Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Gary Childress]

Medicare to everybody would cost $5 trillion per year. So says AI.

So you're going to change the law so that Nancy Pelosi has to give you her $250 million? And Nancy will sit still for that? That's your assumption?

I wonder why Nancy hasn't already donated that $250 million to Medicare. She could do that anytime. Why not now?

After she does, what are you going to do when, within the month, her money runs out?
Definitely not. Why would I? The logistics don't work at all. And you haven't even offered a plan for how to do it; why would I just assume you had one when you can't explain it?

What a joke of an answer. If you believe it can't be done before even trying it, then don't vote for it if it comes up in Canada.

It's already been tried there, and it's going down in flames, right now, as we speak.

You can try to convince your fellow Canadians that doing away with universal health care is the only solution and will result in a glorious utopia by comparison, if that's what you believe.

I'm not saying that. I'm not proposing to know what the answer is. I don't even think there IS an answer.

But pretending there's one, when there isn't, is likely to create worst case scenarios. You'd TRY to implement it, and it would crash immediately. You absolutely have to have a strategy for implementation, because the costs in human suffering and human impoverishment are simply far too high if you get it wrong. There's no win if you can't make universal health care a) sustainable, b) fiscally practical, and c) fairly distributable. (For example, do you extend universal healthcare to illegal migrants? If you do, you'll take those resources away from citizens, so you'll have to make a decision about that.)

Nobody's been able to do that so far, to my knowledge: certainly, Canada couldn't do it. Norway couldn't do it. The UK couldn't do it. Who can? How did they manage to do it? The world would be much benefitted if somebody could. But the plan HAS to be doable, or its a disaster.

If you're genuinely compassionate, you understand this. If you don't understand it, then you wouldn't be compassionate -- you'd just be ideologically possessed and radically misguided.

So what's the plan? How do you get Pelosi's money?

MEDICARE FOR ALL AND TAX THE WEALTHY, SUCH AS PELOSI MORE FOR IT THAN ANYONE ELSE.

[Immanuel Can]

MEDICARE FOR ALL AND TAX THE WEALTHY, SUCH AS PELOSI MORE FOR IT THAN ANYONE ELSE.

Putting it in caps will not make it an answer.

How are you going to get Pelosi's money? Is your assumption that she's going to just hand it over at tax time? Or are you sending the police to arrest her and confiscate it?

And how are you going to get it to be sustainable, once you've burned up her money -- in a month or so?

[Gary Childress]

How are you going to get Pelosi's money?

INCREASE HER TAXES AND IF SHE REFUSES TO PAY, ARREST HER FOR TAX EVASION.

[Immanuel Can]

How are you going to get Pelosi's money?

INCREASE HER TAXES AND IF SHE REFUSES TO PAY, ARREST HER FOR TAX EVASION.

Ah. The old Socialist solution: use the police and confiscate, and incarcerate. How are you going to stop her offshoring her money or fleeing the country? Just presume guilt and arrest her now, even before she has a chance to refuse the tax?

And what will you do with others who do not pay? Do we need gulags?

[Gary Childress]

How are you going to get Pelosi's money?

INCREASE HER TAXES AND IF SHE REFUSES TO PAY, ARREST HER FOR TAX EVASION.

Ah. The old Socialist solution: use the police and confiscate, and incarcerate. How are you going to stop her offshoring her money or fleeing the country? Just presume guilt and arrest her now, even before she has a chance to refuse the tax?

And what will you do with others who do not pay? Do we need gulags?

The IRS has been arresting people who evade their taxes for tax evasion probably since its inception. It's not a new thing. Should the IRS legalize tax evasion?

[Immanuel Can]

INCREASE HER TAXES AND IF SHE REFUSES TO PAY, ARREST HER FOR TAX EVASION.

Ah. The old Socialist solution: use the police and confiscate, and incarcerate. How are you going to stop her offshoring her money or fleeing the country? Just presume guilt and arrest her now, even before she has a chance to refuse the tax?

And what will you do with others who do not pay? Do we need gulags?

The IRS has been arresting people who evade their taxes for tax evasion probably since its inception. It's not a new thing. Should the IRS legalize tax evasion?

You didn't answer my question. Is Pelosi going to just go along with that? I think you know the answer. She'd be living in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or Singapore before the ink dried on the tax order. So you couldn't wait: you'd have to arrest her and strip her of property, before she could go.

But you can see the point: Socialism requires totalitarian measures, like the use of force, confiscation of property and incarceration of objectors.

And that's why there were gulags. That's why they suppress free speech and the right to protest. That's why they eliminate all rival parties, and terminate democracy. That's why they turn both media and education into government propaganda machines. When much of your population is unhappy with the government's schemes, this is what the government turns to.

