Beto: 'We Don't Have Time' For Medicare-For-All

loud and clear. Give me tyranny.

 

Then you must be in favor of taking Medicare away from Grandma. All it does is replace for-profit insurance. It's not a hand out because you're taxes pay for it.

 

Im amazed we got this far before someone pulled the race card.

 

Grandma died in 2003 at the age of 104. Medicare recipients paid all their lives into it, now Democrats want to steal it from them and give it to freeloaders.

 

No doubt the systems other first world nations - as in all of them - are bloated inefficient bureaucracies. I get it.

This does not change the fact that our system is far worse. We pay nearly double. 3.5 Trillion dollars in 2017 - this is extortion.

Now sure - Gov't run is still extortion but, if it is a choice between being extorted for 3.5 Trillion or 2.5 Trillion - I will take 2.5 Trillion.

Your solution "keep the status quo" does exactly that - keeps the status quo 3.5 Trillion. It is for this reason that many Republicans - including folks like the KOCH bros - now are calling for universal healthcare.

 

Don't know about that. But Beto is a fool. El Paso is being invaded by supposed seekers of asylum. But the majority don't qualify in the meantime taxpayers are paying for their housing, food and medical care. What about U.S. Citizen low income workers, they get nothing much.

According to many in the know Military leaders, last and present; they believe Trump is moving the Country forward militarily and economically.

Medicare for all will only work if it is not free, and insurers under 65 pay premiums based on their income.

Even then is Democrats are incharge. Their plan to lower costs is to decrease reimbursements to providers.

That won't work because providers have already been slammed by reductions. Private practice near a thing of the past. And those Doctors with a private practice are near retirement.

After 40+ years in heath management, my idea is to allow States to create health care groups per County. Thereby reducing the overall cost to insurance companies participating in these plans and ultimately lowering premiums and deductibles. All insurance plans would be required to offer the same coverage and deductibles.

 

No, no, no, no. No government run healthcare! We want freedom. Stop robbing us of our freedom and liberties! Stop trying to turn us into slaves!

 

What do you mean "Stop trying to turn us into slaves" ? We are already Slaves ! The question is whether or not we 5 lashes a day or 10.

You keep arguing for 10 on the basis that we shouldn't be slaves - and this makes no sense.

 

It's almost as if you (pl) don't understand the basic concept of the purpose and founding of our country.

 

I do understand. This does not change the fact that we are where we are and that reality is reality. You can't deal with a problem if you don't even realize that the problem exists. It is this failure to recognize reality that has caused this problem. A slave running around in his cell chanting "I am not a slave" does not change the fact that he is a slave.

Further - it is you who does not understand the founding principles and the principles of Republicanism - as is the case with most conservatives these days.

 

Your side is always trying to advance the cause of slavery and tyranny.

You want to censor free speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, and restrict all the Bill of Rights.

You want the federal government involved in our lives at all levels.

Something like healthcare should be a responsibility of the states. That's Republicanism.

Taking money from Medicare from people like me who contributed to it all our lives and giving it to people who haven't is just another left by government scheme. The federal government is not a charity.

 

What are you talking about "my side". I am neither right nor left.

Red Establishment is censoring free speech, ignoring the bill of rights, violating the rule of law and trashing the founding principles.

Perhaps healthcare should be the responsibility of the States - the fact of the matter is that it is not and Red Establishment is not suggesting this as an option.

Then you go into some nonsense about taking money from some pool that you have contributed to and giving it to someone else. This is absurd nonsense. You put money into a pool with the expectation of getting healthcare. Universal healthcare does not take healthcare away. You still get what you paid for - but you will be paying less.

You are arguing that you want to pay more - and this makes no sense.

 

It's easy to claim to be a centrist and then advocate for far left wing policies.

I can do that too.

I'm for privatizing Social Security, eliminating the federal income tax, phasing out Medicare and all federal government welfare programs and overturning Roe v Wade. But I'm a moderate. See? Easy.

Republicanism is about individual rights and freedom. The more power you give to the government the less power each individual has. I can't think of a more simplistic way to describe it for you.

 

The idea that something is necessarily bad - on the basis that the idea comes from the left or right - is fallacious nonsense. I don't care where good ideas come from - if they are good they are good - bad they are bad.

I want to be paying less money for healthcare - not more. You are arguing for paying more.

Red Establishment hates individual rights and freedoms = hates the principles of Republicanism.
Red Establishment is all about increasing Gov't power - decreasing the power of the individual towards a quazi totalitarian nanny state.

Before you go off on Blue - in some attempt to apologize for Red - Blue does the same thing. Both are attacking individual liberty - just from different sides.

