Bernie Sanders v. Rand Paul on healthcare
- Thread starter acd
- Start date
Wow, Rand Paul is an embarrassment to doctors every where.. I'm sorry but he is suggestion public or standardized health care is akin to slavery. Or coming and drafting him at his home. Ummm seriously the guy just lost any creditability with me. he jumped right to slipper slop and exaggerations and is not dealing with the issue.
At least Sanders stayed on point. The man thinks people shouldn't have basic human right to food, water ecte and basic human needs. He thinks you should be able to purse them. That's great and all but coming from a doctor who I'm sure makes 6 figures and doesn't struggle for basics of human life. Doesn't come off as having a good prospective on the needs of others.
He is like every opponent of healthy they can't see the prospective of those below them. They also can't seem to be real about health care. He also mentions he will treat everyone but he of course ignores that fact they go into debt to basic care.
God people like that drive me nuts.
I agree with Sanders.
At least Sanders stayed on point. The man thinks people shouldn't have basic human right to food, water ecte and basic human needs. He thinks you should be able to purse them. That's great and all but coming from a doctor who I'm sure makes 6 figures and doesn't struggle for basics of human life. Doesn't come off as having a good prospective on the needs of others.
He is like every opponent of healthy they can't see the prospective of those below them. They also can't seem to be real about health care. He also mentions he will treat everyone but he of course ignores that fact they go into debt to basic care.
God people like that drive me nuts.
I agree with Sanders.
I have a hard time talking about this. We confuse concepts with actual, physical reality. I'll make it quick, and if anyone disagrees with me then I'll go further.
Most people are in favor of the concept of universal healthcare because it's a concept like "If you're sick, you should be able to get treated by a doctor." Literally, though, the argument would be "I am in favor of taking the rich's money and using it to pay doctors to perform their practice on the poor."
If someone is in favor of universal healthcare, I'd expect them to be in favor of taxing the rich to pay contractors to build homes for people and taxing the rich to pay farmers to grow food for people.
Hospitals are crowded as it is. Not enough beds, not enough doctors, not enough equipment. There's not enough to go around. It's a shame that it exists in that way, but that's the reality of it. Adding a ton of new people into the system - people who go in demanding all sorts of tests and who go to see the doctor when they have a cold because "it's free!" will further burden an already overburdened system. We can expect that a system like this will lead to healthcare rationing or LONG waiting lines for treatment... or both.
The answer to the cost of medical treatment doesn't lie in giving it to the government, it lies in finding out WHY it costs so much and eliminating the money sinkholes in it. Making it universal does not make it free, if anything - it makes it cost a LOT more because now you're adding a whole new bureaucracy on top of it.
Most people are in favor of the concept of universal healthcare because it's a concept like "If you're sick, you should be able to get treated by a doctor." Literally, though, the argument would be "I am in favor of taking the rich's money and using it to pay doctors to perform their practice on the poor."
If someone is in favor of universal healthcare, I'd expect them to be in favor of taxing the rich to pay contractors to build homes for people and taxing the rich to pay farmers to grow food for people.
Hospitals are crowded as it is. Not enough beds, not enough doctors, not enough equipment. There's not enough to go around. It's a shame that it exists in that way, but that's the reality of it. Adding a ton of new people into the system - people who go in demanding all sorts of tests and who go to see the doctor when they have a cold because "it's free!" will further burden an already overburdened system. We can expect that a system like this will lead to healthcare rationing or LONG waiting lines for treatment... or both.
The answer to the cost of medical treatment doesn't lie in giving it to the government, it lies in finding out WHY it costs so much and eliminating the money sinkholes in it. Making it universal does not make it free, if anything - it makes it cost a LOT more because now you're adding a whole new bureaucracy on top of it.
Hmmm... and regarding the slavery thing, it wouldn't make doctors into slaves unless the government mandated a certain pay-level for them, or mandated that they work pro bono at times. It would most likely, however, make the rich into slaves because they would have to work to make money to give to the government. They wouldn't be compensated.
