posted January 03, 2017 12:44 PM            

If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan!

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!

ObamaCare will reduce your health insurance costs $2500 per family!

Thanks Obama
Thanks Pee-Lousy
Thanks Dirty Hairy

posted January 03, 2017 10:23 PM            

It's all completely wrecked whether we have Obamacare or not.

We have much bigger problems than Obamacare, when it comes to health and medicine. The oligarchy won't ever allow for there to be non-pharmaceutical cures to illnesses like cancer, so no wonder the "War on Cancer" hasn't been won. And people are conditioned to be okay with this, when it's not okay, and people are dying.

posted January 04, 2017 04:57 AM            

The US is the only strong economy that didn't take this step and it's so late. Modern UK has universal healthcare since 1948, France since 1902, Germany since 1883, and the most prosperous, advanced countries in the world, the Nordic countries, since 1950-1960.

It would be interesting to analyze why this happens in the US.

EDIT: I suppose one reason (if not the main) is the existence of politicians who can dare to lie like this to the people and still be in power: "Senator Jeff Sessions' (R-Ala.) statement that Obamacare is destroying “the greatest health care system the world has ever known,”

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted January 04, 2017 05:05 AM            

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]

Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.[9]

Overview
Flags of the Nordic countries

"The Nordic Model – Embracing globalization and sharing risks" characterises the system as follows:[10]

An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[10]
Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[11]
Public pension plans.[10]
Low barriers to free trade.[12] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[10]
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[10]
Low levels of corruption.[10] In Transparency International's 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 167 countries evaluated.[13]
High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2013, labour union density was 85.5% in Iceland, 69% in Finland, 67.7% in Sweden, and 52.1% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 13.6% in Mexico and 10.8% in the United States.[14] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[15]
A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[16] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[10] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[10] At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.[12] One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[17]
Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[18] and Finland (43.3%)
The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[19]
The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[20]

Aspects
Labor market policy
See also: Social corporatism

The Nordic countries share active labor market policies as part of a corporatist economic model intended to reduce conflict between labor and the interests of capital. The corporatist system is most extensive in Sweden and Norway, where employer federations and labor representatives bargain at the national level mediated by the government. Labor market interventions are aimed at providing job retraining and relocation.[21]

The Nordic labor market is flexible, with laws making it easy for employers to hire and shed workers or introduce labor-saving technology. To mitigate the negative effect on workers, the government labor market policies are designed to provide generous social welfare, job retraining and relocation to limit any conflicts between capital and labor that might arise from this process.[7]
Economic system

The Nordic model is underpinned by a free market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership[5] with the exception of Norway, which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[22]

The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[23] In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects, and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world".[23][24] Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly" capitalism, with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states and reduced concentration of top incomes, and contrast it with the more "cut-throat" capitalism of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes.[10][25][26]

Beginning in the 1990s, the Swedish economy pursued neoliberal reforms[27][28] that reduced the role of the public sector, leading to the fastest growth in inequality of any OECD economy.[29] However, Sweden's income inequality still remains lower than most other countries.[30]
Nordic welfare model

The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies. The Nordic model of welfare is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[31]

While there are differences among different Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.[32]

Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see: workfare) model, while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare.[32]
Poverty reduction

The Nordic model has been successful at significantly reducing poverty.[33] In 2011, poverty rates, before taking into account the effects of taxes and transfers, stood at 24.7% in Denmark, 31.9% in Finland, 21.6% in Iceland, 25.6% in Norway, and 26.5% in Sweden. After accounting for taxes and transfers the poverty rates for the same year became 6%, 7.5%, 5.7%, 7.7%, and 9.7% respectively, for an average reduction of 18.7 p.p.[34] Compared to the US, which has a poverty level pre-tax of 28.3% and post-tax of 17.4% for a reduction of 10.9 p.p., the effects of tax and transfers on poverty in all the Nordic countries are substantially bigger.[34] In comparison to France (27 p.p. reduction) and Germany (24.2 p.p. reduction), however, the taxes and transfers in the Nordic countries are smaller on average.[34]
Reception

Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" system which features a blend of capitalist economics and socialist values.[35] Lane Kenworthy advocates for the U.S. to make a gradual transition to an economic system similar to those of the Nordic countries.[36] United States Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described democratic socialist, has been a strong proponent of the Nordic system.[37][38][39] Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted that there is higher social mobility in the Scandinavian countries than in the United States, and argues that Scandinavia is now the land of opportunity that the United States once was.[40] American feminist author Ann Jones, who lived in Norway for four years, contends "the Nordic countries give their populations freedom from the market by using capitalism as a tool to benefit everyone," whereas in the United States "neoliberal politics puts the foxes in charge of the henhouse, and capitalists have used the wealth generated by their enterprises (as well as financial and political manipulations) to capture the state and pluck the chickens."[41]

According to Naomi Klein, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sought to move the USSR in a similar direction to the Nordic system, combining free markets with a social safety net—but still retaining public ownership of key sectors—ingredients that he believed would transform the USSR into "a socialist beacon for all mankind."[42][43]

