Sanders to raise taxes, destroy healthcare

[Seth]

Politics
Bernie Sanders Gives Blunt Answer When Asked if He Will Raise Taxes
Jan. 25, 2016 9:58pm Jon Street
1K
Shares

Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders gave a very blunt answer Monday night when asked at the CNN town hall in Des Moines, Iowa, if he would raise taxes if elected president.

CNN anchor and town hall moderator Chris Cuomo had asked Sanders if he would raise taxes to help pay for his “Medicare for all” program, also commonly referred to as a single-payer program.

“Just to be clear, you are going to raise taxes to do this?” Cuomo asked the Vermont senator.

“Yes, we will raise taxes. Yes we will,” Sanders responded. “But also, let us be clear, because there’s a little bit of disingenunity out there, we may raise taxes but we are also going to eliminate private health insurance premiums for individuals and for business.”

So, what Bern is going to do is to eliminate the last vestige of free-market capitalism that creates and supports the finest healthcare in the world by removing the ability of individuals to choose from whom they will get their health care, thereby preventing the individual from firing an inefficient or bloated health care company and finding another one that offers a better product at a lower price, and he will replace it with universal...ly sub-par and bloated government-run health care whose doctors you CANNOT fire, even if they are utterly incompetent.

Fucking idiot.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...the finest healthcare in the world...

[rainbow]

Yay, Bernie!

[mistermack]

Seth wrote:

...the finest healthcare in the world...

Sad thing is that it OUGHT to be the finest in the world, because it is the most expensive, by a huge amount.
Even if it WAS the finest in the world, it would be nothing to brag about, given the amount of money that the people have to pay for it.

As it is, Americans pay for a new Ferrari, but get an old Chrysler pickup.

[Tero]

So, what Bern is going to do is to eliminate the last vestige of free-market capitalism that creates and supports the

finest healthcare in the world

by removing the ability of individuals to choose from whom they will get their health care, thereby preventing the individual from firing an inefficient or bloated health care company and finding another one that offers a better product at a lower price, and he will replace it with universal...ly sub-par and bloated government-run health care whose doctors you CANNOT fire, even if they are utterly incompetent.

You have not quite understood that the healtcare system is already a monopoly. There are no alternatives other than Mexico. You can buy the PPO monopoly, the HMO monopoly or cash out of pocket monopoly.

[laklak]

The Bern talks a lot of shite.

[Svartalf]

What do you expect of a politico on the campaign trail?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...the finest healthcare in the world...

Sad thing is that it OUGHT to be the finest in the world, because it is the most expensive, by a huge amount.
Even if it WAS the finest in the world, it would be nothing to brag about, given the amount of money that the people have to pay for it.

As it is, Americans pay for a new Ferrari, but get an old Chrysler pickup.

Which fails to explain why the rich and politically connected of other nations come to the US for medical treatments.

I didn't say it was the cheapest, I said it was the finest.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't have the finest healthcare in the world and the cheapest healthcare in the world for very long because somebody's got to pay for it, and if government pays for it government soon runs out of OPM to pay for it and then you get the WORST healthcare in the world, which is what the UK's NHS is quickly becoming.

There is no "right" to healthcare, free or otherwise, because there is no "right" to enslave someone else to your personal health care interests. Rights don't work that way. Rights are what you get to do, not what you can force others to do for you. If doctors and nurses don't want to get paid a pittance for working for the NHS, you have no "right" to force them to do so, and therefore you may go without a doctor or nurse, or you may have to settle for a less-qualified, or unqualified, or incompetent doctor or nurse who IS willing to work for NHS slave wages while the real doctors emigrate to the US or other countries where they can make more money and be valued and respected for their knowledge and skills.

