Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Merc14

Let's talk about Bernie

1,131 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

thedutchiedutch

Lets ask the Europeans/Brits/Canadians/Aussies/Kiwis/Japanese who are members on this site what they think of their Socialized Medicine. Lets get an honest answer from " The man on the street."

Is it good? Are you happy with it?

I'm an American and I have company Health insurance, but we still have these exorbitant deductibles to pay on services rendered, and high premiums we have to pay every month. I pay over $200.00 a month for my Company insurance.

I've always said we have the best Medical services/facilities in the world, but, ironically, nobody can really afford it.

Hi Mark. I was born and raised in the Netherlands and currently living in Canada. Back in the Netherlands we would pay a percentage of our wages/salary into the socialized healthcare system. Even people on welfare had to pay into this system. Every paycheck this percentage was deducted from your paycheck and went straight to the government. Your boss would pay half of this. I remember that every paycheck (which was once a month, about 40 bucks was deducted and my boss would pay another 40 bucks for me so about 80 bucks in total per month. People with an income above 60 thousand a year had to get their own private healthcare plan and were not eligible to profit from this government healthcare system. Literally everything was covered under this healthcare system. If you needed any medication for example or surgery or therapy you paid absolutely nothing. Not one penny. This included anything you needed done at the dentist as well. I loved it. Never had to pay a dime for anything health care related.

About 15 years ago I immigrated to Canada and the health care system here is much different. I am partly covered by the government (OHIP = Ontario Health Insurance).

It pays for most basic medical and emergency services. This socialized health care system if costless for us so we don't pay a dime. However, you still have to pay for your medication, dental services, eye care and physiotherapy and stuff unless this is all done in a hospital. So if you want to go to the dentist for example you will have to pay for this yourself or get a healthcare plan/package for yourself and this can become costly. For example, my spouse and our son have an extensive health care insurance package which cost us almost 300 a month and it honestly isn't that great. It only covers about 80% so you still end up paying 20% out of your own pocket.

If I could choose I would go back to the Dutch healthcare system in a heart beat and if this is called socialism I am all for it :tu:

Edited by thedutchiedutch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

People with an income above 60 thousand a year had to get their own private healthcare plan and were not eligible to profit from this government healthcare system. Literally everything was covered under this healthcare system. If you needed any medication for example or surgery or therapy you paid absolutely nothing. Not one penny. This included anything you needed done at the dentist as well. I loved it. Never had to pay a dime for anything health care related.

For someone making like 65,000 how much would the same full health coverage you describe cost them out of pocket via private insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
12654399_10156487355955494_2467392691775477901_n.jpg?oh=39f4eecd22028387ebff722dc2c24392&oe=5739E113
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thedutchiedutch

For someone making like 65,000 how much would the same full health coverage you describe cost them out of pocket via private insurance?

Hi Yamato. If I am not mistaken it was about 200 a month per person. Children covered for free until they start working themselves.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

snip

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

snip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

If I could choose I would go back to the Dutch healthcare system in a heart beat and if this is called socialism I am all for it :tu:

The dirty little secret is that those who are against mandatory healthcare either already have healthcare (i.e. are veterans), get it through their employer or are part of the 1% (not counting the obstinate who are against anything that does not resemble the stone age). That is why during the the last two election cycles, except for Cruz and Paul, everybody who came out openly against Obamacare lost. And it will be again the same this election cycle. That some who did not say a peep (and still don't do it) support bills defunding Obamacare is politicking, they know it won't happen as long as Obama us Prezz so they might pretend that they want to make it an issue (bet a dollar you wont hear a word from them come next reelection).

Now, I would agree with you that a Central European style healthcare (modeled after the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Germany) contribution system would work better than a free-for-all, because the Marks tend to think that if it is free it is worth nothing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

I think most people would... but that doesn't mean that business builders and investors aren't going to flee this nation en mass if the top rate became 80% or 90%.

Out of interest, is any Presidential candidate proposing a top tax rate of 80% or 90%?

Sanders doesn't seem to be:

Sanders proposes a top rate on individual income of a whopping 52%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-releases-tax-plan-nations-rich-recoil-in-horror/#4e7a7f747340

When the incentive to become wealthy is removed then history has shown repeatedly that excellence becomes extremely scarce.

But what level of wealth are people going to be discouraged from aiming at?

Sanders's proposed tax rates are identical to current rates for people earning up to $230,000 per annum. That would be, what, about 97% of tax-payers paying the same rate of tax. And for people earning between $466k and $500k Sanders's proposed rate is lower than the current rate. Obviously the guy is a capitalist running dog.

