Poor & Sick

Upvote

Indigent Care. Look it up. And if you really want to see how civilized a society is, look at their public restrooms.

No society can be civilized if fundamental property rights are violated. --Common Sense

Make your own meme of that. It has no reference to universal healthcare as does mine.

Why should I be forced to pay for everyone's healthcare?

You won't. In a Single-Payer system, the Federal Govt becomes the bill-payer, not you. You do not fund Federal spending.

And where do think the Federal Government gets the money from. My taxes. We already have a 21 trillion debt. This would increase that by another 35 trillion. California, Vermont, and Mass. tried this and all found it is just too expensive. There is NO FREE stuff.

Federal taxes do not, and cannot, fund any Federal spending. Federal taxes are collected, accounted, and removed from the money supply. In effect, they are destroyed. Federal Govt creates new currency each time it pays a bill enacted by Congress. US dollars are, literally, spent into existence, therefore the economy, with keystrokes. No printing of paper notes occurs when Federal Govt spends. That "National Debt" is not a debt like a debt to you or me. It is only the total amount of payments in US dollars the Government has made into the economy, less the total amount of US dollars removed by Federal taxation. That difference, the $21T, is what remains in the economy and forms our base money supply. IOW, it is the 'profit' realized by the private sector, of which you and I belong. The US Govt is the exclusive issuer of the US dollar. From nowhere else on the planet can US dollars be obtained. As the monopoly issuer of its own free-floating, inconvertible fiat currency, why would the US Govt need your taxes in order to spend?

If we were able to pay off our loans by just printing more money, why did we ever need to borrow it in the first place?

Printing new money would result in hyperinflation, with 21 trillion new US dollars in international hands and over a trillion of that in China alone--a dramatic increase in national income everywhere except the US. That income spike would cause aggregate demand for goods purchasable in USD to soar. Merchants would naturally respond by increasing the price of their goods, destabilizing the real value of the dollar.

The consequences of such a series of events would be catastrophic. The purchasing power of the dollar would decrease enormously.

Basically, the dollar is only valuable if it's scarce because we use it to procure scarce resources. When it's no longer scarce, its no longer transitive as a currency and has no value. So, in reality, the reason that other countries would no longer lend us money if we freely printed our own is that the exchange rate between the dollar and any other currency would approach zero, leaving banks and merchants with nothing to gain by transacting in US dollars. There would be no incentive for nations to produce anything of real value, rendering the concept of GDP meaningless. Furthermore, if we could resolve debt by just printing bills, there would be nothing to prevent other countries/central banks from doing so--and you would end up in a world full of meaningless currency.

Nothing you have stated has validity. The Federal Government never "prints money" when it spends. It keystrokes numbers appropriated by Congress into accounts designated in bills enacted by Congress. That is the only way US dollars reach the economy. Printed Federal Reserve notes are to meet private bank customer's demand for cash, or "pocket money," if you will. All private banks are required to keep a certain number of dollars in their reserve accounts in the US central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank. When private banks order paper reserve notes or coin, they are exchanged on an even basis and no new net financial assets are created. Paper & coin do not increase or have any effect on the base money supply. Your ideas about our currency seem to stem from a mix of propaganda and obsolete terms from the gold standard days that ended in August of '71. Since that time, the majority of Sovereign Nations issue a free-floating, inconvertible fiat currency. If you would like to learn about Modern Money without technical terms that confuse, this link should give you the basics: https://modernmoneybasics.com/facts/

I understand that the government doesn't really print actual bills, but the more the government borrows still goes against the value of the dollar. Look at what happened in Venezuela when the government debt grew higher than the GDP, hyperinflation. The cost of their socialist programs effectively bankrupted the country. Nobody will extend them credit now.

The government does not have unlimited "money". It is only worth what the global economy says it is worth. If the government spends more than they can recover in taxes, they have to borrow it otherwise it devalues the dollar. There are no free programs. The government must collect sufficient taxes to maintain the value of the currency.

The Federal Govt doesn't borrow in order to spend, and it does not need taxes in order to spend. When the Treasury goes to spend, it tells its bank, the Federal Reserve, to credit (turn a number into a larger number) the reserve account of a bank (banks all keep "reserve accounts" with the Federal Reserve, which they use to settle payments), and then the bank credits the checking account of whoever is receiving the payment. So, the Fed credits a bank's reserves and a bank credits a customer's account. Venezuela's hyperinflation had nothing to do with "printing money." No hyperinflation in history was ever caused by Sovereign spending. Venezuela pegged its currency to its biggest export, petroleum, and when the price of oil fell, so did the Bolivar. So, not diversifying their economy was a major contributor. In addition, Venezuela racked up a huge debt denominated in US dollars, which caused the Bolivar to become worthless. Add into the mix the corruption within its government and US & other foreign sanctions . . . hyperinflation. All fiat currency has value because it is, under penalty of law, the only means of satisfying the tax debt imposed by the Federal Govt. To the issuing Govt, the value of the currency is consistent. In the US, one dollar is always = $1, for example. It says so on each of those Federal Reserve notes you might have in your pocket. As the exclusive issuer of the US dollar, the US Govt can never run out of dollars to spend, can never go bankrupt, and can afford anything denominated in US dollars. The only constraint to spending is inflation, but spending only becomes inflationary when full employment of real resources is achieved. When that occurs, as it did during WWII, taxes can be raised, bonds sold, and, if needed, rationing of items can be imposed - all to reduce aggregate demand and mitigate inflation. One important point needs to be understood. The Federal Govt is nothing like a household. A Federal "debt" results in a profit to the private sector, you & me. A Federal "surplus" results in a private sector "loss."

