|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On May 21 2019 02:22 JimmiC wrote:
Bourgeois if you are going to troll at least be interesting about it mate. There is a big difference between prohibition and regulation. Neither Norway or New Zealand Prohibit guns.
So you're OK with US gun laws and marijuana laws, which are both currently non-prohibited and regulated?
|
|
|
Well no the federal level has a different set of laws then the states. Just because weed is legal in Colorado doesn't mean that its legal in Colorado. The FBI can freely raid weed stores whenever they want beacuse federaly its illegal.
|
On May 21 2019 01:44 Bourgeois wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 17 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 16 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:
I think the work force will just transition to entertainment/service and arts related jobs. Or hell maybe even space travel or whatever, it is hard to know what will be available I'm sure pre 1970 or even 1990 nobody thought programmer and so so would be a viable job.
I think UBI is cool and would be a great addition but I don't think it fixes all or even most of the social problems, many of which are bad choices, often because of bad situation, bad parenting, whatever. For example if someone has a drug addiction or to be less dramatic shopping issue a check every month really isn't going to change much for them and almost nothing for their children.
I do think it would raise the floor of society which is a very good thing, and now we also need to lower the ceiling. It would be a pretty cool world where people could choose to be a struggling artist or musician or whatever and struggling meant they could comfortably raise a family of four with their kids having all the options of post secondary or whatever it was that they wanted. It would also super inject the economy, because the vast majority of that money (regardless of whether it is spent intelligently) would be spent in society, increasing circulation of money, and benefitting the economy. IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe. I completely agree that guns should be freely available without prohibition and that people should not be going to jail for illegally owning firearms. And if you're going to argue that guns are already available in America and regulated, just like how drugs should be available and regulated, then let's say guns should be available in other countries as well, such as Norway and New Zealand, both countries that heavily restrict their availability to the point of almost impossibility to obtain. And if you say sure heavy restriction is the answer, then you should also believe that marijuana should be heavily restricted to the point of unobtanium.
Norway has one of the highest guns per capita in the world. If anything, using Norway as an example completely disproves your point. I remember when we were kids we went to the shooting range with our high school, and that was completely normal. I could even take shooting as a subject at my high school if I wanted to. The only difference is that we actually think you should not give guns to people who are not fit mentally or has not undergone training with exam, and we have to keep our guns locked safely away from children by law. Norway has tons of guns and regulation does not make it hard to get one as a civilian. Unless ofc you should never be able to get one.
|
On May 22 2019 02:07 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2019 01:44 Bourgeois wrote:On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 17 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 16 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:
I think the work force will just transition to entertainment/service and arts related jobs. Or hell maybe even space travel or whatever, it is hard to know what will be available I'm sure pre 1970 or even 1990 nobody thought programmer and so so would be a viable job.
I think UBI is cool and would be a great addition but I don't think it fixes all or even most of the social problems, many of which are bad choices, often because of bad situation, bad parenting, whatever. For example if someone has a drug addiction or to be less dramatic shopping issue a check every month really isn't going to change much for them and almost nothing for their children.
I do think it would raise the floor of society which is a very good thing, and now we also need to lower the ceiling. It would be a pretty cool world where people could choose to be a struggling artist or musician or whatever and struggling meant they could comfortably raise a family of four with their kids having all the options of post secondary or whatever it was that they wanted. It would also super inject the economy, because the vast majority of that money (regardless of whether it is spent intelligently) would be spent in society, increasing circulation of money, and benefitting the economy. IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe. I completely agree that guns should be freely available without prohibition and that people should not be going to jail for illegally owning firearms. And if you're going to argue that guns are already available in America and regulated, just like how drugs should be available and regulated, then let's say guns should be available in other countries as well, such as Norway and New Zealand, both countries that heavily restrict their availability to the point of almost impossibility to obtain. And if you say sure heavy restriction is the answer, then you should also believe that marijuana should be heavily restricted to the point of unobtanium. Norway has one of the highest guns per capita in the world. If anything, using Norway as an example completely disproves your point. I remember when we were kids we went to the shooting range with our high school, and that was completely normal. I could even take shooting as a subject at my high school if I wanted to. The only difference is that we actually think you should not give guns to people who are not fit mentally or has not undergone training with exam, and we have to keep our guns locked safely away from children by law. Norway has tons of guns and regulation does not make it hard to get one as a civilian. Unless ofc you should never be able to get one.
Don't they make you do it on ski's though?
|
On May 22 2019 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 02:07 Neneu wrote:On May 21 2019 01:44 Bourgeois wrote:On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 17 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 16 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:
I think the work force will just transition to entertainment/service and arts related jobs. Or hell maybe even space travel or whatever, it is hard to know what will be available I'm sure pre 1970 or even 1990 nobody thought programmer and so so would be a viable job.
I think UBI is cool and would be a great addition but I don't think it fixes all or even most of the social problems, many of which are bad choices, often because of bad situation, bad parenting, whatever. For example if someone has a drug addiction or to be less dramatic shopping issue a check every month really isn't going to change much for them and almost nothing for their children.
