|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: President Trump endorses socialized medicine. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 150 days) Posts: 673 Joined:
|
As has now been extensively reported in the media, President Trump was rushed to the hospital this last weekend. Trump insisted he be taken to Walter Reed National Medical Center, a hospital built, owned, and operated by the federal government, i. e., a socialized medicine facility - every doctor, nurse, and staff member has his/her check issued by the federal government. He specifically didn’t want to be taken to any for profit capitalistic hospital. Does this portend that President Trump will run his 2020 reelection campaign on a Medicare for All promise and that Medicare for All will be a key plank in the Republican platform?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Whatever gave you that idea?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction . "~Thugpreacha You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Who Pays? Who pays for the military budget?Who pays for the budget increases every year? The real question is what are the priorities -- war or health for instance. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Whatever gave you that idea? That was a rather pointed joke at Trump, Thug. AIG was being facetious. But since you asked about the real idea of who pays for universal medicine... You and me and the rest of us not-highest class twerps get to pay. As usual. Can't expect any multi-billionaires or mega-corporations to pay to support this society when they control the politics. Besides this is America. While the rest of the world pays 10 for a bottle of aspirin we pay $10 per tablet. It would be politically unconscionable to deprive the Multi-billion $$ medical mega-corps and insurance conglomerates of such profits. So if we want to serve our citizens, we, my friend, you and I and the rest of us societal low-lifes will have to do it on our own. Or, we could change the politics.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sigh.
Those highest class twerps pay something llke 90% of the taxes. And they shouldn't be able to get away with such cheap medicines in other countries since it was the US that developed them and that's why it costs US so much. They need to pay more for what they get from us. Although we could probably find some ways to cut down our costs too. I heard someone on the radio discussing how we could do this recently but I'm lousy at keeping track of this stuff. Anyway, it's just that nobody ever takes into account that it costs billions to develop the new drugs that benefit the entire world. Why should they pay so much less than we do? AND if the Democrats have their way and force lower costs on us what's going to suffer is the ablity to develop the newest life-saving drugs. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But we do NOT invent most new drugs Faith. The rest of the world is as bright and innovative as the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
On the contrary, it's immoral to make a profit from sickness and injury; it should be illegal too. Pharmaceutical research should be entirely funded by government. And they shouldn't be able to get away with such cheap medicines in other countries since it was the US that developed them and that's why it costs US so much. They need to pay more for what they get from us."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I guess you missed the massive price hikes on established drugs. E.g The Turing Pharmaceuticals scandal. Turing - a company registered in Switzerland, bought rights to an old drug and raised the price from $13.50 a tablet to $750. I think the development costs on a drug that has been around for more than 60 years have been paid off. The price hike on epipens was pretty bad, too. The drug companies shouldn’t be allowed to get away with these tactics, and it’s the US system that lets them do it. Don’t demand that those of us with more cost-effective systems should be subject to the same nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Those highest class twerps pay something llke 90% of the taxes.
Show your math.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Those highest class twerps pay something llke 90% of the taxes. Used to, but no longer. Here is a graph of the top income tax bracket from 1912 to 2008:
The last time that "those highest class twerps" paid anywhere close to 90% was in 1963 at the end of fourteen years of a top tax rate of 91% (glossing over two years at 92%). That's also not including the only other time that the top tax rate exceeded 90% (94% during WWII in 1944 and 1945, up from 88% in the previous two war years). And corporate tax rates are normally much lower. Someone will point out that the actual amount that the richest paid was less because of all the tax breaks and loopholes that they used, but that does not change the fact that those were the only times when the richest could have been on the hook for 90% in taxes. With the subsequent much lower top rates, their effective taxes after tax breaks and loopholes would have been even lower, not higher. Also note that that was from 1950 to 1963, thus including the entirety of the the 50's, that golden age of economic growth and prosperity which is the only period of time that could be what MAGA-heads are dreaming about. And what made it so prosperous? A top income tax rate of 91% perhaps? We can see historical patterns in that graph. In the 20's with its growing income inequality and rampant shady speculative "investing" that ended in economic disaster, the Great Depression, the top rate was a measly 25%. That was raised to 63% in 1932 and then to 79% in 1936 to pull our economy out of that pit and to finance our recovery. Then of course the rate went up during WWII and then dropped about ten points to 82% in the second half of that decade when WWII ended. The increase to 91% in 1950 coincides with the Korean War and the start of the Cold War and the rate remained at 91% throughout the 50's as we built up our infrastructure. I can't think of what caused the precipitous drop in 1963/1964 to 70% during LBJ's administration. It blipped up to 77% at the height of the Vietnam War and then dropped back down to 70% until Reagan. In 1982 the rate dropped to 50% and then again down to 50% in 1988. I remember Reagan's great "Tax Cut" all too well. As a middle class taxpayer (software engineer with a two-income family where we were doing slightly better than struggling to get by), that "tax cut" had me owing about twice as much in income tax and everybody I talked to had the same experience. As a result, every time Republicans talk about "tax cuts", I get very nervous -- just look at the GOP's recent Tax Scam that they want the vanishing middle class to pay for. Reality bites, Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Regardless of the dubiousness of this claim ...
Those highest class twerps pay something llke 90% of the taxes. My take? If they make 99% of the profits they should pay 99% of the taxes. Those who benefit the most should pay the most to support the economy that allows them to benefit the most. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined:
|
It is possible that the 90 % refers to the total amount paid by a particular group. It is possible for the highest tax rate to be only 50% and that group in the bracket to pay a much higher percentage of the total amount.
However, the challenge with balancing the budget by "taxing the 1%" is that there are (by definition) too few of them.It seems that they paid 37 % of taxes and the top 10 % paid 70 % of taxes. Not 90 % but once Faith said 90 % we knew it was wrong because she hasn't had a right number ever. You'd have to define "twerps" before you could calculate the amount they pay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
OK, I see that interpretation.
The problem with understanding Faith is that she routinely spouts so much crazed nonsense that it's nearly impossible to figure out what she's talking about. Therefore, on those rare occasions when she makes a valid point, it gets lost in the noise generated by the rest of her output.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Faith writes: Anyway, it's just that nobody ever takes into account that it costs billions to develop the new drugs that benefit the entire world. Most pharma companies spend more on advertising than they do on R&D:
Faith writes: Why should they pay so much less than we do? They pay less because they have socialized medicine where they can leverage the entire population to buy in bulk. That is one of the massive advantages of socialized medicine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024