Why do people want to vote for Bernie Sanders?

[GeneralFap]

Old man is telling people he's going to give them Free Health Care, Free College, Expand Social Security, etc., and I'm thinking, "How are we going to pay for all of this?"

 

[Mr.Rob]

To answer your question "Why do people want to vote for Bernie Sanders?"

Free Health Care, Free College, Expand Social Security,

This sounds pretty good to people that resonate with his views don't you think?

Although I guess I see that was more of a rhetorical question being that you answered your own question essentially so I presume you're just expressing your disdain for socialism.

If there is one thing anyone can take away from this thread it's that Mexico is indeed going to pay for the wall!

-Rob

P.S. I agree that socialism is garbage GeneralFap

 

[Big Daddy]

The thing is, when you see Bernie talking you REALLY wanna vote for him. He sounds like he's your good friend and wanna make sure that you sleep well and have food on the table.

The problem is, as you mentioned, this is completely impossible to happen. I'd love to live in a world where I'd be a millionaire without producing and ounce of value back to the world, but this simply isn't reality. I'm not going to enter in an economics monologue, but shit such as minimum wage is unfair to everyone, including those who earn minimum wage:

For simplicity's sake, let's say the minimum wage is $1000 per month of full time work. When you force business owners to pay $1000 a month to a person that doesn't generate $1000/month of value the business, what you're doing, essentially, is raising products and services prices to everyone else, including those who earn minimum wage -- and ironically, those are who feel it in their pockets the most. I know it's hard for most people to swallow, but most people simply don't like and don't want to work hard enough, yet they still want to get paid as such. This is yet aggravated when you have people willing to work for much less in other countries and there's no way to have competitive prices with gigantic minimum wages for example.

Excluding the handicapped, most people that are poor in developed countries (even in underdeveloped ones) are poor by choice, just like most men that suck with women suck by choice.

 

[Howell]

Old man is telling people he's going to give them Free Health Care, Free College, Expand Social Security, etc., and I'm thinking, "How are we going to pay for all of this?"

If this isn't just a thinly-veiled rhetorical question so that you can soapbox, I recommend you start with a broader question: Why do people vote in presidential campaigns at all?

We can assume that most people think doing so is an effective way of changing certain aspects of society they think are not right or to "support the lesser of two evils". Sometimes people "learn" what is not right from the political candidates, sometimes they are considering historical correlatives, sometimes they have specific goals they think one candidate is more likely to have a positive effect on than another, sometimes it's a matter of traditional voting patterns, etc.

Neoliberal politics seem to mostly be identity politics. "I like this candidate because he's/she's cool/hard on crime/is more pro-business than the other candidates/etc., and that's in line with how I want to view myself". This is then reinforced with easy to remember oneliners about raising taxes, fascism!/socialism!/communism!, or the impossibility or this that or the other because "obvious reasons". Across the board a public with practically no political awareness or social consciousness fall willy-nilly into one political camp or another, rarely understanding what the broader implications of their actions (or, actually, lack thereof) are all about or the superficiality of their "stance".

Your question "How are we going to pay for all of this" is the conditioned attitude of much of the American public (esp. the petite bourgeoisie and the proletariat who fancy themselves upwardly mobile -- the exact people who this attitude is ironically the most harmful too). They are led to fixate on small businesses getting taxed more, when in fact things like universalized healthcare (a term that could and does mean A LOT of different things -- actually it's pretty much empty barking from one political camp or another) are not necessarily more expensive than what we have now.

It is however interesting that even supporting minor measures like a free universal healthcare service, slightly less inequality, and a free education system are seen as 'far-left' these days. It shows that what people perceive is based on the wider social conditions of a society. In America, people are socially conditioned to believe that the free market is so good, that the state is so bad, that immigration/welfare/socialism/equality are so bad, and that even mini-steps in a different direction are 'extreme'.

Howell

Tl;dr: Sanderitus is a mild addiction to some vaguely populist current that has no legs and hardly more imagination than a 74 y/o senator from Vermont.

 

[Howell]

Excluding the handicapped, most people that are poor in developed countries (even in underdeveloped ones) are poor by choice

P.S. Lol!

 

[Drck]

There is a difference between great ideas and reality. Ideas always sound and look great, but then the reality - when somebody hands you the bill - hits you in the face...

Socialism has lots of great ideas. Schools including universities are for free, healthcare is free, everybody is equal, there are no poor or rich people, we all get great benefits and so forth. Sure, why not? All these are great ideas. You would be stupid not to want nice life like that.