I do think it would raise the floor of society which is a very good thing, and now we also need to lower the ceiling. It would be a pretty cool world where people could choose to be a struggling artist or musician or whatever and struggling meant they could comfortably raise a family of four with their kids having all the options of post secondary or whatever it was that they wanted. It would also super inject the economy, because the vast majority of that money (regardless of whether it is spent intelligently) would be spent in society, increasing circulation of money, and benefitting the economy. IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe. I completely agree that guns should be freely available without prohibition and that people should not be going to jail for illegally owning firearms. And if you're going to argue that guns are already available in America and regulated, just like how drugs should be available and regulated, then let's say guns should be available in other countries as well, such as Norway and New Zealand, both countries that heavily restrict their availability to the point of almost impossibility to obtain. And if you say sure heavy restriction is the answer, then you should also believe that marijuana should be heavily restricted to the point of unobtanium. Norway has one of the highest guns per capita in the world. If anything, using Norway as an example completely disproves your point. I remember when we were kids we went to the shooting range with our high school, and that was completely normal. I could even take shooting as a subject at my high school if I wanted to. The only difference is that we actually think you should not give guns to people who are not fit mentally or has not undergone training with exam, and we have to keep our guns locked safely away from children by law. Norway has tons of guns and regulation does not make it hard to get one as a civilian. Unless ofc you should never be able to get one. Don't they make you do it on ski's though?
Nah, just a regular shooting range in the woods. And if you take the subject you will get a hunting license that allows you to use a rifle, when you are done.
|
On May 22 2019 07:20 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 02:07 Neneu wrote:On May 21 2019 01:44 Bourgeois wrote:On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 17 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 16 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:
I think the work force will just transition to entertainment/service and arts related jobs. Or hell maybe even space travel or whatever, it is hard to know what will be available I'm sure pre 1970 or even 1990 nobody thought programmer and so so would be a viable job.
I think UBI is cool and would be a great addition but I don't think it fixes all or even most of the social problems, many of which are bad choices, often because of bad situation, bad parenting, whatever. For example if someone has a drug addiction or to be less dramatic shopping issue a check every month really isn't going to change much for them and almost nothing for their children.
I do think it would raise the floor of society which is a very good thing, and now we also need to lower the ceiling. It would be a pretty cool world where people could choose to be a struggling artist or musician or whatever and struggling meant they could comfortably raise a family of four with their kids having all the options of post secondary or whatever it was that they wanted. It would also super inject the economy, because the vast majority of that money (regardless of whether it is spent intelligently) would be spent in society, increasing circulation of money, and benefitting the economy. IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe. I completely agree that guns should be freely available without prohibition and that people should not be going to jail for illegally owning firearms. And if you're going to argue that guns are already available in America and regulated, just like how drugs should be available and regulated, then let's say guns should be available in other countries as well, such as Norway and New Zealand, both countries that heavily restrict their availability to the point of almost impossibility to obtain. And if you say sure heavy restriction is the answer, then you should also believe that marijuana should be heavily restricted to the point of unobtanium. Norway has one of the highest guns per capita in the world. If anything, using Norway as an example completely disproves your point. I remember when we were kids we went to the shooting range with our high school, and that was completely normal. I could even take shooting as a subject at my high school if I wanted to. The only difference is that we actually think you should not give guns to people who are not fit mentally or has not undergone training with exam, and we have to keep our guns locked safely away from children by law. Norway has tons of guns and regulation does not make it hard to get one as a civilian. Unless ofc you should never be able to get one. Don't they make you do it on ski's though? Nah, just a regular shooting range in the woods. And if you take the subject you will get a hunting license that allows you to use a rifle, when you are done.
Not sure if you're counter-trolling me by pointing out that even the idea of high school kids being given access to guns in the US could legitimately give people panic attacks or you didn't get the biathlon dominance joke?
|
|
|
On May 12 2019 16:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Berserk
I 100% agree with you that the EU has it all wrong right now, especially a country like France. Man, you guys are so lucky that there was so many smart people coming into the country hundreds of years ago that built such a strong foundation. I mean really, just look at France and it's trajectory, and then look back at the US. You guys are really well off all things considered, yes, there's negatives too, and I'm biased since I came from Slovakia and so I have a lot of European immigrant friends, so they'll be biased because they came here... But man, please don't head in the same direction. Go move to Norway, Germany, France, or even the UK for 3 years, and see how you like it, from everything I know, I think you have a case of the grass is greener on the side. Directed at ggrrg and the others, not you Berserk.
Yea man. Actually my dad's girlfriend is from France, and every time I converse with members her family that remained they are lamenting about the state of the country.
I also know a good number of immigrants, and they most don't want the U.S. to head in Europe's direction either. My parents are both immigrants and I am so thankful I was born here lol
America DOES have its fair share of problems, but I dont think the EU is anything to mimic.
