Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Rep Mo Brooks on socialist tendencies of the political class

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rep Mo Brooks on socialist tendencies of the political class

    "Folks, we are forcing the issue today because America is at risk. We are at risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because socialist" politicians choose "to spend money we do not have" - Rep Mo Brooks of Alabama

    And that same bright light of congress' brain trust also drew the questionable equivalency between socialists and the Nazis.

    Okay, I'll accept for the sake of the argument that we were at risk eight years ago due to the profligate spending in Washington of the socialists.But has the danger somehow past?

    Or was that merely partisan political posturing void of any reasonable basis?

  • #2
    Originally posted by simplicio View Post
    "Folks, we are forcing the issue today because America is at risk. We are at risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because socialist" politicians choose "to spend money we do not have" - Rep Mo Brooks of Alabama

    And that same bright light of congress' brain trust also drew the questionable equivalency between socialists and the Nazis.

    Okay, I'll accept for the sake of the argument that we were at risk eight years ago due to the profligate spending in Washington of the socialists.But has the danger somehow past?

    Or was that merely partisan political posturing void of any reasonable basis?
    Have you read Bernie's or Warren's plan?
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Have you read Bernie's or Warren's plan?
      Are you arguing that the socialism is okay as long as it isn't as bad as Warren or Bernie? Sounds like you are extending moral relativism a little bit too far.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by simplicio View Post
        Are you arguing that the socialism is okay as long as it isn't as bad as Warren or Bernie? Sounds like you are extending moral relativism a little bit too far.
        You asked "But has the danger somehow past?". I would suggest that as long as there are proposals like Warren and Bernie's where trillions of dollars are being proposed where no such income exists, then no. The danger has not passed.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          You asked "But has the danger somehow past?". I would suggest that as long as there are proposals like Warren and Bernie's where trillions of dollars are being proposed where no such income exists, then no. The danger has not passed.
          Okay. But have the Republicans really provided an alternative? Last I check, the deficits are rolling along unimpeded.

          I do suspect that the comment was a form of pandering to base, and not really representative of any deeply held conviction.

          Naysayers have been predicting insolvency and bakruptcy since the 1970s!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
            Okay. But have the Republicans really provided an alternative?
            Yes. Free market.

            Last I check, the deficits are rolling along unimpeded.
            Yeah. Entitlements are the largest outlay, followed by defense. Once you give someone something, it's hard to take it away.


            I do suspect that the comment was a form of pandering to base, and not really representative of any deeply held conviction.
            You suspect wrong.

            Naysayers have been predicting insolvency and bakruptcy since the 1970s!
            Of course they have. It works to stir people up.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by simplicio View Post
              "Folks, we are forcing the issue today because America is at risk. We are at risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because socialist" politicians choose "to spend money we do not have" - Rep Mo Brooks of Alabama

              And that same bright light of congress' brain trust also drew the questionable equivalency between socialists and the Nazis.

              Okay, I'll accept for the sake of the argument that we were at risk eight years ago due to the profligate spending in Washington of the socialists.But has the danger somehow past?

              Or was that merely partisan political posturing void of any reasonable basis?
              Considering the trillion dollar proposals, currently presented by many of the Democrat candidates, no it hasn’t.
              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                Considering the trillion dollar proposals, currently presented by many of the Democrat candidates, no it hasn’t.
                So the comments were prescient, looking ahead by eight years?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, when it comes to health care at least, we could actually save a lot of money and get better results by switching to a so-called "socialist" health care system (aka universal health care, single-payer, medicare for all, etc.)

                  Multiple studies show that a single-payer or "Medicare for All" system would save money and lives, which is further supported by the fact that countries with such systems spend significantly less per-capita on health care than the U.S. does, yet their health care systems tend to rank higher than the ours in most categories.

                  Sources:

                  OECD Health spending




                  Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care

                  Source: Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care


                  Key findings: The U.S. ranked last on performance overall, and ranked last or near last on the Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes domains. The top-ranked countries overall were the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands. Based on a broad range of indicators, the U.S. health system is an outlier, spending far more but falling short of the performance achieved by other high-income countries. The results suggest the U.S. health care system should look at other countries’ approaches if it wants to achieve an affordable high-performing health care system that serves all Americans.