As a side note - the rich are bastards for bribing politicians and using dishonest business methods for getting their money. The poor are bastards for trying their damnedest to get lunch on someone else's dime. Humans, in general, are greedy and lazy narcissists.
As a side note - the rich are bastards for bribing politicians and using dishonest business methods for getting their money. The poor are bastards for trying their damnedest to get lunch on someone else's dime. Humans, in general, are greedy and lazy narcissists.
Thanks so much for posting!
Personally, I am in favor of taxing the ever loving shit out of the rich to give to the poor. (Definitely not a Libertarian, here.)
And I don't think that hospitals and medical professionals would be at the beckon call of people who demanded tests unreasonably. I don't see why those sorts of things wouldn't need a primary care physician's referral as they do now.
And you are right: Universal healthcare is going to cost a lot. It's going to raise taxes. I, however, do not have a problem with that. I will gladly pay more taxes for more social programs and health care programs for people. I'd rather pay taxes to benefit people than corporations and wars. I think that subsidies and tax cuts for the rich and big business should be done away with.. and we should spend less on military. Wonder how much we'd have available to take care of people with, then.
I am acquainted with a bunch of hip young Christian conservatives who regard the Paul politicians like rock stars, so I'm somewhat acquainted with Rand and Ron's political platforms.. And to be honest: They scare the hell out of me with their ultra radically idealistic laissez faire agendas.
The way I see it, if these two had their way, the only people who would benefit would be the very wealthy and corporations. I currently work at a place that helps homeless and people in poverty--and let me tell you, business is good.. unfortunately. The reality is that there are people who need services. Whether it is to help them get on their feet or to support them because they are incapable of doing it themselves doesn't matter. Cutting all social services and making basic needs a privilege and not a right isn't going to negate the fact that people are in need... a lot of those in need are families, single women with children--children who have no way of lifting themselves out of poverty.
Oh and in regards to the "slavery" thing, but it's ok for us proles to be wage slaves with no benefits... I guess it's all how you look at it. Libertarians would do well to remember: There would be no industry or corporation or profits without the worker, and capitalism would collapse without a bit of socialism to keep it on life support.
Personally, I am in favor of taxing the ever loving shit out of the rich to give to the poor. (Definitely not a Libertarian, here.)
And I don't think that hospitals and medical professionals would be at the beckon call of people who demanded tests unreasonably. I don't see why those sorts of things wouldn't need a primary care physician's referral as they do now.
And you are right: Universal healthcare is going to cost a lot. It's going to raise taxes. I, however, do not have a problem with that. I will gladly pay more taxes for more social programs and health care programs for people. I'd rather pay taxes to benefit people than corporations and wars. I think that subsidies and tax cuts for the rich and big business should be done away with.. and we should spend less on military. Wonder how much we'd have available to take care of people with, then.
I am acquainted with a bunch of hip young Christian conservatives who regard the Paul politicians like rock stars, so I'm somewhat acquainted with Rand and Ron's political platforms.. And to be honest: They scare the hell out of me with their ultra radically idealistic laissez faire agendas.
The way I see it, if these two had their way, the only people who would benefit would be the very wealthy and corporations. I currently work at a place that helps homeless and people in poverty--and let me tell you, business is good.. unfortunately. The reality is that there are people who need services. Whether it is to help them get on their feet or to support them because they are incapable of doing it themselves doesn't matter. Cutting all social services and making basic needs a privilege and not a right isn't going to negate the fact that people are in need... a lot of those in need are families, single women with children--children who have no way of lifting themselves out of poverty.
Oh and in regards to the "slavery" thing, but it's ok for us proles to be wage slaves with no benefits... I guess it's all how you look at it. Libertarians would do well to remember: There would be no industry or corporation or profits without the worker, and capitalism would collapse without a bit of socialism to keep it on life support.
Last edited:
Universal health care is just another thing the US can't afford. Though I'd take universal healthcare over the wars and corporate handouts any day. Saying that it will make slaves of healthcare folks is mostly dumb rhetoric.