The Nordic combination of extensive public provision of welfare and a culture of individualism has been described by Lars Trägårdh, of Ersta Sköndal University College, as "statist individualism".[44]

A 2016 survey by the think tank Israel Democracy Institute found that nearly 60 percent of Israeli Jews prefer a "Scandinavian model" economy, with high taxes and a robust welfare state.[45]

George Lakey, author of Viking Economics, asserts that Americans generally misunderstand the nature of the Nordic "welfare state":

Americans imagine that “welfare state” means the U.S. welfare system on steroids. Actually, the Nordics scrapped their American-style welfare system at least 60 years ago, and substituted universal services, which means everyone—rich and poor—gets free higher education, free medical services, free eldercare, etc. Universal totally beats the means-testing characteristic of their dreadful old welfare system that they discarded and that the United States still has.[46]

Criticism

The socialist economists John Roemer and Pranab Bardhan criticize Nordic-style social democracy by questioning its effectiveness at promoting relative egalitarianism as well as its sustainability. They point out that social democracy requires a strong labor movement to sustain the heavy redistribution required, arguing that it is idealistic to think such redistribution can be accomplished in other countries with weaker labor movements. They note that, even in the Scandinavian countries, social democracy has been in decline since the weakening of the labor movement, arguing that the sustainability of social democracy is limited. Roemer and Bardham argue that establishing a market socialist economy by changing enterprise ownership would be more effective at promoting egalitarianism than social democratic redistribution.[47]

Historian Guðmundur Jónsson argues that it would be inaccurate to include Iceland in one aspect of the Nordic model, that of consensus democracy. He writes, "Icelandic democracy is better described as more adversarial than consensual in style and practice. The labour market was rife with conflict and strikes more frequent than in Europe, resulting in strained government–trade union relationship. Secondly, Iceland did not share the Nordic tradition of power-sharing or corporatism as regards labour market policies or macro-economic policy management, primarily because of the weakness of Social Democrats and the Left in general. Thirdly, the legislative process did not show a strong tendency towards consensus-building between government and opposition with regard to government seeking consultation or support for key legislation. Fourthly, the political style in legislative procedures and public debate in general tended to be adversarial rather than consensual in nature."[48]

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted January 04, 2017 10:28 AM            

Before ObamaCare, the leftist meme was that 29,000,000 Americans didn't have health insurance. Get it? Health insurance, not "health care".

After ObamaCare, after spending about $2 TRILLION, 30,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance..but they still have health care...if they want it.

With deductibles of $5,000 to $17,000 per year, having health insurance doesn't mean you have or can even afford "health care".

Providing health care for Americans was never the intent of Socialist lunatics who wrote ObamaCare. Controlling the health care and health insurance industry and Americans was always the intent of the Fascist Socialist lunatics.

Kiss it goodbye.

posted January 04, 2017 12:09 PM            

Obamacare was the 2nd major step towards universal healthcare, after 1960's Medicare. Logically, a 3rd step can only be better and not towards the past.

Just concentrate on understanding what US would be if it managed to break free from 1777 mentalities and how people are being kept behind because of this. I would start by understanding why people are being told everyday "you are the greatest" (aka I want you to believe that, to stay on your couch, know nothing about the world and do what I want you to do). It's a very simple and effective mass manipulation tool. Hitler said it everyday, Ceausescu said it everyday, Stalin said it everyday, Castro said it everyday, Kim says it everyday. You speak as if you are not outraged in the least that Jeff Sessions has the audacity to lie about the backwards US health and education system. They want to keep it oligarchic ON PURPOSE, despite the needs of a modern society. Don't tell me you don't know why.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted January 04, 2017 12:40 PM            

It's like building skyscrapers and not having invented the toilet yet.

Take a look at the model I posted to see what can be accomplished, and with US's power and greatness, much more than it has been accomplished by others.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted January 04, 2017 02:33 PM            

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted January 04, 2017 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:

The US is the only strong economy that didn't take this step and it's so late. Modern UK has universal healthcare since 1948, France since 1902, Germany since 1883, and the most prosperous, advanced countries in the world, the Nordic countries, since 1950-1960.

It would be interesting to analyze why this happens in the US.

EDIT: I suppose one reason (if not the main) is the existence of politicians who can dare to lie like this to the people and still be in power: "Senator Jeff Sessions' (R-Ala.) statement that Obamacare is destroying “the greatest health care system the world has ever known,”

---

LeeLoo,

As best as I can figure out, it happens in the U.S. because of (1) the belief among far too many that if only people worked hard enough they would be rich enough to pay their own way for everything; there is even a segment that believes that being poor is a punishment from God and if only they were better Christians they wouldn't be poor, (2) ignorance, the right-wing propaganda machine, and a complete annihilation in the last decade of the ability to discern fact from opinion. I've seen not only ignorance but disdain for facts become the norm, at least among the most vocal Trump supporters, and (3) selfishness and greed. Everyone wants government services for themselves, but about 1/2 of the voting population don't want to pay for it for the other guy and think that they deserve the help, but the other guys (by which they typically mean poor people and non-white people) do not.

