Bernie Sanders Says His Increased Taxation Plan Will Save People Money

The Democrats held a previously un-scheduled town hall type event at Drake University in Iowa ahead of the caucuses, mostly in an attempt to shield Hillary from her falling poll numbers. Bernie Sanders said “We will raise taxes. Yes we will,” an explicit call for raising taxes on all. This was a big soundbite, but, what is the real deal? Hunter Walker at Yahoo News explains

Sanders made the comment when he was asked about his “Medicare for All” national single-payer health care program. Moderator Chris Cuomo that noted critics of Sanders’ health plan point out he will raise taxes to fund expanded social programs. Sanders said he does plan to increase taxes, but argued his health plan will save people more money than they spend on tax hikes.

“That is an unfair criticism for the following reason. If you are paying, now, $10,000 a year to a private health insurance company and I say to you, hypothetically, ‘You’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes — or actually less than that — but you’re not going to pay any more private health insurance,’” Sanders said. “Are you going to be complaining about the fact that I’ve saved you $5,000 in your total bills? So, it’s demagogic to say, ‘Oh, you’re paying more in taxes.’ Let’s all talk about — we are going to eliminate private health
insurance premiums and payments not only for individuals, but for businesses.”

“Just to be clear, you are going to raise taxes?” Cuomo asked.

“We will raise taxes. Yes we will. But also, let us be clear Chris, because there’s a little bit of disingenuity out there,” Sanders said, adding, “We may raise taxes, but we also are going to eliminate private health insurance premiums for individuals and for businesses.”

Democrats and their minions are forever calling to raise taxes, generally on That Guy. On Someone Else. A small percentage call for raising taxes on themselves, in terms of their earnings class, yet, refuse to write a check to the IRS, checks which the IRS will gladly accept. What we have here is Sanders mixing two things, raising taxes while promising a Single Payer healthcare system, for which he will supposedly save the citizens oodles of money.

In soundbite and talking points form, it sounds reasonable. Pay an extra $5000 in income tax, but since you aren’t paying the $10000 yearly premium, you save $5000. Hooray! Yet, when you dig in, you realize a few things. First, does this ever work out the way government says? Do you ever really save the money? Does this ever really benefit you? Second, the cost of living will spike, since businesses will also be taxed, and they generally tend to pass operating cost increases on to the consumer, especially when it is all business seeing a tax increase. Third, unless Sanders plans on forcing all medical providers to essentially be nationalized, their cost of doing business will also rise thanks to the tax increases, meaning consumers will pay more. Fourth, these providers will provide lesser quality of service if the reimbursement from Government is lower. They aren’t going to lose money providing service. Fifth, many medical providers will simply shut their doors, decreasing availability.

Of course, this is all immaterial to Democrats like Sanders. The main idea is to make the Citizens even more reliant on the federal government. If you look at almost everything Democrats do, it is simply about that notion. Reliance.

Breitbart has a nice “transcript” of the town hall.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

37 Responses to “Bernie Sanders Says His Increased Taxation Plan Will Save People Money”

  1. Dana says:

    The problem with Senator Sanders’ argument is that while it sounds reasonable in theory. it fails as a practical matter. Yes, health insurance usually costs more than $12,000 a year, but the typical employee only sees a small fraction of that; the rest is paid by the employer. It’s part of the employees’ total compensation, but because the employers’ share is usually around 70 or 80%, the employee doesn’t see it as reportable income, and thus pays lower taxes.

    You could argue that employers would then pay the employees their total compensation — and yes, I have not one, but several bridges to sell you — but that would then become taxable income to the employee, and not only would he have to pay higher Medicare taxes, but he’d get stuck with higher income taxes, state and local as well as federal.

    And while Mr Sanders’ argument is that people would no longer have to pay for private health insurance, that’s exactly what they do in single-payer Japan, among other countries, because the level of care provided by the single-payer system sucks.

  2. Dana says:

    From Sachi ab Hugh, whose father lives in the Land of the Rising Sun, with it’s single payer health care system:

    “VIP” Treatment Under Nationalized Health Care

    A few days ago, my 77 year old father, who lives in Japan, fell and couldn’t get up for more than an hour. He was taken to a hospital, where he still rests.

    Last night my mother called to update me with a summary of his condition: He has a compressed disk, it seems (it’s hard to translate from Japanese to English and from Mom-speak to ordinary human language). The condition is somewhat serious but not life threatening; he’ll have to spend a few weeks in hospital. Too bad; New Year’s is the biggest holiday season in Japan.

    I’m sure everyone reading this post knows that Japan has socialized medicine (national health care, single-payer, however you want to call it). It’s not as draconian as the NHS in the United Kingdom or the Canadian national and provincial health-care system; but it is universal — everyone must pay for government insurance. Fortunately, those who are well off can also buy private insurance in addition… and they can use that instead of the government system (unlike in the UK or Canada).