Socialism is everywhere the same.

[Gary Childress]

But you can see the point: Socialism requires totalitarian measures, like the use of force, confiscation of property and incarceration of objectors.

If the wealthy evade their higher taxes, then they will be incarcerated. Is that an injustice?

If the burden of taxes is shifted exclusively to the wealthy, then the tax burden can be shifted from the 90% to the 10%, and the poor probably don't have to pay taxes at all. Taxes on the middle class could probably even be lowered. The top 10% hold over two-thirds of the total wealth in my country, and they already pay higher taxes than most below them (at least technically, if their wealth is obtained through regular income). Taxing them more would simply shift some of their wealth to services for the workers who work for them, but who don't make nearly as much as top managers and owners. Then people could maybe have Medicare for all. Worth a try? Yes, no?

[Immanuel Can]

But you can see the point: Socialism requires totalitarian measures, like the use of force, confiscation of property and incarceration of objectors.

If the wealthy evade their higher taxes, then they will be incarcerated. Is that an injustice?

Yes. Because the government is not a moral agency, and often tries to take money that does not belong to it, wastes what it gets, and then tries to use it for purposes that are not moral.

Do you agree with everything the present US admin is doing? If you don't, then you agree with me on that.

If the burden of taxes is shifted exclusively to the wealthy, then the tax burden can be shifted from the 90% to the 10%, and the poor probably don't have to pay taxes at all.

The wealthy already pay the vast majority of taxes that get paid. The middle classes pay the rest. The lower classes already get far more from the system than they ever put in.

Then people could maybe have Medicare for all. Worth a try? Yes, no?

The numbers don't work. There isn't enough money in all the wealthy in the US -- even assuming you could keep all of them from offshoring -- to fund universal health care sustainably.

There just isn't a solution to this one, Gary. I hate to tell you, but it's not going to happen...even if we adopt everything you want.

[Walker]

Tort reform is an old need that would reduce medical costs in a universe created by God.
It’s not likely to happen.
It's not mentioned in the news, therefore it's invisible.

Attorneys are a protected class.
The profession is a voting block for The Democrat Party.
Big donors, big voters, big influence.

Question
Are you saying that attorneys should not be able to defend against medical malpractice and protect us from doctors who perform unnecessary procedures for profit?

Answer
Remember when Obama said this about the “money grubbing” medical profession?
You won’t hear that kind of demonization from the Democrats about the lawyers.

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there.”
Continuing, he said, “You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats. The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.'”
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-l ... y-doctors/

Question to AI
What is defensive medicine?

[Gary Childress]

Question
Are you saying that attorneys should not be able to defend against medical malpractice and protect us from doctors who perform unnecessary procedures for profit?

No.

[Gary Childress]

Then people could maybe have Medicare for all. Worth a try? Yes, no?

The numbers don't work. There isn't enough money in all the wealthy in the US -- even assuming you could keep all of them from offshoring -- to fund universal health care sustainably.

And you know this to be a fact? I mean, you would never pull stats out of your ass just to foil healthcare for the needy. You've done all the math and calculations. So...the wealthy won't just make more money if we tax them so that we can keep taxing them to fund social programs? Literally, all we can take is what wealth they have now, and after that the watering hole dries up? Is that how wealth works these days? So Medicare for all is not even worth trying.

It's funny when I brought up the idea that wealth is a zero-sum game because not everyone can be wealthy compared to another and a wealthy person always (by definition) has more opportunity than a less wealthy person and therefore one person's superior wealth comes as a biological expense to the less wealthy person. Your excuse was that it's not a zero-sum game because the wealth keeps building. Fair enough then, but not true now, apparently. Funny how facts change. Sounds to me like your heart bleeds night and day over the thought of taxing the wealthy. Your conscience can't help it. I guess the poor will have to do without healthcare to keep you happy.

It's painfully obvious to everyone at this point where your loyalty lies. If anything is brought up about increasing taxes on the wealthy to fund healthcare for those who don't have it, you'll go to every end to demonstrate that it'll never work, even if you have to pull phoney proof out of your ass.

[Immanuel Can]

Then people could maybe have Medicare for all. Worth a try? Yes, no?

The numbers don't work. There isn't enough money in all the wealthy in the US -- even assuming you could keep all of them from offshoring -- to fund universal health care sustainably.

And you know this to be a fact?

Well, if what AI calculates is correct.

5 Trillion a year, Gary...and that's just right now, allegedly. Add in some more migrants, or encourage more people to seek out free healthcare...because it's free...and that number rises substantially.

It's funny when I brought up the idea that wealth is a zero-sum game because not everyone can be wealthy compared to another and a wealthy person...

