Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
JonNC:
No. Progressives are willing to give control of all of your wealth to government.
Click to expand...
I like to imagine an alternate reality where America has socialized medicine and is debating getting rid of it. The consevratives would be crying “Progressives are willing to sell your health for their own wealth.”
Click to expand...
Actually, this isn’t true.

Conservatives – principled ones, that is – are far more likely to have priorities for their well-being and planning for health care would fit right into a budget line along with food, housing, transportation, and so forth.

My guess is that if health care was never socialized to begin with it would have been far less expensive for everybody because it would have had to be affordable as a matter of necessity.

Now that government has become involved with trillion dollar budgets, health care pricing has gone sky high.

Same thing happened when government took over the student loan business. Now students who would never have gotten themselves so far in debt have wrongly assumed – and continue to – that somehow the government will take care of them. Universities, seeing the availability of huge amounts of capital, have grown their business and priced it according to the contrived demand and available money.

This is how the modern iteration of socialism takes hold – by increasingly keeping people in greater and greater debt, then taxing them to rescue them from the errors of socialism. Self-perpetuating social control. It will take courage and trust in providence to give socialist policies the boot.

The problem with “getting rid” of socialized medicine is that the current price structure, re: drugs and services, operates at a highly inflated level.

I often wonder why progressive socialists have never suggested universal food supply as a priority even above health care. Food is much more of a necessity than health care, yet “free” food isn’t even being discussed. Why not?

Dennis Prager puts this into perspective in one of his fireside chats.

 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
I often wonder why progressive socialists have never suggested universal food supply as a priority even above health care. Food is much more of a necessity than health care, yet “free” food isn’t even being discussed. Why not?
Click to expand...
I’m sure it was proposed, and got compromised down to “food stamps.” Lets also remember Government cheese - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Why do we want to pay more for crap? An " I’m free" premium for the privilege of inferior.
Click to expand...
It isn’t that anyone wants to pay more for crap. It is that buying and selling with other people’s money drives prices up because if you aren’t feeling the cost (value) of a good by having to personally work for it, you don’t really care about the cost – someone else is footing the bill.

If your lack of health is going to cost you out of your pocket you are far more likely to consider your own health a priority. If someone else is going to look after your costs, you are far more likely to indulge in unhealthy behaviours.

Look at how much is spent from food stamps on soft drink, candy and junks food compared to more healthy foods.

2016.11.23%20-%20SNAP%201.jpg


By removing the onus for looking after our own health, priorities change at a very basic subconscious level.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
My guess is that if health care was never socialized to begin with it would have been far less expensive for everybody because it would have had to be affordable as a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...
Do you think that in the 1950s before we had Medicare that healthcare was very inexpensive and that most seniors, including poor ones, could afford decent medical care? And if medical care had to be inexpensive, would that mean that everyone now would still have access to expensive procedures and treatments like MRIs and CT scans and PET scans and open heart surgery and cancer treatment, etc. In this alternative universe where everyone was responsible for their own healthcare, would it have been much cheaper to make and maintain MRI machines and PET scan machines and would skilled heart surgeons have worked for a lot less? Or would we have had a situation where rich people would have access to skilled heart surgeons and MRI machines but most middle class people wouldn’t?
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Conservatives – principled ones, that is – are far more likely to have priorities for their well-being and planning for health care would fit right into a budget line along with food, housing, transportation, and so forth.
Click to expand...
So the answer to the “why not profit off sickness” is twofold. Obviously doctors and hospitals should be able to make a living in their profession, so in that sense, “profiting” is fine, so let us focus on these two aspects of “profit.”
  1. Rent seeking behavior, especially among insurance providers is immoral in a way that other rent seeking behavior is not, since it directly affects people’s health.
  2. We should not seek to make wealth inequality imply “quality of life” inequality. These two are feedback loops, where poor health proscribes wealth generation, which in turn prevents health remediation.
Supply side Jesus
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Thorolfr said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
My guess is that if health care was never socialized to begin with it would have been far less expensive for everybody because it would have had to be affordable as a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...
Do you think that in the 1950s before we had Medicare that healthcare was very inexpensive and that most seniors, including poor ones, could afford decent medical care? And if medical care had to be inexpensive, would that mean that everyone now would still have access to expensive procedures and treatments like MRIs and CT scans and PET scans and open heart surgery and cancer treatment, etc. In this alternative universe where everyone was responsible for their own healthcare, would it have been much cheaper to make and maintain MRI machines and PET scan machines and would skilled heart surgeons have worked for a lot less? Or would we have had a situation where rich people would have access to skilled heart surgeons and MRI machines but most middle class people wouldn’t?
Click to expand...
A couple of points.
  1. In the sixties before we had universal health care in Canada, doctors made home visits and generally looked after their patients who paid their bills in cash. My parents had immigrated from Italy with a few dollars and the promise of employment on a farm. They raised 6 children bought their own home and managed to save money and retire decently. The Canada Health Care Act was not enacted until 1984.
  2. Most of the innovation in medicine has come from the United States, not socialized health care countries. Whether or not MRI machines and PET scan machines would have been largely available would best be answered by asking if computers, smartphones, modern appliances, automobiles, expensive motor homes, air travel, etc., etc., would now only be available to rich people if not for a free market? Technology develops in a free market and demand drives innovation. Government control over any commodity restricts both supply and demand because the market is not free to develop.
 
