Jump to content

Poll time

 

If you had to choose a VP for Bernie Sanders, who would it be and why?

 

If you had to choose a VP for Elizabeth Warren, who would it be and why?

 

If you had to choose a VP for Tulsi Gabbard, who would it be and why?

  1. ARikozuM

    ARikozuM

    Wall Street is not the economy. You are going to be enveloped by bigger businesses in the near future when no one can afford your products and you can’t afford your rent. 

     

    No offense. 

  2. DrMacintosh

    DrMacintosh

    I don’t really like any of the other candidates up there. I’d say to draft Ro Khanna or another progressive. Warren doesn’t count imo given her past and Gabbard feels kind like a wet towel to me. 

  3. DrMacintosh

    DrMacintosh

    I find your incite on taxation and loss of personal liberties to be largely based on feelings and rhetoric rather than any actual substance. @CUDAcores89

     

    I don’t really see what liberties or freedoms are being taken away by instituting a national healthcare service or by ensuring that the corporations pay their fair share in taxes. 

  4. Aimi

    Aimi

    No one, because none of these people would have a chance at winning.

  5. Sauron

    Sauron

    @DrMacintosh I thought you were on the Bernie train? I'm disappointed :(

  6. DrMacintosh

    DrMacintosh

    @Sauron The status update was about Bernie’s VP. 

     

    Im Bernie all the way. 

    BBA6EDE0-6868-41F1-9A09-1B6F28F56DB4.jpeg.d3c4602e19af155b868c4932ce35fb4b.jpeg

  7. ARikozuM

    ARikozuM

    This update did not go the way I imagined it would. 

     

    @CUDAcores89 MFA is preventative and comprehensive. Not having to pay for medical care (except by taxation) means that more people are likely to visit the doctor before something goes wrong. Early screening and detection means that we can spend less on more serious diseases, prevent outbreaks, and have less of another socialist policy (I'll wait until you figure that one out).

     

    Spoiler

    Bankruptcy. It's bankruptcy. Medical bankruptcy is one of the leading causes of civilian bankruptcy, I believe after divorce and debt. 

     

    Turns out it's actually #1. 

     

    Socialized medicine is not slow. You can be seen in the same amount of time as you would in the US. Going to the ER is always the main talking point, but triage happens here as well. You aren't getting in if you have a cold or flu, that's your PCP's purpose. Your wait times are about the same regardless. The difference is that everyone would be given the same priority and opportunity for care rather than relying on who has the best insurance plan. There's also the issue of insurance companies underwriting doctors. There's an issue where there are departments devoted to fighting cases where care is given, but not paid for. It causes bloat and leaves many hospitals, particularly those in urban communities, and doctors without the necessary funds to give quality care. Many of our hospitals pay doctors based on the amount of tests they perform. This makes the doctor perform needless tests for their diagnosis and takes away from patients that may need priority. We should move to reduce the amount of waste in hospitals. We need to regulate those prices and ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at survival. Ambulances can be passed off, or they may deny transport, to another hospital just based on who is being transported.

     

    MFA would be a great benefit to you, as a business owner, as your taxes would be the same, but you wouldn't have to worry about paying for your employees being sick and taking off from work. You wouldn't have to pay for health insurance for your employees by taking it out of their pockets. You wouldn't have to spend time shopping around for the best deals. That's time you can spend tending to your growth and stability. 

     

    Every other industrialized nation has some form of socialized medicine and education credits. To say that the US can't do it is a farce. It can be done and we must. In a time where wages are stagnant and cost of living, education, and healthcare rises, we must provide a barrier to failure. Why should you be allowed to bankrupt your business when it was your fault that it failed. Are there external causes to your failure? Yes? No? Then don't blame socialism for giving you an opportunity to absolve the failure. 

     

    [I'm going to be moving around your post at this point]

     

    Deregulation says that corporations are responsible enough to do what is moral and right. How do you explain that we've had numerous more recalls since repealing the Clean Water bill? What about the bailing out of Wall Street, automakers, and banks? Deregulation for emissions is not sustainable. We give these billion dollar companies money when our small businesses are failing left and right. What could those small businesses be doing? Competing. Driving prices down. Instead we give them floss to dredge them up from quicksand and the rich get helicopter rescues. Those large businesses and billionaires should be subsidizing YOU! They should be funding their competition to ensure an even playing field. They should be paying the same taxes that you do!

