In the meantime @meng0 - Tumblr Blog

waterboarding-deactivated201705

See what your followers think of you

Donald = I want you to fuck me Jeb = I want you to cuck me Ben = Let’s just be friends Chris = I think you’re delicious Ted = I would do anything to be your friend Marco = I’m young but I still want you

tunte

Rand = You don’t know me but I’m right for you

#pol #lulz

ltc-kilgore-deactivated20181027

#lulz

I’ll just leave this here, tumblr.

#chris rock #oscars #limousine liberals #liberals #butthurt #TRIGGERED

seinfeldcaps

Kramer: Look at her, she’s delirious! She’s foaming at the mouth!

5.02 - The Glasses

#seinfeld #rabies #tv

Silvio Dante: I said my piece Chrissy.

#the sopranos #silvio dante #paulie gualtieri #christopher moltisanti #tv #intervention

liberallogic101

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

#pol #history repeats itself

black-gyals-deactivated20150721

I’m so fucking done lmaooo

#lulz

redbloodedamerica

null-achtzen

By taxing the excessively rich who benefit on the systematic oppression of the poor working class. It has come up and has been addressed.

redbloodedamerica

So, you think that by taxing the rich, who btw are already carrying the lion’s share of the current tax burden, you’re going to somehow come up with $18 trillion dollars in extra revenue to pay for Bernie Sander’s pet projects?

Need I remind everyone, especially the economically inept, that there is not enough money held by all the wealthiest individuals in this country to sustain our current government, let alone the idiotic plans of Bernie Sanders.

rage-against-the-dying, you are prime example of what Lenin labeled a “useful idiot.”

prettyprettyliberal-blog

You’re hysterical.

I love how you use the one WRONG article as your source, which even the fucking ECONOMIST, Gerald Friedman, who they cited has written an open letter condemning their misrepresentation of his work. In fact, that economist says that Bernie’s plan would SAVE over $5 trillion dollars over that time. In his own words:

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years.

There is ALWAYS spending. This hit-piece portrays it as if it’ll be all these trillion dollars MORE than the Republican candidates, which simply is false… and they purposely portrayed it that way because they know much of their voting base is fucking ignorant and wouldn’t know better.

redbloodedamerica

Attention All Bernie Sanders Drones…

That goes for all you little geniuses like ironicplanecrashes, sosungalittleclodofclay, politicallyincorrectbullshit, malevolantwolf, lutair and any other of you who copied and pasted one of the many liberal mouthpiece articles defending Bernie’s fabricated budget. (Examples: Huffington Post, USUncut, the Nation, Washington Post & Politico.)

Let’s just get this out of the way. That Politico article offers absolutely zero information refuting the WSJ article. None. It is just includes quotes from Bernie saying the WSJ article “significantly exaggerated” his costs, specifically regarding “healthcare savings.”

I’d also like to share my favorite quote straight from the horses mouth in that same article:

“Second point, which they really didn’t get into, is: We are going to demand that the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country do start paying their fair share of taxes.”

- Sen. Bernie Sanders

“Demand.” The sheer tyrannical authoritarianism you progressives let slide when it is packaged into class warfare demagoguery is incogitable. Then again, leftism is all about force. In this case, forcing the wealthiest individuals to cough up even more money…even though they pay the majority of the taxes already.

Now, let’s take a look at what the WSJ outlines as far as Sanders’ budget is concerned:

$15 trillion for government monopolized healthcare

$1.2 trillion more to our bankrupt social security program

$1 trillion more to “our crumbling” infrastructure

$750 billion to expand public high school to grades 13-17, aka “free public college” (A program which funding I’ve already debunked.)

$319 billion to give a new welfare entitlement for worker paid leave on top of what they probably already have.

$29 billion to fund our bygone and nearly extinct pension system

$5.5 billion to create make-believe shovel-ready jobs for youth who can’t get a job because he just raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Also unknown costs for childcare and preschool are coming down the pipe.

The claim by the WSJ is that this program will increase the federal budget by 33% to about $68 trillion over ten years. I’m sure Bernie has real concerns about our current budget deficits and insurmountable amount of debt but…what is that? Oh, he never brings that up? He has no real solution to solve our debt crisis? Well, never mind then.

Now, the real dispute comes from Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, which the WSJ actually quoted regarding his analysis of Rep. John Conyer’s similar “medicare for all” plan. That’s because Bernie doesn’t even have a real plan. This is all his goodie “wishlist” type talk he’s selling ignorant liberals on. The leftist professor’s argument is that by eliminating the private healthcare system we will magically save $5 trillion over 10 years in administrative waste, lower costs and lower inflation. I’d simply ask from the deemed professor is where is his proof? His analysis just throws out a number representing waste based on 2004 study comparing Canada to the US healthcare system. He states that both private and public employers along with workers and even retirees will no longer have to pay for healthcare so it would be a net savings…but is that true? One universal rule about “free stuff” is that someone always pays.