On May 12 2019 17:22 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 16:17 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 15:56 ggrrg wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote:
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out. My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell. I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well. I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money. On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me. Every candidate says he/she wants to reform the healthcare. The problem is who has the best reform? I sure as hell don't think it's Bernie lol. The only think I like about Bernie is that he wants to attack the military industrial complex. And as much as I strongly disagree with Bernie's healthcare policies, America is without a doubt rich enough to pay for any medical policy, no matter how inefficient it is, if the money is siphoned from the our ridiculously bloated military. Basically, I want significantly less government spending, but if I had to choose betting massive government spending on military and healthcare, I'd choose healthcare every time. I honestly think Bernie's healthcare and higher education policies are terrible though. I don't want America to turn into some European country. I don't believe in EU's model. I believe it is unsustainable and I want America to sustain itself. Regarding that 90% tax rate, I respect your opinion, but the facts say otherwise. People who make that much money already flee to tax havens at current tax rates which are nowhere near 90%. Whether if it's NYC millionaires escaping NYC's ridiculous tax rates by moving to florida or north carolina, or American billionaires using overseas tax havens. People who earn several million a year in income are usually the most financially savvy people in the world who value returns. There is n o way they will accept the abysmal returns that come with a 90% tax rate lol. as for 250k loans, it is brutal indeed. Nurses can make six figures in the U.S. , but most people take years to pay it off. America is a country built on the debt system as it is. Keep in mind the average nurse doesnt accure that much debt...my friend just has bad habits (i mentioned he served time in prison, that should tell you). He took out more than he needed - I just brought it up to give an example to greenhorizons of how someone with a terrible record could get loans. I myself had 250k debt after the interest that was accrued during my 4 years of med school (and it was a federal loan too, so I couldnt even file for bankruptcy if i had to lol). It made me miserable lol This is pretty interesting to me: why do you not believe in the EU model specifically, when it provably works? More people have access to treatment in EU than in the US and the results are statistically better - the mortality from many conditions is simply larger in US than in EU, just look it up. For the money spent, the US system is the less efficient way of treating people on the whole planet! I guess the US model is in the strict sense more sustainable, because if treatment options grow more expensive, you just let more people die instead, thus conserving the economical viability of the system, but is that really what you want? We have some parties (generally considered fringe lunatics and scoring 1-2%) that basically want to americanize the health care in Czech Republic, but the counter-argument is almost comically easy to make: the US system clearly fails. My friends who lived in the US moved back to home mainly because they couldn't stand the risk of getting sick there. The whole thing is completely out of bounds, with prices inflated by orders of magnitude, enormous expenses even for insured patients and millions of people without access to any useful insurance. A major accident or god forbid a serious disease can financially ruin 90% of the population for life, a simple hospital visit runs you 5-figure sums, that you can't even get to know beforehand to make an informed decision. How is that better than ... anything?
I could write pages and pages, but long story short is that I don't like rationed health care and I believe the government generally makes things worse, especially something like healthcare.
I know all about these so-called "statistics" leftists always mention, too.
About access - contrary to leftist propaganda, people in the U.S. are not left to die. Anybody, and I mean anybody, can walk into an emergency department, and they will get the appropriate treatment regardless of health insurance coverage or financial status. Whether youre homeless, an illegal immigrant, etc. This means that the same Hurculean effort to resuscitate everybody whether it's a homeless man or a millionaire - and I know for a fact that similar efforts are not seen in the NHS thanks to their "rationed care"
You bring up "economical viability" of the U.S. system but fail to realize that the only reason our system is floundering is because it it pours money in to treat anyone,e ven those who cannot afford it. For example, over 20 hospitals in NYC, where I'm from and where I practiced medicine, have closed since 2000 because hospitals take the hits.
Another point the left brings up is the inefficiency of the U.S. model - that we spend more per capita than other developed countries. The U.S. has a far different demographic than Europe or Japan. Our population is plagued by chronic diseases, which are by far the most costly diseases in terms of management and complications. Which is why our outcomes dont reflect the amount of money we spend, relatively speaking.
Prices of medicine are a problem here, I will agree with you on that. However, that has really nothing to do with the actual healthcare system. Not sure where you get idea that a major accident can financially ruin 90% of the population for life. Regarding those infamous hospital bills - you don't have to pay what they charge you.
Switzerland is closer to the U.S.'s health care system than it is to a single payer health care system, and I'd be willing to bet that it blows the health care system of CZ out of the water.
Anyway, I've heard and read what's going on with the healthcare system in UK, France, and Italy. Hell, a lot of Canadians even come to the U.S. to receive treatments and medical imagining. Hell I can look at the VA and Native American health care systems in the u.S.
I sure as hell don't think our system is perfect here, but I can't think of anything worse (for the long term) than these socialized health care systems.
|
|
|
On May 17 2019 07:13 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 17 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 16 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:
I think the work force will just transition to entertainment/service and arts related jobs. Or hell maybe even space travel or whatever, it is hard to know what will be available I'm sure pre 1970 or even 1990 nobody thought programmer and so so would be a viable job.