    Spoiler

    Or you should be paying less! There's no reason that you should pay 24% when Amazon pays 24% and hides their money offshore in Ireland and Luxembourg. It's not smart business. It's cheating the system and producing an uneven distribution of power. Full stop. 

    If I were in charge, you would be given a 10K credit for the first two years of your business (two times maximum) to ensure that your money goes into the business for fast growth. You'd pay less in taxes as a percent. I'd move to a bracketed system. I'd make it based on US-based profit to close the offshore loopholes. This is what you should be fighting for. Don't fight for deregulation when you can't handle fierce and overwhelming competition. Don't fight for deregulation when these corporations get bailed out for billions. Don't fight for deregulation when they cause damage to your environment and the damages are paid for by your tax money. 

     

    Shopping around is not an effective means to give healthcare. You want to see YOUR doctor, not theirs. Medicare is already the largest network in the country with an effective +90% inclusion (Medicare for doctors and hospitals is opt-out, which means every new and old doctor is automatically able to treat Medicare patients). 

     

    DPC is exactly what MFA would achieve. No more having a third party say what the trained professional and client ask for. You need an x-ray? You got it, he ordered it, MFA paid for it. Need drugs? Same thing. Having a third party dictating what can be done is not something we should have. You claim to want less regulation, but in this case, insurance is the regulation. MFA would also fix one of the biggest issues this country has. Lack of record availability is rampant for those of us that get sick seldomly. Lack of care out of state is very real. When you are out of network, you lose most of your protections. That is not freedom. Having to shop around for a doctor is not freedom. Having to shop around for a hospital, radiologist, dentist, etc. is not freedom. They have no reason to compete when their prices are set low for them, and high for the insurance purchaser (you), by insurance companies. Competition should be based on quality of care, not the amount of revenue you bring the hospital. MFA gives private practice a stable safety net and lets them focus on quality of care rather than just quantity of care.

     

    Malpractice insurance is an interesting route that may change for the better under MFA. Costs may be lower and the fight would be less detrimental to doctors' livelihoods (ability to practice), especially thanks to our suit-happy society always wanting loss of job as a consequence. 

  8. ARikozuM

    ARikozuM

    This is worse than censorship...

     

    Actually, I shouldn't say that. The right wing might actually take away my freedoms. 

  9. DrMacintosh

    DrMacintosh

    The right is in the business of taking away freedoms. Not even the best argument for the left being the side that wants to take freedoms, the gun control debate, has never actually advocated for banning guns. 

  10. ARikozuM

    ARikozuM

    Taking away our guns, with the size of military that we have, is a huge red flag. We need to keep them away from those that would and do do harm with them, like spousal abuse cases, but not from every individual. We also need nationally recognized state militia. Those that will be available 24/7, and preferably paid for, for any and all action. 

  11. captain_to_fire

    captain_to_fire

    I think it’s a ¡Que Pena thing when you’re the richest country in the world and would rather spend so much on military and defense contractors aka welfare queens but wouldn’t want healthcare. Pobrecita!

     

    United Arab Emirates charges 55% corporate tax but zero in income tax for their citizens and yet they have high quality, state funded healthcare to their citizens. South Korea is also an industrialized, capitalist country and charges 25% corporate tax. Let’s not forget that SK is a conservative country and yet their government guarantees healthcare for all. They’ve achieved this through heavy taxation of tobacco products (aka Sin Tax), 5% income contributions, and corporate taxes. Despite such taxation, South Koreans are one of the countries in Asia to have a highest credit score and a stable middle class. 

  12. ARikozuM

    ARikozuM

    Because the "taxes" have "never worked" in any modern country despite the prevalence of nearly third-world Venezuela in modern culture. 

    Spoiler

    And I mean third-world as opposed to the first-world examples of UK, Britain, Scandinavia, Korea, China, and, get ready for a mind blowing revelation, Canada. 

     

  13. Jtalk4456

    Jtalk4456

    elon musk for vp! XD

×