Well, wealth is verifiably NOT zero-sum, Gary. And "comparative" wealth is not the same as absolute wealth. Nancy Peolsi's wealth is "comparably" less than Bill Gates's wealth. But that doesn't imply Nancy Pelosi isn't wealthy...compared to you or me.

Yes, rich people have more opportunity than poor people do. And even poorer people than you, which is 2/3 of the world, in fact, and most people throughout history, have less opportunity than you do. So what do we make of that?

Your excuse was that it's not a zero-sum game because the wealth keeps building.

No, that wasn't what I said. I said "wealth can be created."

Bill Gates created wealth, when he invented a computer in his garage, then scaled it, employed people, and invited the public to buy his product...which they voluntarily and gladly did. The value that Gates created by that method did not exist in the world prior to him (i.e. a "computer" wasn't really a commodity you could acquire). But he made new wealth out of invention.

There's nothing even unusual about that. Anybody who can market a new idea or invention can do it, and anybody who wants a job can be employed by that person. Nobody's getting robbed that way. Everybody's winning. Consumers get a new product they are happy to have, and can use it to create even more value; the employed get jobs, and their families eat; the inventors and marketers get value for their invention and marketing. Everybody is winning. So where is the "oppression" in that sort of arrangement, so long as everybody deals honestly?

Sounds to me like your heart bleeds night and day over the thought of taxing the wealthy.

Put on your listening ears, then. I've never said such a thing. In fact, if you knew me, you'd never even suggest that. But it's ad hom anyway, so I'll just give it the non-attention it deserves.

The reason why I point out the flaws in the dream of free, universal healthcare is not because I'm mean. It's because I'm being realistic. It's because I would like it to work, but if it were every going to work, it would have to work in reality, not merely in some ideal vision we cook up in our own heads. There's no "caring" in mentally-imagining something you can't actually create...particularly when the cost for unrealism is inevitably paid in human suffering. So you have to be able to DO it, not just imagine.

Healthcare must be universal...but also sustainable, permanent, effective, affordable, staffed, fair, available, technologically advanced, deliverable and safe for the economy of the country...all the things you're pretending aren't even issues.

I would love for everybody to have free healthcare. Absolutely. And not just in America, but everywhere. In all the countries I've been and lived, and in all those I'm yet to know. For everybody. But pretending it's practicable simply on the basis that it sounds good to you is folly. All our current strategies do is bankrupt the entire system and end up with people poor, the system collapsing, doctors and nurses in drastic shortage, less medical tech, and people dying of diseases on waiting lists or even in the waiting rooms. And nothing is being done for the parts of the world in which healthcare isn't even available.

So let's not pretend you're being caring, and those who raise questions and point out the many serious dilemmas are only doing so because they're lacking in compassion. Realism is the only true compassion, when the question of how to sustain medical care is involved. If you think people can be healed by your visions of "what should be," then I don't know what to tell you...and them...about what's going to come of that.

[Impenitent]

that was Steve Jobs (Apple) not Bill Gates (microsoft)

-Imp

[phyllo]

That was Steve Wozniak

[Gary Childress]

So, in IC's opinion, taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. In IC's opinion, the uber wealthy have "earned" their wealth, and everyone else has it "easy" because they don't "take risks" as the wealthy do with their money when they invest it. These are indisputable facts to him. This is "reality" to him. And to question IC's reality is to be "unrealistic". That's all anyone will ever get from him. And not only that, those of us who advocate for universal healthcare are dangerous. We're going to destroy society. Shame on us! Living without health care is just the way things are for some people. Advocating for universal healthcare for them is the way of those who will destroy society, and advocating against universal healthcare is the way of the "realistic".

Funny how people used to say that social security wasn't possible, or that workers couldn't improve their situation through unions without wrecking the economy in the process. The wealthy, on the other hand, are like fairy godfathers and godmothers who bring prosperity and plenty to everyone. And for those of the wealthy who are wicked, well, God will ensure that they get their just deserts in the end. In the meantime, those without healthcare will just have to suffer righteously until they go to Heaven.

AND, those of us who speak up in favor of universal healthcare are just a bunch of "virtue signalling" frauds who don't care about others as the Naysayers do. Naysayers are the truly virtuous because they live in "reality" and don't "pretend" to "care" about people who go without health care like the virtue signaling advocates of universal healthcare do. What a strange "reality" IC inhabits. Correction. No. Mine is the "strange" reality. I'm dangerous. I'm unrealistic. I'm ignorant. And I'm a socialist who will bring gulags and oppression to everyone. Shame on me.

I guess that is the way that the world created by our "benevolent" God works. Glory be to God the father, the son, and the holy ghost! Praise God! The naysayers shall go to Heaven, and the "socialists" shall perish in Hell, where we belong. That's just the way our benevolent God created the world. End of story.

What a joke.