                  © Copyright Original Source






                  Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA

                  Source: Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA


                  Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

                  © Copyright Original Source






                  Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

                  Source: Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses


                  Conclusions

                  In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.

                  Author summary

                  Why was this study done?

                  • As the US healthcare debate continues, there is growing interest in “single-payer” also known as “Medicare for All.” Single-payer uses a simplified public funding approach to provide everyone with high-quality health insurance.
                  • Public support for provision of universal health coverage through a plan like Medicare for All is as high as 70%, but falls when costs are emphasized.
                  • Economic models help assess the financial viability of single-payer. Yet, models vary widely in their assumptions and methods, and can be hard to compare.


                  What did the researchers do and find?
                  • We found and compared cost analyses of 22 single-payer plans for the US or individual states.
                  • Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the first year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
                  • The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
                  • Studies funded by organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for single-payer.


                  What do these findings mean?
                  • There is near-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all US residents.
                  • To achieve net savings, single-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug price reductions, as well as global budgets to control spending growth over time.
                  • Replacing private insurers with a public system is expected to achieve lower net healthcare costs.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Yes. Free market.



                    Yeah. Entitlements are the largest outlay, followed by defense. Once you give someone something, it's hard to take it away.




                    You suspect wrong.



                    Of course they have. It works to stir people up.
                    The "free market" is a spending plan? Which segment of the economy is thee some sort of free or unimpeded marketplace? Banking is hardly a free market, the one area which was considered democratic and free from constraints a decade ago was the internet. But now many are questioning that model for information and commerce.

                    Entitlements and defense. The entitlements such social security are wildly popular, even among conservatives, medicare has become sacrosanct, even among conservatives. Defense is undergirded by entitlements in the wages of service members, promises of education, health care, and retirement benefits.

                    If the dire warnings of a decade ago were a deeply held conviction, then why is there so little alarm over the present excessive spending? I don't think there has been any real move to balance the budget since Bill Clinton's administration, and even then, the balance was a forecast, not a reality.

                    SO naysaying serves the purpose of mobilizing a base! That explains why the gloom and doom and dire predictions are typically brought up as opposition, never as a policy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CMD View Post
                      Well, when it comes to health care at least, we could actually save a lot of money and get better results by switching to a so-called "socialist" health care system (aka universal health care, single-payer, medicare for all, etc.)

                      Multiple studies show that a single-payer or "Medicare for All" system would save money and lives,
                      I believe there have now been 22 studies done on the likely effects of Medicare-for-all in the US. All 22 found it saved money compared to the current system.

                      "But how are we going to pay for it?"


                      Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                      Last I check, the deficits are rolling along unimpeded.
                      Yep. Trump's tax cuts plus increased military spending have led to massive deficits. Unfortunately Republican voters are too dumb to understand that the government taking in less money and spending more makes it lose more. Either that or they're so monstrously hypocritical that they only pretend to care about deficits when Dems are in power.

                      I did see a paper about left-right politics written by some Italian political science researchers, who argued that the pattern is that right-wing governments do massive tax cuts and run massive deficits and wreck both the government finances and the economy while they're in power, then when they're out of power and the left wing government is trying to pick up the pieces the right-wing tactic is to suddenly pretend that deficits matter and scream at the left wing government if they dare run any deficits or raise taxes back to what they were. When the right wing is prepared to be that immoral and disingenuous that strategy is quite hard to deal with.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        I believe there have now been 22 studies done on the likely effects of Medicare-for-all in the US. All 22 found it saved money compared to the current system.
                        Why do you need studies to tell you something so obvious? Obamacare only increased the big fat profits the middle man insurance companies make by making it mandatory to sign up. Cut out the middle man and things become cheaper.
                        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                          Why do you need studies to tell you something so obvious? Obamacare only increased the big fat profits the middle man insurance companies make by making it mandatory to sign up. Cut out the middle man and things become cheaper.
                          Indeed, multinational comparisons between advanced nations of various kinds of healthcare systems demonstrate the cheapest system is the one we have here in NZ (equivalent to the UK's system) where the government just does everything (it owns and runs the hospitals, employs the doctors and nurses and dispenses healthcare that is cost-free at point of service).