The government cannot make its lackeys type numbers into an electronic bank account and provide something useful like food, houses, clothing, cars, fuel, streets. All it does is "print" money, figuratively.

Just because it's enforced under law doesn't give it true value. All this really means is that the government has a monopoly on counterfeiting money, and when it does counterfeit money, we are forced to take it.

Congress orders Treasury & Federal Reserve Bank to pay bills passed into law. Those bills purchase things which the Federal Government provisions itself. When the numbers go up in the designated accounts, new dollars were created and reached the economy. Some of those dollars will pay for raw materials needed by that business, some will pay the employees who make the finished products. So, yes. Keystroking dollars into existence & the economy do provide "food, houses, clothing, cars, fuel, streets." Counterfeiting, by definition, is producing a fake replica. The Federal Govt, as you state, is the monopoly issuer of its own currency. In the US, the US Government is the only source on Earth for US dollars. If you doubt the value of the US dollar, try paying US Federal income taxes with gold or silver bars, barrels of oil, sacks of coffee, or cryptocurrency.

Sorry ain't buying your horse shit. All you're really saying is that the government borrows money from itself (actually, the federal reserve is a cabal of private bankers). And so how can it pay that money and the interest back? The only way is by collecting taxes.

Fiat currency has absolutely no intrinsic value. Especially if it's electronic, you can't even burn it for warmth. Fiat currency is just a medium people use to trade things of actual value.

Imagine a doctor gives you a prescription. The pills you want are the actual thing of value you need. You won't get your medicine if you eat the prescription itself. And by that extension, photo copying a prescription certainly does not create more medicine in the world.

You had a difficult time in school, I suspect. What you have stated has no basis in fact or logic.

So then by your logic, if China decided to call all the U.S. debt they own, nothing would happen. The $21 trillion debt means nothing. Adding $35 trillion to the budget to pay for Medicare-For-All would have no impact on the economy, and of course, the government would not have to raise any taxes to cover the expenses.

Sorry, this does not make sense. Socialist programs are not free. Somebody has to pay for them, and I don't want to be the one paying for everybody else's healthcare. Healthcare is a service, not a right.

It is not my "logic." It is verifiable facts. China, like all of our trading partners, receives US dollars in exchange for goods and services sold to US markets. When the US Treasury offers T-Bonds & Bills (to facilitate spending under the obsolescent but continued gold standard rules) China and others buy what is offered to gain a bit of interest on the dollars they hold in their reserve accounts in the US central bank, The Federal Reserve. When they do, digital dollars from their reserve accounts are moved to Treasury Securities Accounts. The equivalent to you moving dollars from your checking to your savings account in your local bank branch. When the bonds and bills reach maturity, the digital dollars used to purchase them + the interest accrued are returned to the reserve accounts - all done with keystrokes on a computer. From where does the interest gained come? From the same process that creates all dollars - Congressional appropriations. What you seem to be missing is the most important fact. Those $21T represent real goods and services that belong to our economy. Federal "debt" is not a debt as you & I would realize. Federal debt is not a debt of the citizens and is a debt not expected to be repaid since Federal debt is to itself. US dollars, as with most sovereign currencies, are fiat currency - meaning they are created "by decree." Congress is the only body of Government authorized by the Constitution to spend and, once a passed bill is enacted, Congress orders Treasury and Federal Reserve to pay the bill. Regarding taxes, there exists no crystal ball that predetermines if Federal spending will become inflationary. But, it has been estimated, recently, that there is currently nearly $2T of unused policy space that could be spent into the economy before spending would become inflationary. It isn't hard for any of us to look around and see factories at a fraction of capacity, bridges and roads in constant disrepair, and millions involuntarily unemployed or underemployed. We have a long way to go to reach the inflationary full employment of real resources. What we should be discussing are our national priorities and not arbitrary spending limits. Spend to our priorities first, and then tax later to mitigate inflation as necessary should be the order of Federal business.

Regarding that "Socialist" thing: socially benefitting programs are not Socialism. Nobody's talking about taking over the means of production. But, the Government's Public Purpose is to spend for the general welfare of all of its citizens, not just the few. The Federal Government has the capacity to spend limited only by the availability of real resources. Federal spending doesn't "cost" us, but the lack of Federal spending and its spending on corporate benefits costs citizen's lives daily. We do not, and cannot, fund any Federal spending. We are funded by the Govt each time it pays a bill enacted by Congress. Should the Federal Govt become the Single-Payer of our health care, you will not be "paying for everybody else's healthcare." In fact, in the current system of privately insured healthcare, you are and have been paying for everybody else's healthcare. That's how private insurance works.