I think UBI is cool and would be a great addition but I don't think it fixes all or even most of the social problems, many of which are bad choices, often because of bad situation, bad parenting, whatever. For example if someone has a drug addiction or to be less dramatic shopping issue a check every month really isn't going to change much for them and almost nothing for their children.
I do think it would raise the floor of society which is a very good thing, and now we also need to lower the ceiling. It would be a pretty cool world where people could choose to be a struggling artist or musician or whatever and struggling meant they could comfortably raise a family of four with their kids having all the options of post secondary or whatever it was that they wanted. It would also super inject the economy, because the vast majority of that money (regardless of whether it is spent intelligently) would be spent in society, increasing circulation of money, and benefitting the economy. IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe. There are tonnes of ways, but I doubt legalisation is the most effective. The most common is probably low interrest rates to stop people from hoarding money in bank accounts. Investments, public or private work very well too, even things like gearing up for war. As for the top 1%, does anyone have a functioning way of denying them from getting richer? Higher income taxes rather strike the upper middle-class, and remove incentives for highly specialized in-demand professionals to work. The top 1% does not earn their wealth through salaries! Maybe asset taxes, but through complicated ownership structres and accountant magic the top 1% is very elusive there too... The most effective is probably making it hard for super-companies to buy up competition and grow, but should you deny a businessowner their right to get a fantastic price for what they worked hard to build up?
Almost everything you suggested just helps the wealthy.
Lower interest rates lead to inflation and market distortion, which hurts more the lower on the socioeconomic pyramid you are. Rich people will just take their cash and put it in stuff like property, fiat hedges, and stock markets and watch their net worth skyrocket even more. Then you end up with present day NYC where billionaires buy condos to stay in a month out of the year, neighborhoods are heavily gentrified, and middle/working class can barely afford anything. And the poor are penalized, via currency devaluation, for saving the peanuts they can scrape together in the first place
Punishing the upper middle class (professionals, small business owners, specialists, etc) just leads to an overall decrease in skill/capital and subsequently a relative decrease in standard of living, again, which hits harder the lower you are on the socioeconimic pyramid. Also, lower working class often turn to small businesses because they offer flexibility and work for people who are unattractive to larger established operations. Your point about big companies buying out smaller competition would be valid.....IF the government wasnt actively trying to suffocate small businesses. Every small business owner is met with the obstacle of the mountain of government regulatory agencies like the OSHA and IRS. Every increase in regulation makes it harder for a small business to make payroll and turn a profit....and, like usual, the wealthier (big companies) benefit from this, relatively speaking, since they have the resources to deal with regulatory procedures AND they have less competition from de-incentivized smaller businesses. It doesn't stop there - less competition in a market = worse for consumers, especially in lower income communities where small businesses usually occur.
The richer you are, the easier it is to insulate yourself from higher taxes too. For example, a lower interest rate would lead to stock buybacks, therefore artificially pumping the stock market. The wealthy can afford to put significant portions of the net worth in this artificially pumping stock run, making their net worth pump compared to any tax damage. All they have to do, then, is make an end of year donation using their non-cash asset (their pumped stock) and then buy the stocks back at higher cost average, and make out like bandits (their income taxes and capital gains taxes get huges cuts thanks to this, because their taxable income is far less, and they dont get taxed on their stock profits because it was given donations)
|
On May 22 2019 09:06 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 16:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Berserk
I 100% agree with you that the EU has it all wrong right now, especially a country like France. Man, you guys are so lucky that there was so many smart people coming into the country hundreds of years ago that built such a strong foundation. I mean really, just look at France and it's trajectory, and then look back at the US. You guys are really well off all things considered, yes, there's negatives too, and I'm biased since I came from Slovakia and so I have a lot of European immigrant friends, so they'll be biased because they came here... But man, please don't head in the same direction. Go move to Norway, Germany, France, or even the UK for 3 years, and see how you like it, from everything I know, I think you have a case of the grass is greener on the side. Directed at ggrrg and the others, not you Berserk. Yea man. Actually my dad's girlfriend is from France, and every time I converse with members her family that remained they are lamenting about the state of the country. I also know a good number of immigrants, and they most don't want the U.S. to head in Europe's direction either. My parents are both immigrants and I am so thankful I was born here lol America DOES have its fair share of problems, but I dont think the EU is anything to mimic. Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 17:22 opisska wrote:On May 12 2019 16:17 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 15:56 ggrrg wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote:
