Senate Republicans decide to move forward with repealing ACA

>It was the latest setback to the GOP's effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, a Republican campaign promise for most of the last decade that has stalled multiple times this year amid party divisions. The GOP chose to address the health-care overhaul before it took on tax reform, another key campaign plank, and every setback is seen as delaying the party's broader agenda.

>Before Trump's tweet, a White House official said in a statement that "inaction is not an option. We look forward to Congress continuing to work toward a bill the President can sign to end the Obamacare nightmare and restore quality care at affordable prices."

>Moving toward a vote on a repeal-only plan would require two of the four GOP senators who said they would vote "no" on the motion to proceed to change their tunes. Additionally, it remains to be seen if several other senators who were undecided on the replacement plan will get behind a repeal-only bill.

>The GOP-controlled Congress passed a bill in 2015 to repeal Obamacare without a replacement, though the lawmakers cast their votes knowing that the bill would face a presidential veto from then-President Barack Obama.

>The Senate voted by a 52-47 margin to only repeal Obamacare in 2015. Many of the current health-care swing votes supported the bill. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a strong opponent of the latest Obamacare replacement bill, voted against it.

>In 2015, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing Obamacare would lead to 30 million to 32 million more Americans uninsured.

>After the Senate's initial struggles to reach a health-care consensus in June, Trump and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., both publicly floated the prospect of repealing Obamacare without a replacement plan.

Goodbye Socialism. Welcome freedom.

Anything for the rich to get their tax cut. Party before country all day everyday.

>>158540
I make 80k and pay 40k in taxes. Fuck this.
NO MORE WELFARE. Let those Niggers die off.

>>158540
You realize that not stealing from the rich isn't the same as giving to the rich?

Good luck getting this pass the moderate republicans

>>158560
You realize that hyperbole is 2 sides of the same coin in reality. The people with the most get even more due to an imbalance of power. The rest (read: everyone on this board) get to fight over what's left.

>>158542
No you don't. You're not a disgraced millionaire and I'm willing to bet you make use of extensive services funded by those taxes regardless of what you actually pay.

>>158563
>The people with the most get even more due to an imbalance of power. The rest (read: everyone on this board) get to fight over what's left.

See what the evil left doesn't realize is that US banks only entrust $200k per account. The rest ends up invested in a business, allowing it to grow, which results in more jobs, which results in a better economy. Yet that left, that evil, evil left wants you to believe that the rich magically get richer by abusing the poor when we don't steal from them. Greatest hoax in American history spun onward by the most evil party in American history.

>>158565
>evil left

fun fact: dropping your own term in every thread that nobody else uses is like having a tripcode; it marks every post you make.

>US banks only entrust $200k per account. The rest ends up invested in a business

Are you seriously this stupid or does your shilling just cause you to think others are? Yes, the FDIC only insures something like 200k per account. That's why the super rich buy multiple pieces of real estate, megayachts, expensive art pieces, and other shit they don't need or even use. It's a way of parking their money somewhere other than a bank account. If you think everything outside of what's in their savings account gets funneled back into business investments in order to benefit the little guy, you are seriously deluded. Like high functioning amounts of retard.

>>158567
>That's why the super rich buy multiple pieces of real estate, megayachts,

So investing huge amounts of money in housing and the nautical industry gives... no money to the housing and nautical industry? Is that really your argument?

>>158569
I think he's arguing that it gives money to the CEOs of said firms/companies and that none of it actually trickles back down to the employees of those firms/companies.

But I'm guessing you already knew that and you're just moving goalposts because you're a disingenuous shill. Or you're just super bored.

>>158542
The whole point is to get people like you who have no benefit from this to think they do so you can support it.

>>158565
>>158569

hey buddy, you see the argument isn't that rich people don't buy stuff and invest in shit. That's obvious and you're not smart to prove that. The argument is whether the money moves faster and more effectively back into the economy when it is collected by the government by taxes vs. when a rich person has more of it to invest.

Now you may not like the government but it is apparent that the government is able to do this both more quickly and more effectively. This is because a rich person has no incentive to spend this money on a timetable that is any quicker than their heart desires, and no incentive to invest it in anything more than whatever they feel like. In contrast the government is legally bound to spend on a schedule, and can distribute the revenue to the parts of the economy that actually need it most.

If I'm rich and you cut my taxes I can go spend the extra money on a bunch of flamingos for all you know. At least government spending is more transparent. And its laughable that you don't think rich people get around a maximum limit on storing their money.

>>158576
>At least government spending is more transparent.
How you typed this out without having a seizure is a mystery.

>maximum limit on storing their money
All commies must be executed. Full stop.

>>158577
Look at this pussy having a meltdown. You have no argument to make other than "please give them a chance to step on the other side of my face" so you default to meaningless buzzwords.

>>158573
Fuck that. It has to stop RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
Welfare is killing this planet.

>>158580
Take a deep breath. What do you define as welfare?

>>158577
You do realize you didn't respond to his argument other than suggesting that government spending is not transparent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

So how is a rich person buying a yacht better than a poor person getting health insurance?
>They earned it!
Money earns money, and while the vast majority of the wealthy in America are indeed extremely hard working, the person whose parents can't afford to send them to college is at a disadvantage.

I'll repeat for your low reading comprehension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
If you don't ever question your own beliefs, and cling to the narrative that the middle and lower class deserve to not be able to afford healthcare despite working honest, useful jobs full time despite evidence to the contrary, you're likely an idiot. And feeling convinced that you're real smart doesn't make it true.

>>158582
He can't answer, he died from all that anger. rip in piece. Too bad the GOP couldn't save him.

>>158586
If only the government just took less of his huge ass paycheck! He could have afforded one of those fancy books on expressing your ideas with words. Rip in pepperonis

>>158586
Despair becomes anger and then dies tragically. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

It's sad really. The ACA price controls helped rural Americans more than anyone, and they put their hopes in trickle down economics and protectionist policies (both of which are utter horseshit) to save them. Instead they get boned in the ass by a clueless egomaniac and blame the liberals for the misery. I don't think the left was effective in helping poor white voters during the Obama years, but at least they tried. Seems all the right can do is grease the way for the consolidation of wealth into an aristocratic ruling class (yes, ruling because money wins elections). Sure China is to blame, never mind the decrease in manufacturing jobs across the board. Sure Mexico is to blame, never mind the lower crime rates and significantly lowered levels of illegals coming across the border. Sure Obama is to blame, never mind the strong economy he handed over to Trump.

>>158591
I think what's most bizarre about to me is that we've all seen this movie before. Reagan's trickle down policy never worked out like they promised so why would a copypaste version 2 decades later work any different? But rurals just eat that shit up with a snow shovel.

>>158567
i like you, anon

>>158598
Also, there is economic rationale behind lowering taxes during a recession to jump out of a slump, but the economy is at full employment now. So, this really is nothing but a cash grab. If anything, this is just priming the US for stagflation.

>>158608
>the economy is at full employment now
Yeah If you don't count the 60 million working age people that are not counted as part of the workforce because they have been unemployed for too long.

>>158542
Obamacare exclusively taxes the rich, as in those making more than $1 million. You're not going to get a tax cut. Only they will. They will get a $50k a year tax cut (which will cut the Healthcare of 7 Medicaid recepients).
You will still have to pay $40k in taxes as you claim, even though the top marginal federal tax rate for you income bracket is 25%.

>>158569
It's more like the money just keeps circulating in that tiny pool of the uber rich and doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.

>>158611
I think you're confusing discouraged workers with the labor force participation rate. Yes, there are maybe 60 million people over the age of 16 that are not in the labor force yet. But they are going to college to be higher skilled workers.

As for the number of discouraged workers, that is maybe at 100k. That number will take the longest to fall since those people tend to have the largest work gap on their resume (they sort of become un-hireable). Their problem cannot be solved by a tax cut. Instead they need to start back out at the bottom in temp jobs to show employers that they're reliable.

My previous point stands, the economy is at full employment.

>>158619
>My previous point stands, the economy is at full employment.
Your brain is at full retard.

>all this crying over muh wealth gap

https://youtu.be/D_nVEH2woBQ

I have no problem with millionaires or billionaires, for that matter. If someone is more wealthy than I am, I figure that they earned it THROUGH THE SWEAT OF THEIR OWN BROW, the same way I earned MY money. I work hard for what I have. When I see someone on welfare, I want to slap the crap out of them. There ARE plenty of jobs available. More Jobs than people in this country. Not every job will pay an unskilled person $10-$15 an hour, though, nor should it. This is how someone gets experience. Income inequality is a made-up malady invented by the liberals, to get the unwashed masses pissed off at those people who work... and pay for their welfare, I might add.

