Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


(1)
Message 46 of 440 (610336)
03-29-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:18 AM


Re: Socialism?
Coyote writes:
Right up to the point where you have to wait six months to a year for a procedure that you can now get in weeks.
I am always amazed at how ill-informed some people can be about public health care...
Let me tell you a little story... (I'm from belgium, we have health care)
Last year, I had a bad case of Spinatus Tendonitis. This is basicly a tendon in the shoulder that's being damaged.
I'm a drummer, so that was a big problem.
I went to my housedoc on tuesday night. He refered me to a specialist and made me an appointment the very next day for MRI and radio scans, thus on wednesday.
6 days later, on tuesday, I went to see the surgeon who by then had the results. I went into surgery 2 days later on thursday. 6 months to a year? What are you talking about? From the moment I went to my house doctor till I went into surgery was like 10 days...
I was at home (on paid sick leave) for 3 weeks after the surgery.
1 week after surgery, revalidation therapy started. I did 2 series of 20 sessions (thus 40 in total).
And off course... guess what this costed me...
To summarise:
- housedoc visit
- MRI and radio scans
- 2 independent surgeon opinions
- surgery
- follow up visit with performing surgeon
- housedoc visit to remove threads
- 40 physiotherapy sessions
... exactly 125 euro. TOTAL.
The more aggressive the socialism, the more poorly it works.
Extremes are never good. Socialism without moderation turns into forms of communism. Capitalism without moderation turns into... well... america. LOL!
That's only half a joke to be honest.
You need to find a good balance. Contrary to popular belief in your circles, a social health plan will not turn your country into soviet russia. Not even by a long shot.
And the request by Chavez for people to cut back on calories? Argentina used to be a very productive country, now it serves as a lesson in socialist economy--for those who can learn from such lessons.
Comparing Chavez with the secular democracies of Western Europe? Really?
That doesn't even deserve a response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:18 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2011 12:46 PM ScientificBob has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 440 (610361)
03-29-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Socialism?
Michael Moore told me that.
Also, he's fat. That's all the proof a conservative needs against the arguments in "Sicko."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:45 AM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 440 (610362)
03-29-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
03-28-2011 11:34 PM


Re: Socialism?
No one is recommending a planned economy, or complete socialism, so you really need to stop creating fantasies and alleging they were suggested by others.
Just as with governance itself, there needs to be a system of checks and balances. As Teddy Roosevelt said, the private rights end where the public rights begin.
Systems that use a judicious mixture of capitalism and socialism exist, and seem to work pretty well, better in fact than the US in many ways.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 03-28-2011 11:34 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 49 of 440 (610367)
03-29-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:14 AM


Re: Socialism?
How about the politicians who passed legislation requiring banks to give loans to any warm body in the name of "diversity?"
I guarantee that you can not back this bullshit up with facts. Also, those programs did not cause the bank meltdowns. Unless you can show evidence of that, then it is all bullshit. Do you actually know anything about the community reinvestment act? Do you know about the predatory lending practices lots of banks used to take advantage of this?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:14 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 50 of 440 (610368)
03-29-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:45 AM


Communism, socialism, chavez, cuba? what next
No wonder you want the coffeehouse shut down. You can not make an intelligent argument on politics. All we see in you posts on politics is your wingnuttery and lame rethug talking points. You might want to actually look at the real facts.
Beck lies and Fox is propaganda. I suggest you expand your sources of news and information.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:45 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 51 of 440 (610369)
03-29-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:18 AM


Re: Socialism?
Argentina? Chavez? WTF.
You might want to at least get the country right. I do not think Argentina is socialist.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:18 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 52 of 440 (610377)
03-29-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:18 AM


Re: Socialism?
The United States is the only First World nation without universal health care.
THE ONLY ONE.
In any other first-world nation, if you get sick, you're covered. Not all of them are single payer, but all of them have coverage.
No other first-world nation in the world uses the American model of healthcare.
Does this mean that you consider every other first-world nation in the world to be socialist? Are Canada, England, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and others all socialist hellholes?
Here's a clue - the United States has a lower average life expectancy, a higher infant mortality rate and a lower average standard of living than those countries.
What does that mean to you, Coyote?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:18 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 03-29-2011 1:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 440 (610378)
03-29-2011 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
03-29-2011 12:45 AM