But there is also reality, which could be easily described in one short sentence - who is going to pay for it? Somebody has to pay the teachers, they don't work for free. Somebody has to print books and drive buses, somebody has to clean up in schools... None of these people will work for free. Somebody has to provide healthcare, somebody has to do research and approve medication - doctors, nurses, researchers and other people in medical field don't work for free either.... So who is going to pay them?

The reality also is, that some people work very hard, others not so hard, yet another are just plain lazy. Some people study and work very hard, they invest, they build companies... others are just working along, they do their 9-5 jobs to get by... yet another ones are plain abusers of system, they don't study, they don't work, they don't contribute much to society at all, they just suck money from the system...

So that's where the great ideas clash with reality. Somebody always has to pay for those great programs directly or indirectly, which basically means paying in some form of taxes. So who is it going to be, who is going to pay?

Of course it is going to be that hard working guy, because he is the one who is the most productive, who is honest, who makes money and who pays taxes. He's going to pay because he is usually the one who has good education, good job, good salary...

So think about it. The reality today is, that you work and study hard but you hardly get by anyway. You still have hard time paying off bills at the end of each month no matter how hard you work. Now socialists come and they say that you are making good money - thus you should be paying even more taxes so everybody can have a great life...

Out of some 320 millions of Americans, 95 millions who are ABLE to work don't work... But how do they live if they don't work? Are they that rich that they don't have to work? Probably not. Most of them are probably quite poor, relatively speaking. So they have to be on some form of government support. Ok, that is great says socialist, support for poor people is good. Government should give them even more support so they have even better life, socialist say. However, where does the government take money from? Gov either prints out money or it has to increase taxes... Taxes are paid by people and companies who work, and many times work very hard...

That's the problem. Government is spending huge amount of money, there is a long list of programs that gov wastes money on, not only social programs... There is some 95 million of people who can contribute in some way to society, but they don't do anything, except taking money from the system...

There are also people who go to college just to fuck around. They don't really care much about studying, all they want is to have fun, party. Surprisingly, they also want college for free - why would they want to pay for it? They would have to be stupid to pay for education, because it makes sense that everybody should get education for free. Let others pay for it. And once we are having a free ride in college - why study if we don't really have to? It is much easier to let those stupid ones who work hard pay for the education...

So that's the reality today, the honest and hard working guy is the stupid one, and the one who just wants to have fun and just wants to get by with minimal effort is the smart one... That's not meant as a sarcasm, that's unfortunately sad reality...

Many people also hate success. They hate guy who built great company and who employs tens of thousands of people. They hate the fact that he has better life than them. They hate the fact that he is successful but they are not, they hate the fact that somebody is winner and others are losers, because in their mind everybody should be equal... In their mind there should be no winners or losers, there should be no rich or poor, there should be no smart or stupid, because we all should be the same...

That's why socialism doesn't work, it's because of the reality of making payments for all the great social programs... You can even look at socialist countries after couple of decades, all they have on common is that they always end up in bankruptcy... European countries, Cuba, former Soviet Union, Greece... Everywhere you look, all bankrupt...

 

[Big Daddy]

@Howell

I really couldn't get if you're pro or against Bernie & friends.

Your last paragraph led me to believe that you think "free everything" isn't necessarily far-left (or extremist, as you put that most people would think), meaning you're not completely against him.

Please clarify this so we can discuss further.

 

[Richard]

Here's a mantra for everyone:

"Give them what they want, sell them what they need."

For anybody that's ever looked into body building books/websites, the first thing they hit you with is "You can look like this!" (give them what they want), and here's the regimen you follow! (give them what they need.) All political campaigns follow this mantra.

-Richard

 

[Howell]

@Howell

I really couldn't get if you're pro or against Bernie & friends.

Your last paragraph led me to believe that you think "free everything" isn't necessarily far-left (or extremist, as you put that most people would think), meaning you're not completely against him.

Please clarify this so we can discuss further.

Sure --

I don't support any bourgeois political candidates, for a number of reasons.

One big reason is that that political arena doesn't actually represent over 90% of the American people (including myself):

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... cs.doc.pdf

The study analyzed over 20 years worth of data to answer the following question: Does the government represent the people?

What they found is that the number of American voters for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that Congress will make it law.

