Sanders to raise taxes, destroy healthcare

[Seth]

We have both public and private health systems. Doctors often work for both. It works for us, we have plenty of doctors...

...because you have a private health care system that allows them to make a profit. Take that away and force them to work for the government for the decreasing pittance that the government can afford as it spends itself into bankruptcy trying to provide all health care to everyone who wants it and see how long that lasts.

[pErvinalia]

Only to a Marxist. If you cut spending the "structural deficit" disappears. It no longer exists. And therefore the justification for collecting taxes to make it disappear ceases to exist and taxes should be cut because they are no longer needed.

HOLY FUCK. If you get rid of a structural deficit, and then cut taxes, YOU GET A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT AGAIN!!

Only if you continue to spend more than you take in.

Which you will if you cut taxes after balancing the budget!

A "structural deficit" is caused by out-of-control government spending and nothing else.

WTF?!? A structural deficit is when you run a deficit due to a structural imbalance between incomes and outgoings. That can occur from either too much spending, too little tax, or a combination of both.

Your problem is that you think that ALL government spending is "necessary" and therefore MUST be funded no matter what,

Stop lying, ffs.

and that a failure to raise taxes to cover that spending creates a "structural deficit."

Stop lying, ffs. I've clearly stated a number of times that the structural deficits in many neoliberal countries have come from repeated tax cuts since the 80's.

[Tero]

We have both public and private health systems. Doctors often work for both. It works for us, we have plenty of doctors...

...because you have a private health care system that allows them to make a profit. Take that away and force them to work for the government for the decreasing pittance that the government can afford as it spends itself into bankruptcy trying to provide all health care to everyone who wants it and see how long that lasts.

In many countries the whole thing just amounts to a surgeon doing overtime and renting space/equipment from his or her daytime job. It's not like a full business. Private clinics are mostly for quick help and a better diagnosis.

[JimC]

We have both public and private health systems. Doctors often work for both. It works for us, we have plenty of doctors...

...because you have a private health care system that allows them to make a profit. Take that away and force them to work for the government for the decreasing pittance that the government can afford as it spends itself into bankruptcy trying to provide all health care to everyone who wants it and see how long that lasts.

Who the fuck would go down that path? We have a workable mixed system, which has support from all political groupings (with differences in emphasis to be sure)

There isn't a marxist conspiracy lurking in the Oz bush planning on destroying free enterprise...

[pErvinalia]

To be fair to Seth, I think The Bern is actually proposing a single government health care system.

[JimC]

To be fair to Seth, I think The Bern is actually proposing a single government health care system.

Sure, just like we have Medicare, and publicly funded hospitals. But I would be astounded if he were also proposing to get rid of private medical practice, and private health insurance for those who want extra cover.

[pErvinalia]

I just had a look and you are right.

Does Bernie want the government to completely take over the healthcare system?

No. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is an example of a system where the government owns and operates the public hospitals and employs the staff in those facilities. Alternatively, Bernie is proposing a Medicare-for-All system of social insurance that is found in Canada, continental Europe, and in other developed nations.

In this system, every American would be automatically enrolled into Medicare. This is commonly referred to as “Medicare for All.” Like the systems in many other industrialized countries, private practitioners could still provide care, but everyone would be covered by a national health care plan. This allows for private delivery and public financing to insure guaranteed health care for all and effective cost control. This is how Medicare is delivered today for all Americans over age 65.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

[JimC]

I just had a look and you are right.

Does Bernie want the government to completely take over the healthcare system?

No. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is an example of a system where the government owns and operates the public hospitals and employs the staff in those facilities. Alternatively, Bernie is proposing a Medicare-for-All system of social insurance that is found in Canada, continental Europe, and in other developed nations.

In this system, every American would be automatically enrolled into Medicare. This is commonly referred to as “Medicare for All.” Like the systems in many other industrialized countries, private practitioners could still provide care, but everyone would be covered by a national health care plan. This allows for private delivery and public financing to insure guaranteed health care for all and effective cost control. This is how Medicare is delivered today for all Americans over age 65.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

So, very like Oz, which you would not describe as a socialist paradise, I expect...

