rest of us in reality deal in conventional facts and statistics not, "my cousins friend was an immigrant and he almost got butchered overseas." Dumbest thing I've read all day and you've written a lot of stupid sh*t today.

[freeski]

What is a conventional fact? I guess it comes down to if you think financial incentive makes things work better. The country was built on that premise and has done quite well. I don't believe most people want single payer. I don't believe in your 25%. I think you're wrong about everything.

[deadheadskier]

Moose your intellectual dishonesty was in carving up my post to make me look like I made a claim about Norway and their scientific capabilities that I didn't even remotely imply. You know, kind of like what your girl Carli's friends did with that Planned Parenthood footage to create that BS tapa that you defended so strongly . So why would I answer a question about a statement I never made?

You want to have an honest conversation with me, then start off with honesty yourself. Because when you start with BS games like that, I'm not to keen on exchanging dialog with you. If you're really curious about the inventive skills of Norwegians or anyone else for that matter you could look it up like Coydog did. He conveniently posted the answer for you.

[deadheadskier]

What is a conventional fact? I guess it comes down to if you think financial incentive makes things work better. The country was built on that premise and has done quite well. I don't believe most people want single payer. I don't believe in your 25%. I think you're wrong about everything.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... tive-costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Coydog]

What I have never understood about the desire for single payer, government run healthcare, is the following:

Many of the same people who talk about waste in the military, mismanagement of TSA, fraud in Medicaid and Medicare, the problems with the VA, and many other failures of government, somehow believe that turning over everyone's health care and health insurance to the government is somehow a good idea.

Single payer supporters, please explain.

We’re not talking about “turning over everyone's health care and health insurance to the government”.

Just like the government doesn’t build tanks, but instead uses our tax dollars to pay for tanks built by the private sector, a single payer system (to me) means allocating a portion of our tax dollars to provide funding for every citizen to have a minimum baseline of care. The country would essentially self-insure. And those who can afford better care certainly wouldn't be prevented from obtaining it.

Frankly, I’d rather have my tax dollars go to the health of our citizens than another disastrous nation building war or funneled to the defense industry for outmoded, overpriced, generally useless cold war era military junk.

Think of it this way, if folks can’t work, they can’t pay taxes to fund for all those precious wars we seem to need to fight.

Single payer certainly makes more sense than employer based health care. What do employers know about managing health care and why is this now (a significant) part of the cost of doing business? How many people stay in dead end jobs just for the health benefits? And how many people get into serious financial trouble when they lose their health benefits because they either lose their job or require time to transition into another job? The direct coupling of employment and health care makes no sense at all.

[steamboat1]

Okay I'm done.

So STFU then.

[Mister Moose]

Moose your intellectual dishonesty was in carving up my post to make me look like I made a claim about Norway and their scientific capabilities that I didn't even remotely imply. You know, kind of like what your girl Carli's friends did with that Planned Parenthood footage to create that BS tapa that you defended so strongly . So why would I answer a question about a statement I never made?

You want to have an honest conversation with me, then start off with honesty yourself. Because when you start with BS games like that, I'm not to keen on exchanging dialog with you. If you're really curious about the inventive skills of Norwegians or anyone else for that matter you could look it up like Coydog did. He conveniently posted the answer for you.

You linked statements in one post (in a thread about Venezuela and the consequences of socialism) from underfunding education here to Scandinavian countries being the examples of Sander's policies. Presumably we're still talking about education, brainpower of a country? Your statement that our domestic tech ability "barely would exist" without foreign assistance? The number of worthwhile inventions a country produced seemed a reasonable metric to look at to test your statement. I deleted the less than relevant video link and your less than relevant comment on Trump's supposed blaming of brown skinned people. Neither relates to my question. So to sum up: Sanders says good socialism pays for free college. You state the best example of Sander's policies can be seen in Scandinavia. I say fine, what has Scandinavia produced? You then tell me I'm being intellectually dishonest.

Sorry if my questions elude you, I assure you they are not dishonest. Those questions home in one the various points you have made, and for some reason you prefer to make excuses about not answering. (And as I pointed out, Coydog did not answer either, he came up with patent applications, not what I asked. There is a difference between an application for protection of any old idea and a commercially important idea.)

I find it interesting that you state you won't have a discussion with me for the horrible infraction of asking you about your own statements, and yet you have endless flame wars spouting far worse invective with Madhatter.

[Coydog]

Sorry if my questions elude you, I assure you they are not dishonest. Those questions home in one the various points you have made, and for some reason you prefer to make excuses about not answering. (And as I pointed out, Coydog did not answer either, he came up with patent applications, not what I asked. There is a difference between an application for protection of any old idea and a commercially important idea.)