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out. My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell. I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well. I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money. On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me. Every candidate says he/she wants to reform the healthcare. The problem is who has the best reform? I sure as hell don't think it's Bernie lol. The only think I like about Bernie is that he wants to attack the military industrial complex. And as much as I strongly disagree with Bernie's healthcare policies, America is without a doubt rich enough to pay for any medical policy, no matter how inefficient it is, if the money is siphoned from the our ridiculously bloated military. Basically, I want significantly less government spending, but if I had to choose betting massive government spending on military and healthcare, I'd choose healthcare every time. I honestly think Bernie's healthcare and higher education policies are terrible though. I don't want America to turn into some European country. I don't believe in EU's model. I believe it is unsustainable and I want America to sustain itself. Regarding that 90% tax rate, I respect your opinion, but the facts say otherwise. People who make that much money already flee to tax havens at current tax rates which are nowhere near 90%. Whether if it's NYC millionaires escaping NYC's ridiculous tax rates by moving to florida or north carolina, or American billionaires using overseas tax havens. People who earn several million a year in income are usually the most financially savvy people in the world who value returns. There is n o way they will accept the abysmal returns that come with a 90% tax rate lol. as for 250k loans, it is brutal indeed. Nurses can make six figures in the U.S. , but most people take years to pay it off. America is a country built on the debt system as it is. Keep in mind the average nurse doesnt accure that much debt...my friend just has bad habits (i mentioned he served time in prison, that should tell you). He took out more than he needed - I just brought it up to give an example to greenhorizons of how someone with a terrible record could get loans. I myself had 250k debt after the interest that was accrued during my 4 years of med school (and it was a federal loan too, so I couldnt even file for bankruptcy if i had to lol). It made me miserable lol This is pretty interesting to me: why do you not believe in the EU model specifically, when it provably works? More people have access to treatment in EU than in the US and the results are statistically better - the mortality from many conditions is simply larger in US than in EU, just look it up. For the money spent, the US system is the less efficient way of treating people on the whole planet! I guess the US model is in the strict sense more sustainable, because if treatment options grow more expensive, you just let more people die instead, thus conserving the economical viability of the system, but is that really what you want? We have some parties (generally considered fringe lunatics and scoring 1-2%) that basically want to americanize the health care in Czech Republic, but the counter-argument is almost comically easy to make: the US system clearly fails. My friends who lived in the US moved back to home mainly because they couldn't stand the risk of getting sick there. The whole thing is completely out of bounds, with prices inflated by orders of magnitude, enormous expenses even for insured patients and millions of people without access to any useful insurance. A major accident or god forbid a serious disease can financially ruin 90% of the population for life, a simple hospital visit runs you 5-figure sums, that you can't even get to know beforehand to make an informed decision. How is that better than ... anything? I could write pages and pages, but long story short is that I don't like rationed health care and I believe the government generally makes things worse, especially something like healthcare. I know all about these so-called "statistics" leftists always mention, too. About access - contrary to leftist propaganda, people in the U.S. are not left to die. Anybody, and I mean anybody, can walk into an emergency department, and they will get the appropriate treatment regardless of health insurance coverage or financial status. Whether youre homeless, an illegal immigrant, etc. This means that the same Hurculean effort to resuscitate everybody whether it's a homeless man or a millionaire - and I know for a fact that similar efforts are not seen in the NHS thanks to their "rationed care" You bring up "economical viability" of the U.S. system but fail to realize that the only reason our system is floundering is because it it pours money in to treat anyone,e ven those who cannot afford it. For example, over 20 hospitals in NYC, where I'm from and where I practiced medicine, have closed since 2000 because hospitals take the hits. Another point the left brings up is the inefficiency of the U.S. model - that we spend more per capita than other developed countries. The U.S. has a far different demographic than Europe or Japan. Our population is plagued by chronic diseases, which are by far the most costly diseases in terms of management and complications. Which is why our outcomes dont reflect the amount of money we spend, relatively speaking. Prices of medicine are a problem here, I will agree with you on that. However, that has really nothing to do with the actual healthcare system. Not sure where you get idea that a major accident can financially ruin 90% of the population for life. Regarding those infamous hospital bills - you don't have to pay what they charge you. Switzerland is closer to the U.S.'s health care system than it is to a single payer health care system, and I'd be willing to bet that it blows the health care system of CZ out of the water. Anyway, I've heard and read what's going on with the healthcare system in UK, France, and Italy. Hell, a lot of Canadians even come to the U.S. to receive treatments and medical imagining. Hell I can look at the VA and Native American health care systems in the u.S. I sure as hell don't think our system is perfect here, but I can't think of anything worse (for the long term) than these socialized health care systems.
I don't know if you are trolling, pushing propaganda for your own benefit or are honestly so lacking self-reflection that you think that "I don't trust anything but what I heard from 'people' and my feelings" is a valid standpoint, but there is nothing left to discuss with you. You seem convinced about things that are blatantly untrue and you have zero knowledge if the systems you criticize. Sorry, I am out.
Look, it's Wednesday morning, time for my regular state-of-the-art medicine that keeps me from ending up in a wheelchair and I do not have to pay $2000 monthly to get it, because I live in a country with terrible socialized healthcare.
|
Switzerland is closer to the U.S.'s health care system than it is to a single payer health care system....
WTF are you smoking?