    In other words, Japan already has the system that proponents of ObamaCare eventually want to install here in America. So let’s take a look at how it works in the real world.

    After Mom reassured me about my father’s condition, she started talking about last year around this time, when she had to have stomach surgery.

    “Oh Sachi, the care I received was wonderful!” she said; “I stayed in a private room which was like in a nice hotel. It had a private bathroom. The nurses were nice. The doctors were wonderful. I spent nine days in the hospital and only paid ¥80,000!” [About 800 dollars]

    “Really?” I asked; “government insurance actually covered all that?”

    “Oh, of course not; I have three insurance policies,” she proudly announced.

    There’s a lot more at the link, in which Mrs ab Hugh notes the difference in care her father received, because he had three supplemental health insurance policies, and what others, who cannot afford or do not have such policies, receive.

    Mrs ab Hugh’s family back in Japan was very well-to-do, and had ‘connections’ that enabled them to avoid the long waiting lines. If we go to a single-payer system in the United States, people will still have to buy health insurance, to get around the crappy care that the single-payer system will provide.

    The l;eft will never understand this, because they are fundamentally incapable of accepting the obvious, that government never makes anything less expensive.

  3. john says:

    Teach is it your position that taxes on the “donor class” should not be raised? Do you see any potential problems in the concentration of money/political power in a tiny group of citizens?
    Would you like to see the top tax rate increased to whatever it was whenever you think the “Golden Age” of our country was?

  4. Jeffery says:

    And yet, the healthcare plans in EVERY OTHER advanced nation on Earth pays less per person than we do in the US. Most pay much less! Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada etc etc and so forth. And every resident has health insurance!

    Somehow EVERY OTHER advanced nation on Earth finds a way to make healthcare universal and MORE efficient. In the US we pay an unnecessary $1 TRILLION/year on healthcare costs.

    Only unthinking partisans oppose single-payer healthcare. It will save us billions and improve health care.

  5. Hank_M says:

    “Canada’s health care system is the developed world’s most expensive universal-access health care program. Canada’s health care system has a funding gap of $537 billion (as of 2013). Canadians face longer wait times than their counterparts in other developed nations for emergency care, primary care, specialist consultations, and elective surgery. Access to physicians and medical technologies in Canada lags behind many other developed nations.”

    “While Canadians are getting a raw deal for their health care dollars, patients in Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland receive universal access to health care without lengthy queues. Patients in Australia, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and France enjoy better outcomes from the health care process than Canadians from their universal access health care systems.”

    “Each of these nations’ universal access health care systems — every one of them — has a larger role for the private sector in financing and delivery than Canada with cost sharing, private competition in the delivery of health care services, and private parallel health care and health care insurance.”

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    One of the reasons that most thinking docs in the US feel that universal health care sucks is that they generally trained in a US based hospital that was socialized medical care. As such, they know the evils and warn against it. Now, the US is the most advanced health care system in the world. Despite the fact you will spout off a number of meaningless stats, most of the people in the world that can come here for care. Why would they do that with their great socialized systems? The only good thing about Canada is that their system allows them to come here to the US for major procedures. Let me give an example of the Canadian system in reducing cost. If you need a CT scan for the headache you have and the doctor suspects a tumor in your brain, then the wait time is 6 months to a year. Your dog on the other hand can get a scan the next day. The reason for the delay is the anticipation that you will die waiting for the test and therefore the government does not have to spend money on your care. Are you aware that in the US the big O has made it almost impossible to get a stress test which would help us to determine if you might have CV disease? The same reasoning applies. The old adage still applies that you get what you pay for.

    Now, as I have said before, if you were truthful in your comments, it would make for a better discussion. Or for that matter, if you could learn something and know what you are talking about we could better appreciate your position.

  7. Jeffery says:

    hankm,

    From where did you derive your quotes?

    dave,

    Your opinions matter little – you are milking the current system, taking money out of the pockets of wealthy, hard-working taxpayers like myself. You’re welcome.

    Nothing you type can be trusted.

    The US pays twice as much as the average advanced nations pay for healthcare. We have more people in the US not covered by health insurance as there are people in Canada!

    Of course you don’t want to give up your taxpayer funded gravy train.

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

    I’ve spoken with Canadians and Australians about their universal healthcare systems (full disclosure, many of them were physicians and scientists) and they universally like their universal systems. The chief medical officer for a clinical trial contract organization in Australia was bemused by the US healthcare system wondering why we would do this to ourselves.

  8. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Really disingenuous, anyone who watches these comments is well aware of your stupidity. Now, how about your little drug company and how you gouge the public?

