Medicare For All is best way to capitalism:

I think this a very important point.

Today, every business of size in any market has to have a branch that addresses healthcare in America.

So, sure - for the most part they contract that work.

But, that still requires lawyers, policy people, contractors, boards, and various executives. And, it's still a major employment issue as employees direct their concerns about their health care policies to the company, HR departments have to pitch this form of compensation to recruits and analyze competitive pressures, etc.

Surely cutting employers free of all healthcare coverage issues would be a huge win for American business.


What corporation in any other industrialized nation has to deal with this issue?

 

total blind dumb liberal naivete. Profit is godly it means you have pleased your customers better than competition. THis is why we have best products and socialists had worst. This is why China now has best after having worst and starving to death under socialism. Did you need to relearn this lesson one more time? IF there is no profit incentive there is no reason to make a better cheaper product. Please you're killing us

 

if so why so afraid to tell us when?????????? CHina has a free market now, should they go back to socialism to improve?????

 

You mean soviet, red chinese, Cuban, East GErman, Venezuelan, and 100 other example where freedom workered far better than regulation?

 

Yes, we have regulation.

We say there is a free market in automobiles, yet just about every piece of every automobile has regulations limiting its construction - or even presence.

We say there is a free market in hogs, but there are regulations on hog farms.

We say there is a free market in employment, but corporations of any size fall under regulations requiring that they supply healthcare coverage.

The thing is, capitalism WILL kill us in the absence of regulation.

 

OK, so you don't know jack about China.

Let's leave that alone for the purpose of this thread.

 

proven approach is capitalism. ever heard of East/West/Germany or Cuba/Florida.

 

totally 100% backwards. without crony capitalist, fascist, liberal, socialist or Obmamacare regulation a corporation is left all alone and can only survive with the best product and price in the world. why do you think China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of all the poverty in the world. It seems you have to relearn this lesson every day? Have you ever thought of reading a book on capitalism. How did I know you've never read a book?

 

here are 3 books with which to begin you education:


"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

"How China Became Capitalist"

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even tho

 

and the more they have accumulated over the years the more they have failed and the more dumb liberals are turning to Sanders and communism for yet another huge dose to fix the failure. This is how Stalin killed 60 million, by doubliig down on the failure of each 5 year plan. NOw do you understand?

 

OK, let's skip to your last sentence.

There is little or no profit to be made in selling insurance to those who are below the poverty line or are into their retirement years - or contract a condition (such as diabetes, some forms of cancer, etc.) that leads to medical expense. Also, there is no profit to be made when someone with insurance contracts an expensive disease. So, not only did insurance companies screen new applicants, but they actually worked out ways to drop the policies of those who get sick.

In other words, we know for a FACT from history that insurance companies will not cover many millions of Americans, because they fall into these categories. The reason is that actual patient healthcare is a big hit on the bottom line.

We came up with Medicare (single payer) to handle the fact that care for the elderly is not something insurance companies are willing to address. That has been a significant success!

Now, we need to address coverage for others who insurance companies absolutely will refuse to serve without the existence of regulation. Even with the level of regulation and support that Obamacare provided there were still millions of Americans who could not get coverage.

Medicare IS a way to address this problem in general.

Regulation is another approach, but has had limited success.

Total free market is a way to make the problem DRAMATICALLY worse.

 

And if California were a separate nation, the federal government would pay zero.

 

I was just referring to the history of health care in America.

You're seriously suggesting that Germany should have adopted the healthcare system of East Germany? I don't accept ANY of your examples as supporting your argument.

 

?

Your argument was that the Federal government should pay for everything because they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

 

My argument is that California could pay for single payer healthcare if it was a sovereign country and kept all its tax dollars

 

And they would have much much more revenue

 

An additional capitalistic enhancement of adopting the proven, pragmatic paradigm is the promotion of entrepreneurship.

Enterprising Americans would no longer be discouraged by the risk of leaving a job with subsidized health coverage to start their own businesses, nor the challenge of providing health coverage for their employees in those start-ups.

 

If you really want California to secede, that's a different argument. I'm saying that because it's a state with massive federal dollar influx into healthcare, it should be relatively easy to afford a single payer system if it was really affordable. You seem to want to mix the issue with California keeping all of it's tax dollars, which is irrelevant. It would have many more expenses as an independent country. Let's keep the argument to health care dollars. That's what the issue is about, not California raising taxes to fund it's own army and all the other expenses that go with being an independent nation.

 

The US now covers 55 million Americans under a single payer plan, and need only incrementally lower the eligibility age to extend the extant bureaucratic structure to incorporate lower-risk demographics into the risk pool whilst advantaging all the benefits of economy of scale.

 

To fund single payer you need a large revenue system. The only way to do that on earth is at the federal level. It simply can not be done at the state level....anywhere on earth....because the tax base mostly goes to the federal government. Those are the facts

 

I agree. But the only way to do that is at the federal level

 

I see that as especially important.

Our economy has to be encouraging of new enterprise. Our economy is headed in a direction that depends on innovation for competitiveness with other nations, for example.

So someone gets a bright idea, and then they have to negotiate for healthcare for those they hire? Surely that's a serious wet blanket.

 

the history is super super obvious!! as soviet regulation has steadily accumulated in our our health care industry it has become the most over priced sector of our economy by a factor of 10 impoverishing each American by about $7000 a year. LIberal regulation is deadly and disgusting and Sanders Ocassio-Cortez are liberal communists who want a ton more just like Stalin did. Now do you understand??

 

Actually nothing you said was a fact, it was your opinion. Again, if you try to compare health dollars you might be able to draw some real conclusions, instead of some sort of ideological, fact free talking point.

Here, I'll get you started: California gets almost 90 billion dollars for Medicaid yearly.

 

Yes, you don't know squat about East Germany.

And, Florida was (and is!) part of America.

Your comparisons are ridiculous.