O Canada!
Moving to Canada for their health care?
OK, let's look at Canada, shall we?
They have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US.
They have universal coverage. The US, not so much.
Let's look at what it costs them. (These figures are from 2005). In U.S. dollars, per capita costs are $6350 for Americans, $3430 for Canadians. That's 9.7% of Canadian GDP against 15.2% of American GDP.
It should be born in mind that here and elsewhere when I talk of per capita costs, I'm not talking about costs per capita of people who are actually benefiting from the spending, but per citizen whether they're covered or not.
31.0% of health care expenditure in the US is on administration, as against 16.7% in Canada. One can only imagine the economic effect if that money was freed up to do something useful. If we could reduce our spending on red tape alone to "socialist" levels, that would be over 2% of our gross domestic product that could be spent on something other than moving bits of paper around. But wait! The only good way to stimulate the economy is tax cuts for the rich. I was forgetting.
And here's the real kicker. Government per capita costs in Canada are $2402. And in the US, $2862.
Yes, you read that right. The US government spends more per citizen on propping up our shoddy system of Potemkin capitalism then the Canadian government spends on their universal health care. And this for no better reason than that people like you can congratulate yourselves on not having a "socialist" system. But is that proud boast really worth paying higher taxes for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 12:45 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 440 (610380)
03-29-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ScientificBob
03-29-2011 7:39 AM


Re: Socialism?
And off course... guess what this costed me...
To summarise:
- housedoc visit
- MRI and radio scans
- 2 independent surgeon opinions
- surgery
- follow up visit with performing surgeon
- housedoc visit to remove threads
- 40 physiotherapy sessions
... exactly 125 euro. TOTAL.
Ah, but you're overlooking the hidden costs in terms of taxation. After all, the Belgian government spends US $2465 per capita on healthcare, which is taken out of the taxpayers' pockets, whereas the US government ...
... oh, wait, it spends $400 more than that.
But at least in the US not everyone is covered. That would be socialism. In America you might be paying more taxes, but at least there'd be a fair chance that you wouldn't be eligible for any actual medical treatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ScientificBob, posted 03-29-2011 7:39 AM ScientificBob has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 440 (610388)
03-29-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rahvin
03-29-2011 12:33 PM


What is it Good For...?
Here's a clue - the United States has a lower average life expectancy, a higher infant mortality rate and a lower average standard of living than those countries.
What does that mean to you, Coyote?
I think it's pretty obvious...
We must decrease the quality of living in the U.S.; that's easily done through legislation.
We must decrease the quality of living in other countries; that's easily done through bombing the fuck out of them.
We do this, because we know that once the world is a desolate shithole not even fit to be lived in by field mice, then...
JESUS WILL RETURN!
Hot damn! I can't wait!

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 03-29-2011 12:33 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 03-29-2011 7:10 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 56 of 440 (610421)
03-29-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jon
03-29-2011 1:15 PM


Re: What is it Good For...?
So far there has been only one example of how the Republican platform will help the middle class. By lowering taxes for the rich and doing away with social programs those of us in the middle class don't have to listen to the rich complain about taxes.
Are there any other benefits that can be cited?
ABE: I don't know why I linked this to Jon's message. Just ignore the reply chain.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 03-29-2011 1:15 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 12:54 PM Taq has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 440 (610497)
03-30-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
03-29-2011 7:10 PM