Can we reach a better balance? Absolutely...

I quite agree. But working out an equitable tax system in a country with an economy as large and complex as the USA is always going to be hard (especially when people who are already rich can afford the lobbyists to buzz in the ears of the politicians).

...but foisting socialism on America just isn't going to work. It is extremely disturbing to me that so many of the youth actually believe it is desirable.

It's disturbing to me that so much economic reform that seems sensible to people in other countries gets dismissed as "socialist" in the USA. Remember, Australia's "socialist" healthcare system costs less per person than America's healthcare system.

It's also worth noting that social mobility is lower in the USA than other developed countries. Belief in the American Dream persists, but the reality is slipping further behind for an increasingly large proportion of the population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Social_mobility_is_lower_in_more_unequal_countries.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

I just want to clear the air a little in regards to Canadian socialized medicine. It's been referenced a few times in this thread and rightly so - it's a socialized system that does what it's supposed to.

Does it work? If by "work" you mean "can I break my leg, go to the hospital, and roll out in a wheelchair without paying a penny?" then yes, it works great.

...but it's not efficient. Not even close. It's a colossal expense and like every other government managed service, it's managed poorly (hence the "colossal expense"). Under different leadership we could probably tighten the screws and get things where they should be but when you're dealing with thousands and thousands of people, with many different agendas and ideas about the healthcare system, there's virtually no way to ensure the money is trickling down to where it's supposed to go. Not to mention Doctors here aren't making any where close to what they could be in a private American practice. I can't confidently say if either type of healthcare is better than the other...maybe a hybrid system of socialized medicine for all and private hospitals for those that can afford it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I just want to clear the air a little in regards to Canadian socialized medicine. It's been referenced a few times in this thread and rightly so - it's a socialized system that does what it's supposed to.

Does it work? If by "work" you mean "can I break my leg, go to the hospital, and roll out in a wheelchair without paying a penny?" then yes, it works great.

...but it's not efficient. Not even close. It's a colossal expense and like every other government managed service, it's managed poorly (hence the "colossal expense"). Under different leadership we could probably tighten the screws and get things where they should be but when you're dealing with thousands and thousands of people, with many different agendas and ideas about the healthcare system, there's virtually no way to ensure the money is trickling down to where it's supposed to go. Not to mention Doctors here aren't making any where close to what they could be in a private American practice. I can't confidently say if either type of healthcare is better than the other...maybe a hybrid system of socialized medicine for all and private hospitals for those that can afford it?

Imagine the Canadian system serving nearly ten times your population with an even more corrupt and disorganized bureaucracy. Utopias are wonderful to contemplate but the reality seldom if ever, resembles the dream.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

Imagine the Canadian system serving nearly ten times your population with an even more corrupt and disorganized bureaucracy. Utopias are wonderful to contemplate but the reality seldom if ever, resembles the dream.

Such is the curse of the human condition. We will always get in our own way.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

- Hillary is now calling out the sexism card to battle Bernie Sanders and has called out the War on Wommen brigade to help launch the attack. I am quite sure she really, really wanted to save this attack for the republicans but Qmark's optimism aside, things must look dire in her personal polling. It will be difficult to make this stick against the republicans since any candidate can run her own adds attacking Bernie for the same thing and only the very ignore wouldn't get the ,essage. What the WoW brigade is saying:

- Madeline Albright - "There is a special place in hell for women that don't help other women." One supposes she supported Sarah Palin then? http://www.latimes.c...208-column.html

- Gloria Steinem - I'll paraphrase - Women are just cheering fro Bernie because that is where the boys are and young girls chase boys. (yahoo for the what feminism has wrought 50 years on) http://www.latimes.c...208-column.html

- Bill "the rapist" Clinton - Sanders supporters are sexist and profane. http://www.cnn.com/2...orters-attacks/

Assuming Hillary catches back up in the rest of the primaries (NH is a lost cause and has been for awhile) does she dare trot this garbage out again during the real campaign? Of course she does but how empty of an attack will it be? Do these attacks alienate Bernie fanatics (especially the females) to the point that they don't swallow their bile and vote for Hillary anyways? Remember, these young folks don't see the Clintons in the same exalted light the addled democrats of the 90's do, they see an old, angry woman who attacked the women her husband had abused, in one way or another, in order to further HIS career. Of course the FBI may take care of the whole thing for us.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