Since you can't force a doctor to care for you for a dime less than he's willing to accept, and you can't get a bandage or a suture for a dime less than the producer of that medical product is willing to sell it to you for, only capitalism and free markets have any chance of keeping medical costs anywhere near affordable through competition in the marketplace. Does that mean you have to pay for your medical care? You damned bet you have to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, and you can't convince people to be charitable and donate towards your health care needs, you have no right to enslave them to your medical needs. Does that mean you might suffer and die from your misfortune or bad life decisions? Yes, it does, but you're going to die anyway and your desire to live another day does not impose any moral, ethical or legal burden on anyone else to keep you alive without their freely-given consent.

Socialists, however, think that the collective DOES have a right to enslave others to the medical needs of members of the collective, which is despicable, immoral, unethical and evil.

[MrJonno]

Socialists, however, think that the collective DOES have a right to enslave others to the medical needs of members of the collective, which is despicable, immoral, unethical and evil.

Nah I don't think I have a right to I just do it anyway because staying alive is more important on whether you are despicable, immoral unethical or evil. Happy be any of those to stay alive

[Seth]

Socialists, however, think that the collective DOES have a right to enslave others to the medical needs of members of the collective, which is despicable, immoral, unethical and evil.

Nah I don't think I have a right to I just do it anyway because staying alive is more important on whether you are despicable, immoral unethical or evil. Happy be any of those to stay alive

Well, look who crawled out of the slime. Welcome back.

Good to know that you are completely amoral and utterly evil about your willingness to enslave others to keep you alive and you admit that you have no rational moral or ethical argument to support any of your claims or arguments and never have. It makes it so much easier to celebrate when somebody bashed in your skull in with a cricket bat to relieve society of the unwanted burden and despicable evil you represent.

I do commend you however for making this admission. It's the very first time that any Marxist has ever openly admitted that it's all about personal greed and avarice and that Marxists don't actually give a flying fuck about morals, ethics or anything else, they just want want they want and will impose mob rule to get it, regardless of who they have to enslave and kill to do so.

You prove beyond any doubt that Marxism and all its progeny are fundamentally evil, just as I've been saying all these years, so thanks for that honesty.

Now crawl back under your rock.

[Rum]

Actually it probably is the finest health care available on the planet..for those who can afford it. Fuck the rest of 'em eh Seth? They deserve it for not being as able to scramble to the top of the stinking pile quite as enthusiastically.

[Seth]

Actually it probably is the finest health care available on the planet..for those who can afford it. Fuck the rest of 'em eh Seth? They deserve it for not being as able to scramble to the top of the stinking pile quite as enthusiastically.

No, they don't "deserve" it, but the fact that they cannot afford every bit of healthcare they might want doesn't give them the right to enslave others to their needs or desires.

This does NOT mean however that they cannot politely ask others to help them pay for the needed medical care. It is relatively commonplace behavior that if politely asked to help, most people will do what they can short of impairing their own health and safety (and occasionally when it does...or even kills them) to help others who are in need. Interestingly, Christians are foremost among those who are willing to give of themselves and their assets to help others voluntarily because their religious beliefs strongly encourage them to do so.

You Marxists automatically assume that because I reject socialist enslavement it means I don't care about poor people. That's not the case at all.

My objection is to the forcible enslavement of other human beings to the interests of the "needy" without their consent. No "need" on the part of any other person justifies enslaving someone to labor against their will to fill that need. Ever. Under any circumstances. With socialized medicine everyone is enslaved to the needs of the consumers of the most health care, usually against their will and forcibly compelled to do so by the machine-gun toting jackboots of the government tax agency. That's simply immoral and disgusting.

A small example would be that you suffer from lung cancer because you smoke cigarettes and need expensive surgery, chemotherapy and long-term assistance because, having lost half your lung capacity you can no longer work. So, the jackbooted thugs of the tax collector come to my house and demand that I surrender to them whatever amount of money they decide you need that I do not, and they take it from me without my consent, at the muzzle of a machine gun if I presume to physically resist that theft, and will ultimately kill me if I resist vigorously enough.