For that reason alone it's obviously a waste of time (unless it's a hobby of yours, similar to collecting baseball cards in it's political relevance) to care much about the theatrics of this type of superficial politics. It's not like your vote actually matters. And if it did, all the presidential candidates are more or less the same on the actually important issues anyway. These elections are primarily a pageant to make you feel buy-in to prevent civil unrest and simultaneously pacify and split the American people against themselves over trivial bullshit. To me it's like watching people fight over their favorite character from Friends. "I like Joey!" "No, Chandler's the best! He's the funny one!"

Another reason is that none of these candidates represent my political tendencies.

I can think of a few more reasons, but that's probably good for now.

Now I turn to defend a deeply misunderstood political tendency out there: socialism.

The main sticking point a lot of people have about socialism is that they think socialists want everything to be free. They really don't though. Socialists want something a lot more ambitious than that (you're mixing socialists with Social Democrats. Social democracy is just another capitalist ideology. It is a bourgeois leftist ideology and is vehemently opposed by socialists).

Socialism is not free healthcare, it's not harmony between labor and capital -- it's the creation of a stateless, classless society that results from the global victory of the revolution, or the proletarian (semi-)state that results from a regional victory for the revolutionary forces in the context of world capitalism. There would be no government in socialism, and the transitional proletarian state cannot even be called socialist without doing violence to the term.

So yeah -- it's not really about making things "free", or "charity for the poor". That's applying capitalist ideological concepts to something that exists outside the logic of a capitalist society.

There's a lot more that I could try and clarify here that could be beneficial {like how the USSR was in no meaningful sense communist, but state capitalist (though it tried to be and failed, due in large part to it just coming out of feudalism and the defeat of the revolution in Germany) -- which is where the US currently is as well btw (though most people are in denial about the fact; 4 words though: "too big to fail")}, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it at that.

Howell

 

[Drck]

There will never be agreement in diversified population, people desire different things, they have different goals. I don't think it is possible to find one candidate that satisfies all, or at least most voters, it's impossible. Therefore if some group of people want to achieve something that benefits them, they have to join another groups with similar interests. On larger scale you'll end up with large parties, in USA with democrats and republicans.

Most people don't care about politics, most are somewhere in the middle, whereas parties tent to be more to the left or to the right. Democratic ideas are not bad, unless person has accumulated lots of wealth he'll always enjoys some benefit that society offers.

So a good way to look at it from large scale as well as from individuals point of view.

Large scale is party, what the party mainly stands for, what are its main ideas, how strong the party is to get what it wants and so forth. So because of the diversity none of us can really get what we want, but we can get at least something through the party. To make the party stronger we have to join it or at least vote for the candidate that represents the party.

I believe that in USA there should be a third party, Independents. I believe that independents would currently have very large support from population, just because most people are in the middle, they are not too to the left or too to the right. The problem is that there are no strong leaders who can put independents together, there is no such thing as "strong moderate", so we are unfortunately left with old establishment of both parties, we have to deal with carrier politicians who are in senate and congress for decades. There is no point mentioning that there is lots of corruption in both parties, there are promises to get voters excited and vote, yet in reality very few of those promises are fulfilled. So why vote, just to keep the same faces in office?

From individual point of view, we have to consider one important thing. We work for reward. Most of us don't go to work to make other people happy, we work to make money, and money make us somehow happy because money allow us to experience some freedom. If an individual won say 10+ millions in lottery he would quit his job and he would never want to work again. That's reality.

So regardless of how great any ideology is, we always have to consider personal satisfaction, we have to consider the rewards that individuals work for. Economy is tightly related to politics and political ideology.

In reality, say you are a good worker, you can create 10 products per day and you make $200. However, three of your coworkers make only 5 products per day, yet they have the same salary of $200. Would this make you want to work more? Probably not, you will decrease your production - why work twice as hard for the same amount of money like everybody else? That doesn't make sense, and this is what socialists don't get. Socialists think we all should get very similar salary regardless of how much we contribute to society. That's where socialism is very wrong, it discourages people from working hard and making good living for themselves.

So in order to have great economy in which everybody benefits, individuals should be rewarded for hard work. Maybe in stead of working for hourly wage, individuals should be paid for productivity - in the example above, for each product you'll make $20. That way a person would want to work harder, because the harder he works the more rewards he gets. But how much does one to have work to make enough? Well, that's up to each individual. Some can make 5 product to be happy, others will want to be making 15 or 20 to be satisfied.

In reality it is of course impossible to get paid by product because there are jobs that can't be directly measured this way (eg teachers) but the principal is great - you make what you deserve, if you are good you simply make more.

