The Thread for Democratic Socialists/AOC watch with 24/7 AOC updates

[Dugout DickStone]

If your name is "David Roth" and you don't have "Lee" in the middle I can't be bothered

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Not sure if you knew this FSD but Trump just authorized a ton of government healthcare spending not very long ago.

Cool story, bruh

[Rage Against the McKee]

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/1024238486541484032

[star seed 7]

They didn't even mention saving 300 billion a year vs the status quo

[wetwillie]

I can understand why the handful of people that have access to top notch plans would be against it, but it’s got to be like 10% or less of the population.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.

[catastrophe]

Our healthcare system is so messed up, I’m generally in favor of blowing it up and starting over even if we don’t end up doing single payer. Although that does sound like the fiscally responsible option.

[Kat Kid]

They didn't even mention saving 300 billion a year vs the status quo

I think it was closer to $2 Trillion

[8manpick]

If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.

I think it will eventually lead to government forced prevention of unhealthy or risky activities, which I find far more problematic than the cost.  The moment where we are coming up short of funds and some research says that we could save $500 billion a year in medical costs by banning {unicycling} is the moment where {unicycling} is banned and the degradation of our freedoms marches on.  Hooray nanny state.

[michigancat]

If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.

I think it will eventually lead to government forced prevention of unhealthy or risky activities, which I find far more problematic than the cost.  The moment where we are coming up short of funds and some research says that we could save $500 billion a year in medical costs by banning {unicycling} is the moment where {unicycling} is banned and the degradation of our freedoms marches on.  Hooray nanny state.

you mean like helmet laws?

But honestly what are some real examples of this in countries with nationalized health care? Where is {unicycling} banned?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I could see a portion of the cost being paid for with a tax on sugar/hfcs or something. That really wouldn't bother me.

[8manpick]

If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.

I think it will eventually lead to government forced prevention of unhealthy or risky activities, which I find far more problematic than the cost.  The moment where we are coming up short of funds and some research says that we could save $500 billion a year in medical costs by banning {unicycling} is the moment where {unicycling} is banned and the degradation of our freedoms marches on.  Hooray nanny state.

you mean like helmet laws?

But honestly what are some real examples of this in countries with nationalized health care? Where is {unicycling} banned?

Helmet laws are a great example, as are trans fats bans -- activities in which the only person at direct risk is the one partaking in the activity.   We have added these laws as a direct result of the financial entanglements brought about by our medical insurance system.  While a regrettable result, I don't think that is a good reason to limit a person's choice.

I don't know if there are similar examples in other countries to be honest, and I'm resigned to single payer being our best of many bad options at this point.  I worry about the consequences and think that such a move will accelerate those limits on our freedom to do whatever we feel like doing. 

I also think that consenting adults should be able to have a duel to settle disputes if they so desire, and I believe that "sin taxes" are as immoral as the moniker suggests, so I understand I'm at an extreme.

[catastrophe]

I feel like a lot of people worried about the consequences of “socializing” healthcare don’t understand how much the government is currently involved and how crappy of a piecemeal job it’s doing. (Not responding to anything Tom said.)

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.

I think it will eventually lead to government forced prevention of unhealthy or risky activities, which I find far more problematic than the cost.  The moment where we are coming up short of funds and some research says that we could save $500 billion a year in medical costs by banning {unicycling} is the moment where {unicycling} is banned and the degradation of our freedoms marches on.  Hooray nanny state.

you mean like helmet laws?

But honestly what are some real examples of this in countries with nationalized health care? Where is {unicycling} banned?

Helmet laws are a great example, as are trans fats bans -- activities in which the only person at direct risk is the one partaking in the activity.   We have added these laws as a direct result of the financial entanglements brought about by our medical insurance system.  While a regrettable result, I don't think that is a good reason to limit a person's choice.

I don't know if there are similar examples in other countries to be honest, and I'm resigned to single payer being our best of many bad options at this point.  I worry about the consequences and think that such a move will accelerate those limits on our freedom to do whatever we feel like doing. 

I also think that consenting adults should be able to have a duel to settle disputes if they so desire, and I believe that "sin taxes" are as immoral as the moniker suggests, so I understand I'm at an extreme.

I think revenue from sin taxes should go toward programs that help cover the cost to society of the item being taxed. Tax revenue from cigarettes should go to cancer research, public awareness, etc. It only makes sense that sugar get taxed to help pay for healthcare, when most of our healthcare cost is related to obesity. I disagree with raising sin taxes to cover problems with general government funding issues, though.

[michigancat]

If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.

I think it will eventually lead to government forced prevention of unhealthy or risky activities, which I find far more problematic than the cost.  The moment where we are coming up short of funds and some research says that we could save $500 billion a year in medical costs by banning {unicycling} is the moment where {unicycling} is banned and the degradation of our freedoms marches on.  Hooray nanny state.

you mean like helmet laws?