It all comes down to communism vs. Capitalism.

>>158637
Truth.

Taxes should be paying your fair share. If you make more you pay more.

I.e. the family model
Mom can't pay all the bills so I, the son, give her money to help out. Hell, I am living there after all. Mom decides family should have a higher standard of living. 5 year old brother and sister "deserve" cellphones and I pads. Mom has even less money for bills, me doing well at work pays more. Mom keeps spending money even though she doesn't have it in an effort to make a better life for all.
I find 3 maxed out credit cards as mom now needs 60% of my wages to support family. I give her 75% to help get credit cards under control. Got a new fridge even though the old one still works, gets more crap not nesscisary to survival. Mom now has four credit cards maxed.
I can still support my self on 25% wage. Cut off mom because she can't spend responsibly. Turns out I am the devil responsible for taking away food from my siblings mouth.

People will hate no matter what. Paying more taxes wouldn't be an issue for me if the gov could spend money responsible.

It's about time to cut that bitch off.

>>158591

Please stop the sob stories. For every story about how AHCA helped someone, you can find a dozen on how it fucked up some person family (and vice versa). The entire house/senante turned into a dicking contest over who could pull out the most stories cause of this crap. And I'm not even including the businesses that got dicked over or states that refused federal help.

>>158591
>I don't think the left was effective in helping poor white voters during the Obama years, but at least they tried.
>implying the Democrats are left
Obamacare was created by the Heritage Foundation, it sucks BECAUSE its a right-wing healthcare plan, and now the Republicans are trying to create an even WORSE system rather than accept the obvious solution of single-payer like every other developed country in the world.

>>158644
Every negative ACA story I've heard is 'this bill made my life more complicated. Every positive one has been 'this bill saved my life'.

>>158524
Brilliant move, i thought winging it was the ultimate laziness, this took to to a whole other level

>>158621
>quote the other person's central point
>proceed to ad hominem
Do you ever look in the mirror and wonder why you have such a deep, homoerotic affection for a man who clearly doesn't stand by his campaign promises?

>>158622
Do you think the wealth gap at the turn of the century was problematic? Where the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts of the world had control over monopolies and nobody else was able to get their foot in the door?

>>158648
"stop telling your sob stories and listen to my sob story!"

>>158644
So you have 240 million stories about how it fucked up people? Because it helped 20 million people get insured. And's that not mentioning those with preexisting conditions who are now protected from financial ruin, and the elderly who saw their healthcare costs reigned in.

>>158655
False equivalency. They employed violence and anti-competitive business tactics that had no purpose except to force smaller firms out of the market. No one in recent history has come close to the dominance of Standard Oil.

>>158657
A: The 20 million number is not accurate, and even if it were could not necessarily be explained by the ACA.
B: The ACA has done jack squat to actually increase the quantity or quality of care given in the US. That is 100% a supply-side problem -- caregivers, medicine and equipment are inherently scarce and we need much more of them. There are boatloads of laws which contribute to things like anti-competitive practices among hospitals and clinics, lawsuit payouts which are ultimately paid by the patients, and artificial scarcity of doctors. We can bust regional monopolies, we can reform torts, and we can allow doctors not trained in the US to practice.

>>158658
Fair enough, the situation is not that dire. The point I'd like to make though is limited social mobility isn't doing anyone favors, except those who are already at the very top. While rags to riches stories still happen, they are much less common than in the middle of the century. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

I think the amount of taxes the wealthy have to pay is unfair. I also think it's unfair that children are born into poverty and can't afford to get a college education that would allow them to become a wealthy person who pays too much taxes. I see everything the government does as a trade-off, and while often I don't believe tax hikes are worthwhile, I see providing medicaid to millions more Americans at the cost of those making more than 250k a year as a worthwhile trade-off. Does it solve the social mobility problem? No, but I believe nobody should be deprived of decent healthcare, and that increased difficulty of climbing the social ladder has deprived many of decent healthcare.

>>158658
>he said, ignoring the entire Net Neutrality debate

If you think the oligarchs of today aren't as ruthless as the oligarchs of yesterday, you've got another thing coming. The stakes may have changed in the information age, but corporate greed is eternal. And now that they're practically controlling the White House, plutocracy is well and truly back in business.

>>158667
Net Neutrality is also bullshit. Exploitative ISPs have been enabled by state franchising agreements, generally old holdovers made with cable TV providers. The answer there is also eliminating anti-competitive laws and keeping capital costs to enter the market low.

>>158622
>If someone is more wealthy than I am, I figure that they earned it THROUGH THE SWEAT OF THEIR OWN BROW, the same way I earned MY money.
On the contrary, they earn that wealth through their employees' labor, not their own- their wealth is achieved purely by the ownership of property which allows them to coerce the working class into this exploitative relationship.
A few months ago, practically the whole internet, even the aut-rightists, came together to laugh at the misfortune of the trust fund kiddies who went to Fyre Festival- it was clear to everyone that these people had never worked a day in their lives, that their income was achieved not through work but simply by being born into wealth and therefore being able to use that wealth to leech off the labor of the working class. Would you not agree that those people are the worst parasites upon society? Why do you so fiercely defend the system that allows such behavior? Why is your anger directed at the weakest and most vulnerable of society instead of those who take the most?
>>158658
>They employed violence and anti-competitive business tactics that had no purpose except to force smaller firms out of the market.
Hah! The richest will always be able to outcompete smaller competitors in a "free market", they have the funds to drive their competition out of business- just look at how Wal-Mart has been destroying small businesses across the country for decades.
>No one in recent history has come close to the dominance of Standard Oil.
Lulz, for over a century our gov't has waged full-scale wars at the behest of their donors, the whole Syria thing started because Assad wouldn't allow a pipeline to be built through his country, for example.
>>158671
>unironically thinking the "free market" will magically fix it
>ignoring the fact that the only way to lower the cost of entering the market would be through subsidization, thus going against the whole notion of the "free market" in the first place

>>158524
Give them a break. "No one knew Healthcare could be this hard."

-President Trump

>>158686
NB4 "communist scum".

>>158642
>If you make more you pay more.

But why though?

>>158657
>helped 20 million people get insured.

A good number of people didn't even want the shit

>>158703
They had the option to pay a fine if they didn't.
seems fair; too many folks go without health insurance while healthy and then expect taxpayers to foot the hospital bills when something goes wrong and they have to rely on a guarantee of emergency care to meet their health needs.
Everyone has risk, everyone should buy insurance, otherwise robust insurance isn't affordable to most Americans.
And most people wanted it anyway or need it to live.

>>158542
>I make 80k and pay 40k in taxes. Fuck this.

Of all the things that didn't happen, this is the most. Ain't a fucking location anywhere in the US that has a 50% tax rate.

Goddamn summerfags.

This is the thing I don't understand about the two big parties in the US. Why not just implement a public option for people to buy into if they wish? People who have a hard time affording private healthcare care defect to it and private insurers HAVE to compete with it which means it'll just be a win/win for the customers. I don't really understand why Americans have this weird dichotomy with healthcare. You got one side that wants to socialize it completely while other side wants to privatize everything. Why not have a public and private option? Best of both worlds if you ask me.

>>158708
>public option
A republican governor did it in Massachusetts and the state had the highest rates of coverage in the country prior to the ACA, there is no indication that black and mexican people are reproducing any faster, the state economy is doing fine, quality of care hasn't decreased, the state still isn't communist.

The ACA is not exactly "less privatized" health insurance system. Private companies still provide insurance. It just uses a system of regulation, subsidy, penalty to get the market to a place where everyone pays into the system (either by buying a policy or paying a fine) and in exchange everyone is essentially guaranteed ability to receive coverage for virtually all preventative and emergency care regardless of their past health or coverage status.

>>158708
Blame Joe Lieberman. We literally would have the public option right now if he had agreed to it.

>>158708
Irrational fear of 'socialism'.

EVEN THE REPEAL ALONE OPTION FAILED. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

GET FUCKED RIGHTIES YOUR IDEOLOGY IS A FAILED ONE.

>>158708

This. >>158719

It can literally be boiled down to one person. He left congress three years later anyway.

>>158686
This

didn't trump promise to support single payer healthcare

>>158733
He did in 2015, but you know he flips on shit

>>158733

What Trump says is virtually irrelevant. His words at this point carry next to no weight.

>>158706
Why should I have to pay you for something I don't want?