  9. alanstorm says:

    Aw, Jeffy is so CUTE:

    “Your opinions matter little” he proclaims.

    Well, Jeffy, maybe if you had any (undebunked) supporting citations, YOUR opinions might carry some weight. Unfortunately, it seems your insights on health care are as valuable as the ones on “climate hange”.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Hank_M

    Thanks for the citation. Esmail is a fellow with the libertarian/conservative Fraser Institute.

    Maybe someone can track down his unbelievable claim of a $537 billion shortfall . It seems nearly impossible in a country of only 36 million people. Their yearly spend on health care is only about $160 billion. I couldn’t follow his citation in the article, which takes one to the Fraser Institute homepage. It’s either a misprint or it’s referring to some future “unfunded mandate” that conservatives like to tout.

    Canada spends 1/2 per person on health care compared to the US. If we cut our healthcare costs in half we’d save $1.4 trillion every year, much of that taxpayer monies for Medicare and Medicaid! We waste more on healthcare than we pay to defend the nation. More than our entire yearly payouts to Social Security. Our budget deficits would be a thing of the past. Our long term debt outlook would be rosy. Obviously, the insurance and drug companies, the hospitals, clinics and AMA would be apoplexic with losing that much profit.

    Note too that Esmail touted every other nation except his own as being superior. Fair enough. He especially liked France, a nation that spends even less than Canada! If the US adopted the French system we’d save even more money!

    Let’s face this fact: The US pays twice what other advanced nations spend per person and we miss 10% of our residents! These other nations have universal care for each and every resident for half what we spend!! Every year $1.4 trillion gets lost in the system – that’s nearly 10% of our GDP redistributed from the US middle class to the wealthy – doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, hospital and clinic execs, ad agencies, administrators, drug company execs.

    Imagine the hue and cry if we took $1.4 trillion a year from the wealthy and redistributed to the working classes. Shit, the moderates of both parties are looking to balance the budget by cutting Social Security benefits (paid for by the working classes!! – the wealthy pay very little into SS) which totals hardly half ($0.73 trillion in 2013)of what we transfer to the rich via our broken healthcare system. It’s a travesty.

    Bernie Sanders is right.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Do you prefer Ally or Stormy? I like Stormy, it’s such a cute name, with just a hint of feistiness, so like you.

    Stormy,

    Since I’m absolutely right on climate change, I assume you think I’m right on healthcare (I am).

    Anyway, Stormy, I realize the commenters here are locked into their belief systems and are refractory to learning.

    And did you really refute anything I wrote? I must have missed it. My apologies if you think I’m too harsh on poor old dave, but he is a liar and irrational to boot. “CO2 is not increasing because visitors to the pyramids “were distressed”.” Good lord…

    I hope to educate those that read but don’t comment.

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    I hope to educate those that read but don’t comment.

    The little guy is losing it.

  13. jl says:

    J “educating” anybody? oh, my. I’m sure we’ll save money just like we saved 2500 a year with Obamacare, and kept our doctor. Any one who believes this crap- take off your tin foil hat. John- “do you see any potential problem with the concentration of money/political power in a tiny group of citizens?” No, because- as long as they make their money legally. No, because if some have a lot of money isn’t the reason others have less money. And John , the US has one of the smallest concentrations of people paying most of the taxes as anybody in the world. Are you ok with the US having probably the most progressive income system in the world?

  14. Jeffery says:

    Oh, little feller, don’t get your dauber down. You couldn’t have lost it could you, since you never had it.

  15. Jeffery says:

    No, because- as long as they make their money legally. No, because if some have a lot of money isn’t the reason others have less money.

    Not exactly, since the wealthy determine what’s “legal”. Our tax code, immigration laws, trade policies, monetary (Fed) and fiscal (Congress) policies, labor laws, financial regulations, and “free market” healthcare are all developed by Congress to reward their bosses (the wealthy). We’re “legally” destroying the middle class to support the wealthy. There’s nothing free market or natural about it – we’re doing it with policy – and on purpose.

  16. […] hypothetical and everything the government does always costs a heck of a lot more in reality. Not to mention what effect nationalizing health care will have on the care you receive or the ripple effect this […]

  17. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Canada spends 1/2 per person on health care compared to the US. If we cut our healthcare costs in half we’d save $1.4 trillion every year, much of that taxpayer monies for Medicare and Medicaid!

    Which is why the Canadians have such long waiting lines, and even the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador chose to have his required cardiac surgery in the United States.

  18. Dana says:

    John asked:

    Teach is it your position that taxes on the “donor class” should not be raised?

    Not to answer for our esteemed host, but I believe that everyone should be taxed exactly the same. No, not the same percentage of our income, but the same amount of dollars.

    This was what the Framers believed, that every free man was the same, and should be assessed the same in taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment is the most pernicious thing ever attached to our Constitution.