I'm not sure if you tax the shit out of the rich that the rich won't just go somewhere else less hostile to them. That isn't going to help anyone either.
I'm not sure if you tax the shit out of the rich that the rich won't just go somewhere else less hostile to them. That isn't going to help anyone either.
This is obviously a tough discussion to have. I have posted comments on free market capitalism and I've also posted comments on health care.
I do believe that @DrShephard has some very valid points. I also believe that Rand and Ron are looking out for the freedom the constitution promised. To suggest that a doctor must treat someone and get paid a wage that is dictated by a governmental body seems very wrong to me. I'm not opposed to finding a way to get access to services for everyone but not at the expense of people who have dedicated their lives to helping save lives. The truth of the matter is that there are a limited amount of doctors in our system (the US) so there will be a natural equilibrium that must be struck between supply and demand. If the government intervenes and requires a specific rate and demands the level of work they contribute then it is slavery by definition. In every other professional field the market sets the price by supply and demand. When supply is low and demand goes up then prices raises - which helps to find that equilibrium. Why should this NOT apply to doctors just like ever other field of service? Are we going to do the same thing with Lawyers, how about every other field of service? If we do this in every field then we become a communist country. Would you like imposed pricing on your line of work? What if the government said you had to work 80 hours per week and only got 5 dollars per hour? Now, this is an exaggeration but the same principles apply.
@Skarekrow and I have had some good discussion about this. He works in the medical field. I have worked in the medical industry (via IT) and my SO is a doctor so we have taken the time to look at this issue in depth.
Some of the points that seem to come to the surface are:
- Create subsidies to produce more doctors, this will increase supply and reduce price (labor cost).
- Single payer system for universal health care.
- Still allow doctors to operate privately for cash if they don't want to fully operate in a system that imposes price restrictions. I assure you there are people willing to pay for the highest quality.
- Most doctors are NOT the rich!! They make good wages but not at the level of the "rich". Plus, most are saddled with high student loans. Perhaps this is an option, pay off the loans and then there can be a discussion about commitment to a system that demands service and regulation.
I'm in favor of changing the system for accessibility, I just think it needs to be fair for all parties involved. And Bernie is not a doctor. If we were talking about cutting his wages and demanding longer hours then Im certain he would be taking a very different stance.
I do believe that @DrShephard has some very valid points. I also believe that Rand and Ron are looking out for the freedom the constitution promised. To suggest that a doctor must treat someone and get paid a wage that is dictated by a governmental body seems very wrong to me. I'm not opposed to finding a way to get access to services for everyone but not at the expense of people who have dedicated their lives to helping save lives. The truth of the matter is that there are a limited amount of doctors in our system (the US) so there will be a natural equilibrium that must be struck between supply and demand. If the government intervenes and requires a specific rate and demands the level of work they contribute then it is slavery by definition. In every other professional field the market sets the price by supply and demand. When supply is low and demand goes up then prices raises - which helps to find that equilibrium. Why should this NOT apply to doctors just like ever other field of service? Are we going to do the same thing with Lawyers, how about every other field of service? If we do this in every field then we become a communist country. Would you like imposed pricing on your line of work? What if the government said you had to work 80 hours per week and only got 5 dollars per hour? Now, this is an exaggeration but the same principles apply.
@Skarekrow and I have had some good discussion about this. He works in the medical field. I have worked in the medical industry (via IT) and my SO is a doctor so we have taken the time to look at this issue in depth.
Some of the points that seem to come to the surface are:
- Create subsidies to produce more doctors, this will increase supply and reduce price (labor cost).
- Single payer system for universal health care.
- Still allow doctors to operate privately for cash if they don't want to fully operate in a system that imposes price restrictions. I assure you there are people willing to pay for the highest quality.
- Most doctors are NOT the rich!! They make good wages but not at the level of the "rich". Plus, most are saddled with high student loans. Perhaps this is an option, pay off the loans and then there can be a discussion about commitment to a system that demands service and regulation.