Lol if I'm dying, leave me to die. I won't be paying for your hospital bill.

t. Boy with a mama who has really good health and dental insurance, KEK

>>158749
first of all, you're not paying me; you're purchasing insurance or paying the government.
second,
>why should i do X
you don't have to, but it's illegal.
why should it be illegal?
that's a complex debate pertaining to national interest which republicans have grossly oversimplified to the point of threatening up to 75% of health insurance enrollees with complete loss of coverage.

>>158749
You just don't want to pay taxes.

>>158823
True. Taxation is theft.

>>158824
What other thefts increase your quality of life?
How would you suggest paying for maintaining the military and nuclear waste?

>>158833
Increase my quality of life?
How is my quality of life increased when the government steals 50% of my income to import 100000 Somali Muslims?

Literally having your wealth confiscated and handed over to people that want to kill you.

>>158833
>How would you suggest paying for maintaining the military
You take the oil, exactly as Trump suggested, make the military self funding from their conquests.
>How would you suggest paying for nuclear waste?
Just do what the japs are doing with fukushima. Dump it in the ocean. The erosion mud will cover it and safely enclose it away from the environment.

>>158834
You are literally a literal retard.

Tell me more about the theft as you drive on the roads (or more likely take the bus). Tell me more about the theft while your parents sent you to free public school. Tell me more about the theft that provides the military umbrella that you undoubtedly jerk off to.

>>158838
Private roads and bridges are always in better shape.
Public schools are garbage leftist indoctrination camps. Everyone that can sends their kids to superior private schools.

>>158838
my roads are shit, they are barely drivable, as Somali muslims have been imported to my area the crime rate has skyrocketed, and as for school, I personally provided documentation proving that they were teaching the class a lie, as for the military I think that its sad that they had to give the first army ranger women special treatment to pass the course, the military will continue to deteriorate as they lower the standards and/or give women special treatment.

>>158838

>muh roads muhafucka

The public infrastructure across the US and Europe are a complete mess.

I've traveled all across both Europe and the US, and parts of Canada, and the roads are falling apart everywhere.

The roads are a perfect example of the government being too incompetent and corrupt to provide a basic product, despite the fact that taxes for those services continue to go up.

The main reason healthcare is so expensive is purely because the government got involved and it caused prices to sky rocket.

Same thing with college tuition.

Government is not the answer, it's the problem

>>158824
>Taxation is theft.
On the contrary, private property is theft
>>158904
>Government is not the answer, it's the problem
The biggest problem with the gov't is that its been corrupted to the point that it exists to serve the interests of corporations instead of the people, so your solution is to abandon it and cede its functions to those same corporations? Fucking brilliant

>>158842
>>158902
>>158904
>muh libertard fantasy that some ceo will swoop in and magically fix all the problems without gouging everyone and lining their pockets as dictated by their very own job description

Yum yum tasty boots

>>158834
>50% of my income is taxed!
Stop with this retarded hyperbole. The only people that pay that much in taxes are people who make $500k+ a year. I'd say you probably pay around 20% at most
>All of my taxes do is import more brown people!
Wrong again. You've been reading too much Breitbart and watching nothing but faux news, haven't you?

>>158842
>>158902
>>158904

>wants taxes reduced and government downsized
>wonder why roads are a mess

>>158906
>On the contrary, private property is theft
What? How am I stealing something when I work to build something on my own.

>>158909
When you count up correctly, not just what I pay, but everything from the taxes my employer pays to the taxes I pay on the products I buy. The actual amount of taxation on my productive work is closer to 80%.

Yes. In order to be able to buy products worth 100X I have to produce work worth 500X. Because the government steal 80% of my income.

>>158913
Because you didn't actually build it on your own and its existence as a whole is possible because of forces external to yourself

>>158915
You don't get to just toss out ever increasing numbers without any data or calculations to back them up. Thats not how any of this works. Just kill yourself as life is simply a hopeless drag anyway

>>158916
you are not entitled to my labor fuckhead, what I buy with the money I make is my personal property, I remember Obama making the same bullshit argument, by that logic the clothing you wear isn't yours because you didn't make it, never mind the fact that you exchanced hours of your life for little green pieces of paper to use as a means of exchange of resources, i am truly sorry that the concept of personal property eludes you, take everything you own and donate it if you want anyone to take you seriously

>>158918
>being too retarded to understand a simple abstraction

At this point it could be explained to you all day and you still wouldn't get it because of how huffy and cabbaged up your head is with your own ideology. Keep thinking you're an army of one, slick.

>>158916
Thomas Paine said: "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
Maybe we'd be better off if he'd been a bit more involved in the early governing of this country.

>>158918
Learn the different between private property (land, means of production) and personal posessions (a shirt or video game).

>>158576
>government spending
>transparent
You know jack fucking shit.
Absolute jack fucking shit.

>>158916

Hopefully Trump lets us start lynching people like this again

>>158612
>Obamacare only taxes the rich!
Thatsnothowthisworks.jpg

>>158925
No one cares to figure out what riddle you are trying to make. State your point clearly and precisely or fuck off. You Commie bastard.

>>158916
>>158925
Sir we are happy to inform you that you have won ONE FREE HELICOPTER RIDE

>>158925
Fuck off sniffles man.
Private property is a fundemental right to existence.
Claiming that your ideology is too complex to explain to "such simpletons", doesnt give it any credit. It actually just discredits it.

>>158906
>it serves the corporations not the people!
Huh, maybe if we didnt have such a big government it couldnt be corrupted and used by big corperations!
How fucking stupid are you?
Most laws are passed, even "regulatory" laws, out of explicit private interest of a corperation to entrence themselves in a protected market.
Its called a governmemt enforced monopoly.

>>158938
>>158935

>>158931 already spelled it out for you. you conflate ownership of a piece of pizza vs how you even got said pizza in the first place. Most of you probably doing so disingenuously just to make explaining it over and over again to you rubes such a chore

>>158941
Are you saying that ONLY the government should be able to own land? Fuck. Not even Marx himself was this much of a Commie. You're insane.

>>158944
Nobody is saying that except you, delusional shitposter.

>>158913
The concept of property is purely a social construct. If I were to declare myself supreme ruler of the world, it wouldn't mean anything unless everyone else agreed or if I had the ability to back it up with brute force, which would essentially be enslaving people.
The same could be said of all property- for example, if I am working at some business and perform $100 worth of labor, it would be in my self interest to keep the full $100 instead of handing most of it over to the "owner" of the business. Threat of brute force by the government is what enforces this ownership by a wealthy few- the working class is essentially enslaved by the owner class. Ideally, society should operate on the principle of consensual mutual cooperation, where everyone is given a voice rather than being beholden to arbitrary private property laws. Keep in mind that private and personal property are different things- nobody wants to take your home or your car or your toothbrush or anything like that, but rather the goal is to end the parasitic behavior I described earlier in >>158686
>>158930
I really think you're missing the point of what Paine is saying here- he's specifically saying that property is a result of society agreeing to adhere to one's claims to it. In situations where a tiny few control the vast majority of property and most have no option but to serve those wealthy "elites", then the majority that make up society have no reason to care about their property. The fact that he later went on to work with the left-wing Jacobins of the French revolution is a perfect example of this.

>>158948
>In situations where a tiny few control the vast majority of property and most have no option but to serve those wealthy "elites", then the majority that make up society have no reason to care about their property.
That sounds highly antisemitic. Are you some kind of nazi that thinks jews control the world?

>>158950
No, because I'm not some retarded /pol/yp who sees everything in terms of race. Economic class is not inherently bound to one's ethnicity.

>>158941
There is no difference between private property and personal possesions. Those are arbitrary distinctions upheld by nothing other than your baseless ideology.

>>158948
>the tiny few control everything
But this is wrong.
You're describing fuedal society. Not capital society.
In the United States the vast majority of wealth is held by the people.
The "wealthy elites" you describe are people who use big government to entrence themselves in a monopoly, and then block the common man from entering the market.

You are operating off of the wrong principles my dude.

>>158948
Also
>I do $100 worth of labour
You cannot define what "$100 worth of labour" is. The worth of your labour is defined only by the consumers who purchase it.
You "hand over most of it to the owner" because you signed a CONTRACT with him because he has the facilities, resources, clients and connections to make profit. You dont.
Your skill is worthless without your boss.

Seriously this is basic economics buddy.
You know fuckall.

