the war on poverty was not a failure

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 90
#61
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Their argument is that we have a moral obligation to help them even though they decided to be stupid. It’s what the core of the Democratic argument is. We have to help as many people as we can, but that inherently involves us lowering our standards to living which is inherently immoral and really boils down to socialism.
#62
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
 If Democrats can’t count votes in Iowa, what makes you think they can run our healthcare
You are comparing a political organization with the government. They are 2 very different things. 

American ideology lies on individual liberty, not total government control
and medicare for all would further increase the liberty of americans. It would allow all americans to get medical care anywhere they want. No more being refused because you have the wrong insurance or no insurance. That is much greater freedom than the current system allows. 

And there have been numerous projections that M4A would cost trillions, not save millions. 
Of course it will cost trillions. But that is what the insurance industry costs right now. America is already paying trillions for healthcare. M4A will save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. 

Add in the cost of running a bureaucracy and I’m sure your price skyrockets.
No, it actually massively reduces bureaucracy. The current system has massive amounts of bureaucracy. Different plans and different companies offering different levels of service, different prices for the same service, some hospitals/doctors are covered and some aren't. It is extremely complicated and difficult to manage. It takes a huge amount of staff, paperwork and money to use this system.

M4A by comparison is super simple. Everyone is covered at all hospitals and all doctors. There is only 1 plan to bill to and everyone will know what it covers. It saves a fortune in bureaucracy. 
#63
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Medicare for All, the pipe dream of Bernie Sanders 
#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
All the world, not just Americans.
#65
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
does it though? it would have a tiny impact on you at worst. And the massive benefits that would come from M4A (the hundreds of billions saved, the millions of prevented bankruptcies, the 10's of thousands of lives saved) would counter act those costs anyway. So no, it wouldn't really affect you, you would still be much better off. 

And there are plenty of different ways to solve these issues without government taking over everything. The insurance industry is currently monopolistic, so of course it isn't going to work well. All Democrats do is provide handouts to lower classes, screw over the middle class, and then blame the upper class. You will notice that health insurance became much more expensive and rising well above inflation. https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

To elaborate, poor people get on your plans because they qualify. Middle class people don't. Medicare/Medicaid underpay hospitals, which forces larger costs onto private insurers, and now middle class families get screwed because now they can barely afford private insurance. https://www.inquirer.com/health/consumer/hospital-bills-employer-health-plans-medicare-20190509.html

I can't personally name one thing the government has done in the past that was more cost-effective and efficient than the private sector. Whether it be utilities, roads, or any other function, and going off of that precedent, I don't buy that this will be the case.

this is a pretty constant trope the right makes. The idea that poor people are just lazy. The idea is dumb. There are a small number of people who choose not to work. But the vast majority of people on unemployment and food stamps don't want to be. They simply can't break out of a cycle of poverty that republican policies helped to create. 

I don't think all or even most poor people are lazy. People on food stamps don't necessarily want to be off it, either. The thing is, if I would qualify for any welfare program, I would take it. You are offering free sh*t, so I would be stupid NOT to.

This is precisely why more welfare money goes towards "middle class" individuals than lower class ones. You wonder why people save less or get rid of money right before retirement. It is to qualify for Medicare. When you create these perverse incentives, you destroy the efficient private sector's ability to offer better services, especially when you increase their taxes to pay for the inefficient government ones. These individuals had the ability to save money, but they choose not to because of social security. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/america-middle-class-more-welfare-than-poor

All welfare does is make it profitable to act stupidly and make acting intelligently seem like a waste of time. The private sector would charge obese smokers more for health insurance. That is a good incentive to be healthier. Making people pay more just because they are more successful has no productive incentives whatsoever. You create dependence, plain and simple. When pension plans, such as social security, are cut, savings rates increase. So, the more you increase your program's benefits, the more dependent people become on your programs. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/how-much-would-people-save-if-there-were-no-social-security

this is really short term thinking that is self defeating. It's like saying that you don't have children, so why should you have to pay taxes for schools. Or, you don't drive on interstates, so why should you have to pay taxes to maintain roads. In an extremely limited sense you would have a point. But without those things our society is much, much worse off. Even if you don't personally benefit from some of those programs, society as a whole very much does. So you do as well. Trying to cut them or prevent them is short sighted and counter productive. 

In a hypothetical world, that would be fine. However, I highly doubt that you would never use roads or purchase a product that used a road. Also, unless the government sterilized you and made certain you could never adopt anyone, they could have no insurance that you wouldn't use public schools. So, you should have to pay for those. Education and roads are necessary for any civilization. Those are pretty direct investments. Paying for everyone's bad ideas, like student debt for people who knew they would never pay it back, is not an investment. They agreed to the terms of that contract, not me, and I shouldn't be forced to foot the bill.

#66
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Couldn't have said it better myself. 

Out of curiosity can I get a source on Bernies plan saving billions? 