Now YOU may think this is fine because YOU get to have surgery, chemo and long-term assistance, but what do I get for being enslaved? Nothing. And why should I be enslaved to YOUR bad decision to smoke cigarettes? What moral argument makes me liable for your bad life decisions and the consequences thereof? How have I consented to be liable for your medical expenses in any way? I don't even know you and have never met you, so by what rationale am I obliged to bend a knee, tug my forelock and labor under the whip of my government overseer to provide you with anything, including an extended life you yourself destroyed in the first place. Why should you not simply be required to suffer the consequences of your bad life decisions and, if you cannot afford your own medical treatment because you CHOSE not to save up money in the past against such future medical needs, simply die? Why is YOUR extension of life more important than my individual liberty and right to be free of involuntary servitude? This is the question I've asked hundreds of times of you Marxists and never, ever gotten a rational answer to, so I'll give you the answer that you don't want to acknowledge.

Here's the answer: Your life is NOT more important than my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...and freedom from involuntary servitude to you. Your life is your life and I have not, and do not agree to be financially responsible for it. You're going to die sometime, and now is as good a time as later as far as I'm concerned and you can make no argument that changes that conclusion at all. It's your life. Live it as you please. Be free. But don't expect anyone else to save you from the consequences of your actions because no one owes you anything. Not one damned thing. Not a sou. Not a kopeck. Not a dollar. Not a tenth-part of a Euro, much less a moment's labor or concern about your future.

On the other hand, if you come to me with your hat in hand and politely ask me to support your need for expensive medical care, and you make a case as to why I should invest my labor on your behalf that I agree with, I might agree to contribute to your need if I can afford to do so, but the decision is completely and entirely mine, not yours, and most certainly not "the government's."

But if you come at me with a gun and demand that I pay for your medical care, even if you do so using the proxy of the jackboots of government, I'm NOT going to give you a fucking dime, ever, and I'm going to shoot first under the assumption that you're trying to rob me and thereby imperil MY life and health by taking from me what I have labored to earn against MY future health care needs.

So what you "deserve" doesn't impose any obligation on me or anyone else to supply it against our will.

"Ask and ye shall receive." Demand and get told to fuck off.

[mistermack]

The finest health system in the world ? Bollocks.

If it was that fine, Seth would be able to afford health insurance.

There might be some of the finest TREATMENT available. The treatment is not the same thing as the system.
If the system is too expensive for people of average means, it's a shit system by virtually any standard.
It's too expensive for Seth. He's said so in previous posts. Is Seth of average means?

To describe it as the best system in the world, when you can't afford to use it, is just about the most stupid post Seth has ever made.

[Seth]

The finest health system in the world ? Bollocks.

If it was that fine, Seth would be able to afford health insurance.

There might be some of the finest TREATMENT available. The treatment is not the same thing as the system.

Which is why I actually said "finest healthcare on earth."

If the system is too expensive for people of average means, it's a shit system by virtually any standard.

Not really. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's a bad system, it means you need to improve your economic condition, which the US provides plenty of opportunity to do. Or, you need to politely ask for financial assistance, which is also widely available.

It's too expensive for Seth. He's said so in previous posts. Is Seth of average means?

Not at the moment. But then again I don't expect somebody else to pay for my medical care. If I need it I'll either ask politely for help or I'll do without because unlike you, I'm neither a thief nor a slavemaster. If that means I die, then I die, but I die with my honor and reputation intact.

To describe it as the best system in the world, when you can't afford to use it, is just about the most stupid post Seth has ever made.

Only to a thief and slavemaster who thinks he has a right to enslave others to his personal medical needs, and who gives a fuck about such people or their health anyway?

[pErvinalia]

I dunno about the healthcare aspect, but as a general principle most countries in the neoliberal west are running structural deficits (that is, tax receipts aren't enough to pay for government spending, because taxes have been slashed so much since the 80's), and need to increase taxes. I now await the fallacious arguments about "other people's money" and the "wealth creators will flee if we raise taxes", and that the answer is to slash more services to the poor and disadvantaged (while totally ignoring the monster elephant in the room - corporate welfare).