Socialism v Free Enterprise.
One of them made America great.
One of them made America great.
CNN Debate: Cruz vs. Sanders
- Thread starter Mr. 5020
- Start date
Tinark
Active member
So you disagree with Ted Cruz and think Medicare should be abolished?
jeffblue101
New member
wrong again, there are limits to what can be passed via reconciliation. basically anything that is directly tied to the budget can be changed. So individual mandate can be eliminated but the contraceptive and abortifacient mandate can't be. So without a regular floor vote several costly Obamacare regulations can't be undone by Republicans via reconilation.
VOX:What budget reconciliation can and can’t do
jeffblue101
New member
this info-graphic tells a different picture. looks like rebulicans are working hard on a replacement to me
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoo...k-about-republican-health-plans/#4285afeb33ba
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. 5020 View Post
It was on both sides. Bernie had to answer why he was killing people's business.
What was Bernie's answer?
It was on both sides. Bernie had to answer why he was killing people's business.
What was Bernie's answer?
If I only had a dime for every time I've said the same thing. :up:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you could buy more insurance!
It came down to saying that he didn't think it was unreasonable to expect employers with at least 50 employers to provide health insurance. What was notable was thst he said it to the face of a businessperson who claimed they couldn't afford it.
this info-graphic tells a different picture. looks like rebulicans are working hard on a replacement to me
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoo...k-about-republican-health-plans/#4285afeb33ba
Don't get me wrong, I would be thrilled to be wrong. I really would. And it's certainly true that they've tossed around a few ideas. But I think they're going to find it near impossible to keep all their promises, which include a complete repeal and also no one losing their insurance. And if you add in the expectation that they won't do anything that isn't at least as compliant with conservative ideology as Obamacare, it's hard to imagine what that could be.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
also, bernie recommended that this particular business owner should look for a similar business owner who was providing benefits and figure out what they were doing to make it work
of course, bernie was making the assumption that one existed :chuckle:
In 1955, Canadian and American life expectancy were approximately the same.
During the early 1970's Canada introduced a universal healthcare system that as a % of national GDP is far less than what America currently spends.
Average life expectancy in Canada is now almost 3 years longer than their America counterparts.
Even when America's "non-white" population is factored out of the calculations, Canadians are still significantly healthier and live longer.
Given that life expectancy is a major indicator of the success of a healthcare system and that Canada is the one nation that most closely resembles America, the question remains as to why the US is not actively considering adopting a similar healthcare system that has already demonstrated to significantly improve life expectancy and at a fraction of the cost?
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2004/WhyDoCanadiansOutliveAmericans.aspx
During the early 1970's Canada introduced a universal healthcare system that as a % of national GDP is far less than what America currently spends.
Average life expectancy in Canada is now almost 3 years longer than their America counterparts.
Even when America's "non-white" population is factored out of the calculations, Canadians are still significantly healthier and live longer.
Given that life expectancy is a major indicator of the success of a healthcare system and that Canada is the one nation that most closely resembles America, the question remains as to why the US is not actively considering adopting a similar healthcare system that has already demonstrated to significantly improve life expectancy and at a fraction of the cost?
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2004/WhyDoCanadiansOutliveAmericans.aspx
Let the free market deal with the bigger problem first (Obamacare) and then deal with Medicare later.
Did he say why it wasn't unreasonable? I don't understand the logic of using the number of employees as the determining factor.
This is part of why I'd love to get the employer out of the equation. Another reason is that we wouldn't run into Hobby Lobby situations because employers wouldn't have to make decisions that affect someone's birth control. I believe it was Traditio that made a decent point for why employers should pay for it though. It was something to the effect that employers are part of why health care is needed. I can't be sick because I have to get to work (obviously not talking about serious illness). My employer has a stake in my health so it may not be unreasonable to have them pay for part of it. I guess we should just go single-payer and solve all our problems. :idunno:
I agree with you about liking the honesty though. Policies aren't going to make everyone happy. They won't be suitable for everyone. Politicians should be honest about that.
It comes from the ACA, based on two lines of reasoning that I know of:
1. While larger employers can be expected to be financially potent enough to offer insurance without serious harm, smaller employers may find it to be a genuine hardship. A cutoff point was therefore added to the employer mandate.
2. The benefit of employer-paid health insurance is that a large employer is able to collectively bargain for a better deal. Smaller employers don't have a lot of bargaining power with insurance companies, so they would be at a disadvantage in negotiations.
Critics often point out, correctly, I think, that this rule favors companies with fewer employees over those with more. It makes it very expensive to hire your 50th employee.
If employee base is being used as a proxy for financial ability then why not do something with revenue or profits directly. Is there a concern that companies would simply use some accounting tricks to avoid it?
In part, because that's hard. You never know in advsnce what your revenue and profits will be. And it doesn't address the collective bargaining disadvantage. Maybe some sort of subsidy that phases in and out...
Or, universal health care as a right, independent of employment.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you're making two false assumptions
1. that the canadian population is similar enough to ours to be an apt comparison
2. that the difference in life expectancy is due to their "universal health care" system
having pointed that out, I was amazed that bammy decided to created his fiasco out of whole cloth instead of copying aspects of the more successful models that are out there - canada's ok, scandanavians are better, england sucks
again, to touch on canada - there's a lot of dissatisfaction in canada with the quality and availability of the basic provided health care
and those who can afford to buy additional coverage
Or:
If you had back every dollar you ever spent on Insurance you wouldn't need insurance.
Because you'd have the money.
Mr. 5020
New member
"I say this with 1% plus 99% certainty: screw you, Laronda."