A patent filing begins with submitting the minimum documentation and minimum fees to get the process started. A patent application is much further in the process, where substantially higher fees must be paid. But no matter, here's the per capita data on actual patents granted from the EPO Patent Data:

Code: Select all

Patents Granted per Million Inhabitants

1.  Switzerland  372.7
2.  Sweden       197.8
3.  Germany      174.7
4.  Finland      135.8
5.  Denmark      125.1
6.  Austria      120.1
7.  Netherlands  117.9
8.  Japan         83.4
9.  France        81.6
10. Belgium       76.5
11. Ireland       55.2
12. Norway        49.7
13. Israel        49.3
14. USA           46.5
15. Korea         40.5

Interestingly, now Norway jumps ahead of the US. While patents granted per capita is clearly one objective metric of innovation, I'll let Mister Moose determine which of these patented ideas are "commercially important" and patiently wait for him to provide the supporting chart. But while we're waiting, here's an innovation ranking from Bloomberg that takes into account a number of metrics including:

1) R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP
2) Manufacturing value-added per capita
3) Number of domestically domiciled high-tech public companies
4) Postsecondary education
5) Professionals, including Ph.D. students, engaged in R&D per 1 million population
6) Patent activity

Most Innovative Countries

Code: Select all

Bloomberg Most Innovative Countries

1  South Korea 96.3
2  Japan       90.58
3  Germany     88.41
4  Finland     88.38
5  Israel      86.97
6  USA         86.92
7  Sweden      86.52
8  Singapore   84.92
9  France      84.66
10 UK          83.9
11 Denmark     83.82
12 Canada      83.43
13 Australia   81.33
14 Russia      80.96
15 Norway      79.86

Here Norway falls to 15th (out of 50, Switzerland is 16th) and the US does quite well, but is bracketed by Bernie's Finland and Sweden.

[madhatter]

I don't care about the buy in from idiots like you. You'll never have the intelligence to understand it.

You post nonsense like it's the government restrictions fault that administrative costs are high. Actually it's not. It's the fault of private health insurance companies that create the massive headache. In Canada where they've had single payer for 50+ years and even employers like GM and Ford agree it's a better system, the amount of administrative staffing is a fraction of what our hospitals have because single payer streamlines the process and doesn't allow for private industry to muck crap up for billing profits. That lowers the cost of care for everyone.

I could go on and about what you don't know dick about, but it's a waste of my time. I could show you 2+2=4 and you're warped libertarian troll mentality will say. "in my world I keep both 2s and make it 5."

The rest of us in reality deal in conventional facts and statistics not, "my cousins friend was an immigrant and he almost got butchered overseas." Dumbest thing I've read all day and you've written a lot of stupid sh*t today.

if a real life example of " some animals are more equal than others" is lost on you , you truly are lost...

[madhatter]

Okay I'm done.

So STFU then.

best steamboat post ever....

[madhatter]

What I have never understood about the desire for single payer, government run healthcare, is the following:

Many of the same people who talk about waste in the military, mismanagement of TSA, fraud in Medicaid and Medicare, the problems with the VA, and many other failures of government, somehow believe that turning over everyone's health care and health insurance to the government is somehow a good idea.

Single payer supporters, please explain.

We’re not talking about “turning over everyone's health care and health insurance to the government”.

Just like the government doesn’t build tanks, but instead uses our tax dollars to pay for tanks built by the private sector, a single payer system (to me) means allocating a portion of our tax dollars to provide funding for every citizen to have a minimum baseline of care. The country would essentially self-insure. And those who can afford better care certainly wouldn't be prevented from obtaining it.isn't that what the ACA was supposed to do?

Frankly, I’d rather have my tax dollars go to the health of our citizens than another disastrous nation building war or funneled to the defense industry for outmoded, overpriced, generally useless cold war era military junk. I'd rather have em go to building more ski areas but hat won;t happen either...

Think of it this way, if folks can’t work, they can’t pay taxes to fund for all those precious wars we seem to need to fight. need a job to work, TRUMP will fix that though...

Single payer certainly makes more sense than employer based health care. What do employers know about managing health care and why is this now (a significant) part of the cost of doing business? this came about as a result of another wonderful govt intervention, wage controlsHow many people stay in dead end jobs just for the health benefits? or the pay, the convenience to home etc?And how many people get into serious financial trouble when they lose their health benefits because they either lose their job or require time to transition into another job? The direct coupling of employment and health care makes no sense at all.yep just another unintended consequence of govt intervention and central planning...

https://www.ebri.org/publications/facts ... a=0302fact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

History of Health Insurance Benefits
Employment-based health benefit programs have existed in the United States for more than 100 years. In the 1870s, for example, railroad, mining, and other industries began to provide the services of company doctors to workers. In 1910, Montgomery Ward entered into one of the earliest group insurance contracts. Prior to World War II, few Americans had health insurance, and most policies covered only hospital room, board, and ancillary services. During World War II, the number of persons with employment-based health insurance coverage started to increase for several reasons. When wages were frozen by the National War Labor Board and a shortage of workers occurred, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and offering health insurance was one option. Health insurance was an attractive means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: Unions supported employment-based health insurance, and workers' health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes, as were cash wages.
Under the current tax code, health insurance premiums paid by employers are deductible for employers as a business expense, and are excluded, without limit, from workers' taxable income.

see more here:https://www.ebri.org/publications/facts ... a=0302fact