"Crazy Bernie" to introduce socialized medicine bill

[Maxwell]

I dispute that socialism is a bad thing.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I dispute that socialism is a bad thing.

Yes, so does 90% of this board.

SOCIALIST FORUM TAKEOVER!!! IT HAS HAPPENED!!!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blue3]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

[Blue3]

So am I.


It's as socialist as Social Security.

Being that... if you think Social Security is socialist, then single-payer is... if you think Social Security is NOT socialist, then neither is single-payer.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Single-Payer involves loss of an entire industry of the free market - the health insurance industry, through all health care being paid for by government - and therefore I see it as socialism. While it is hardly the only thing that openly socialist states do to live up to their label, it definitely and unavoidably opens the door to becoming a socialist state, which should not be tolerated in this country.

[Blue3]

So am I.


It's as socialist as Social Security.

Being that... if you think Social Security is socialist, then single-payer is... if you think Social Security is NOT socialist, then neither is single-payer.

Eh...

What?

Single-Payer involves loss of an entire industry of the free market - the health insurance industry, through all health care being paid for by government - and therefore I see it as socialism. While it is hardly the only thing that openly socialist states do to live up to their label, it definitely and unavoidably opens the door to becoming a socialist state, which should not be tolerated in this country.

Like I believe is the case in the UK/Canada, private insurance can still exist for more elective treatments.

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So am I.


It's as socialist as Social Security.

Being that... if you think Social Security is socialist, then single-payer is... if you think Social Security is NOT socialist, then neither is single-payer.

Eh...

What?

Single-Payer involves loss of an entire industry of the free market - the health insurance industry, through all health care being paid for by government - and therefore I see it as socialism. While it is hardly the only thing that openly socialist states do to live up to their label, it definitely and unavoidably opens the door to becoming a socialist state, which should not be tolerated in this country.

Like I believe is the case in the UK/Canada, private insurance can still exist for more elective treatments.

Yes, that is the case in the UK at least. But I'd have to have some real, authentic guarantees that eliminating the private health insurance market is not the ultimate goal to agree to any form of single-payer.

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

It is a rational argument that you don't want excessive state spending through taxes but you don't have to be so caustic & derisionary to people.

I was curious to know your stand on the following - Do you support Medicare? Do you support Food stamps? You can oppose it, Medicare is supported by like 75% odd or something, there must be a quarter of people who oppose it - That doesn't make those people bad, they just have a different ideology or belief system. But you should be honest about what you believe !

[Edu]

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing. I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country. Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

You see, my faith in you was well grounded. A lot of people talked about how much of a dipsh**t non sing voter was, but I told them "he's going to come around one of these days and become a non terrible human being and fight for everything that makes the human race great" and here you are. CONGRATULATIONS!

[Edu]

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing. I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country. Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

You see, my faith in you was well grounded. A lot of people talked about how much of a dipsh**t non sing voter was, but I told them "he's going to come around one of these days and become a non terrible human being and fight for everything that makes the human race great" and here you are. CONGRATULATIONS!

I'm glad I support your common sense ideals.

CONGRATULATIONS!

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

how exactly are patents "against the free market" - patent holders routinely license patented technology out to other companies.  additionally antitrust suits can be brought for unfair monopoly rights to an innovation.  

You can choose to license or not license to a particular person X - It is within your power. You can charge any rates you wish or can negotiate.

Let us take an example - You (Non Swing Voter) create a new tool to help Atlas promote itself or something, a unique product/technology. You have full monopoly to sell/license etc that item for a period of let's say 10 years. I can come up with that product on my own after 15 days (after your patent) & i can't sell that product to Atlas or other such groups.

And you will in most case charge a price much MUCH higher than what is your cost of discovery with huge profits. The free market allows unlimited competition with no/low barriers of entry to drive price down. In economics, in an ideal free market with perfect competition, you will actually get 0 profits.

If you have a patent & a monopoly for say 10 years, that is completely against the free market. In the free market, supply & demand determine the prices of goods. In a patent, you have a monopoly & can charge prices (to supposedly recover your costs) which could be much MUCH higher than what the prices would be in a free market !

[Edu]

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing. I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country. Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

You see, my faith in you was well grounded. A lot of people talked about how much of a dipsh**t non sing voter was, but I told them "he's going to come around one of these days and become a non terrible human being and fight for everything that makes the human race great" and here you are. CONGRATULATIONS!

I'm glad I support your common sense ideals.

CONGRATULATIONS!

and congratulations on being awesome!

Thank you!

[Intell]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

fycking hell, the fact that you think you make that comparison is ridiculous, as the ones mentioned before are a necessity, and a right, while the rest you know aren't a necessity, you awful piece of shi*t.