HarryStotle said:
  1. In the sixties before we had universal health care in Canada, doctors made home visits and generally looked after their patients who paid their bills in cash. My parents had immigrated from Italy with a few dollars and the promise of employment on a farm. They raised 6 children bought their own home and managed to save money and retire decently. The Canada Health Care Act was not enacted until 1984.
Click to expand...
Medicine is quite a lot different now than what it was in the 1960s. Doctors were able to do less to treat their patients than is now the case. When I go to see my primary care doctor, he often orders a number of blood tests that I take right after I see him. When I go to see my eye doctor, he looks into my eyes with complicated equipment and I regularly have tests done using special machines to check my peripheral vision and to take pictures of my optic nerve. How would these kinds of things be done in a house visit? Do we even have a high enough ratio of doctors to patients now that doctors would have the time to make house calls? The county where my parents live has only one neurologist and even now, it takes a few months to get an appointment with him because he has so many established patients. Would he have time to make house calls to all his patients?
HarryStotle said:
  1. Most of the innovation in medicine has come from the United States, not socialized health care countries. Whether or not MRI machines and PET scan machines would have been largely available would best be answered by asking if computers, smartphones, modern appliances, automobiles, expensive motor homes, air travel, etc., etc., would now only be available to rich people if not for a free market? Technology develops in a free market and demand drives innovation. Government control over any commodity restricts both supply and demand because the market is not free to develop.
Click to expand...
Expensive motor homes are still only available to fairly well off people. And is a smartphone really comparable to an MRI machine? It’s not as if, in a free market and under different circumstances, there would be a huge demand for MRI machines and everyone would want to have their own which would cause them to be mass produced and drastically drive down their prices. Most people probably wouldn’t be interested in owning an MRI machine until they got sick and really needed one. What would someone want to spend their money on? An automobile that they use almost everyday, or an MRI machine that they might use a few times in their life.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
The county where my parents live has only one neurologist and even now, it takes a few months to get an appointment with him because he has so many established patients. Would he have time to make house calls to all his patients?
Click to expand...
Most countries with government controlled health care dictate the number of seats at universities offering medical degrees –to keep the cost of doctor’s fees at a specific level. A free market in both health care and education might result in far more individuals receiving medical degrees and far more people pursuing research because the market and not a government bureaucracy would determine the numbers of doctors and their competitiveness.
 
Maximus1to @HarryStotle . . . .
I am sorry, all of the “globalist elites” stuff might mean something to you. Like Pizzagate and Bigfoot might. . . .
Click to expand...
Mere ad hominem.

No rebuttal.

Here is HarryStotle’s point again . . . .
You have that much trust in the benevolence of the wealthy and powerful in total control of the State, do you?

The Church doesn’t…

2431 The responsibility of the state . "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services . Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs NOT TO the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Most countries with government controlled health care dictate the number of seats at universities offering medical degrees –to keep the cost of doctor’s fees at a specific level.
Click to expand...
Even now there are not enough people becoming doctors in the US which is probably at least partly why a lot of doctors here come from foreign countries. And many people now must see a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant because there aren’t enough doctors.
 
Last edited:
That sounds like a worthiness test. Dressed up but still that.
I wonder how much actual coverage is afforded , out of total coverage, to persons who paid nothing for it?
You begin spotting about 18 years to the proportion in childhood. A spouse is covered after that if you are married. That is according to you, lots of unworthiness. Unless somehow worthiness is vicarious.
I think it more likely that people percieved a greater benefit from the idea of their own exclusivity. Some add the idea that scarce resources will be there for my more worthy needs if necessary.
Others simply feel pleasure as in the old Rolling Stone lyric, we all need someone to cream on.
Some have visions of minorities getting something for free. Their sense of value requires that they always have someone behind in the rear view mirror. ( Caste system).
This is a Catholic website, so the standard," I am free to be scrooge," doesn’t work.
I was most unhealthy when I could easily afford 12 to 14k a year in family premiums well over a decade ago. I have to be honest, my unhealthy lifestyle was not a factor. Shitload of money was.
 
Last edited:
JButky said:
And with good reason…
Click to expand...
:roll_eyes:
Schiff stopped effort by Republicans to get the witness to provide identifying information about the whistleblower. The shame is on them for trying. Not the other way around.
 
dvdjs said:
Schiff stopped effort by Republicans to get the witness to provide identifying information about the whistleblower.
Click to expand...
Shame is on them trying to uncover the truth. Must be nice to be able to block information relevant to the inquiry with this continuing this claim. Especially when we know Schiff had contact with the whistleblower and misled about it.

This whole thing is a crock.
 
Woodyl57 said:
Shame is on them trying to uncover the truth
Click to expand...
We have protection for whistle blowers because of our interest in the the truth.
What is the point of trying to identify thee persons? Hos is in in any way relevant?
In the end, it is the testimony of those whose identities we know that will be decisive.
 
Save the Dem talking points. Schiff is unreliable and misleading and untrustworthy. All this is to protect the lie. The longer this goes on the more clear it is the truth isn’t the goal. But whatever floats your boat keep going with it.
 
What nonsense! I’m beginning to believe there never was a whistleblower,except in Adam Shiff’s imagination. Considering this whistleblower is the one to set this whole sham in not motion,I would think we the people have e ry right to hear from him or her directly.
 
Last edited:
Yes, indeed. How are legitimate questions in a close door hearing shameful.

But whatever you say. Tired of the Schiff deceptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top