Again, your argument is a non sequitur. If the federal government became the single payer for healthcare, my taxes will go up to because of it. That is the bottom line, and that is what I do not want. Not only do I not want to pay more taxes. Besides, the government sucks at almost everything. Just look at the mess they made of the VA. If the government would get out of the way and reduce regulations and leave the free market alone, healthcare cost would come down and people could afford their own healthcare.

As far as socialism, I said single-payer health care is a socialist program, meaning the federal government is providing for the individual, not that we would be a socialist country. The more socialist programs we have, the more expensive everything becomes. Look at what happened to colleges. The government decides to provide student loans, and the cost of education goes up 8X faster than inflation. Providing healthcare and education are not rights, they are services that the federal government should stay out of.

Your last point on private insurance is also incorrect. With a single-payer healthcare system, I have no choice, with private insurance, I decide if that is what I want. That is a big difference. I do not want the government taking my right of choice away from me.

In conclusion, it comes down to, I do not want the government telling me what to do. I want to take care of myself, make my own choices, and not have the government telling what is best for me. I prefer the freedom of the individual over the authority of the state. I do not believe that big brother knows best.

Yes, and Nye Bevan built the UK's National Health System that ran efficiently and was beloved by every UK citizen. When Maggie Thatcher introduced the Neoliberal monkey wrench (or, in her case, "spanner") that promoted the false notion that the Government is funded by it's citizens, she & Reagan in the US put that agenda into play. Defund to create failure and justify by likening Federal Govt to household's; offer privatization as a remedy so that corporations profit from the misery they created.

Yeah right. "EVERY UK CITIZEN"????
When people use qualifiers like that to try and justify their ridiculous claims, no one is interested in giving their delusions a second thought.

Glad to know you have the pulse on EVERY UK citizen and speak for all of them.

That's like saying EVERY single person who voted for Trump loves him and accepts every one of his policies. Come on, man...

That's like saying EVERY single person who voted for Hillary is all for murdering those who oppose you, supporting a womanizing rapist of a husband and robbing the citizens blind to pad your "charity" bank account. Come on, man.

Get a grip.

I find your meme offensive and denigrating to all born with intellectual challenges.

You COMPLETELY missed the point of the meme. It was targeting you for being intellectually challenged. Those who were born with the challenge are admiral for their accomplishments and contributing where they can to society. You on the other hand, have developed and created your mental disability by believing in the fairy tale world of theft by socialism. This therefore, makes you a complete retard and a completely useless member of society. And that sir, offends me!

If I am "intellectually challenged" can you provide proof that my statement is wrong? And, think about what you are arguing. I say that the majority of developed nations all regard health care to be a right of citizenship. Even nations without the resources available as we have in the US. As a nation that issues its own fiat currency, the US Government can afford anything achievable that is denominated in US dollars. Solvency for the US Govt is a non-issue. Therefore, there is no economic or moral justification for US citizens to not be able to afford healthcare. You, on the other hand, say that health care is only for those who can afford it, the rest be damned.

There is no need debating the point because you and folks like you will never understand. The ONLY way to provide money (whether it be by healthcare, food stamps, cell phones, etc.) to those who won't work for it, is to steal it away from those who do work for it. YES, excessive taxation for that purpose is STEALING! I do believe in taxes. But it should be equal across the board. You DO NOT punish those who work harder by taking it away and distributing to those who do not work. EVERY single person in the USA has exactly the same opportunity as everyone else? Think not? Why in the hell do we have such a huge problem with illegal immigration??? Everyone used to want to be here because it was the Land of Opportunity. Now it is because we are the land of free government shit.

I am also not of the opinion that "the rest be damned". There are less fortunate that deserve government assistance. I have no problem with that. But these third, fourth and fifth generation bums, thugs, murderers, rapists and illegals that are getting my tax dollars and social security money because they are too chicken-shit to work for living, need to die a quick painful death.

I'm no longer defending my position with you, as you believe in unfair and unjust taxation to live in a Utopian world of rainbows and fairies where everyone is equal and living off the government.

I only disagree, because even the government shouldn't be in charge of taking care of the needy. This was originally taken care of by private donation, usually by religious groups. But more importantly, they only gave aid to the deserving and though they would often give mercy to those that ruined their own lives, would demand that they clean up their act or be tossed aside.

Yes, no matter how we do it, people fall through the cracks, bad stuff happens, but that's life, and it's better to donate and give aid freely rather than everyone be stuck in a corrupt, uncaring nannystate that actually cripples people as a whole rather than helping them.

The Seventeenth Century called. They want their Calvinism back.

I will never understand those who believe themselves to be "American," yet choose not to accept what the Founders intended.

Nor if the person requiring medical attention is robbed blind in the process of getting aid. The medical system should not be mercenary like. The system as it is is morally defunct.

BUT TAXATION IS THEFT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Federal taxes give value to the currency since, by law, that is the only means of satisfying your Federal tax debt. Federal taxes mitigate inflation by reducing aggregate demand. Federal taxes can be used to influence bad behavior, like a carbon tax or tobacco tax. Federal taxes can be used to reduce income inequality. But, "theft" is not the same as "obligation."