Reuters Poll: 70 Percent Support Single Payer Including 52 Percent of Republicans

No. When I say everyone I mean everyone.

Cake is too delicious for such low people. :P

Anywhoo I think that the "healthcare for people who work" ignores that many can't get jobs and it hurts groups such as people of color worse than white people because they, for whatever reason (definitely not institutional racism though) always have higher levels of unemployment.

people going to school, early retirees and the largest question of 'with automation do we as a society really need everyone working?' because I gotta say, if we dont address the question the robots will absolutely win by leaving us with no jobs and no clue what to do about it.

That is excactly what i am talking about should be prevented, today people lose their job, life savings and in some cases their home and end up poor because they get sick.

So the government should of course go in and cover the wage of the person as well while they are sick to keep a incentive for the company to keep them hired.

And we cannot afford to give universal healthcare to everyone, we must look at who benefits soceity and who does not.

Way to miss the boat, pier and a few countries with that comment.

@Jacanuk: By all means, explain how it isn't apt.

Being the economic wiz as you are, you should be able to see how it does not benefit a society to have people with steady jobs lose them.

And the cake comment just shows you missed the whole idea about that "myth"

@Jacanuk: Ah, so you didn't understand the point. That phrase is an allusion to an anecdote describing how the comfortable were either oblivious to or uncaring of the plight of the less fortunate even as it unfolded around them.

It was in no way intended to advocate people losing their jobs. I'm not sure where you got that.

I did understand the point, and as I said you misunderstood my point when you felt that comment was needed.

And I never said you advocated for people losing their job. And again I never said that the unemployed would not have an option to get health care, I was talking about a 100% paid service to people who work, since that benefits society as a whole, like if we provide free education for a certain group.

@Jacanuk: "I was talking about a 100% paid service to people who work"

Why not such a service regardless of work? Many economists and social scientists point out that it would promote prodessional mobility, economic opportunity, entrepreneurship, population health, reduce pandemic risk/impact, and blunt recessions.

Because such a service will be to costly.

Sanders in his 1.6 trillion proposal, was quite liberal as to some of the expenses and Trumps 2.8 trillion was maybe too high, but the right answer is somewhere in the middle, which is too much since I have no intention of paying more in tax, not sure about you, but the tax is already high enough.

So choosing between nothing and something, I would rather have people working get a benefit from working and not being a burden on society.

But that is not what you said.

You know in Canada the health care is tied to consumption tax. There is ZERO people that do not contribute to sales tax.

That still would mean a tax increase, are you willing to pay 5-10-15-20% more consumption tax? so that people who are already getting a government handout can get more?

First off all those who are already on assistance get health care paid by taxes they probably don't contribute toward. Second employers would be able to pay more salary if they aren't contributing toward health care and would probably save money doing so. Third it doesn't seem as though you understand sales tax. Everyone pays. This is NOT payroll taxes.

You seem to miss the point here. If healthcare were to be paid over sales tax, the tax-income would need to be a lot more than it is right now. Meaning a tax increase.

Not sure why you can´t get that?

And people on welfare get a basic healthcare, not a universal broad like it would become if a single payer system was a reality.

No I don't miss the point and it seems you didn't read my post. You do know employers can pay better if they are not on the hook for health care? Also sales tax is based on personal purchasing. No one is going to make you buy things. It seems to work in Canada so you're objectively wrong and ignorant on the subject.

@Jacanuk: And yet, experience and studies show our current system to be more expensive and inefficient. Not less. Hell, every year healthcare cost growth outsrips both inflation and wage growth.

It amazes me how people will decry taxation as a means to fund their healthcare, but they're willing to pay more for private insurance premiums and deductibles. How's that for the consumer acting in their own best interest!

I was not talking about the employers so not sure what you are on about. And no one forces you to buy anything? well, that is clearly not the case. Unless you go live off the grid, then society pretty much forces you to "buy"

Also i never said it wouldn´t work, i said the tax would increase. You may want to stop trying to alter what i say to fit your own misguided ideas.

Well, according to Sanders and others it will not cost less, so not sure where you have that from.