He could bring in our gun laws as well, if he wanted the US to rejoin the civilised world.

[pErvinalia]

We'll have to consult with Seth as to whether Australia is socialist because it has universal health care, or capitalist because it has private health care. It's all so very confusing..

[Seth]

Only to a Marxist. If you cut spending the "structural deficit" disappears. It no longer exists. And therefore the justification for collecting taxes to make it disappear ceases to exist and taxes should be cut because they are no longer needed.

HOLY FUCK. If you get rid of a structural deficit, and then cut taxes, YOU GET A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT AGAIN!!

Only if you continue to spend more than you take in.

Which you will if you cut taxes after balancing the budget!

Well, this is the first time you've mentioned "balancing the budget." Obviously you don't know what that actually means however. You don't "balance the budget" by approving amount X of government spending and then taxing to reach that goal, you balance the budget by determining the amount Y of taxes that the economy can support and then you construct your spending plans to fall within that amount. Therefore, if you cut taxes because the taxpayers are too burdened and it's affecting the economy negatively, you only get a "structural deficit" if you presume that the spending you've planned cannot be eliminated. "Structural deficit" is Progressive Newspeak for "We want to spend this much, but we can't collect enough in present taxes to fund all that spending so we're going to call it a "structural deficit" so we can hornswoggle the public into accepting higher taxes."

Of course the sane economic policy is to say "Well, unfortunately we do not have sufficient tax revenues coming in to fund those programs so they will have to be cut. Furthermore, the tax burden on the taxpayers and the economy is causing economic problems, therefore we must also cut taxes, which of course means also cutting spending because we will not then have sufficient tax revenue to fund that spending."

Your failure in reason is that you make the false presumption that the taxpayers have a bottomless purse from which you can steal to fund whatever the fuck you want government to do (mostly give you other people's money just because) and that a failure to steal sufficient money through taxation to fund all the bennies and perks you want from the government constitutes a "structural deficit." It doesn't. It constitutes rash overspending and the solution to that problem is not to collect more taxes, it's to cut spending.

That's simple math and economics 101.

But you don't give a flying fuck about math or economics because what YOU want is freebies and perks, largess, from the public treasury and YOU think that YOU are "entitled" to that largess because, well, Marxism, and you don't care how or where the largess comes from or who suffers when the jackbooted thugs with machine guns come around to extort it so long as YOU get what YOU think your entitled to...oh and also so long as those jackbooted thugs victimize anyone YOU think is "too rich" and therefore may be robbed and victimized for YOUR benefit for no better reason than, well, Marxism.

Here's a clue: Nobody owes you a single fucking thing, so ask nicely for help, get to work, or eat shit and die.

[Seth]

To be fair to Seth, I think The Bern is actually proposing a single government health care system.

Too fucking right he is. He's a Marxist. He want's government control of EVERYTHING, particularly health care, because once you control people's health care you control their votes.

[Seth]

I've clearly stated a number of times that the structural deficits in many neoliberal countries have come from repeated tax cuts since the 80's.

That's because the tax cuts were not paired with equal-to-or-greater-than cuts in government spending. This is because politics and government funding are exceedingly complex and positively byzantine and a tax cut doesn't require a concurrent cut in government program spending.

You can cut the gas tax to get the voters to vote for you but if you don't also cut spending somewhere you get your "structural deficit" precisely because "deficit spending' is permitted.

Ban deficit spending by passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting ALL government borrowing for any reason whatsoever and requiring government to have the funds in the bank (not manufactured by the Fed) before ANY project or spending can take place and you will never, ever have a "structural deficit."

Spend only what is actually collected and nothing more and there can be no deficit, regardless of how many tax cuts occur. When a tax cut is passed, spending is automatically cut on a one-to-one ratio. No deficits.

[Tero]

..control people's health care you control their votes.

They can always fly to Mexico. Seniors fly there for major dental care.

[Seth]

..control people's health care you control their votes.

They can always fly to Mexico. Seniors fly there for major dental care.

And they don't get it for free, do they?

[Tero]

They get it cheap because you have to google the Mexican doctors as to how many patients died. Malpractice insurance is a big chunk and they do not pay that. Also, clinics have minimal staff.