Overall, if people in society are productive (which means they get good reward), there are plenty of good products available for everybody. At the same time, many people have money to purchase the products.

When you look at USA except the past decade or two, USA was country like this. People started poor, they worked hard, they made relatively good money, they were able to purchase cars, houses and other goods... That was the American Dream...

However, in these days we have more social programs, more regulations, more unbearable taxes, more equality.... People don't have to work that hard, they don't get as much rewards, they can't effort to buy nice houses. Younger people, guys in their 20's probably don't even know anymore what it is to have the classical American Dream... They start with low wages, and chances are that they won't get much further that no matter how hard they work, that's the current system. So they say fuck it, why work hard, for what reason?

USA is still a great country, but the potential to live better life for everybody is much higher. All USA need is to let people who want to work hard work hard and make more money. Which means less taxes, less social programs, less socialists, less of all the "free stuff" that all socialists and democrats are promising. Trust me, if you have enough money you don't really want any of the "free stuff" because you know that all that "free" quite precisely reflects its quality. Any QUALITY goods or products will never be for free...

 

[GeneralFap]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxe5GcMH5yA

 

[Howell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxe5GcMH5yA

Fuck Dennis Prager. He's your typical maniacal right-wing radio talk show host. His YT channel "Prager University" is his ego-boosting attempt to reach out to the younger generation with well-produced, well-funded videos that spout reactionary bigoted drivel.

http://debigotizer.tumblr.com/post/8573 ... university

Howell

P.S. If you're going to participate in discussion, participate in discussion. Hiding behind links to "experts" helps no one and dulls the mind.

 

[Franco]

radeng,

Trump, on the other hand doesn't really have a good plan. He just "seems like he'd be a strong leader."

On the contrary, radeng... have you actually read Trump's economic plan?

America is a place where you and I split about the (by you and I, I mean the bottom 99%) same amount of money as the top 1%. The top 1% are more quickly accumulating wealth than the rest of the 99% which means as time goes forward the bottom 99% splits less of the pie while the top 1% enjoys more. The wealth does not "trickle down" so to speak. The top .01% do relatively little for the economy at all besides hoarde money. Bernie wants to stop them from being able to hoarde money as they do. I agree with this in many ways.

This is actually what Trump wants to FIX, believe it or not. The problem is, almost no one has read his actual plan (and Trump doesn't seem to market himself based on this plan, which is odd because I think it's a great idea. He's actually sacrificing his own wealth -- and the wealth of other million/billion-naires -- to bring that money back into the economy from overseas).

I think Trump understands that he needs to win the "popularity" battle (as Howell detailed in one of his responses), so he's using tactics besides marketing his own actual plan(s) to win over the people since people just want the guy they "like" the most, but most people don't actually know that he actually has a plan in place that prevents the rich from hoarding money and reduces taxes for the middle class.

Read the plan, here:

Tax Reform | Donald Trump Plan

tl;dr:

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

1. Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.

2. A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

3. Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

- Franco

 

[Franco]

radeng,

Roger.

Like Howell though, I imagine I won't be voting since California is extremely left-wing in just about every political aspect. The amount of Trump hate I see on my Facebook news feed is almost hysterical, haha. On the other hand, places like North Carolina are obviously worshipping the guy.

Likewise, I don't hate Bernie either. And Congress really still holds most of the power in this arena anyway, so our president is more of a figurehead than anything. =)

- Franco

 

[Tim Iron]

Doesn't The U.S president have some executive powers? A figure head is more like the Queen of England...

radeng,

Roger.

Like Howell though, I imagine I won't be voting since California is extremely left-wing in just about every political aspect. The amount of Trump hate I see on my Facebook news feed is almost hysterical, haha. On the other hand, places like North Carolina are obviously worshipping the guy.

Likewise, I don't hate Bernie either. And Congress really still holds most of the power in this arena anyway, so our president is more of a figurehead than anything. =)

- Franco

 

[GeneralFap]

@Howell

Obviously, we all have very different points of view here about Bernie Sanders, socialism, and the role government should play in citizens lives. I believe Bernie's policies of increasing government influence will eventually do more harm that good. My views pretty much resonate with the points Dennis made in the video:

1) Increased Corruption
2) Decreased in Individual liberty
3) creates a Ponzi Scheme
4) Tax increases
5) Unsustainable debt
6) Higher possibility for tyranny

 

[Big Daddy]

@ Howell

Oh, actually I don't think politics would solve the problems of the world. People working their asses off to invent and produce new technologies do. I don't care whether candidate supports law A or law B, I just tend to like candidate with free-maket, reducing taxes for everyone, goverment-out-of-the-way tendencies.