As to how much more it will cost is debatable depending on how you calculate. And the reason for the rise is due partly to Obama´s policies which clearly are not good.

So who puts a gun to your head and makes you spend money? That's just crazy talk. Also consumers decide what they can afford, what they want, and what they need. And again.....it works in Canada. Are you having trouble with the since you keep denying/avoiding that. I'm not entirely sure how countries fund their health care but it seems to be working all around the world.

No you want to avoid the fact that employers would have the ability to increase salary if they aren't buying health care. They'd probably have more profit as well. If cost of living goes up then cost of living pay increases should keep pace.

Seems to me you're just sticking your fingers in yours ears and yelling really loudly to avoid having a rational adult conversation.

Who said anything about putting a gun to my head? but if we take it as an analogy, then do you deny that to live with in any normal society there are certain rules and certain things which are fundamentally needed to live. You need food to survive, laws prevent you from just going around and shooting what you see, laws prevent you from taking a piece of land and beginning a farm to make food. So considering the barter system has been gone since the wild west, you need money , to get money you need to have a decent hygine , which requires a place to live, and again laws prevent you from just randomly picking a place.

So sure in principle no one forces you to do these things, but as I said unless you go into the wilderness and live off the grid in some native fashion, you are pretty much forced to abide by societies rules.

As to employers, do you get that I am not talking about buying healthcare which is for most limited in what is covered, I am talking about a universal coverage no matter what for people who work since it benefits society as a whole? You are bringing up completely unrelated things.

As to the last comment, the problem here is you seem to talk about apples when there are oranges on the table, so perhaps stick to the topic.

Bolded the party where you hysterical claimed your are forced to purchase.

And you're still ignoring the countries where this is working.....which means you have no argument against except your corporate overlords don't want to lose the money. Got it.

Which depends on what system is implemented. We pay more than other countries currently so apparently there are ways to provide access and cut cost.

@Jacanuk: Cost more in taxes but less total.We currently pay roughly twice per capita as other developed countries.

@HoolaHoopMan: He's consistently wrong due to his rigid adherence to ideology. It's not surprising that he can't separate the forest from the trees.

Based on what? please link to some credible reports as to that.

@Jacanuk:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

@mattbbpl: Duh, Wikipedia isn't a valid source :P

That is not really what you said, You claim that universal health care in America would be less costly than what we spend on health care now, and you claim "experts" agree with that.

So linking to a Wikipedia about other countries is not what you claimed, so try again or maybe admit you have no valid argument?

@Jacanuk: Such is the risk of being a vague, snide little **** while quoting a post containing multiple points.

@Jacanuk: even a kock funded study found that universal health Care system would save the country money. It's just a fact, except to dumb mofo conservatives. There's plenty of evidence out there, but some people can't handle the truth. Just the way it is.

Vague? Considering we were talking about US healthcare and the cost, how can it be vague when I clearly point out two reports, one by Sanders and one by Trump as to the cost of a universal health care plan in the US.

But i get that you cannot back up the claim or that you "misunderstood" and ?

Link.

And again Sanders´s report says it will not save money but that it will not cost more than we spend now. Politico has weighed Trumps and Sanders reports on the matter, and found that either is not entire accurate but not entirely wrong either, it depends on how you calculate it and also it has a number of uncertainties.

@Jacanuk:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

It's a Kock Bros funded study. Sanders has nothing to do with it, except point out the conclusions of the kock brothers. Of course the assumption is Medicare for all rates are negotiated by the government. If the doctors and health care insurers don't like that, there is always my suggestion. Gutting the health care unions, lowering the standards of entry to become doctor and gutting most regulations. Also getting rid of all barriers to insurance companies competing across states, or even across countries.

@Jacanuk: Your playing dumb schtick is getting old. You know darn well that I addressed what you responded to and you shifted goalposts and put words in my mouth because it wasnt the answer you wanted.

He ALWAYS shifts goal posts. Not sure why anyone engages with him anymore.

Have you considered not doing that?

Show me a competent 3rd party candidate and ill be happy to vote for someone else.