Yes, we have multiple private insurance companies, but the general healthcare plan, that they MUST grant to every person living in Switzerland, is hard written into law by the goverment. They also can't deny people, even if someone has late term cancer or has planned an expensive treatment in the near future, they must insure a terminally ill person if they chose to switch the insurance company (which you normally can do once a year). There are also plenty of measures to make hunting for "good risks" (Young people) not a feasible strategy.
The goverment also controls the pricing on the monthly premiums and wachtes over pretty much all aspects of it. Not having Health Insurance is illegal, you don't even get finded, the state just puts you into an insurance company and you'll recieve bills, even for years back if you managed to dodge the system for so long.
The one reason i'm against single payer in switzerland is, that insurance companies aren't the issue that is plagueing our system. So it would try to "fix" a part of the system that isn't broken.
|
Norway28706 Posts
"Another point the left brings up is the inefficiency of the U.S. model - that we spend more per capita than other developed countries. The U.S. has a far different demographic than Europe or Japan. Our population is plagued by chronic diseases, which are by far the most costly diseases in terms of management and complications. Which is why our outcomes dont reflect the amount of money we spend, relatively speaking. "
You realize that this is a direct consequence of letting capitalism loose on health care? In Norway, where our state attempts to profit from a healthy population rather than in the US where malignant actors are trying to profit from a sick population, we have a lot of specific policy aimed at prevention - it's always much less expensive, and much better for the patient, if he or she lives a more healthy life rather than an unhealthy one.
So like, while I haven't looked at numbers, I have no problems accepting that a significant part of the reason why the US spends so much more compared to what they get back, is that they have such an obscene amount of super-obese people who are more expensive to treat. But this is a consequence of your lack of social direction (because there are a bunch of different actors pulling in different directions because they are all trying to make a profit from different problems), one that could be alleviated with a more positively involved government. This does of course require government to be competent, but man, I'm really happy that our public education has 'teach people to live healthy lives' rather than 'spend as little money as possible due to grossly underfunded public schools hence serve the pupils unhealthy food while not having decent playgrounds and areas for physical exercise' as its mentality.
|
|
|
On May 22 2019 15:46 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 09:06 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 16:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Berserk
I 100% agree with you that the EU has it all wrong right now, especially a country like France. Man, you guys are so lucky that there was so many smart people coming into the country hundreds of years ago that built such a strong foundation. I mean really, just look at France and it's trajectory, and then look back at the US. You guys are really well off all things considered, yes, there's negatives too, and I'm biased since I came from Slovakia and so I have a lot of European immigrant friends, so they'll be biased because they came here... But man, please don't head in the same direction. Go move to Norway, Germany, France, or even the UK for 3 years, and see how you like it, from everything I know, I think you have a case of the grass is greener on the side. Directed at ggrrg and the others, not you Berserk. Yea man. Actually my dad's girlfriend is from France, and every time I converse with members her family that remained they are lamenting about the state of the country. I also know a good number of immigrants, and they most don't want the U.S. to head in Europe's direction either. My parents are both immigrants and I am so thankful I was born here lol America DOES have its fair share of problems, but I dont think the EU is anything to mimic. On May 12 2019 17:22 opisska wrote:On May 12 2019 16:17 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 15:56 ggrrg wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote:
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out. My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell. I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well. I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money. On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me. Every candidate says he/she wants to reform the healthcare. The problem is who has the best reform? I sure as hell don't think it's Bernie lol. The only think I like about Bernie is that he wants to attack the military industrial complex. And as much as I strongly disagree with Bernie's healthcare policies, America is without a doubt rich enough to pay for any medical policy, no matter how inefficient it is, if the money is siphoned from the our ridiculously bloated military. Basically, I want significantly less government spending, but if I had to choose betting massive government spending on military and healthcare, I'd choose healthcare every time. I honestly think Bernie's healthcare and higher education policies are terrible though. I don't want America to turn into some European country. I don't believe in EU's model. I believe it is unsustainable and I want America to sustain itself. Regarding that 90% tax rate, I respect your opinion, but the facts say otherwise. People who make that much money already flee to tax havens at current tax rates which are nowhere near 90%. Whether if it's NYC millionaires escaping NYC's ridiculous tax rates by moving to florida or north carolina, or American billionaires using overseas tax havens. People who earn several million a year