You then completely contradict your stated belief in Republicanism by talking about overturning Roe v Wade ? You state on one hand that you are for individual liberty/ less Gov't power - you then call for the Gov't to force religious belief on women through physical violence (Law).

How is this upholding the principles of Republicanism ?

 

You're arguing for corporate tyranny. Freedom for corporations to rob and exploit and a nanny State to protect them from market discipline. In corporate tyrannies like Colombia, businesses employ death squads to murder factory workers who step out of line. Journalists as well. In Honduras, environmentalists are a prime target.

 

If the left comes up with a good idea, I'd support it. Problem is, they never do.

Why would I advocate for paying more? That's a straw man fallacy. Saying the government taking over healthcare would cost less is fallacious. Whenever government gets involved, it always costs more. Not to mention the cost of giving up your freedom and individual rights. The idea that healthcare is a right is just a means of telling Johnny he has to pay to cover grandma's healthcare costs whether he wants to or not.

What will make costs of healthcare go down is competition between insurers and competition between providers.

Also, innovation and research also will bring down the cost of healthcare. Too much government intervention will stifle innovation.

I couldn't disagree more. The right side of our political is centered on individual rights and liberty.

I feel as though the left wants to attack freedom and liberty from all sides.

This is not just about a religious belief, it's about science. I believe in the individual right to life and that includes the unborn. I also believe in states rights. If a state wants to allow murder (abortion). I don't think the federal government should be in the business of telling states they can't make laws protecting the unborn. I just hope that when Roe v Wade is overturned they make it illegal for states to allow for abortion. There's plenty of pregnancy prevention methods and no excuse anymore for having an unwanted pregnancy.

 

This argument is nonsense.

 

You are advocating for paying more. I gave you the numbers - 3.5 Trillion in 2017. Your claim "Gov't always costs more" is demonstrably false. We pay nearly double what other first world Gov't runs systems pay. Why are you ignoring this fact ?

Your competition claim (that getting rid of Gov't necessarily leads to competition) is demonstrably false - what part of "price fixing" do you not understand ?

This is preposterous nonsense on steroids. Red Establishment hates individual liberty. Alcohol, Pot, Prostitution, Abortion, Porn, innocent until proven guilty, freedom of information/freedom of the press, censorship, increased police powers - search and seizure, Gays, wealth redistribution, and a raft of other rules rooted in Utilitarianism.

Your problem is that you think belief in freedom is belief in freedom - only for things you agree with.

.

Not all sides - the left attacks from one side and the right attacks from the other and they fight over which issues are their favorites to attack.

.

Its mostly about religious belief and most on the pro life side do not have a clue about the science - including yourself.

"Murder" - only someone who does not understand "The Science and Science in general" would make such a claim. In addition this is logical fallacy. Unless you can prove a zygote is a living human - claiming "Murder" is logical fallacy.

The fact of the matter is that you can't. The fact of the matter is that Science has not proven this. The fact of the matter is that this is as much as a Philosophical question as a scientific one.

The fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree" = We don't know. There is no Scientific Consensus that a single human cell (zygote) is a living human. The reality is that the the consensus among subject matter experts is that it is not a living human ... not a "child".

While one can legitimately debate the moral question - the legal question is a whole different matter.

1) Law on the basis of "we don't know" is an anathema to the principles of Justice and Individual liberty
2) In a Constitutional Republic - by definition - the Gov't is not to make any law messing with individual liberty - of its own volition. Should society want such a law the bar is "overwhelming majority" .. at least 2/3rds.

This is what I mean when I say that folks do not understand "Republicanism". The idea that Gov't (be it State, Federal, Municiple) can make laws messing with individual liberty on the basis of 50+1 or "Simple Majority Mandate" - that some person or party got elected is an anathema to the principles of Republican and the very definition of a Republic.

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to 50+1 and Simple Majority Mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority" FULL STOP.

Is there an overwhelming majority (at least 67%) in Georgia that figures the Gov't should ban Abortion at 6 weeks ?

If this question has not been answered - and law is made - this is then "Illegitimacy of Authority" - BY DEFINITION - with respect to Republicanism.

 

Once again, I'm not advocating for paying more. You keep saying it won't make it true.

If you feel we spend too much on healthcare, then advocate for solutions which bring costs down. One solution is to deport the 30 million illegal immigrants who are getting healthcare that we pay for, not to mention the 30 or so millions of legal immigrants who shouldn't be getting healthcare paid for by taxpayers. Get rid of government regulations and mandates.

Not even sure what you mean by price fixing, but I'm not for that either.

I don't know why you don't understand how competition between insurers and providers will bring down costs. It's basic supply and demand.

 

Neoliberal utopia in Colombia.

Colombia Paramilitary Chief Says Businesses Back Him - The New York Times




The scene where 10 workers were shot dead in Colombia.