[Intell]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

fycking hell, the fact that you think you make that comparison is ridiculous, as the ones mentioned before are a necessity, and a right, while the rest you know aren't a necessity, you awful piece of shi*t.

food and clothing isn't a necessity?  sorry you can't make a coherent argument without using curse words.

I said the ones mentioned before are a necessity, which means that government should give people free stuff relating to that, while fycking iphones and ipads, fun electronics aren't, you're making such a ridiculous comparison..

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

We've seen that public schools do not make (or threaten to make) charter or private schools nonexistent. Certainly the government can offer more help to those wanting to attend charter or private schools, but public schools are hardly an industry-destroyer.

For Medicare, many people have supplemental plans that are sold by private companies. Furthermore, the health insurance industry as a whole remains intact. While medicare certainly affected part of the health insurance industry, it does not threaten to destroy the industry as a whole, and therefore is not socialism.

Patents and Copyrights simply protect intellectual property, they do not attempt to destroy industry. Enough said.

[Edu]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

fycking hell, the fact that you think you make that comparison is ridiculous, as the ones mentioned before are a necessity, and a right, while the rest you know aren't a necessity, you awful piece of shi*t.

food and clothing isn't a necessity?  sorry you can't make a coherent argument without using curse words.

I said the ones mentioned before are a necessity, which means that government should give people free stuff relating to that, while fycking iphones and ipads, fun electronics aren't, you're making such a ridiculous comparison..

lol so you admit that you want the state to ONLY pay for free food and clothing... disgusting. What about my CandyCrush? and, you know, every other vital communication enterprise that my smartphone allows?

I agree!

[Intell]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

fycking hell, the fact that you think you make that comparison is ridiculous, as the ones mentioned before are a necessity, and a right, while the rest you know aren't a necessity, you awful piece of shi*t.

food and clothing isn't a necessity?  sorry you can't make a coherent argument without using curse words.

I said the ones mentioned before are a necessity, which means that government should give people free stuff relating to that, while fycking iphones and ipads, fun electronics aren't, you're making such a ridiculous comparison..

lol so you admit that you want the state to pay for free food and clothing... disgusting.

To some extent, yes, and free food is paid for by the state, in many countries with thriving countries. If you think that is disgusting, you have some very warped up morals.

[Edu]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

There's 2 views...

1. There's the broad view that would include Social Security as socialism, as well as most government programs created since 1860.

2. There's the view that it can only be Socialist if it's about communal democratic ownership of the means of production.



If you go with view #1, you'll find that a supermajority of Americans are already socialist for supporting the existence of Social Security and like-minded programs.

If you go with view #2, no, single-payer has nothing to do with owning the means of production.
(And most countries that would be identified as capitalist, like the UK and Canada, have a version of single-payer healthcare.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to Bernie's horrific bill not social security.

Do you also oppose Medicare as a socialist idea? Or do you support socialist ideas for people above 65 & not under 65. So in that case you would be supporting socialist ideas & welfare state for old people but not the rest.

For Medicare, this was the argument - It was called Government takeover, Senior killer & what not. It was much worse - Remember what Reagan did about it? Remember all the jingles & ads?

So in a way you are a part-socialist - Is that right to call?

Yes, free Medicare, free healthcare, free social security, free housing, why stop there... I think we should clothe and feed every single person in this country... Having food is as much a human right as having medicine.  I think we should also make sure each person has access to fun electronics like iPhones and iPads (free from the state of course) because some studies show that such items make people happier and are good for their well being. 

fycking hell, the fact that you think you make that comparison is ridiculous, as the ones mentioned before are a necessity, and a right, while the rest you know aren't a necessity, you awful piece of shi*t.

food and clothing isn't a necessity?  sorry you can't make a coherent argument without using curse words.

I said the ones mentioned before are a necessity, which means that government should give people free stuff relating to that, while fycking iphones and ipads, fun electronics aren't, you're making such a ridiculous comparison..

lol so you admit that you want the state to ONLY pay for free food and clothing... disgusting. What about my CandyCrush? and, you know, every other vital communication enterprise that my smartphone allows?

I agree!

LOVE YOU!

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

how exactly are patents "against the free market" - patent holders routinely license patented technology out to other companies.  additionally antitrust suits can be brought for unfair monopoly rights to an innovation.  

You can choose to license or not license to a particular person X - It is within your power. You can charge any rates you wish or can negotiate.

Let us take an example - You (Non Swing Voter) create a new tool to help Atlas promote itself or something, a unique product/technology. You have full monopoly to sell/license etc that item for a period of let's say 10 years. I can come up with that product on my own after 15 days (after your patent) & i can't sell that product to Atlas or other such groups.

And you will in most case charge a price much MUCH higher than what is your cost of discovery with huge profits. The free market allows unlimited competition with no/low barriers of entry to drive price down. In economics, in an ideal free market with perfect competition, you will actually 0 profits.