#67
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Politicians are blatantly paid to destroy competition between insurance companies, so there is NO check on rising prices.
#68
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I’m just happy we got 200+ judges including 2 SCOTUS judges appointed. At least we’ll be somewhat safe if Bernie does get his way.
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You mean we get to keep our constitutional rights?
#70
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You mean we get to keep our constitutional rights?

God willing
#71
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ILikePie5
He will probably try to expand SCOTUS to 15 seats like FDR.
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
And run for 4 terms like FDR.
#73
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
He will probably try to expand SCOTUS to 15 seats like FDR
Damn forgot about that. Pray that we keep the Senate then. Pray for Martha McSally, Cory Gardner, and Thom Tillis
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't claim to have all the answers. But I do know that allowing the economy to be run by people whose primary goal is to squeeze as much wealth out of it as possible is not good for anyone (except for those tiny number of oligarchs)

If the Oligarchs in D.C. can't be trusted to manage Capitalism without succumbing to crony bribes, how on earth can the same people be trusted to manage Socialism? The Oligarchs in D.C. can just directly take a cut without any PAC middlemen under Socialism, no wonder politicians love the system.

It's almost as if the average voter doesn't give a fuck about government corruption, which is likely if most of the voter's basic needs are met.
#75
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
C'mon, he won't live long enough for that.
#76
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Pete dropped. Bernie Bros angry
#77
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If the Oligarchs in D.C. can't be trusted to manage Capitalism without succumbing to crony bribes, how on earth can the same people be trusted to manage Socialism?
no one is suggesting that the memebers of the DNC be allowed to manage it. They are uncollected corrupt polical hacks. But that is why under a president sanders we would also primary alot of the old guard corrupt democrats. 

But they couldn't do any worse than the corrupt oligarchs that are bankrupting millions of people right now. 

The Oligarchs in D.C. can just directly take a cut without any PAC middlemen under Socialism, no wonder politicians love the system.
take a cut of what? What are you even talking about?

It's almost as if the average voter doesn't give a fuck about government corruption, which is likely if most of the voter's basic needs are met.
lol imagine that, if you have your needs taken care of, you are happy. Perhaps if the republicans actually put some effort into providing for voters needs sanders wouldn't be so wildly popular. 
#78
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff

But they couldn't do any worse than the corrupt oligarchs that are bankrupting millions of people right now. 
You have no clue how many people the IRS bankrupted, do you?

Gotta pay for your favorite fanclub D.C. oligarchs somehow, right?
#79
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
It was the clever that made all the technology. 

And the enjoyment argument could be regarded as a tad shallow.

Enjoyment often tends to be a short lived fix for boredom.


Pink Floyd...Money....Great song.

#80
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
while I agree generally, what do you think are some of the unintended consequences from these now, entitlements?

I would say increased taxes, government dependency, obesity, program abuse/misuse, generational welfare, lack of motivation, low expectations and on and on.
discomfort is an excellent motivator.  You need not look any further than people risking their very lives on makeshift boats trying to reach Florida.  Imagine people being that motivated to not be dependant on the government, we wouldn't need much government would we, nothing like the vacuous monster it is now.

how is the homeless utopia in kommyfornia working out?
#81
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
You have no clue how many people the IRS bankrupted, do you?
talk about hitting the nail on the head, bankrupted or jailed.

can I pay more in taxes and have more government in my life please?  wtf is wrong with these people?
#82
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You have no clue how many people the IRS bankrupted, do you?
please find me a statistic that says the IRS bankrupts millions of people. Because that is how many the healthcare industry bankrupts. 


Gotta pay for your favorite fanclub D.C. oligarchs somehow, right?
only people on the right could think that giving people healthcare is somehow a terrible thing. 

#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You actually can't technically declare bankruptcy from the IRS like you can with medical bills. IRS will garnish your wages for life if they want to or you can go to debtors prison care of the IRS.


#84
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
talk about hitting the nail on the head, bankrupted or jailed.
And these socialists still want to pretend they are not Authoritarian...sheesh

#85
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
All politicians and wannabe politicians, wannabe authoritarian. it's the name of the game.

And bankruptcy is the point at which we admit that the system has become unworkable.
#86
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
If by the system you mean personal agency, I agree.
#87
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@ILikePie5

Just in case you were on the fence about medicare for ALL EARTHLINGS.
#88
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Bankruptcy is a point at which the system is allowed to break down.

When we have to admit that realistically, money is irrelevant and that the system is flawed.



#89
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
If by the system you mean personal agency, I agree.

We are headed for more bankruptcies on many levels as technology increases.

There will be a point where you will be one with the system and cease to be human, at which point money is irrelevant and none of your lifestyle choices matter anymore because you are either not allowed to make personal choices or those choices will be meaningless with zero consequences. No personal agency.
#90
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep. I agree.

Though I would regard this as the ongoing process of material evolution. 

At some point the human race is going to have to hand over the reins to technology (A.I.)

Maybe there is a greater purpose beyond the reach of our fragile organic capabilities.

Also, humans are too dogged by the past to be able to fully commit to the future.