The majority of Americans are so ignorant they don't understand that if they paid a bit more in taxes for universal health care, they (or their companies, if they're lucky enough to work for a company that provides health insurance) would pay a lot less for medical insurance and actually end up saving money.

Sadly, the same people who wish to destroy Obamacare are also in the process of quietly but deliberately destroying public education, which has been a hallmark of our society for nearly 200 years.

The U.S. is in the midst of an ultra-right wing revolution that will, I'm afraid, set us back at least 50 to 100 years in terms of education, prosperity, freedom, and equality, if we are even still here 4 years from now, given the propensity for the Great Orange Idiot to flap his jaws about nuclear weapons. It is horrifically frightening and sickening.

posted January 04, 2017 10:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delilah423:
Sadly, the same people who wish to destroy Obamacare are also in the process of quietly but deliberately destroying public education, which has been a hallmark of our society for nearly 200 years.

The U.S. is in the midst of an ultra-right wing revolution that will, I'm afraid, set us back at least 50 to 100 years in terms of education, prosperity, freedom, and equality, if we are even still here 4 years from now, given the propensity for the Great Orange Idiot to flap his jaws about nuclear weapons. It is horrifically frightening and sickening.

[/B]

---

From the statistics below it looks like whoever has been running USA in recent years, has done a fine job of destroying your 'hallmark' education system. Y

Some stats:

According to Pearson (in 2015), the United States has a “cognitive skills and educational attainment” score of 0.39, which makes the United States rank fourteenth out of forty countries ranked in that category. The top ten countries (and their scores) are:

South Korea (1.30)
Japan (1.03)
Singapore (0.99)
Hong Kong (0.96)
Finland (0.92)
United Kingdom (0.67)
Canada (0.60)
Netherlands (0.58)
Ireland (0.51)
Poland (0.50)

According to the Program for International Student Assessment (in 2013), the average reading literacy score for U.S. fifteen-year old students is 498 (out of 1000 possible points). That is enough to make the United States rank twenty-fourth out of sixty-five educational systems ranked in that category. Shangai, China, ranked first, with a score of 570.

According to the 2013 report, The Learning Curve, developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the United States ranks seventeenth out of forty countries ranked in overall educational performance. Finland ranks first. The top ten countries in educational performance are:

posted January 05, 2017 04:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Novabronte:
From the statistics below it looks like whoever has been running USA in recent years, has done a fine job of destroying your 'hallmark' education system.

Some stats:

....

---

Yes, thanks for posting those stats. It used to be that education was a priority in this country regardless of your political leanings and we recognized that an educated society meant a prosperous and democratic socity.

Now, it is all about cutting taxes while privatizing everything, including education, which of course means that only those with money receive a decent education.

And it used to be the U.S. ranked at or near #1 in most measures of education. No longer, as your stats show.

About the only things we're #1 in are the rate of incarceration and the murder rate.

posted January 05, 2017 05:11 PM            

I'm reading a book called The Nordic Theory of Everything. I've been on the fence about "socialized" health care for a while but that book put me over the edge and made me envy countries with well-functioning national health care.

I've heard from credible sources that universal health care is putting some countries like Canada in serious debt, but I haven't researched that.

posted January 05, 2017 05:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delilah423:

About the only things we're #1 in are the rate of incarceration and the murder rate.

---

posted January 05, 2017 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

I've never seen a group of people so happy to do such evil as take healthcare away from 30 million Americans.

---

posted January 05, 2017 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
The education in public schools was minimal and propaganda influenced at least as far back as the 50s.. but, like publicly funded healthcare it really is just a starting point..if you want over and above you go out and find it. Even in the best Universal Payer programs, one has to pay for most alternative and seriously innovative treatments especially in Nonurgent cases.

---

I agree that both public education and national healthcare are starting points. But at least there is a starting point for health care in those countries (essentially the entire world except the United States) that treat healthcare as a human right. And my concern is that public education is no longer revered by both parties as a necessity in the U.S.

posted January 06, 2017 07:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
...
I'm reading a book called The Nordic Theory of Everything. I've been on the fence about "socialized" health care for a while but that book put me over the edge and made me envy countries with well-functioning national health care.

....

---

A well-functioning national health care is a thing I want to see as well on a global term.

posted January 06, 2017 11:24 AM            

No one...and I mean NO ONE is proposing repealing ObamaCare without a replacement in place and ready to go.

What this means in practice is that ObamaCare will be an option into the future...to a date certain while the replacement program is being erected and brought up to speed and ready for people to sign up with their selected insurance company and policies which meet their needs.

In other words, it's likely there will be ObamaCare and it's replacement operating at the same time through an overlap period of time.

Now, for those who want the Socialist single payer health care system, we already have it. It's called Veterans Care, operated through the Veterans Administration, the VA. It's a KILLER, staffed with lazy, uncaring bureaucratic loafers who let American Veterans die while waiting to see a doctor.

posted January 06, 2017 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Ok, time to knock off the wheezing, whining, bombastic bloviating, ObamaCare horseshiiite.

---

Wow

Seriously our comments deserve more respect.