 

1) Alcohol? I don't know what this means? Are you talking about Prohibition?

2) Pot? I'm against legalization because of the health risks involved. Once this phase of legalization has gone it's course, even liberals will want to restrict its use just like tobacco.

3) Prostitution and porn? I have no problem with government protecting women from sexual exploitation.

4) Abortion? I advocate for a right to life.

5) Innocent until proven guilty? #MeToo? Kavanaugh? President Trump? The left has been trying to do away with due process.

6) Freedom of ... the press? I'm totally in favor of not censoring the media. Obama spied on and wanted to prosecute the media.

7) Censorship? The left tries to censor political free speech.

increased police power? What does this even mean?

9) search and seizure? Again, I don't know what you mean by this?

10) Gays? Not all gays are Democrats.

11) wealth redistribution? Republicans are firmly against wealth redistribution.

 

More nonsense. What do I have to do with this?

 

1) you are for paying more. You want to keep the system in place which has led to our healthcare costs being 3.5 Trillion/year - and you are against a system that has costs that are roughly half that.

2) "Not sure what is meant by Price Fixing" ?? - No wonder you are so offside. Even Trump has been talking about this practice.

3) Getting rid of insurers will bring costs down - that is one of the main ways that the costs can be reduced. Further - lack of competition (because insurers collude with each other to fix prices) will not be resolved by changing regulations and pretending that insurance companies will actually compete with each fairly.

You have clearly not looked into the anti competitive nature of the insurance and drug industry. You should do some googling sometime on this issue.

 

Based on what science? And by your logic unhealthy foods should be outlawed.

Poor Diet Kills More People Than Smoking: Global Study | Everyday Health

Also note:

Nixon's Drug War, An Excuse To Lock Up Blacks And Protesters, Continues - Forbes

Nixon official: real reason for the drug war was to criminalize black people and hippies - Vox

 

Your answers demonstrate clearly that you are only for freedom/liberty for things you agree with.

If you only believe in freedom for things you agree with - then you really do not believe in freedom at all. Belief in freedom (for things like porn, prostitution, pot, walking down the street with a beer ) is belief in freedom for things you disagree with.

If you are not aware of asset forfeiture - stop and frisk, arbitrary detainment - and that this is an increase to police power - then you are just not aware.

I noticed that you completely ignored the main principle of Republicanism = no law messing with individual liberty without overwhelming approval. I also noticed that numerous of your answers violate this principle "Pot, Prostitution, Porn, Abortion and so on).

What is interesting is that you use an argument pioneered by the left "Utilitarianism" to justify removal of safeguards that were put in place to protect individual liberty and prevent Tyranny - and violate the principles of Republicanism.

Utilitarianism is justification for law that looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective". Harm reduction arguments are classic examples.

The problem with this justification for law is that it completely ignores individual liberty - it thus allows for and end run around the safeguards that protect us against tyranny.

I will use Pot as an example. "Harm Reduction".

The question is then Is "harm reduction" valid justification for law ? Often we hear the phrase "if it saves one life". These arguments sound good on the surface "who does not want to save one life/reduce harm" ? This is what makes them so insidious.

If this is valid justification for law (as you suggest) should we not ban skiing tomorrow- would we not save one life ? or reduce harm due to injury ?

What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it - the most dangerous thing one can do- it also harms the environment which harms us all. "Collective harm" remember ? This is your argument - not mine.

In fact - one should probably not rise from bed in the morning because one might fall and break neck.

Point being - all kinds of Gov't Tyranny can be justified by this justification for law - justification that you favor.

This is not republicanism - It is however a founding principle of communism = Law based on what is best for the collective -completely ignoring the rights of the individual.

In a free society one has the ability to engage in activities that have a reasonable risk of harm. Smoking, Drinking, Cave Diving, Sky Diving, Skiing .. and so on.

If something is so dangerous - that society wishes to give Gov't the power to use physical violence to stop people from doing that activity - the bar is "overwheming majority" = 67%.

If you do not agree with the above then you do not agree with Republicanism - or Classical Liberalism for that matter.

Take Pot verses Meth for example. You would likely hit that bar with Meth. Why ? Because 2 our of 3 people think Meth is so dangerous that the Gov't should ban it. You are not going to hit that bar with Pot - why ? because 2/3's do not think pot is so ridiculously dangerous that Gov't should be given power to mess with individual liberty.

You are for increased Gov't power. You are for the nanny state which you rail against. You very much dislike the main principle of Republicanism.

You complain loudly when Liberals use Utilitarian arguments to justify law that you don't like but, you then turn around an embrace Utilitarian arguments for things that you do.

If you don't believe in liberty for things you disagree with - then you really don't believe in liberty - and you don't - not even close.