in income are usually the most financially savvy people in the world who value returns. There is n o way they will accept the abysmal returns that come with a 90% tax rate lol. as for 250k loans, it is brutal indeed. Nurses can make six figures in the U.S. , but most people take years to pay it off. America is a country built on the debt system as it is. Keep in mind the average nurse doesnt accure that much debt...my friend just has bad habits (i mentioned he served time in prison, that should tell you). He took out more than he needed - I just brought it up to give an example to greenhorizons of how someone with a terrible record could get loans. I myself had 250k debt after the interest that was accrued during my 4 years of med school (and it was a federal loan too, so I couldnt even file for bankruptcy if i had to lol). It made me miserable lol This is pretty interesting to me: why do you not believe in the EU model specifically, when it provably works? More people have access to treatment in EU than in the US and the results are statistically better - the mortality from many conditions is simply larger in US than in EU, just look it up. For the money spent, the US system is the less efficient way of treating people on the whole planet! I guess the US model is in the strict sense more sustainable, because if treatment options grow more expensive, you just let more people die instead, thus conserving the economical viability of the system, but is that really what you want? We have some parties (generally considered fringe lunatics and scoring 1-2%) that basically want to americanize the health care in Czech Republic, but the counter-argument is almost comically easy to make: the US system clearly fails. My friends who lived in the US moved back to home mainly because they couldn't stand the risk of getting sick there. The whole thing is completely out of bounds, with prices inflated by orders of magnitude, enormous expenses even for insured patients and millions of people without access to any useful insurance. A major accident or god forbid a serious disease can financially ruin 90% of the population for life, a simple hospital visit runs you 5-figure sums, that you can't even get to know beforehand to make an informed decision. How is that better than ... anything? I could write pages and pages, but long story short is that I don't like rationed health care and I believe the government generally makes things worse, especially something like healthcare. I know all about these so-called "statistics" leftists always mention, too. About access - contrary to leftist propaganda, people in the U.S. are not left to die. Anybody, and I mean anybody, can walk into an emergency department, and they will get the appropriate treatment regardless of health insurance coverage or financial status. Whether youre homeless, an illegal immigrant, etc. This means that the same Hurculean effort to resuscitate everybody whether it's a homeless man or a millionaire - and I know for a fact that similar efforts are not seen in the NHS thanks to their "rationed care" You bring up "economical viability" of the U.S. system but fail to realize that the only reason our system is floundering is because it it pours money in to treat anyone,e ven those who cannot afford it. For example, over 20 hospitals in NYC, where I'm from and where I practiced medicine, have closed since 2000 because hospitals take the hits. Another point the left brings up is the inefficiency of the U.S. model - that we spend more per capita than other developed countries. The U.S. has a far different demographic than Europe or Japan. Our population is plagued by chronic diseases, which are by far the most costly diseases in terms of management and complications. Which is why our outcomes dont reflect the amount of money we spend, relatively speaking. Prices of medicine are a problem here, I will agree with you on that. However, that has really nothing to do with the actual healthcare system. Not sure where you get idea that a major accident can financially ruin 90% of the population for life. Regarding those infamous hospital bills - you don't have to pay what they charge you. Switzerland is closer to the U.S.'s health care system than it is to a single payer health care system, and I'd be willing to bet that it blows the health care system of CZ out of the water. Anyway, I've heard and read what's going on with the healthcare system in UK, France, and Italy. Hell, a lot of Canadians even come to the U.S. to receive treatments and medical imagining. Hell I can look at the VA and Native American health care systems in the u.S. I sure as hell don't think our system is perfect here, but I can't think of anything worse (for the long term) than these socialized health care systems. I don't know if you are trolling, pushing propaganda for your own benefit or are honestly so lacking self-reflection that you think that "I don't trust anything but what I heard from 'people' and my feelings" is a valid standpoint, but there is nothing left to discuss with you. You seem convinced about things that are blatantly untrue and you have zero knowledge if the systems you criticize. Sorry, I am out. Look, it's Wednesday morning, time for my regular state-of-the-art medicine that keeps me from ending up in a wheelchair and I do not have to pay $2000 monthly to get it, because I live in a country with terrible socialized healthcare.
The scariest thing about my country, is that a large (not a majority) portion of it really believes we are going in a good direction and their life is getting better... when nothing has changed.
Other than someone made a lunatic captain of the ship.
There is a new tax plan that addresses nothing, gives the vast majority of the benefits to the ultra rich, and the small amount of benefit given to the rest of the population will expire in a couple years, while the corporate changes will be permanent.
People look at this and think we are doing great... I imagine as the ship is breaking apart on the rocks, people will still be cheering the captain.