What you described is actually way closer to real capitalism without the gigantic influence of the government. Read this book if wanna know the details. If you have the right to private propriety and can trade in a free-market economy without the influence of the government, that's capitalism. The only thing I think government should care for is enforcing law and security inside and outside the border. Maybe some interventions in case of national health problems and shit like that.

@ radeng

America is a place where you and I split about the (by you and I, I mean the bottom 99%) same amount of money as the top 1%. The top 1% are more quickly accumulating wealth than the rest of the 99% which means as time goes forward the bottom 99% splits less of the pie while the top 1% enjoys more.

First, I think this misconception about the 1% needs to be addressed: to be part of the 1% in the US, you have to earn $344,000 or more per year. What you're referring to is actually the 1% of 1% -- and the people that are in the 0.01% change faster than you can imagine.

The 0.1 percent isn't the same group of people every year. There's considerable churn at the tippy-top. For example, consider the "Fortunate 400," the IRS's annual list of the 400 richest tax returns in the country. Between 1992 and 2008, 3,672 different taxpayers appeared on the Fortunate 400 list. Just one percent of the Fortunate 400—four households—appeared on the list all 17 years. [Source]

And they aren't some dudes that do basically nothing but leech money from the rest of the population and plan global domination. It is virtually impossible to become rich if you do not provide people with things they want. These guys are richer than everyone else because they provide better and more effectively a greater number of people than everyone else after giving people the solution to a major pain they had to become billionaire in the first place.

You gotta understand that the only reason these people have money is because you, me and everyone else prefer to have their products and services than have our dollars. When you buy an iPhone, what you're essentially saying is that having that iPhone is more valuable to you than having those $500.

So this leads us to the second misconception: the rich are getting richer as if the rest of the population isn't getting richer. A poor family in the US today has way more quality of life today than a middle-class family had 40 years ago because fortunately we had people working them asses off to discover and produce new technologies so we could buy better products at a lower price. Wealth shouldn't be measured by numbers of dollar in bank account, but rather as accessibility to things that makes one's life better (i.e. accessibility to value).

I'd rather have a world with Henry Ford where we all could have access to cheaper cars a have him be a billionaire for providing such useful tool for everyone else than have a world with more "equality" and no Henry Ford. We are not losing in any way or form because there's someone richer than us -- I'd rather give Apple my money for an iPhone and give them leverage to produce higher-quality, cheaper products because I'd benefit directly from it in a form that in no way redistribution via taxes would.

Also, redistribution makes no sense. Analogy: let's say you want to master seduction & all facets of social interactions, and after years of hard work, you achieve this, whereas 99.99% of men do not. Upset that they can't get quality women, they gather and forcefully tax your time and make you teach them against your will or not. This is what taxing essentially is. I guess some people would like to teach everyone else for free, whereas others might be to busy with other projects, and that should be up to the individual.

Chase charges for teaching us, and those who want this information are free to pay if they want or not. In the same way, people should be free to choose whether they want to pay for education or not. If I were a billionaire, I'd be more than happy to give money to schools I believe in as opposed to the traditional model that I don't believe in, yet would be forced to pay. Again, I'm not going to enter in a economics monologue, but essentially, when you force people to pay for shit that they don't want, you raise the prices for everyone else and healthcare, for instance, become way more expense than it should be.

@ Franco and radeng about Trump's economic plan

Thanks for sharing some evidence that this might the case.

You can make people believe in you as a politician when you're not good enough, but you can't fake it into the real world, though -- Trump knows how to make shit happen otherwise he wouldn't be a billionaire. That said, any "specialist" that is (way) poorer than Trump would have a very hard convincing me he's right and Trump is wrong, otherwise his superior analysis would lead him to be above Trump on Forbes rankings.

 

[Drck]

It's quite amazing, not long ago USA - that is your fathers and grandfathers - used to fight against communism, and its foundation socialism. Now it seems that the younger generation admires the same sysrem that failed or is failing everywhere in the world...

Bernie is pure socialist, socialism has proved itself as a failed ideology everywhere in the world you look. Even H Clinton who admires lots of socialist ideas doesn't want to be associated with socialism. You guys never lived under socialist regime, thus the ideas may seem to be attractive. It's actually quite sad, the poor knowledge of American students of recent political history is... As they say, beware of what you wish for...