Hillary is now calling out the sexism card to battle Bernie Sanders and has called out the War on Wommen brigade to help launch the attack. I am quite sure she really, really wanted to save this attack for the republicans but Qmark's optimism aside, things must look dire in her personal polling. It will be difficult to make this stick against the republicans since any candidate can run her own adds attacking Bernie for the same thing and only the very ignore wouldn't get the ,essage. What the WoW brigade is saying:

Madeline Albright - "There is a special place in hell for women that don't help other women." One supposes she supported Sarah Palin then? http://www.latimes.c...208-column.html

Gloria Steinem - I'll paraphrase - Women are just cheering fro Bernie because that is where the boys are and young girls chase boys. (yahoo for the what feminism has wrought 50 years on) http://www.latimes.c...208-column.html

Bill "the rapist" Clinton - Sanders supporters are sexist and profane. http://www.cnn.com/2...orters-attacks/

61004993.jpg?1428411381

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

Assuming Hillary catches back up in the rest of the primaries (NH is a lost cause and has been for awhile) does she dare trot this garbage out again during the real campaign? Of course she does but how empty of an attack will it be? Do these attacks alienate Bernie fanatics (especially the females) to the point that they don't swallow their bile and vote for Hillary anyways?

I doubt it...Bernie fans seem to follow him because of policies, not because of any social issue per say. Unless Shillary starts proposing the same things, I really can't see Bernie's groupies changing camps. They are there for the long haul.

Remember, these young folks don't see the Clintons in the same exalted light the addled democrats of the 90's do, they see an old, angry woman who attacked the women her husband had abused, in one way or another, in order to further HIS career. Of course the FBI may take care of the whole thing for us.

This. Is. Key. If any one wondered how Bernie got the momentum he did, it's because Hillary is so unlikeable Democrat voters moved on.

The new generation of voters have no context for the Clintons whatsoever (I consider myself part of it). All they have to go on is what they see on TV and what they see is a bitter old woman trying hard to stay relevant in a sea of faces that don't know her. Of course they're going to vote Bernie - a guy with bright ideas about the future, talking about reform and helping the poor and...

...then there's Hillary "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE" Clinton, bathed in controversy.

"Something about emails and lying? I don't know...I saw it on the news. I'm probably just going to vote Bernie."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Lol are you joking?

I don't believe I ever have seen anyone try to say north korea is a capitalist dream. It's about the farthest thing from capitilaizsm as you can get.

Of course I'm joking. I am asking to look beyond words like socialism and capitalism a broader view of the world. If socialism is a scary premise, define it. What is frightening about it? If capitalism is antidote, define it. Neither of those words encompasses enough to define the society of a country. Most civilizations are a spectrum of beliefs that adopt some individual opportunity and some social responsibility. You might imagine the extreme nature of a society tat was all one or the other.

North Korea falls in there as an extreme example. I would say the form of government is an absolute dictatorship. I don't think it is capitalist or communist.

Neither capitalism nor socialism has internal rules to avoid an absolute dictatorship. It must be the citizens that do that. I think authoritarianism would be the larger fear. Some people may be most comfortable with a strong leader telling them what to do rather than thinking for themselves. They could justify allowing their neighbors to be punished for defying authority. Maybe historical Korean society with an absolute unquestionable monarchy is at the root of Mr. Kim's ability to hold on to power.

The basis of my belief is that individuals cannot depend on the government to formulate their opinions or rely on it to fix their problems. Individuals must direct the government. It should not be an outside entity apart from its citizen base. Government is the summation and compromise of individual beliefs that allow them to operate as a large group with some rules that seem just to individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

...then there's Hillary "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE" Clinton, bathed in controversy.

"Something about emails and lying? I don't know...I saw it on the news. I'm probably just going to vote Bernie."

Which is exactly what all Rep pundits, propagandists and shills don't get. By bad-mouthing Hillary people will certainly not change to the next Goldman candidate or to an egomaniac.

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

Bernie takes New Hampshire!! :clap:

The revolution has begun!

http://youtu.be/PCZWv5U5wJ4

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Which is exactly what all Rep pundits, propagandists and shills don't get. By bad-mouthing Hillary people will certainly not change to the next Goldman candidate or to an egomaniac.

Why, then, don't you tell us why you sthink she would be a good president? I can't think of one thing she has been successful at or that would suggest she can lead a country. Please make a list so we can all comment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Why, then, don't you tell us why you sthink she would be a good president? I can't think of one thing she has been successful at or that would suggest she can lead a country. Please make a list so we can all comment.