|
Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 09:06 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 16:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Berserk
I 100% agree with you that the EU has it all wrong right now, especially a country like France. Man, you guys are so lucky that there was so many smart people coming into the country hundreds of years ago that built such a strong foundation. I mean really, just look at France and it's trajectory, and then look back at the US. You guys are really well off all things considered, yes, there's negatives too, and I'm biased since I came from Slovakia and so I have a lot of European immigrant friends, so they'll be biased because they came here... But man, please don't head in the same direction. Go move to Norway, Germany, France, or even the UK for 3 years, and see how you like it, from everything I know, I think you have a case of the grass is greener on the side. Directed at ggrrg and the others, not you Berserk. Yea man. Actually my dad's girlfriend is from France, and every time I converse with members her family that remained they are lamenting about the state of the country. I also know a good number of immigrants, and they most don't want the U.S. to head in Europe's direction either. My parents are both immigrants and I am so thankful I was born here lol America DOES have its fair share of problems, but I dont think the EU is anything to mimic. On May 12 2019 17:22 opisska wrote:On May 12 2019 16:17 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 15:56 ggrrg wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote:
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out. My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell. I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well. I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money. On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me. Every candidate says he/she wants to reform the healthcare. The problem is who has the best reform? I sure as hell don't think it's Bernie lol. The only think I like about Bernie is that he wants to attack the military industrial complex. And as much as I strongly disagree with Bernie's healthcare policies, America is without a doubt rich enough to pay for any medical policy, no matter how inefficient it is, if the money is siphoned from the our ridiculously bloated military. Basically, I want significantly less government spending, but if I had to choose betting massive government spending on military and healthcare, I'd choose healthcare every time. I honestly think Bernie's healthcare and higher education policies are terrible though. I don't want America to turn into some European country. I don't believe in EU's model. I believe it is unsustainable and I want America to sustain itself. Regarding that 90% tax rate, I respect your opinion, but the facts say otherwise. People who make that much money already flee to tax havens at current tax rates which are nowhere near 90%. Whether if it's NYC millionaires escaping NYC's ridiculous tax rates by moving to florida or north carolina, or American billionaires using overseas tax havens. People who earn several million a year in income are usually the most financially savvy people in the world who value returns. There is n o way they will accept the abysmal returns that come with a 90% tax rate lol. as for 250k loans, it is brutal indeed. Nurses can make six figures in the U.S. , but most people take years to pay it off. America is a country built on the debt system as it is. Keep in mind the average nurse doesnt accure that much debt...my friend just has bad habits (i mentioned he served time in prison, that should tell you). He took out more than he needed - I just brought it up to give an example to greenhorizons of how someone with a terrible record could get loans. I myself had 250k debt after the interest that was accrued during my 4 years of med school (and it was a federal loan too, so I couldnt even file for bankruptcy if i had to lol). It made me miserable lol This is pretty interesting to me: why do you not believe in the EU model specifically, when it provably works? More people have access to treatment in EU than in the US and the results are statistically better - the mortality from many conditions is simply larger in US than in EU, just look it up. For the money spent, the US system is the less efficient way of treating people on the whole planet! I guess the US model is in the strict sense more sustainable, because if treatment options grow more expensive, you just let more people die instead, thus conserving the economical viability of the system, but is that really what you want? We have some parties (generally considered fringe lunatics and scoring 1-2%) that basically want to americanize the health care in Czech Republic, but the counter-argument is almost comically easy to make: the US system clearly fails. My friends who lived in the US moved back to home mainly because they couldn't stand the risk of getting sick there. The whole thing is completely out of bounds, with prices inflated by orders of magnitude, enormous expenses even for insured patients and millions of people without access to any useful insurance. A major accident or god forbid a serious disease can financially ruin 90% of the population for life, a simple hospital visit runs you 5-figure sums, that you can't even get to know beforehand to make an informed decision. How is that better than ... anything? I could write pages and pages, but long story short is that I don't like rationed health care and I believe the government generally makes things worse, especially something like healthcare. I know all about these so-called "statistics" leftists always mention, too. About access - contrary to leftist propaganda, people in the U.S. are not left to die. Anybody, and I mean anybody, can walk into an emergency department, and they will get the appropriate treatment regardless of health insurance coverage or financial status. Whether youre homeless, an illegal immigrant, etc. This means that the same Hurculean effort to resuscitate everybody whether it's a homeless man or a millionaire - and I know for a fact that similar efforts are not seen in the NHS thanks to their "rationed care"
You do understand that after "anyone" goes to an emergency room for help for anything... they will be expect the pay back that hospital for all the services rendered, you do understand that right?
Assuming you can declare bankruptcy for that (not sure you can, you can't do that for student loans), you will lose everything and be broke for the majority of, or the rest of your life.
If you have kids, they will be financially bankrupt just like their parents.
The last time I was in a hospital, I was charged 2,000$ per hour just to be in a hospital room. That include 10 minutes with a doctor talking to me. Turns out if your in the room, you are renting everything in that room for as long as you are in it, regardless if you use any of it.
If you truly agreed that the prices in America are too high, based on what you've said, there is either a serious disconnect in your understanding of the problem, or the outcomes that result from it.
http://truecostofhealthcare.org/hospitalization/
|
On May 22 2019 01:24 JimmiC wrote:
No I am not, because america does not each state does and some are better then others. Try harder please.
So are you pro guns then? Because you say prohibition doesn't work. So are you happy for guns to be readily available as long as they're regulated? Because your original argument is banning stuff doesn't work. If you agree guns being available is fine, then we agree.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 12:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 11:37 Bourgeois wrote:On May 22 2019 01:24 JimmiC wrote:
No I am not, because america does not each state does and some are better then others. Try harder please. So are you pro guns then? Because you say prohibition doesn't work. So are you happy for guns to be readily available as long as they're regulated? Because your original argument is banning stuff doesn't work. If you agree guns being available is fine, then we agree. I am pro regulation, I have no problem with hunting, sport shooting and so on. None of this is surprising.
How about automatic weapons? Concealed carry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