>>158948
>>158968
Basically what you're complaining about is that the government enforces legal contracts that you sign and you got pissy that you're not as rich and hardworking as your boss (or maybe his family before him).
You have zero basis for argumentation other than "waa waa im poor and dont make good decisions for myself, lets eliminate private property and redistribute the means of production to people who have no idea what they are doing"
Im also not clear on what you are advocating for, violent revolution? Massive radical reform and redistribution by the government? What?
Because all of those have been tried, and failed. And will fail.
The "super rich" elite are the ones with lucrative governement contracts because our government has grown so large they can regulate almost any part of our lives.

>>158567
>>158601


go back facebook

>>158969
Karl Marx is a fucking retard who knows nothing about wealth and power.

>>158973
well how do you explain my feelings?

>>158966
>You're describing fuedal society. Not capital society.
>In the United States the vast majority of wealth is held by the people.
You have no clue how bad the wealth distribution is in the US, do you? The top 10% control about 3/4 of the country's wealth, while the top 1% alone control about 1/4 of it.
>The "wealthy elites" you describe are people who use big government to entrence themselves in a monopoly, and then block the common man from entering the market.
Wealth inequality was even greater in the 19th to early 20th century when there were few regulations on businesses, the gov't had to intervene just to PREVENT monopolies. As regulations and social programs have been removed since the 70s the wealth continues to once again concentrate at the top with no sign of ever "trickling down".
>>158968
>You cannot define what "$100 worth of labour" is. The worth of your labour is defined only by the consumers who purchase it.
The value that a worker produces will always be less than what they receive in compensation from the owner, or else they would be operating at a loss and eventually go out of business.
>You "hand over most of it to the owner" because you signed a CONTRACT with him because he has the facilities, resources, clients and connections to make profit
So tell me, did people sign a contract agreeing to acknowledge the "owner's" claim to the property? Or are they coerced into doing so by government force? If the workers of a business decided to just start running the place themselves and give the owner the finger the cops would show up to brutalize them.
>Your skill is worthless without your boss.
Because trust fund kiddies are so essential to labor
>>158969
>Im also not clear on what you are advocating for, violent revolution? Massive radical reform and redistribution by the government?
Elimination of the state and replacing the system of private property with one based on personal property, I don't care whether its done by reform or revolution

>>159014
>Wealth inequality was even greater in the 19th to early 20th century when there were few regulations on businesses, the gov't had to intervene just to PREVENT monopolies. As regulations and social programs have been removed since the 70s the wealth continues to once again concentrate at the top with no sign of ever "trickling down".

That's because when the working class controls wealth, they spend it immediately and domestically products and services.
The wealthy and especially super wealthy will save a much larger portion of their wealth and will also spend and invest a larger portion abroad. In particular, multinationals get a lot more bang for their buck investing in developing economies.

What's spent here is now increasingly invested in labor saving technologies. Economic conservatism still has no long-term strategy for how to protect the working class from increasing automation.

>>159014
Holy fuck Im sorry, I feel bad for you.
Im just glad to know Im actually going to affect change in this world and you're not.
The most outragous thing is you start out communist, and then you advocate for large governmental regulation.
You said "elimination of the state" but you dont say "how", you havent clearly defined "personal property" vs private property; or why it needs to ve defined, you dont seem to understand that the owner owns the building, and the workers work their voluntarily.
There is absolutly nothing preventing the workers from starting their own buisness where there is no CEO, infact I applaud it. It gives workers emmense power, and there are many examples of employee owned buisnesses that are successful. But that doesnt justify literally stealing land from the owner.
You seem to have a few good pieces but you dont complete the picture, you just nosedive to communism.

You dont have to destroy the "free market", you can use it to be successful and change the lives of unlimited people. Unless youre a europoor, there is nothing to stop a convicted person from acheiving his dream.

>inb4 muh bootstraps

>>159022
Automation is only being made more attractive because of government regulation.
If it wasnt there the work force could grow until the market becomes unprofitable.
As new technologies are introduced, companies hire and train from old dead markets, automation will never be perfectly automated; theres always someone to work on something.
Of course unless everything in the world suddenly becomes un scarce.

This gave me an idea.
What if the workers, saved their money from working there, and pooled togeather the resources and then offered to buy out the company.

>>159045
>Automation is only being made more attractive because of government regulation.
And that's fine. Automation is a good thing. Freeing people from the need to labor is a good thing. But as a quirk of our economic paradigm, the business owners overwhelmingly benefits.
>If it wasnt there the work force could grow until the market becomes unprofitable.
It's already unprofitable in many sectors to employ human labor and automation is now being used as an excuse to lower standards for those humans who still labor.
>theres always someone to work on something.
The question isn't whether someone will have a job, it's whether every citizen will be able to achieve gainful employment and what will become of them if they can't.
>Of course unless everything in the world suddenly becomes un scarce.
Even if this happened, without social programs, you'd have a condition where the means of production would be almost entirely monopolized by business owners and the rest would essentially live at their good graces or make do with inferior technology.

>>158524
no, don't kill maccain

>>159022
>Economic conservatism still has no long-term strategy for how to protect the working class from increasing automation.
Judging by this healthcare bill, their strategy is simply to cull the poor...
>>159044
>The most outragous thing is you start out communist, and then you advocate for large governmental regulation.
Gov't regulation is required to keep our current capitalist system from turning into the Hunger Games, but I still support the goal of ending both the state and corporations
>you havent clearly defined "personal property" vs private property
Personal property is things that you personally use- your home, your car, etc. Private property specifically refers to property which one does not use but instead allows the owner to extract wealth from those who lack property, such as through rent or dividends.
>There is absolutly nothing preventing the workers from starting their own buisness where there is no CEO
How are they gonna do that? Are they gonna just wish the means of production into existence? While co-ops are indeed possible and far less exploitative than normal wage labor, most of the working class is paid so little that they have no way of starting such a business.
>But that doesnt justify literally stealing land from the owner.
Again, private property is purely a social construct, and when that social construct doesn't work in the interests of the people they have no reason to keep it around. That quote from Thomas Paine earlier sums it up pretty well >>158930 , or if you like to read then I'd suggest Stirner's "The Ego and its Own".
>You dont have to destroy the "free market", you can use it to be successful and change the lives of unlimited people
Even fucking Adam Smith said that free markets were a bad thing because they're out of the control of the people.
>Unless youre a europoor, there is nothing to stop a convicted person from acheiving his dream.
Social mobility is even lower in the US than it is in most of Europe

>>159062
Oh god Im just gonna buy the helicopter for this one.
Even Zizek would be ashamed.

>>158524
This is so awesome. Was this whole thing 4D chess? To make it seem like they were trying for a replacement to look like good guys, but tire everyone out just to get the "fuck it" votes to repeal it for good?

I was disappointed when I heard they actually wanted to replace it, now I couldn't be happier.

>>158591
>helped rural Americans more than anyone

I'm a rural American whose company could no longer afford our healthcare provider because their prices skyrocketed due to the ACA.

For everyone the ACA helped, there's someone it hurt because it didn't just make money magically appear to pay for the needy, the insurance companies, forced to take on people with shit health, had to get that money from everyone else.

>>158749
Because it has been the experience of history that when people who say this start actually dying, they demand to be saved anyways.

>>158752
Health insurance is not a right.
You cant blame republicans for repealing horrible legislation that gave lavish and unneccisary plans to people who shouldnt have them.

>>158955
Jewish isn't a race retard

>>159182
They are an ethno-religious group, which is why the majority of Jews are secular.

>>159161
it is a right.
freedom comes from many sources. The bill of rights. But also food security, shelter, healthcare.

>>159161
>You cant blame republicans for repealing horrible legislation that gave lavish and unneccisary plans to people who shouldnt have them.
how do you define who should get insurance? the entire point of insurance is that everyone has risk, so everyone pays into the system and everyone gets peace of mind, aka when some people inevitably encounter difficulty they know they won't die painfully if conventional medicine can help it.
If everyone doesn't buy insurance, then robust insurance that protects people when they most need it becomes unaffordable for most people.

>>159192
>it is a right.
>freedom comes from many sources. The bill of rights. But also food security, shelter, healthcare.
A right is not what you think it is. You have everything completely ass backwards. Your entire world view.

You think you have the right to food security, shelter healthcare? WRONG
You have the right to obtain these thinks if you want to. This is not the Soviet Union. The government has zero obligation to give you any of these things. What it it means to have a right is the government should not stand in the way of you obtaining these things. nothing more.

>>159193
>its a right
No it isnt, its a privilege.
Nobody has a right to healthcare, or to any service or to any property that they do not supply or own.
If you say healthcare is a right then you support an institution of enslaved medical care professionals and insurance workers.
The constitution clearly defines that rights are your inherent liberties, and can be exercised until they infringe upon other rights.