Re: What is it Good For...?
So far there has been only one example of how the Republican platform will help the middle class. By lowering taxes for the rich and doing away with social programs those of us in the middle class don't have to listen to the rich complain about taxes.
Are there any other benefits that can be cited?
Only if you completely change your own internal goals and priorities.
What I find particularly disappointing is how little the Democrat platform actually seeks to help the middle class. They're definitely better than the Republicans, don't get me wrong, but neither party seems to be overly interested by the fact the General Electric this year will pay a total tax of $0, or the fact that a removal of the cap on Social Security taxes would immediately make SS solvent for the foreseeable future, etc. Nobody wants to talk about cutting Defense spending so that we don;t have to let our own citizens die of starvation or from lack of medical care. It's all "raise taxes" and "cut programs," but almost always looking at the wrong taxes and the wrong programs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 03-29-2011 7:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by fearandloathing, posted 03-30-2011 1:06 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 03-30-2011 1:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 58 of 440 (610500)
03-30-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
03-30-2011 12:54 PM


Re: What is it Good For...?
Rahvin writes:
So far there has been only one example of how the Republican platform will help the middle class. By lowering taxes for the rich and doing away with social programs those of us in the middle class don't have to listen to the rich complain about taxes.
Are there any other benefits that can be cited?
Only if you completely change your own internal goals and priorities.
What I find particularly disappointing is how little the Democrat platform actually seeks to help the middle class. They're definitely better than the Republicans, don't get me wrong, but neither party seems to be overly interested by the fact the General Electric this year will pay a total tax of $0, or the fact that a removal of the cap on Social Security taxes would immediately make SS solvent for the foreseeable future, etc. Nobody wants to talk about cutting Defense spending so that we don;t have to let our own citizens die of starvation or from lack of medical care. It's all "raise taxes" and "cut programs," but almost always looking at the wrong taxes and the wrong programs.
I do not think either party represents me very well. I have often thought we need more options than these 2 parties offer, and not a tea party, those guys are morons.
Maybe it would be a good topic to discuss elsewhere.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 12:54 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 59 of 440 (610503)
03-30-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
03-30-2011 12:54 PM


Re: What is it Good For...?
What I find particularly disappointing is how little the Democrat platform actually seeks to help the middle class.
Going back to the period where Dems were trying to pass the Affordable Care Act, I remember many of them stating outright that they would much rather see a single payer system. However, they admitted that supporting such a bill would be political suicide which is completely true. Even the baby steps towards a more equitable health care system that are found in the ACA that passed probably cost the Dems seats.
So why is this? From what I have seen the Republicans are able to spin reality in their favor. When you actually look at Republican policies there is nothing that that even remotely helps the middle class, and yet they are able to get a lot of votes from teh middle class. Why is that? It is because Republicans create a boogeyman that is even scarier than their policies. They are able to portray Dems as evil communists who want to force abortions on you while preventing you from going to church. Oh, and take your guns away too. Don't forget that. They tell the "big lie" and get away with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 12:54 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 03-30-2011 1:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 60 of 440 (610505)
03-30-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
03-30-2011 1:09 PM


Re: What is it Good For...?
Taq writes:
What I find particularly disappointing is how little the Democrat platform actually seeks to help the middle class.
Going back to the period where Dems were trying to pass the Affordable Care Act, I remember many of them stating outright that they would much rather see a single payer system. However, they admitted that supporting such a bill would be political suicide which is completely true. Even the baby steps towards a more equitable health care system that are found in the ACA that passed probably cost the Dems seats.
So why is this? From what I have seen the Republicans are able to spin reality in their favor. When you actually look at Republican policies there is nothing that that even remotely helps the middle class, and yet they are able to get a lot of votes from teh middle class. Why is that? It is because Republicans create a boogeyman that is even scarier than their policies. They are able to portray Dems as evil communists who want to force abortions on you while preventing you from going to church. Oh, and take your guns away too. Don't forget that. They tell the "big lie" and get away with it.
The reason is really very simple and was outlined by Newt Gingrich years ago.
The party that is successful in getting a a single payer universal health care system in place is very likely to dominate the political scene for at least two generations, just as the Democrats did under FDR and Truman when they passed the bulk of the social safety net provisions.
This is why the Democrats defeated the idea when put forward by Nixon and the Republican defeated the idea under Clinton.
It is all about power.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 03-30-2011 1:09 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 1:35 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024