What he’s really saying is that we will not see any direct costs associated with healthcare spending but rather the cost will be spread out to everyone collectively. We’re all still paying but now the younger healthy folks are going to be paying more for the sickly older folks. That’s how this game works. The esteemed professor even goes on to say, “a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system.” Is that so? So, we’re going to replace the hundreds of “inefficient” insurance agencies with just one gigantic inefficient insurance agency - the federal government. That sounds foolproof. But most importantly, we’re all going to magically become a “healthier population” thanks to shifting the cost from the individual to the collective. That makes perfect sense professor. Sound logic.

No, I’m afraid that Prof. Gerald Friedman’s open letter only did more harm to the universally terrible idea of single-payer healthcare rather than refute anything. Bernie Sanders doesn’t even understand that it is the same heavy-handed government regulations and programs that have continuously increased the cost and inefficiency of our private healthcare system. By first allowing the government to make the rules about healthcare then allowing them to also dictate exactly how they’re going to pay for it all, you’ve essentially handed over complete control of your entire healthcare process to the government; and if you do not like the service you are receiving, like at the DMV or water department, too bad. You are stuck with one shitty company for the rest of your life. I pity you if you ever have serious health problems. When you’re sick and upset about the lousy level of service you are receiving but cannot get another insurance provider, thank yourself for begging for monopoly control of your well being.

That is why the free market is always there to lend a hand. If you want to reduce prices and boost patient care performance, then you need to start thinking outside the box. There are plenty of really good ideas out there on how to improve healthcare that require only simple tweaks like allowing everyone to control their own spending through tax-free healthcare spending accounts, opening up restrictions on interstate insurance, and eliminating unnecessary mandatory services like pregnancy coverage for men.

Folks, it’s time to unbuckle your seat belts and jump off the crazy train which is the Bernie Sanders Express. His ideas are not only over a hundred years old but they have been proven to be horrible mistakes time and time again. Vote with your brain next year; not with what makes you feel good.

solitarylikeme

I just wanted to, as a Brit who I think has a similar monopolized healthcare system to the one you described, say the government owning the healthcare system is literally the best thing that could happen. The NHS literally invests millions in making people healthier at a younger age, tackling obesity and smoking, because they know it’ll be them and only them who has to pay for all the lung cancer and patients with obesity related diseases. Also the government is also in charge of unemployment, so is less likely to fire people and replace them with cheaper workers than a private company. So loads more job security. And of course we take from the young and healthy to provide for the old and the weak! That’s just ethics. And it makes sense because when that generation of young people will eventually grow old they know they will also be taken care of. Even pirates had a compensation system, like a kitty everyone contributed equally to and money was given to those injured. You literally have less ethics than a pirate just cause you and the people you care for fall in a higher tax bracket and want to keep your millions despite the damage this does to the economy. John Green explained in a video that services like the NHS, because their monopolized contracts are so huge, actively drive down the cost of healthcare as international companies try to offer the best value for money deal to win the huge contract. How do these companies then make up more profit in doing so? By overcharging countries like yours which are stupid enough to divide the healthcare economy and let the every man take the financial burden of overpriced medication, medical treatment and medical materials. Also, in America, you pay more for consultants and higher level dentists. So rich people have access to better healthcare. In England, you get access to the higher up professionals based on how sick you are, not how rich you are. Isn’t that better? Imagine your mum getting chronic illness that doesn’t go away for years. Wouldn’t you like not to be in debt when she eventually passes? Wouldn’t you want her to have the best treatment regardless of your income at the point when her illness gets serious? Anyway, that’s just my opinion from living in a country with free healthcare. I’m not an economist or anything so I don’t have facts or articles to back up my case. I am just speaking from a human perspective.

redbloodedamerica

Let me just point out a few inconsistencies with your thoughts here:

“The NHS literally invests millions in making people healthier at a younger age, tackling obesity and smoking, because they know it’ll be them and only them who has to pay for all the lung cancer and patients with obesity related diseases.”

The NHS does not invest in anything. You are the one who is investing millions. NHS just takes your money out of your pocket and “invests” it whether you like it or not.

So, with that knowledge, when you say that, “they know it’ll be them and only them who has to pay for all the lung cancer and patients with obesity related diseases,” by “they” you really mean “you.” And do you understand how insurance markets work? They work the same way. Health insurance companies offer incentives to their policy holders to persuade them to stay healthy and fit because it will keep down expenditures. So, your first point is moot.

“Also the government is also in charge of unemployment, so is less likely to fire people and replace them with cheaper workers than a private company.”

I’m not sure how that’s supposed to be a good thing nor is it even factually true either. First off, the government should be paying less to their employees generally because the government does not produce anything in the economy. They only spend money produced from the private sector. So, as a taxpayer, it is in your best interest to have a government that spends your tax dollars wisely in investing in the lowest costs including wages.