>>159195
>Nobody has a right to healthcare, or to any service or to any property that they do not supply or own.
You pay for police, the military, and for the emergency care of others through tax money. People are more likely to die painfully of disease than of murder, by orders of magnitude.

>that they do not supply or own.
You don't have a right to every dollar in your paycheck.

>If you say healthcare is a right then you support an institution of enslaved medical care professionals and insurance workers.
how are they slaves?

>The constitution clearly defines that rights are your inherent liberties, and can be exercised until they infringe upon other rights.
what other right does socialized healthcare infringe upon

>>159194
>You have the right to obtain these thinks if you want to.
I agree and if one encounters serious misfortune through no fault of his own, one should be protected by the society he lives in. One tool to accomplish that is insurance, and one way to make universal insurance possible is through an individual mandate.

>This is not the Soviet Union.
It's the US.

>The government has zero obligation to give you any of these things.
The government has an obligation to give me what the country votes for

>What it it means to have a right is the government should not stand in the way of you obtaining these things. nothing more.
I know you think that but I disagree.

>>159197
You have honestly no clue what a "right" is in the legal sense? Sad to see.

>>159199
>>What it it means to have a right is the government should not stand in the way of you obtaining these things. nothing more.
>I know you think that but I disagree.

No you are wrong. That is the exact definition of it. What is in your mind is a Communist fantasy where no one has to think and the government takes care of everything. We tried that. it didn't work. In fact we have tried that a dozen times. it has always ended in millions dead and the country ruined for decades.

>>159201
I know a right to healthcare doesn't legally exist in the US (aside from emergency care, which is arbitrary as fuck).
I have a clue that it should.

>>159203
No. You have the right to healthcare. You have the right to get whatever healthcare you want. And the government will not stand in the way.

That is the definition of a right. And you have it.

>>159202
>What is in your mind is a Communist fantasy where no one has to think and the government takes care of everything.
lolwut, where did I advocate for this anywhere?
I said everyone has ever increasing risk so everyone should have to buy comprehensive insurance so that it can be affordable for the working class and poor.

>We tried that. it didn't work. In fact we have tried that a dozen times. it has always ended in millions dead and the country ruined for decades.
We have a public option. You should come here, many of the hospitals are bar none. We've been #1 in access to healthcare ranked out of all states since prior to the ACA. We're not communist yet and our economy is quite robust. But I'll get back to you if providing everyone healthcare suddenly degenerates into the soviet union.

>>159193
>define who should get insurance
You don't, those who can get insurance are those that can afford it. If they cant get covered its because they are too high risk.
>everyone has risk
Sure, everyone is at SOME LEVEL, of risk. But not everyone is EQUALLY at risk. If you live right next to an active volcano with moving lavaflows your home insurance is going to be very high. If you are a stunt man for a living, or smoke, or have a history of drug abuse, your health insurance is going to be very high. If you have a history of car accidents, your car insurance is going to be high.
Insurance is the worlds most difficult game of gambling, and you have to take very calculated risks.
I would rather play craps than go into insurance.
>everyone pays into the system, everyone gets peace of mind
No, not "everyone" pays into the system. Most dont pay "into the system" they just use it. And then when they dont have their own plan to cover their problem; the government (everyone else) has to foot the bill; on a borrowed dime.
Do you know how much money the government spends on social welfare programs? Its 70% of total US spending. 70 fucking percent. A shitload of it is fraud, a shit load of it is paying administors and do nothing jobs, and a shitload is paying a bunch of worthless beurocrats.
>aka when some people inevitably encounter difficulty they know they won't die painfully if conventional medicine
The problem is you think "conventional medicine" is all that this pays for, no, it pays for a shitload more than that. It pays for top dollar treatment to try and save everyone's life.
The issue is you're taking total responsibility and ownership away from somones life. If they dont have to worry about medical insurance or care, they wont avoid taking risks that would injure them.
Thats called a moral hazard.
Its why saftey features on cars dont actually "save lives", they just decrease the number of minor accident deaths and increase the number of major accieents.

>>159204
How could I get it if I get very sick and lose my job and thus can't afford it because without an individual mandate most people can't afford comprehensive health insurance?

>>159193
>If everyone doesn't buy insurance, then robust insurance that protects people when they most need it becomes unaffordable for most people.
Quit saying "everyone", that isnt how it works.

We're looking at a serious problem here.
Eventually the U.S. credit is going to be shot by the crushing weight of over $200 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. And soon after that, all those people with inflated plans? Dont have any plans at all because therr is no money from the taxpayers to fund it. So people die for even minor things. This is the result of the failed nanny state policies that have been enacted for almost 70 years now.

Let people decide and care for themselves and allow the insurance companies to provide competative plans customized for peoples needs.
Not everyone needs insurance from attacks by geese (an actual provision in obamacare), but if you take away the responsibility from people to take care of themselves; they dont care for themselves.

>>159207
That's your problem. Should have planned ahead.

>>159206
>You don't, those who can get insurance are those that can afford it. If they cant get covered its because they are too high risk.
The entire point of insurance is to protect people when they become high risk. That doesn't work without an individual mandate.

>Sure, everyone is at SOME LEVEL, of risk. But not everyone is EQUALLY at risk. If you live right next to an active volcano with moving lavaflows your home insurance is going to be very high. If you are a stunt man for a living, or smoke, or have a history of drug abuse, your health insurance is going to be very high. If you have a history of car accidents, your car insurance is going to be high.
Yes but if you fall sick for reasons outside of your feasible control then you shouldn't suddenly be unable to afford insurance due to some happenstance. Insurance becomes useless for most people then.

>No, not "everyone" pays into the system. Most dont pay "into the system" they just use it. And then when they dont have their own plan to cover their problem; the government (everyone else) has to foot the bill; on a borrowed dime.
Not all of them are bums. Relegating the majority to a painful life and punishing the working class with a threat of losing everything from conventionally treatable conditions is worth the occasional bum. We should have mechanisms in the system to deter abuse, certainly.

>The issue is you're taking total responsibility and ownership away from somones life. If they dont have to worry about medical insurance or care, they wont avoid taking risks that would injure them.
Yeah because everyone in Germany, France, Brazil, Mexico, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, etc etc are all just climbing over themselves to be injured just to get some of that sweet hospital food.

>>159209
I can't plan ahead for everything, not everyone deserves every circumstance they find themselves in. Considering how much of one's life one can reasonably change through his own decision making power, most people don't deserve most of what they have.

>>159208
Universal healthcare is an economic boon.
People should seek employ where their talent can best be leveraged, not on basis of what insurance is on offer. And access to preventative healthcare enables people to continue working despite misfortune.
We don't have to wonder about the cost, other developed economies have single payer.

>>159197
>You pay for police, the military,
Provide for the common defense.
>and for the emergency care of others through tax money.
Which is unconstitutional.
>People are more likely to die painfully of disease than of murder, by orders of magnitude.
Correct. But Most people die because of the fault of their own actions. Ameicans are obese, and the vast majority of deaths in America are caused by "cardio-vascular disease"; aka being fat and unhealthy. 200,000 people die to "medical malpractice" every year aswell (mainly because of the government enforced medical cartel), a lot of those deaths are because people with semi-serious injuries (serious cuts, infections, and so on) cant get cheap care because you have to see the doctor (to make sure he gets those sweet sweet patient hours), rather than Larry the marine combat medic who can stitch and sew better than a tailor.
15,000 people die every year to murder. But thats small compared to medical malpractice.
>You don't have a right to every dollar in your paycheck.
Actually I do, except for the income tax which was passed by constiutional amendment. But I still think is unconstiutional.
>how are they slaves?
If you have a RIGHT to healthcare, and there are NO doctors willing to provide it, how are you going to get healthcare?
You are saying that doctors are REQUIRED to give THEIR labour, and cannot refuse to work or lose their liscensing and job.
That is slavery by the book.
>what other right does socialized healthcare infringe upon
Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
You do not trample on the liberty of the few to benifit the tyranny of the whole.

>>159211
Again. You seem to have zero understanding what a right is.

What you want is not a right to healthcare. You already have that. What you want is that the government takes complete care of you no matter what stupid decisions you have made. I'm not sure there is even a word for what you want. Maybe "Utopian Communism".