But honestly what are some real examples of this in countries with nationalized health care? Where is {unicycling} banned?

Helmet laws are a great example, as are trans fats bans -- activities in which the only person at direct risk is the one partaking in the activity.   We have added these laws as a direct result of the financial entanglements brought about by our medical insurance system.  While a regrettable result, I don't think that is a good reason to limit a person's choice.

I don't know if there are similar examples in other countries to be honest, and I'm resigned to single payer being our best of many bad options at this point.  I worry about the consequences and think that such a move will accelerate those limits on our freedom to do whatever we feel like doing. 

I also think that consenting adults should be able to have a duel to settle disputes if they so desire, and I believe that "sin taxes" are as immoral as the moniker suggests, so I understand I'm at an extreme.

well, if you come across any real examples in a country with socialized medicine, let me know.

At a high level, I'm also against "sin taxes", FWIW

[8manpick]

I think revenue from sin taxes should go toward programs that help cover the cost to society of the item being taxed. Tax revenue from cigarettes should go to cancer research, public awareness, etc. It only makes sense that sugar get taxed to help pay for healthcare, when most of our healthcare cost is related to obesity. I disagree with raising sin taxes to cover problems with general government funding issues, though.

I mean, that would be an improvement I suppose.  I disagree with their existence on a fundamental level though.  I probably shouldn't post at all in The Thread for Democratic Socialists if I expect to get any agreement on much.

[michigancat]

8manpick I think a good way to make sure we don't have a sin tax is to insist it be applied to fine wine and high end scotch and craft beer. No way in hell white people would accept it if framed in that context.

also I think sin taxes for food are especially wrong. Not everyone can afford, much less have easy access to places like Whole Foods. But that's probably an entirely different discussion.

[Rage Against the McKee]

8manpick I think a good way to make sure we don't have a sin tax is to insist it be applied to fine wine and high end scotch and craft beer. No way in hell white people would accept it if framed in that context.

also I think sin taxes for food are especially wrong. Not everyone can afford, much less have easy access to places like Whole Foods. But that's probably an entirely different discussion.

You don't have to go to whole foods to find groceries that aren't twinkies and soda.

[8manpick]

8manpick I think a good way to make sure we don't have a sin tax is to insist it be applied to fine wine and high end scotch and craft beer. No way in hell white people would accept it if framed in that context.

also I think sin taxes for food are especially wrong. Not everyone can afford, much less have easy access to places like Whole Foods. But that's probably an entirely different discussion.

I know this isn't your point but it already is applied to those things.  The class, color and creed of the affected has no connection to my interpretation of the immorality of the tax.

[Kat Kid]

I think there is lots of evidence that Seatbelt laws have saved more lives than just about anything people could come up with. Smoking laws are probably not far behind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I feel like a lot of people worried about the consequences of “socializing” healthcare don’t understand how much the government is currently involved and how crappy of a piecemeal job it’s doing. (Not responding to anything Tom said.)

This is why people oppose it. Our government delivers nothing but the worst services imaginable, and nobody wants to sit in a waiting dying while some bad person takes his collectively bargained 1 hour lunch break.

[michigancat]

8manpick I think a good way to make sure we don't have a sin tax is to insist it be applied to fine wine and high end scotch and craft beer. No way in hell white people would accept it if framed in that context.

also I think sin taxes for food are especially wrong. Not everyone can afford, much less have easy access to places like Whole Foods. But that's probably an entirely different discussion.

I know this isn't your point but it already is applied to those things.  The class, color and creed of the affected has no connection to my interpretation of the immorality of the tax.

Perhaps, but it's tied to most people's interpretation of the immortality.

[8manpick]

8manpick I think a good way to make sure we don't have a sin tax is to insist it be applied to fine wine and high end scotch and craft beer. No way in hell white people would accept it if framed in that context.

also I think sin taxes for food are especially wrong. Not everyone can afford, much less have easy access to places like Whole Foods. But that's probably an entirely different discussion.

I know this isn't your point but it already is applied to those things.  The class, color and creed of the affected has no connection to my interpretation of the immorality of the tax.

Perhaps, but it's tied to most people's interpretation of the immortality.

I did phrase that somewhat wrong.  I think sin taxes targeting anyone are immoral.  I think sin taxes specifically targeting the poor (i.e. tobacco in 2018) are worse than neutral targeting.

[Kat Kid]

I feel like a lot of people worried about the consequences of “socializing” healthcare don’t understand how much the government is currently involved and how crappy of a piecemeal job it’s doing. (Not responding to anything Tom said.)

This is why people oppose it. Our government delivers nothing but the worst services imaginable, and nobody wants to sit in a waiting dying while some bad person takes his collectively bargained 1 hour lunch break.

You probably are dumb enough to actually think this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yeah, I was really going out on a ledge stating the government is inefficient and wasteful.