When did I say she would be a good prezz? The only thing I said about her is that if I have to choose between her and Trump I will write in Micky Mouse. Just as effective.

The problem you guys are having is that you can't get it together and the problems the Dems have is that there is no alternative to Sanders. That is why badmouthing Hillary will just make Sanders more attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashotep

Bernies promise of freebies will get him the votes, not to mention the people that want open borders, but I wonder if his past will catch up to him, like being a member of the Socialist Workers Party. Also there is no way he will get many of his policies past the republicans. If there was someone worthwhile challenging him I don't think he would be doing so well.

The main thing about Bernie I like is health care for everyone but there are other things that I don't like about him at all.

Sanders Was Delegate for Radical Platform: Eliminate Pentagon, CIA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

When did I say she would be a good prezz? The only thing I said about her is that if I have to choose between her and Trump I will write in Micky Mouse. Just as effective.

The problem you guys are having is that you can't get it together and the problems the Dems have is that there is no alternative to Sanders. That is why badmouthing Hillary will just make Sanders more attractive.

Your zealous defense of her all over this forum, in various threads, tells a different story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Your zealous defense of her all over this forum, in various threads, tells a different story.

I am not defending her (though it may sound like it) I am pointing out how puerile most attacks on her are. Which is not the same. And by running those puerile attacks you are wasting time needed to get into the issues, which at the end of the day is what will decide the elections. Not a dispute about how much worse than others this or that candidate is. I would entrust none of them with the keys of my house (and that includes Sanders, not because I doubt his honesty but given his record he might loose them).

Since 99% of all candidates are financed by Goldman Sachs the "it is about character" thingy has worn so thin that at best it gets you a chuckle from the electorate, certainly not a vote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I am not defending her (though it may sound like it) I am pointing out how puerile most attacks on her are. Which is not the same. And by running those puerile attacks you are wasting time needed to get into the issues, which at the end of the day is what will decide the elections. Not a dispute about how much worse than others this or that candidate is. I would entrust none of them with the keys of my house (and that includes Sanders, not because I doubt his honesty but given his record he might loose them).

Since 99% of all candidates are financed by Goldman Sachs the "it is about character" thingy has worn so thin that at best it gets you a chuckle from the electorate, certainly not a vote.

Her loose handling of highly classified information is not a puerile act, it is a criminal act and demanding she receive the same punishment as others is not puerile demand, it is a demand that the law be applied equally regardless of one's position. Her laughing about a crime that many are sitting in prison for should enrage any American but it seem that democrats feel their politicians should be above the law.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

So you're bashing the guy because he didnt get rich off of a lifetime of public service? Thats some right wing logic for you.

I personally like Sanders. I would prefer him over Hilary. At least he is honest and I am drawn to honesty. I don’t think he has a chance but I like him. That is why Sanders and Trump are very popular, they are honest and not bound by PC. The difference is that even the low information voters are beginning to wake up but they just haven’t got it right yet as they still think that government is supposed to be a sugar daddy and nanny. But why didn’t Sanders get rich? What is wrong with him? You don’t get into politics to serve others. That’s why the Founding Fathers intended that our representatives already be wealthy as they take a term to represent us. Then when that obligation was over, return to their business. I liked what Rubio said “The way to turn our economy around is not by making rich people poorer, it's by making poor people richer.” It should be an upward vector, not downward. So how do you accomplish that? The Left wing is incapable of thinking outside of the box and that is what it will take. You can’t knock rich people down because others missed the bus. You either need to teach people how to catch the bus or provide more bus lines.

Socialism absolutely does work. We've had a postal service functioning for over a century and last time I checked firefighters still put out fires and EMT's still saved lives. I think the key is balance, dont throw the baby out with the bathwater and all of that.

No it doesn’t. As was previously mentioned, the Soviet Union collapsed. The jewel in the crown of Socialism was East Germany. Now all of Europe is following suit, just not as controlled as Communism was. It’s just a matter of time. Russia and Islam will be picking up the pieces. The postal service and firefighting aren’t socialism in of themselves. They are just elements that can even serve a Constitutional Republic. The identifying aspect of Socialism is who is it that decides what is good for you personally? That is perhaps the primary reason Socialism doesn’t work. There can never be balance between Socialism and Capitalism. Where Capitalism is aggressive, it is also laissez-faire. Socialism is a greedy algorithm which is a parasite that takes more and more from the host. Socialism is a virus that needs to be eradicated and the sooner it is done, the better it will be for Mankind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.