Secondly, I’m not sure what proof you have that private companies are more likely to “fire” people just to replace them with cheaper labor. This is a complete fabricated criticism of the private market. Almost every job has a price equilibrium where you are going to disincentivize workers at certain positions because the wages are too low. For example, I wouldn’t be a janitor cleaning toilets for $8 an hour when I could just apply next door at Walmart to earn $10 an hour to be a cashier. The janitor business must compete for labor so they will not drop wages for janitors too low because they need the labor.

The public sector should be operating under these same economic rules, but unfortunately they tend to keep increasing budgets to operate and bad employees stay in positions for longer because they also have strong union protection and big incentives to continue working for the government. Job security is not always a good thing. Of course, an economic illiterate would not understand this statement.

“And of course we take from the young and healthy to provide for the old and the weak! That’s just ethics.”

There is nothing ethical whatsoever by taking something from someone and then giving it to someone else. Ever. I don’t care how you dress it up, this is called theft, you boob.

“And it makes sense because when that generation of young people will eventually grow old they know they will also be taken care of.”

Do you know in the United States, and probably in whatever sewer you currently reside in, the majority of the rich are the elderly. It is the young who are struggling to make ends meet; not the old. But despite this, the UK’s private market is similar to the the US’s healthcare market in that it is primarily attached to employer coverage. So, when a retiree parts ways with their employer, they lose their private coverage. That means they fall back onto the public coverage, or in the US they’re typically eligible for Medicare coverage at the same time. This puts heavier burdens on the cost of public healthcare each year especially as more and more people are living longer. That’s why the NHS has had to make drastic spending cuts since 2010 and it’s still not doing enough.

Because just as Margaret Thatcher once stated, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.”

“Even pirates had a compensation system, like a kitty everyone contributed equally to and money was given to those injured. You literally have less ethics than a pirate just cause you and the people you care for fall in a higher tax bracket and want to keep your millions despite the damage this does to the economy.”

You do understand that pirates really did not have “health insurance”, right? Please tell me you at least understand that much. If anything, they had a very crude version of what would be called dismemberment insurance in which the captain of the ship would financially compensate you if you lost say a limb or an eye.

Again, do you have any understanding of how private health insurance companies operate?

“John Green explained in a video that services like the NHS, because their monopolized contracts are so huge, actively drive down the cost of healthcare as international companies try to offer the best value for money deal to win the huge contract.”

Yes, we’re all familiar with John Green’s terrible charlatan take on the US heath care system. It’s the one where he managed to list as many problems surrounding the United States health care system as he could without once mentioning the government, its regulations, or the concept of third-party payer. How convenient for his argument for universal healthcare. This probably also explains why he’s been such a shill for Obamacare ever since it was passed.

My personal favorite part of his entire incorrect assessment was that he is actually advocating for cronyism in the form of government “centralized” negotiated contracts on drug manufacturing, healthcare supplies and medical devices. He actually wants the government to negotiate one provider for each health service. Just one. If you do not understand why this actually would harm innovation and price competition, you need to go take a simple economics class. There is a reason why despite all the “free” healthcare systems in all these countries around the world, the US still leads in strides regarding innovation and advancements. It’s called competition.

Do yourself a favor and don’t listen to John Green on things that are of any real importance outside the realm of teen angst and drama. The guy is a snake oil salesman and there’s a reason only teen girls flock to him.

“Also, in America, you pay more for consultants and higher level dentists. So rich people have access to better healthcare. In England, you get access to the higher up professionals based on how sick you are, not how rich you are.”

I’m not sure what source you pulled that envy-based nonsense from, but it is completely false. Rich people in America have access to the exact same healthcare as any other person. For example, car insurance still covers the car; not how much money you have. The same applies to health insurance. Some filthy rich people could even choose not to buy insurance and pay for their healthcare out of pocket if they wanted to. It would probably make more sense in some cases unless they had chronic health issues. If you want more options such as access to a particular out-of-network doctor, you will have to pay more for that plan regardless of how much or how little income you have.

This concept of insurance for the rich is preposterous. Health care is always determined on the cost of the procedure and/or care at the hospital you choose to get your treatment at. A friend of mine who had a very high deductible/low rate plan got the same cancer treatment that a millionaire would receive. What is really a sign of how bad government healthcare is, is when physicians are opting out of Medicare/Medicaid.

As far as paying more for better dental care, when are you Brits going to learn?

“Imagine your mum getting chronic illness that doesn’t go away for years. Wouldn’t you like not to be in debt when she eventually passes? Wouldn’t you want her to have the best treatment regardless of your income at the point when her illness gets serious?”

What? Why would I be in debt? My mother is an independent woman. I do not incur her medical debt, you dunce. Furthermore, she gets the same treatment as me regardless of either of our incomes. You clearly have no understanding of how healthcare or debt works in the United States.

“Anyway, that’s just my opinion from living in a country with free healthcare. I’m not an economist or anything so I don’t have facts or articles to back up my case.”

I should have just read this sentence first and saved myself a lot of time.

#commies #pol