 

[Big Daddy]

@ Fox

How can you say that people cannot change their classes in the US? I just provided a link that shows that even within 0.01% there is enough class mobility to keep changing people in there year after year for nearly two decades.

The US It's one of the most solid country for you to earn enough money so you can get to the upper classes if you work hard enough. I'm not saying that you can easily become millionaire, but to think that most here could eventually be in the 1% it's not a stretch.

 

[Drck]

Regarding "free stuff", for example, say college or university for free, or "the rich should pay for it". But WHY should it be for free at first place, why should somebody else pay for it...? That doesn't make sense. If I want to have better life, and say I want to drive better car - are you also going to pay for it because I want it for 'free'...??

Colleges and universities are optional, you don't have to study if you don't want to. Some people don't want to go to college. Chances are that if you complete university you will get better job for more money, you will have better opportunities, you will have better life... So why would other people who don't pursue higher education pay higher taxes to cover your education? That doesn't make sense. We also know that lots of college students don't really study that hard, they spent lots of time partying and having fun. Which is fine - as long as tax payers or "the rich ones" don't have to pay for it (as socialists suggest), because that is just not fair...

------------------

How about "Free" healthcare. Sure, healthcare insurance is out of wack for most people, but the situation is much more complex. It's impossible to fit everything into one paragraph, but for example: Doctors have to sort of protect themselves from lawsuits, and the way to do it is ordering expensive labs, each easily cost thousands of dollars. So there are legal problems. There is also abundance of specialists making lots of money, which is really not necessary, e.g. you rarely need specialist to treat diabetes, high blood pressure or arthritis. At the same time, lots of Americans don't take care of their own health - poor diet, fast food, lots of sweets, sodas, fatty foods, no exercise at all, obesity... Should people follow simple guidance most of the days of the week, should people keep lean and healthy, the need for hospitalization and for medical management and therefore price would decrease multi-fold. Which in translation means the healthcare would be more affordable for everybody as it would be less expensive.

So take for instance a Person A who keeps in great shape, who exercises, keeps lean, eats healthy diet, doesn't smoke or drink, who is simply healthy. Chances are that he will be healthy for most of his life, perhaps some colds here and there but overall nothing major. The overall healthcare cost that he'll accumulate will be minimal in his lifespan, literally couple of thousands of dollars, if not less.

Compare to Person B who doesn't exercise, is obese, eats as he or she wishes, smokes, drinks alcohol or uses drugs... Chances are high that this person will eventually develop some chronic diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes,... The overall healthcare cost for this person will be tremendous, hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including costly hospitalizations...

In addition, because Person A is healthy he will also be much more productive at work - he will not miss that much time by staying home or in the hospital due to sickness. He will contribute much more to the society in comparison to Person B, his overall productivity will be multiple fold of Person B...

So why would Person A be paying for "free" or "cheap" healthcare for Person B in taxes? That doesn't make much sense either. We all need to take responsibility for our health. The healthier the whole society is, the less expensive healthcare becomes. It is not fair when person who really cares about his health has to pay higher taxes for persons who don't really take any care about themselves.

There are obviously diseases or injuries that the person didn't really cause himself, such as e.g. genetic diseases, car accidents and so forth. For those it is rather obvious that the whole society should be contributing to treatment. But majority of common diseases and thus overall healthcare cause is preventable by healthy lifestyle.

------------------------------

Which makes us come back in circle back to EDUCATION. Education is very important, education brings understanding of different problems on multiple levels. If you have the right information and approach to life, you can avoid most health problems, thus you can also avoid high cost. It starts with each of us, so don't fuck around when you are in high school or university, you should be always focused on studying...

Each society needs more educated people, more rich people, more independent people, more healthier people - not less... Society needs more wolfs, not more sheeple. Society needs more successful people who can run businesses, not poor losers who can only talk and point fingers. Society needs people who contribute to our pockets, and less of those who steal from them...

With the right education, and Drck can give you lots of lessons, when you hear all the socialists "free" blah blah, "equality" blah blah and "rich should pay" blah blah, ideally you should have huge goosebumps all over your hairy back... When you see people like Bernie you should be thinking: This is a great guy, cool dude full of nice and exciting ideas - unfortunately he is just delusional because of his poor education... That dude was probably partying too much and chasing girls while in college...