>>159207
Do you understand why people work?
You work when you are young and healthy to take care of yourself when you are old and fragile.
That isnt the government's job, otherwise nobody would take care of themselves because there is no incentive to do so.
If you remove an individuals liberty, you remove their responsability.
>>159210
>The entire point of insurance is to protect people when they become high risk.
Okay, Im literally going to have to socratic method your ass through this shit.
WHY does someone become HIGH RISK? Through fault of their own? Or someone elses?
Most likley through fault of their own.
Thats why when they make poor choices to smoke, drink, use drugs, or take high risk; its THEIR choice. And the consequence is paying higher rates. What do you not understand here? Why do you think that people cant make conscience decisions on their own? Are you that elitiest?
>Yes but if you fall sick for reasons outside of your feasible control then you shouldn't suddenly be unable to afford insurance due to some happenstance. Insurance becomes useless for most people then.
There are few to none cases like this, but people have to make decisions on the margine. "Out of feasible control" is far from reality.
Lets talk about preexisting conditions; but real ones like ones had from birth.
If 2 consenting adults plan to have a child, they need to understand that risk and responsibility of bringing a new life into the world. Thats why in early American history common law marriages were often enforced, because the founders understood that society is a greater organism and if you bring new life into the circle its your job to care and provide for it. If the government removes that responsibility, you get what the black community has; 70% of children on welfare and our of wedlock.
When deciding to have a child you should be aware of medical historys, cancer, asthma, and other factors; and then you go buy an insurance plan for that child.

>>158836
>You take the oil, exactly as Trump suggested, make the military self funding from their conquests.

He assumes this is the entire point of the military.

>Just do what the japs are doing with fukushima. Dump it in the ocean. The erosion mud will cover it and safely enclose it away from the environment.

Japs are terrible with everything they do that's related to environment. Are you trolling right now?

>>159210
This isnt the olden days anymore with massive infant mortality rates, we have the technology, but that doesnt mean it can be given away for free. Those services are owned by the people who own the technology, and their taining and labour. All of that goes into the cost.
You're simplifying something so complex into so few words of "its a right" without giving any anaylsis or basis for any of your arguments.
>bums
Not what I said. I said most people dont "pay into the system" and it would only """work""" if population grew at an exponential rate to provide the tax base to pay for the expensive medical treatments, but its self defeating because socialized welfare doesn't promote having children and growing and being succesful, it produces mediocracy.
Organisms change and learn and grow and produce because they want to make themselves comfortable. Remove discomfort, remove all growth.
>Relegating the majority to a painful life and punishing the working class with a threat of losing eerything from conventionally treatable conditions is worth the occasional bum
But thats not what it does, it doesnt "help" the working class. The working class is completely different now. Not only that but all you're doing is abusing future generations because of your greed, and laziness. You're kicking the can down the road, and soon it will just be kicked off the cliff with you right after it.
>Yeah because everyone in Germany, France, Brazil, Mexico, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, etc etc are all just climbing over themselves to be injured just to get some of that sweet hospital food.
Where did I say people were intentionally hurting themselves?
I said people take more RISKs, when they dont have to be responsible for their CONSEQUENCES.
Fraud happens at the administrative level, not at the patient level.

You seem to be missing the most basic and essential concepts for this discussion, and are resorting to putting words in my mouth and relying on "what ifs" and total assumptions.

>>158915

Next you'll say you pay 120% in taxes.

No one believes your bullshit. Just go away.

>>159218
>>159221
These posts are tied btw.
>>159210

>>158909
You understand making 500k a year and getting more than half of it taxed away is a lot right?
Thats why people lobby for exemptions, cuts, and loopholes.
Imagine what someone could do with that extra 250k.

>>159221
>This isnt the olden days anymore with massive infant mortality rates, we have the technology, but that doesnt mean it can be given away for free.

How is obtaining a resource through insurance coverage giving anything away for free? You're the one doing the oversimplifying.

>Those services are owned by the people who own the technology, and their taining and labour. All of that goes into the cost.

Nationalizing insurance isn't a mandate that all hospitals, all pharmaceuticals, all device companies be nationalized.
It isn't even a requirement any insurance company be nationalized.

>Not what I said. I said most people dont "pay into the system" and it would only """work""" if population grew at an exponential rate to provide the tax base to pay for the expensive medical treatments

Why would a larger population necessarily make any difference? You have a larger number of subscribers but you also have a proportionately larger number of patients. Maybe it would make some difference with respect to economy of scale but the population needn't grow at all.

>but its self defeating because socialized welfare doesn't promote having children and growing and being succesful, it produces mediocracy.

Are you seriously going to argue the "survival of the fittest" line? I can sure as hell work a lot harder when I'm not sick. And I'm more likely to work where my skills can best be leveraged when I have peace of mind of knowing I can access conventional preventative healthcare. There's also something to be said for simply improving
If it were up to you guys, it would be the fault of a child for not saving up for a medical condition costing hundreds of thousands.

>>159221
>But thats not what it does, it doesnt "help" the working class. The working class is completely different now. Not only that but all you're doing is abusing future generations because of your greed, and laziness. You're kicking the can down the road, and soon it will just be kicked off the cliff with you right after it.

We practically hemorrhage taxpayer money into our military but expecting everyone to buy good health insurance is what crosses the line? Do you think any of the 50 countries that have national health services are all anti-capitalist and falling apart economically? There are macroeconomic benefits to universal healthcare and we should absolutely be in the business of controlling costs just for the reason that our healthcare spending is so high, even before the ACA. The healthcare industry often doesn't behave according to traditional market dynamics wherein competition increases the quality/cost ratio. It's an industry in which people can't vote for a product with their dollar.

You have profit margins of several thousand percentage points on pills that prevent people from dying a painful death since they can be patented for decades and pharma can charge as high as bankruptcy for most people, and people will pay it. Many of these drugs benefiting from taxpayer funded NIH research.

You also have a condition where if you're in an emergency condition or incapacitated, you're brought to the nearest emergency room, you don't have an opportunity to shop for the best one. Once you're in the OR or a hospital bed, you're captive to the services they provide and whatever they charge.

The only option to make healthcare affordable is for there to exist health insurance that's both affordable and robust. In the case of single payer, that might eat into industry profit margins but pharmaceuticals still make well above and beyond most any other industry in profit margins, that's even after all overhead is considered.

>>159221
>I said people take more RISKs, when they dont have to be responsible for their CONSEQUENCES.

So that justifies relegating everyone to "you deserve whatever happens to you" status. If a baby develops severe childhood asthma and the parents fall on hard times too bad the baby is responsible for the consequence of being born.

>>159225

A lot can be done with 250K US$. A given increase in wealth at the bottom income brackets tends to produce a much greater impact with respect to improving quality of life and human development than someone whose basic needs are fully met.

As a consumption based economy, our economic growth is greatest when we provide the working class social mobility. The working class is much more likely to spend their accumulated wealth domestically on goods and services. The higher you climb in tax brackets, the larger the portion of one's wealth is invested abroad or saved.

That's not a justification of marxism; capitalism is essential because profit incentive and competition are powerful motivators of productivity and innovation. But it's a means to an end, it's not a panacea for society or economy, or some ethical good, it's just a tool. The optimal condition would be a foundation of capitalism upon which state regulation is superimposed to ensure the types of commerce and economic competition occurring benefits the interests of the country as a whole.

People should have peace of mind that their work won't go without sufficient reward and we can argue about the particular tax rate that's most effective in improving quality of life in the immediate while still preserving incentive for inputting labor. Wealth exists in the context of a wider society and it's fair that society decides not all of the wealth one accumulates through transactions with the rest of us should be considered purely one's property as a precondition for participation in our economy in the first place.

>>158904

Government has been overwhelmingly beneficial; the problem is one of ignorance were people don't understand why it's been fundamental in protecting the interests of the vast majority.

Privatization is not a panacea, when you sign a contract with a company, if your needs change you're stuck with your contract, you lose direct control of your projects. There's a significant trade off with handing everything to the private sector because we have to then anticipate all our future needs in advance of negotiation.
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/infrastructure-projects-p3-contracts-chicago-parking

The key to solving the serious corruption that does exist is rolling back the Citizens United ruling, campaign finance reform, better educating voters, and creative ideas like the Democracy Vouchers program. These things establish a barrier between politicians and industry.

