View Poll Results: If you could vote on Super Tuesday who would you vote for?
|
Joe Biden
|
|
35 |
16.43% |
Michael Bloomberg
|
|
14 |
6.57% |
Pete Buttigieg
|
|
18 |
8.45% |
Amy Klobucher
|
|
9 |
4.23% |
Bernie Sanders
|
|
102 |
47.89% |
Elizabeth Warren
|
|
23 |
10.80% |
Other
|
|
12 |
5.63% |
02-06-2020, 09:42 PM
|
#821
|
Franchise Player
|
I'm just saying that it was pretty clear that the huge economic gains from low hanging fruit type productivity could sustain a pretty intensive taxation system compared to the globalized marginal return economy of today. We are infinitely more competitive now than 60 years ago.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-06-2020, 10:18 PM
|
#822
|
NOT breaking news
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Go back a few pages and read about my two friends about healthcare.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
|
|
|
02-06-2020, 10:41 PM
|
#823
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
The trouble with the healthcare debate in the US is a large portion of the country is covered by either Medicaid, medicare or employer insurance, the actual percentage of Americans with no healthcare, while massive by western democratic standards is electorally small, so while universal coverage makes total sense and works better than the mishmash system the US has, would undoubtedly be cheaper for the US and probably provide them with better healthcare you are asking the vast majority of voters to give up the coverage they already have in order to embrace an unknown system in a country where if it fails you are screwed.
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 02:31 AM
|
#824
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 06:04 AM
|
#825
|
Ben
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: God's Country (aka Cape Breton Island)
|
Half serious question: Why does the US have to pay for Healthcare?
Why not just run deficits? You know, the exact same way they afford corporate welfare and military spending.
I'm not proposing that they should do that, but no one ever brings up the "who cares" argument that works so well for every other area of spending. The deficit is $900B and not a single **** is given.
__________________
"Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 06:44 AM
|
#826
|
NOT breaking news
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.
|
You are right Consider how many working people there are who have employer-provided health insurance. I would conservatively say it is 150 million people. Those folks don't want to risk losing their coverage plus have their taxes raised for something thar might not even work.
Maritime: the healthcare cost would be 10x the cost of military spending, you just cant print money for it.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 07:18 AM
|
#827
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
Because the money will come from the rich. If she truly believes that statement she should support a flat tax so that everyone helps out.
|
Your comment makes absolutely no sense to me.
Of course the money comes from the "rich", as the money has to come from those who have it and, well, generally speaking, people are "poor" because they don't have money.
And what would implementing a flat tax do?
A flat tax is regressive and would end up hurting the "poor" more than the "rich," so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 07:22 AM
|
#828
|
NOT breaking news
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
Your comment makes absolutely no sense to me.
Of course the money comes from the "rich", as the money has to come from those who have it and, well, generally speaking, people are "poor" because they don't have money.
And what would implementing a flat tax do?
A flat tax is regressive and would end up hurting the "poor" more than the "rich," so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
|
I'm just going off what AOC is saying, "why should we care about how much it costs and who pays for it?"
Of course the rich have to pay and of course we should care.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 07:44 AM
|
#829
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
I'm just going off what AOC is saying, "why should we care about how much it costs and who pays for it?"
Of course the rich have to pay and of course we should care.
|
Lol verifiable, direct unadulterated quote right here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
|
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 07:51 AM
|
#830
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
Half serious question: Why does the US have to pay for Healthcare?
Why not just run deficits? You know, the exact same way they afford corporate welfare and military spending.
I'm not proposing that they should do that, but no one ever brings up the "who cares" argument that works so well for every other area of spending. The deficit is $900B and not a single **** is given.
|
The point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer. The primary function of the US govt (and pretty much all govts) is to funnel wealth from the poor to the rich, so its really important to make sure debt spending only benefits the super rich. Corporate Democrats will fight to the death to keep things this way, they'll even torpedoe their own party if they have to.
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 07:58 AM
|
#831
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
The point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer. The primary function of the US govt (and pretty much all govts) is to funnel wealth from the poor to the rich, so its really important to make sure debt spending only benefits the super rich. Corporate Democrats will fight to the death to keep things this way, they'll even torpedoe their own party if they have to.
|
What are you talking about? The biggest expense in the US budget is social security. Give the socialist rhetoric a rest.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 08:17 AM
|
#832
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
|
Matata, known socialist poster
You realize social security is mostly paid to aging boomers on the backs of the working population, right? In the US, welfare is only good if it benefits me, #### everyone else.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
|
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 08:36 AM
|
#834
|
wins 10 internets
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: slightly to the left
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.
|
Can you provide sources for that? Everything I've read shows that even on good plans, you're still paying a sizable deductible for every hospital visit. And even on the best plans the insurance company will still fight tooth and nail against every claim to reduce the payout. I fail to see how that's better than our system
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 08:46 AM
|
#835
|
Franchise Player
|
Basically the Iowa results as reported are a total fabrication, which is easy to verify given that there were hundreds of people at each location. Whole lot of tweets out there like this one.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1225625500275683329
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 09:02 AM
|
#836
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
Matata, known socialist poster
|
Whether Matata is a socialist or not is irrelevant. He is spouting socialist nonsense that would not sound out of place were it spoken from the mouth of Sanders himself.
Quote:
You realize social security is mostly paid to aging boomers on the backs of the working population, right? In the US, welfare is only good if it benefits me, #### everyone else.
|
Matata stated that "the point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer". Since the largest contributor to the deficit is made up of social security, which does not go to the super rich, I was pointing out that he is incorrect. Your typical hissy fit over boomers isn't relevant here.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 09:24 AM
|
#837
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
Matata stated that "the point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer". Since the largest contributor to the deficit is made up of social security, which does not go to the super rich, I was pointing out that he is incorrect. Your typical hissy fit over boomers isn't relevant here.
|
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-07-2020, 09:29 AM
|
#838
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
|
You'd have a point if expenditures were what was driving the deficit, but it's lack of revenue due to tax cuts. The United States has essentially the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the industrialized world. And even by their own historical standards, they're generating about as little tax revenue as they have since the early '50s. Given the current economic climate, that's insane.
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 09:48 AM
|
#839
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
|
This is all fabrication by those who lost. Congratulations to Pete the clear winner of Iowa and front runner to be America's next President of the United States!
*paid for by the DNC and Pete's Pals*
|
|
|
02-07-2020, 10:10 AM
|
#840
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.
|
Canadian style health care is really a non-starter for the US; I honestly have no idea why the candidates are even suggesting it. But the US could certainly achieve a German or Swiss-style system which provides excellent universal coverage with the option to have supplementary private coverage.
That said, the number of Americans who have coverage that's "infinitely superior" to basic Canadian coverage is so small that it's basically irrelevant electorally. Even pretty good healthcare plans have their warts.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 PM.
|
|