I'm in favor of changing the system for accessibility, I just think it needs to be fair for all parties involved. And Bernie is not a doctor. If we were talking about cutting his wages and demanding longer hours then Im certain he would be taking a very different stance.
I think regulating costs of pharmaceuticals could at least be a start to help make the market based healthcare we have more affordable. I take a daily med. In the past ten years, the price has shot up over 3x what I was paying 10 years ago... And there is no generic option because the pharmaceutical company keeps extending the patent.
Most of our reps are indebted to the pharmaceuticals, so they won't regulate costs like other industrialized nations do. We pay the most in the world for drugs and care. We are price gouged to live. Offer a public buy-in option. Make insurance companies compete. I can tell you one way to not solve the problem is throwing people with pre-existing conditions into super pricey high risk pools with long wait lists... or by waiving essential benefits of coverage (ER visits, hospital admissions, outpatient procedures, prenatal care, prescription coverage, mental health, substance abuse services, etc. etc.) The bill that the House has out now, (that the Senate will be rewriting and voting on this week) is likely to raise prices and cut coverage for those who need it.
Most of our reps are indebted to the pharmaceuticals, so they won't regulate costs like other industrialized nations do. We pay the most in the world for drugs and care. We are price gouged to live. Offer a public buy-in option. Make insurance companies compete. I can tell you one way to not solve the problem is throwing people with pre-existing conditions into super pricey high risk pools with long wait lists... or by waiving essential benefits of coverage (ER visits, hospital admissions, outpatient procedures, prenatal care, prescription coverage, mental health, substance abuse services, etc. etc.) The bill that the House has out now, (that the Senate will be rewriting and voting on this week) is likely to raise prices and cut coverage for those who need it.
Last edited:
I agree completely!! Big-pharma is out of control and I think most physicians would agree with that statement.
My SO is a psychiatrist (MD) and has felt the sting of cutting services to patients in that area by many providers. I know this is respective in many fields that the providers deem "necessary and needed".
I admire (and hang my hopes) on Bernie Sanders because his priorities align with mine for the most part. The healthcare debacle will eventually lead to Medicare for all, imo. Trump actually has a few good points. Yes, I agree that the AFA needs to fail; BUT my ultimate goal differs (I think). Sometimes people need to suffer personally before they realize that survival is paramount. People are pretty selfish. If the middle class (the real middle class) recieves the same shitty medical care (or lack thereof) the poor, disabled, elderly (pre-Medicare -- 2 year wait after SS Retirement Benefits, most people don't know that) receive, they will beg for help. Untether health insurance from employers. Have the marketplace, and let it fail. The middle class feels superior and credit their hard work and strong American values to their benefits. "I earned my health care!"
Our current system pits so many groups (or those who identify w. said group) against each other that empathy isn't exactly easy...middle class people just think, "Thank God I'm not like that!"
We all deserve healthcare as a human right, in my opinion. Others disagree. But, if you believe as I do, then the only fair, guaranteed equalizer is throwing everyone in the same pot. Universal Health Care. Done.
Problems:
Many, many, many. Lower quality of care, lack of choice, waiting lists, stringent criteria to qualify for costly services (come back when you are near death), and yes, older people are encouraged to sign a DNR if they are on public insurance. I was my grandmother's POA, and her doctor once suggested I not treat her UTI. She had Alzheimer's, but she was only mild-moderate at that point, and she even went to the mall etc. Her age should be irrelevant. But, I certainly was pushed into throwing in the towel. Doctor: "Well, she's lived a full life..." Well, she deserves to live as long as she is enjoying life, even if it is expensive. Doubt Ronald Reagan's POA was asked questions like that.
So, I don't dig merit-based treatment, and if the government is paying, you can bet they wish to simply "palliatively" treat when they can...but discouraging antibiotic use to hasten death in an otherwise healthy 90-odd yr old mild-moderate Alzheimer's patient....uh, nope.
So, it's tough because any way you go, quality of life takes a backseat to $$$$. But, we're a capitalist society, so that's all cool, I guess. /sarcasm I wish medical care was held sacred, iow, almost as a religious right. Talk of money is considered crass in most churches. Most.