If you have a patent & a monopoly for say 10 years, that is completely against the free market. In the free market, supply & demand determine the prices of goods. In a patent, you have a monopoly & can charge high prices (to supposedly recover your costs) which could be much MUCH higher than what the prices would be in a free market !

This is actually generally completely false because the majority of technologically important patents are standard essential and must be licensed under FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discrminatory) terms.

Furthermore, in the real world, few people effectively hold a monopoly on any technology because their is vast cross licensing.  Even little known inventors aggregate their patents to non practicing entities that "patent troll" them.

So yeah, that whole thing you mentioned, doesn't actually happen in the real world.

You are insanely uninformed about this. If you talk about technology, the reason it is licensed freely & priced cheaply because technology keeps changing & becomes quickly out-dated plus it is easy for someone to come with a similar technology with same working benefits. That is just a bad example.

Let us look at real world examples of Patents - Drugs. If you create a new medicine tomorrow for let's say Diabetes, you will have patent for more than a decade right? Look at the price of drugs which are under patent & what happens when the patent expires? They crash & become a small fraction of the price when everyone competes.

And you can check the balance sheets of Pharma companies to see the profits obtained from a drug under Patent vs the cost & R&D of creating that product & apply time value of money & see the returns !

The Pharma/drug sector is the biggest example of a monopoly created by a patent which charges absurd prices but you could argue it fosters innovation & creation of new medicines/drugs.

And I could go on about many different products other than drugs !

[Shadows]

For those saying it's Un-American Socialism... they said the same thing about Social Security.

Do you dispute that this is socialism?

If you (Non-Swing Voter) seriously think that Social Security is socialism................

Social Security has no interference with the free market. We work hard for 30 or 40 years in the free market, we pay some of what we earn to a "nationwide savings account", and then when we grow old, we get back the money we paid into the system to finance the closing chapters of our lives. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also, while completely tuition-free college is not good (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's kids have too excellent of a life already, and it could incenvitize slacking early on since you wouldn't need to think about the costs of a fifth or sixth or seventh year of (undergraduate) college, which is not a value we should want to instill in students), I definitely think expanding federal college grants to the point where student loans would be nonexistent at less prestigious colleges and, at most, $60K/student (for a full 4 years) for Ivy League or similar, is a clearly beneficial idea that doesn't have any drawbacks. This doesn't interfere with the free market (unlike single-payer), and therefore is not socialism. Also, I believe we can pay for this without increasing the deficit - something like this should do it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't public schools hindering the free market for education which would be best if there were block grants & people could chose between a public & a charter school? You want to keep that & military out of the free market for strategic reasons I presume ? I respect your views which are shaped not by "My taxes will rise" but because you logically believe that it affects an entire industry & will possibly drive the Insurance industry out.

Do you also hold similar views for Medicare because it drove the entire insurance industry out of the market for people above 65 & created a monopoly! I am also interested about your views about patents because by that logic patents too created a monopoly for many years & is fundamentally against the free market (but then they also help foster innovations) ?

We've seen that public schools do not make (or threaten to make) charter or private schools nonexistent. Certainly the government can offer more help to those wanting to attend charter or private schools, but public schools are hardly an industry-destroyer.

For Medicare, many people have supplemental plans that are sold by private companies. Furthermore, the health insurance industry as a whole remains intact. While medicare certainly affected part of the health insurance industry, it does not threaten to destroy the industry as a whole, and therefore is not socialism.

Patents and Copyrights simply protect intellectual property, they do not attempt to destroy industry. Enough said.

Fair argument - You idea is that it shouldn't destroy an entire industry & not so much about pure free market in every industry (because patents by design are a monopoly too whether they protect intellectual property or not). Your point is that Medicare has killed the free market of insurance for seniors but hasn't destroyed an entire industry.

Fair point if your "I ama against the possible destruction of an entire industry" is the logic !

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why should our healthcare system be a for-profit system? There might be a benefit to allowing for the profit motive to exist in the realm of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals; there's no benefit whatsoever to allowing for the profit motive to exist in hospital networks or "private practices" or health insurance. With this in mind, why not move towards a Beveridge system or single-payer? These systems are excellent: they're incredibly cost-effective, they're equitable and they achieve fantastic health outcomes.

If you are triggered by the word "socialism", there are alternatives but none of them involve the profit motive. The ultimate goal is to move away from a system where there are incentives for agents in healthcare markets to utilize their market power to gauge patients and to soak up rent money. In reality, there's nothing efficient or optimal about a system where rent-seeking agents are allowed to bilk money from consumers and put into their own pockets.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Anyways, it feels so good that socialism is going to win on this issue in the US but I still feel bad for the losers who are trapped in the year 1997.