>>159293
>we hemmorage tax payer money into our military
*mouth close to mic*
Wrong

more like unaffordable care act amirite

>>159291
>How is obtaining a resource through insurance coverage giving anything away for free? You're the one doing the oversimplifying.
By "free" were talking at no direct cost to the consumer. However he does pay a portion through taxes. If its a government plan, they dont have to pay for it; the Uncle Sam foots the bill and hospitals charge out the ass because they can.
>Nationalizing insurance isn't a mandate that all hospitals, all pharmaceuticals, all device companies be nationalized.
It essentially is, because if you nationalize health insurance soon the market for care will be so bad that doctors leave the profession, go work for sports centers and country clubs and now only the wealthy elite can afford quality healthcare.
The prime example is Canada. Wait times are out the ass, care is shit, and its expensive to the taxpayer.
>It isn't even a requirement any insurance company be nationalized.
Never said it was. Its a mandate, we know that. But by mandating coverage coverage also has to be supplied.
You're giving the already bloated and powerful insurance industry the worlds biggest monopoly.
>Why would a larger population necessarily make any difference? You have a larger number of subscribers but you also have a proportionately larger number of patients. Maybe it would make some difference with respect to economy of scale but the population needn't grow at all.
As people age, they need more and more expensive care. If the population grows in accordance to meet those needs, then its fine. The problem is all of these programs are self defeating, they dont encourage people to take calculated risks because they wont have any consequences.
>Are you seriously going to argue the "survival of the fittest" line?
Its a dog eat dog world out here. Anyway, You're being crude with my words again.

>>159291
>>159329
>I can sure as hell work a lot harder when I'm not sick.
Of course, but you can also mitigate when you are and are not sick. If your encouragement to "not get sick" is to work, you will take care of yourself. If we remove your economic burden for when youre sick, you will make poor decisions on the margin based on your health. Thats the basics, the larger implication is that providing insurance at no cost to low income citizens will bankrupt the country, we already are being bankrupted by massive welfare programs like Medicade.
>And I'm more likely to work where my skills can best be leveraged when I have peace of mind of knowing I can access conventional preventative healthcare. There's also something to be said for simply improving
And here is where you kick the can down the road. You're sacraficing the concern and peace of mind of future generations for your own. You're one greedy son of a bitch.
These policies are completly unsustainable and short sighted. Honestly you cant get anything but "me me me" through your head.
>If it were up to you guys, it would be the fault of a child for not saving up for a medical condition costing hundreds of thousands.
No, it wouldn't be anybody's fault, but it would be the responsibility of the parent to ensure the health and wellbeing of the child.
You're again doing nothing but putting a straw man in the field and beating it down.
Learn some new tricks sheepdog.

>>159293
>We practically hemorrhage taxpayer money into our military
Please see
>>159322
You are so close to understanding the bigger picture but you keep resorting to baseless claims and strawmen.
The United States is currently $20 trillion dollars in national debt, based on cash accounting.
However if congress was being honest, the United States owes far more than that to its own citizens.
We have over $200 trillian dollars in unfunded liabilities because of social welfare programs like social security, medicade, medicare, and so on.
Almost 20% of the budget every year goes just to paying of the interest on medicade debt.
And 70% of all U.S. spending is on social welfare programs.
Military spending is nothing compared to that. There is plenty of fraud, but its like fucking spec of dust on a nats ass.
Shut the fuck up with thar bullshit.
>but expecting everyone to buy good health insurance is what crosses the line?
Yes. It does. Its absolutly unconstitutional, and seriously threatens the economic stability of the United States. Why dont you think big insurance companies protest the ACA? It hands them a massive monopoly on the market with garuenteed income at above market rates. Nobody can compete with them.
>Do you think any of the 50 countries that have national health services are all anti-capitalist and falling apart economically?
No, but Canada, Britian, and Australia all have struggling social welfare programs, with skyrocketing costs, insane wait times, and a monopolized market because of their national health services

>>159293
>>159340
>There are macroeconomic benefits to universal healthcare and we should absolutely be in the business of controlling costs just for the reason that our healthcare spending is so high, even before the ACA.
IT WAS HIGH BECAUSE OF MEDICADE AND MEDICARE WHICH DIDNT EVEN ALLOW FOR COST NEGOTIATION FOR PERSCRIPTIONS OR SERVICES.
Big government ruined the insurance market and now you want MORE big government? Holy fuck how dumb are you?
>The healthcare industry often doesn't behave according to traditional market dynamics wherein competition increases the quality/cost ratio. It's an industry in which people can't vote for a product with their dollar.
You dont have any evidence to support this. The United States had the worlds best health care services and insurance programs globally, and now those big insurance companies are trying to protect their cartels with government monopolies as the market moves to more personalized plans.
>You have profit margins of several thousand percentage points on pills that prevent people from dying a painful death since they can be patented for decades and pharma can charge as high as bankruptcy for most people, and people will pay it. Many of these drugs benefiting from taxpayer funded NIH research.

>>159293
>>159340
>>159341
This is the fault of the FDA. Holy fuck dude you keep shifting goal posts and opening whole new cans of beans every second. Please stay on topic.
>You also have a condition where if you're in an emergency condition or incapacitated, you're brought to the nearest emergency room, you don't have an opportunity to shop for the best one. Once you're in the OR or a hospital bed, you're captive to the services they provide and whatever they charge.
Again, this is off topic, we are discussing insurance. Not hospitals, which are rediculously expensive because of them being required to treat everyone, as well as having to deal with litigation between insurance companies. Theres another compounding problem of paying the massive damages for medical malpractice, and the monopolized market on healthcare that is held by doctors.
>The only option to make healthcare affordable is for there to exist health insurance that's both affordable and robust.
No, the way to make it affordable is by allowing people to choose to pay what they want for the coverage they want. Mandating doesnt do anything but place the majority of the burden on the middle class, futher entrench the healthcare industry, and assit in bankrupting the United States.
>In the case of single payer, that might eat into industry profit margins
Wrong again, this does wonders for profit margins because you just gave then garuenteed income.
>but pharmaceuticals still make well above and beyond most any other industry in profit margins, that's even after all overhead is considered.
Again, a whole nother can of worms.
Big pharma is because of the existence of the FDA.

>>159322
In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget.

>>159346
Correct.
In the discretionary budget.
You dont know there is a difference between the discretionary budget and spending do you?
U.S. military spending is 16% of total U.S. spending.
Here is a pie chart to help you understand.
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png

>>159329
>By "free" were talking at no direct cost to the consumer. However he does pay a portion through taxes.
First off, this isn't how the ACA works at all. The ACA works through private insurance markets which negotiate with providers.

>If its a government plan, they dont have to pay for it; the Uncle Sam foots the bill and hospitals charge out the ass because they can.

This is not how single-payer works in any country, that hospitals charge what they want. Government serves as an insurance pool containing everyone, and government negotiates contracts with providers. An insurance pool containing everyone has immense negotiating power. You either negotiate or or go without the large majority of customers you'd otherwise have.

Every other modern country has NHS to achieve universal coverage and yet the US still has the most expensive cost of care in everything even when it isn't at the top in terms of access or outcomes:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_health_spending_is_much_greater_for_all_categories_of_care_slideshow.jpg

(continued)

>It essentially is, because if you nationalize health insurance soon the market for care will be so bad that doctors leave the profession, go work for sports centers and country clubs and now only the wealthy elite can afford quality healthcare.

There is no evidence of that happening under the ACA. And before the ACA most Americans weren't able to afford preventative care in case of catastrophic conditions in the first place.
And in any case, study after study finds that expansion of medicaid is significantly correlated with a decline in mortality:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099#t=abstract

>We compared three states that substantially expanded adult Medicaid eligibility since 2000 (New York, Maine, and Arizona) with neighboring states without expansions.
...
>Medicaid expansions were associated with a significant reduction in adjusted all-cause mortality (by 19.6 deaths per 100,000 adults, for a relative reduction of 6.1%; P=0.001).

>You're giving the already bloated and powerful insurance industry the worlds biggest monopoly
Yeah, but failing s sensible and modern system of healthcare it's better than nothing. And a monopoly is only necessarily a danger to consumers when specific companies hold them. Telling people they have to go through private industry which negotiates prices with hospitals is on its face not inherently bad.

(continued)

>As people age, they need more and more expensive care. If the population grows in accordance to meet those needs, then its fine. The problem is all of these programs are self defeating, they dont encourage people to take calculated risks because they wont have any consequences.

In US social security and countries with NHS, everyone pays into these programs during their working years and that's how everyone is able to benefit as they retire. The working class of a given generation aren't solely on the hook for the population of elderly.

Social security in the US has a 2.5T US$ Trust Fund to cover the retirement of baby boomers. It's estimated it can cover their retirement through 2036
The issue of an increasing portion of the population constituting the elderly is something to be taken in stride but it isn't a cause of national debt. Moreover, as automation and other labor saving technologies increasingly become more ubiquitous we will be moving toward an economic paradigm wherein social programs will be essential in order that ability to afford a living can become increasingly unlined from need for labor.