It's so fucking complicated. Doctors work their asses off in school, too....they deserve excellent compensation...ugh. I can't see how any situation is even close to ideal: However, the best possible solution seems fairly obvious to me.
I'm not sure how Sanders would implement Medicare for all. Take estate tax for example: If a massive estate tax hits a family of very modest means who inherited $100,000 from a deceased parent or grandparent, is it fair to steal a huge chunk of that? These hypothetical people aren't even well-off. They need all the money. That's enough for them to buy a home, etc. Their relatives intended for the money to go to their child or children to help them....clearly, this is different from an heir who earns $100,000 a year? Relative value should be taken into account. Otherwise, you're back to hurting lower income people, with good intentions this time around.
Our current system pits so many groups (or those who identify w. said group) against each other that empathy isn't exactly easy...middle class people just think, "Thank God I'm not like that!"
We all deserve healthcare as a human right, in my opinion. Others disagree. But, if you believe as I do, then the only fair, guaranteed equalizer is throwing everyone in the same pot. Universal Health Care. Done.
Problems:
Many, many, many. Lower quality of care, lack of choice, waiting lists, stringent criteria to qualify for costly services (come back when you are near death), and yes, older people are encouraged to sign a DNR if they are on public insurance. I was my grandmother's POA, and her doctor once suggested I not treat her UTI. She had Alzheimer's, but she was only mild-moderate at that point, and she even went to the mall etc. Her age should be irrelevant. But, I certainly was pushed into throwing in the towel. Doctor: "Well, she's lived a full life..." Well, she deserves to live as long as she is enjoying life, even if it is expensive. Doubt Ronald Reagan's POA was asked questions like that.
So, I don't dig merit-based treatment, and if the government is paying, you can bet they wish to simply "palliatively" treat when they can...but discouraging antibiotic use to hasten death in an otherwise healthy 90-odd yr old mild-moderate Alzheimer's patient....uh, nope.
So, it's tough because any way you go, quality of life takes a backseat to $$$$. But, we're a capitalist society, so that's all cool, I guess. /sarcasm I wish medical care was held sacred, iow, almost as a religious right. Talk of money is considered crass in most churches. Most.
It's so fucking complicated. Doctors work their asses off in school, too....they deserve excellent compensation...ugh. I can't see how any situation is even close to ideal: However, the best possible solution seems fairly obvious to me.
I'm not sure how Sanders would implement Medicare for all. Take estate tax for example: If a massive estate tax hits a family of very modest means who inherited $100,000 from a deceased parent or grandparent, is it fair to steal a huge chunk of that? These hypothetical people aren't even well-off. They need all the money. That's enough for them to buy a home, etc. Their relatives intended for the money to go to their child or children to help them....clearly, this is different from an heir who earns $100,000 a year? Relative value should be taken into account. Otherwise, you're back to hurting lower income people, with good intentions this time around.
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,749
- 50,519
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
Ok, let's talk.
I believe it's more like, "I'm in favor of taxing everyone to pay doctors and adequately compensate them."
Ending homelessness and ending starvation are good goals. If they can be achieved through taxation then they should be achieved through taxation unless there's a more efficient way to end them.
Presuming that there is not enough to go around, that can be fixed by creating more doctors, equipment, etc.
This can be fixed by increasing the supply to match demand. Economic equilibrium.
I think that the answer lies in the middle: giving healthcare to the government and eliminating money sinkholes.
A new bureaucracy could theoretically make healthcare free or close to free by making healthcare cost a lot less.
Last edited:
Or more hospitals opening up to supply the demand, and more competition intern lowering prices.
Are you an economist? Because that would actually make you far more qualified to answer this particular question than being a Doctor would.
I think DrShephard died... he couldn't get the care he needed...
*I hope he didn't die. I wish him well. I don't know him. He was here and gone 2 years before my arrival...
*I hope he didn't die. I wish him well. I don't know him. He was here and gone 2 years before my arrival...