                          When there are no bills, it wipes out massive layers of pointless bureaucracy. There's not the floor of lawyers at the insurance company working out how to stiff claimants on their coverage, the floor of executives with their fat bonuses trying to work out more ways to suck huge profits out of the premiums their customers are paying for 'medical care', there's not the floors of staff at the insurance company accepting your premiums and writing your bills and chasing you up for payments. There's not the floor of staff at the hospital writing your bill to pass onto the insurance company. And even at the level of doctors and nurses, if the patient needs something they just give it to them and don't need to spend time keeping track of exactly what hospital resources they've used on whom because nobody needs to bill anyone for it later.

                          In contrast to the entire floors of staff that US hospitals have for writing bills, I read an article saying that the local hospital in my city employs one person part time to bill foreigners who are using the system. All the money saved by not having layers and layers of bureaucrats writing bills for each other like you do in the 'free market' system, means the system costs hugely less.

                          Last time I was in hospital here I saw a single sheet of paper... it had my name, address, date of birth, and emergency contact details. That was all the bureaucracy there was. I didn't have to fill out any forms, nor sign any documents. When it came time to leave I said bye to the nurse and asked directions to the exit, because there was again neither any bill nor any paperwork. And that is why it is the cheapest system. The doctors and nurses just get paid to be there dispensing care to those who they deem to medically need it.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The big reason why medical care is expensive is insurance companies 'lobbying' Democrats to push more money to insurance companies, aka Obamacare.
                            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              I believe there have now been 22 studies done on the likely effects of Medicare-for-all in the US. All 22 found it saved money compared to the current system.

                              "But how are we going to pay for it?"
                              Earlier you mentioned the NHS of Britain, I should have responded there, but I'll address it here.

                              Many act as if there is a massive difference between US, Canada, and Britain (I know little about other countries, but I suspect the same forces make the lessons apply to even NZ or Germany). The individual's insurance is only one small aspect of the health care system. The parallel systems of hospitals, hospital buildings and funding, and the relationship of primary care doctors, specialists, and hospital doctors is not so very different in the different countries. New York State has few for profit hospitals, yet the system of funding and the 'behavior' of the commercial enterprise of the hospital is little different across the states and across nations.

                              We spend an awful lot on insurance and health care now, if that same money was channeled differently, I don't think outcomes or cash outlays would change significantly. Now few directly pay the individual health insurance bill, many have it hidden in the wages earned, which economists tells us is little different from a tax, it is built into wage structure, similar to income tax, which few directly pay.

                              Obama care was a huge and complex bill, few cared to delve into the details, even the legislative eggheads.

                              Yep. Trump's tax cuts plus increased military spending have led to massive deficits. Unfortunately Republican voters are too dumb to understand that the government taking in less money and spending more makes it lose more. Either that or they're so monstrously hypocritical that they only pretend to care about deficits when Dems are in power.

                              I did see a paper about left-right politics written by some Italian political science researchers, who argued that the pattern is that right-wing governments do massive tax cuts and run massive deficits and wreck both the government finances and the economy while they're in power, then when they're out of power and the left wing government is trying to pick up the pieces the right-wing tactic is to suddenly pretend that deficits matter and scream at the left wing government if they dare run any deficits or raise taxes back to what they were. When the right wing is prepared to be that immoral and disingenuous that strategy is quite hard to deal with.
                              How significant were the tax cuts to our deficit? Would the outcome on our deficit be much different without those? I don't think so.

                              Those papers (I assume from your description) deal with it on the macro level of the nation. When we go down the food chain in the US, to state level, county level, and lower to town or city, we see the same phenomenon. The conservative Republicans place more emphasis on a balanced budget than liberal Dems, but the attitude on fiduciary responsibility is largely the same. We balance local budgets (who can not handle debt with the same tools as the nation) by punting things like retirement funding down the field.

                              When counties default and are taken over by some state authority, the forensic conclusions are the same, an abandonment of fiduciary responsibilities by legislators of both parties. And it is not just a problem of "amateurs", corporations also partake the same folly sometimes.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              6 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              42 responses
                              230 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              32 responses
                              173 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              73 responses
                              284 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X