>Its a dog eat dog world out here.

Well, I'm convinced.

>>159332

>Of course, but you can also mitigate when you are and are not sick. If your encouragement to "not get sick" is to work, you will take care of yourself. If we remove your economic burden for when youre sick, you will make poor decisions on the margin based on your health.

The problem is that someone in a minimum wage position can work for 60 hours a week for 20 years, somehow save every penny, and still not be able to afford a heart transplant without insurance. Again, your expectation that everyone is in control of the circumstances they happen to find themselves is totally unrealistic.

(continued)

>Thats the basics, the larger implication is that providing insurance at no cost to low income citizens will bankrupt the country, we already are being bankrupted by massive welfare programs like Medicade.

The issue of the high cost of care is unrelated to the number of people receiving coverage. Almost every modern country has universal healthcare and it it doesn't doom any of them to bankruptcy.

>And here is where you kick the can down the road. You're sacraficing the concern and peace of mind of future generations for your own. You're one greedy son of a bitch.

I think the same protections should be extended to future generations. I don't want children of the next generations growing up in a society where they're liable to die a painful, preventable death due to cosmic circumstance. That's cruel

>Honestly you cant get anything but "me me me" through your head.

Dunno where you're going with this. Mixed market in healthcare is sensible and universal healthcare is affordable whether or not it benefits any particular person arguing for or against it.

>No, it wouldn't be anybody's fault, but it would be the responsibility of the parent to ensure the health and wellbeing of the child.

You keep arguing about there needing to be incentive for people to make good health choices and that's why universal healthcare is dangerous. I'm merely giving an example of a very common situation where obviously a person can't be held responsible for their outcome.

>>159340

>We have over $200 trillian dollars in unfunded liabilities because of social welfare programs like social security, medicade, medicare, and so on.

Lol, OK let me help you out.
First things first, an unfunded liability is just something used in accounting to project our future obligations. As you project further in time, your liability increases. In 20 years we'll have spent more on social security, medicaid, the military, the police, roads, etc etc than in 10 years. You probably have astronomical unfunded liabilities with respect to your yearly salary when calculating over the next 20 years. That doesn't mean you won't be able to afford them or go bankrupt eventually.
Secondly, a country can't go insolvent if it's a currency-issuing nation unless our debt is in another currency.

>Why dont you think big insurance companies protest the ACA? It hands them a massive monopoly on the market with garuenteed income at above market rates.

Acheiving universal coverage through private markets wouldn't be my first choice for sensible path to universal coverage but it was the only feasible one and the good still far outweighs the bad in terms of reduction in citizen suffering and macroeconomic benefit.

(continued)

>No, but Canada, Britian, and Australia all have struggling social welfare programs, with skyrocketing costs, insane wait times, and a monopolized market because of their national health services

>skyrocketing costs
http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_health_spending_is_much_greater_for_all_categories_of_care_slideshow.jpg

With regard to wait times, longer wait times is not necessarily enough of a problem to justify much of the population having wait times of infinity because the alternative costs too much. At the end of the day, if you're seeing improvements in public health, reduction in mortality, then the end condition is satisfied. Secondly, the US prior to the ACA just didn't have the shortest wait times when compared to modern economies with universal coverage.

>>159341

>IT WAS HIGH BECAUSE OF MEDICADE AND MEDICARE WHICH DIDNT EVEN ALLOW FOR COST NEGOTIATION FOR PERSCRIPTIONS OR SERVICES.
>Big government ruined the insurance market and now you want MORE big government? Holy fuck how dumb are you?

The reasons for the higher costs in the US are manifold. First of all, you don't have nearly the same per-capita spending in any modern economy other than the US, even though all others have some government scheme to achieve universal coverage.
That raises the question of what's different about our system, and the solution is precisely that unlike other modern countries, our government is perpetually in fear of placing sensible controls on markets. For example, in a single payer system, the government has a coverage pool that includes almost the entire citizenry. That has enormous potential to negotiate prices. The single insurance pool negotiates contrats with hospitals, clinics, pharmacies. In a circumstance where patients pay out of pocket, they're essentially at the mercy of whatever a hospital decides to charge for use if its ER should they find themselves in it, or whatever chrges are incurred during the course of their stay. Pharmaceutical industry has the highest profit margins because for many medications, they can charge as much as bankruptcy and most people will pay to avoid a painful death. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

These are inherent features of the market. It is not beholden to the same market forces that increase the quality/cost function as other industries. The only way to bring prices to reasonable levels is through collective bargaining, and government is one very powerful tool to achieve that, one that almost all modern countries use.

(continued)

>You dont have any evidence to support this. The United States had the worlds best health care services and insurance programs globally, and now those big insurance companies are trying to protect their cartels with government monopolies as the market moves to more personalized plans.

As far as our healthcare services post-ACA, we obviously have better healthcare outcomes now than when most of the population was priced out of affording essential 100K US$ drugs. Check out this study in fall in cardiac arrests attributed the passage of the ACA.
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/6/7/e005667

>>159342

>This is the fault of the FDA. Holy fuck dude you keep shifting goal posts and opening whole new cans of beans every second. Please stay on topic.

The FDA serves an important purpose. We're talking industry profit margins of 40% AFTER overhead is considered. Profiteering is rampant.

>Again, this is off topic, we are discussing insurance. Not hospitals, which are rediculously expensive because of them being required to treat everyone, as well as having to deal with litigation between insurance companies. Theres another compounding problem of paying the massive damages for medical malpractice, and the monopolized market on healthcare that is held by doctors

It's not off topic because it's silly to leave an industry to the free market when it's often not beholden to market forces that incentivise increasing the quality/cost function.

(continued)

>No, the way to make it affordable is by allowing people to choose to pay what they want for the coverage they want. Mandating doesnt do anything but place the majority of the burden on the middle class, futher entrench the healthcare industry, and assit in bankrupting the United States.
We tried that pre-ACA, it was a spectacular failure. If healthy people don't buy into comprehensive insurance policies, premiums increase for those that need care. Which in turn drives more people out. This constitutes a positive feedback cycle wherein eventually cost of premiums approaches cost of care and comprehensive insurance becomes useless when people need it. A robust health insurance system requires everyone purchase comprehensive policy.

>futher entrench the healthcare industry, and assit in bankrupting the United States.

It has more customers, but that is because people want healthcare and can finally afford it.

>Wrong again, this does wonders for profit margins because you just gave then garuenteed income.

If the government maintains a contract with a provider. If that provider doesn't offer favorable terms, they just lost access patients from a coverage pool that includes almost every patient they could have.

>>159347

What's your point?

Communism:Capitalism;Anarchism :Fascism.

This is what it all boils down to: the fate of welfare and the economy.

>>159402
Capitalism and government intervention are both necessary. I'm a proponent of state capitalism. The only protection available to people who don't have enough dollars to vote with in the market come through government. Corruption happens but I don't want to cut off my arm to spite the mosquito. We can deal with crony capitalism by being an educated voting base, passing campaign finance reform, reversing the Citizens United ruling.

Healthcare is a right, cunts. Working class citizens should not have to go bankrupt because of a broken arm, or face a lifetime of financial ruin because of a preexisting condition

>>159347
Ok great. We may very well only spend 16% of the nearly $600 billion that we have set aside for the department of defense, or you're full of shit. Either way, money that we've set aside for defense most likely won't be used for welfare, health, etc. It will most likely be left to the side should the department of defense deem it necessary they use it. So, we still prioritize our military a LOT more than we should

>>159218
>if the government helps people pay for their bills, people will have no incentive to work
I strongly disagree. Human nature causes us to constantly strive for something better. The rich constantly fuck over the poor because they're not satisfied with what they have. Just because people aren't going to die because the government won't allow it, doesn't mean that those people won't try to improve their lives
>Why does someone become high risk?
>most likely through fault of their own
Or maybe they were born with a preexisting condition, or had parents that just fed them shit
>there are few to none cases where people fall sick for reasons outside their feasible control
[citation needed]
>if 2 consenting adults plan to have a child, they need to understand that risk and responsibility of bringing a new life into the world
Unless you're a genologist, or have consulted one, how the fuck are you going to be able to determine if your child is going to be born a "high risk" individual?
>black people would not be on welfare if they would just get married
this makes no fucking sense. being married does not offer any kind of financial protection besides maybe a small tax break