  19. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    No, because- as long as they make their money legally. No, because if some have a lot of money isn’t the reason others have less money.

    Not exactly, since the wealthy determine what’s “legal”. Our tax code, immigration laws, trade policies, monetary (Fed) and fiscal (Congress) policies, labor laws, financial regulations, and “free market” healthcare are all developed by Congress to reward their bosses (the wealthy). We’re “legally” destroying the middle class to support the wealthy. There’s nothing free market or natural about it – we’re doing it with policy – and on purpose.

    And what would you do to change that, in the form of fewer laws and regulations?

    Of course, that condition means you have no answer, because what you would like to see is more laws and regulations, designed to take money from the top producers and give it to those who are less hard-working and less productive.

  20. Jeffery says:

    dava,

    No, not the same percentage of our income, but the same amount of dollars.

    You’re jesting, of course, although I once heard this from someone filling in for Rush Limbaugh, so I believe there are a few unthinking people who actually think this is rational!

    You’ve fallen out of the Overton Window.

    How much should each person pay? To make the math easy, how about $10,000/American/year? That will raise about 300,000,000 x $10,000 = $3 trillion. Not quite as much as we raise now.

    A family of four, with a hard-working husband making $62,000 a year, and a stay at home mom would pay $40,000 or about 70% and Bill Gates and family, making $1,000,000,000 a year would pay $30,000 or about 0.003%. My wife and I would pay only 4%.

    This would, of course, spell the end of the nation and return us to the feudalism that wealthy conservatives covet.

    But maybe we can cut spending by 90%? Eliminate all government spending except bare-bones military. This would mean we’d need to cut the military by two thirds or so. OK?

  21. Jeffery says:

    dava,

    So you’re OK with policies that funnel the earnings of the working classes to the pockets of the leisure class?

    Why?

    What is “free-market” about our copyright and patent system? The federal government keeps other manufacturers from competing with the patent holder – it’s a government enforced monopoly protecting the wealthy at the expense of the working classes who pay billions extra for medicines, cell phones, computers, cars, music, books etc. Working class Americans pay an extra $200 billion EVERY year for medicines alone – all because the federal government enforces monopolies by private corporations.

    And that’s just one example.

    Our trade policies ship the jobs of working class Americans oversea yet prevent competition for doctors, lawyers, execs.

  22. gitarcarver says:

    So you’re OK with policies that funnel the earnings of the working classes to the pockets of the leisure class?

    You don’t seem to have problems with accepting money as part of that “leisure class.” So why would you ask if others have issues with people workign within the same system you have prospered in?

    What is “free-market” about our copyright and patent system?

    Says the guy who has patents and won’t vacate them.

  23. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s because I have problems with a system that funnels money up to the wealthy at the expense of working classes.

    Do you think the federal government enforcing a monopoly so that drug companies can charge 100 times the free market cost of a drug is a good example of the free market or an example of a market rigged to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working classes?

    Tell us everything you know about the process of an inventor “vacating” a patent. Would the inventor submit an affidavit to the USPTO telling that the data in the patent was false even if it’s not? In that case, mightn’t the owner of the patent sue the inventor for damages? If the data were false, the “inventor” would be admitting to fraud against the US. If the data were genuine, why would the inventor want to withdraw from the patent since it’s the owner of the patent that controls it? Please explain.

  24. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    dava,

    No, not the same percentage of our income, but the same amount of dollars.

    You’re jesting, of course, although I once heard this from someone filling in for Rush Limbaugh, so I believe there are a few unthinking people who actually think this is rational!

  25. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    dava,

    No, not the same percentage of our income, but the same amount of dollars.

    You’re jesting, of course, although I once heard this from someone filling in for Rush Limbaugh, so I believe there are a few unthinking people who actually think this is rational!

    The v key is two away from the n; you appear to be a poor typist, having made the same error multiple times!

    However, I believe it to be perfectly rational: you and I and Rush Limbaugh and Ted Cruz and our esteemed host are all equal, natural born citizens, who should be equal under the law; why should any citizen be punished by having to pay higher taxes simply because he is doing the right thing and working harder and being more productive than others?

    Equal taxation was what the Framers envisioned, and their wisdom seems to be far greater than that of today.

  26. Dana says:

    The Jeffrey who cannot type wrote:

    dava,

    So you’re OK with policies that funnel the earnings of the working classes to the pockets of the leisure class?

    Why?

    What is “free-market” about our copyright and patent system? The federal government keeps other manufacturers from competing with the patent holder – it’s a government enforced monopoly protecting the wealthy at the expense of the working classes who pay billions extra for medicines, cell phones, computers, cars, music, books etc. Working class Americans pay an extra $200 billion EVERY year for medicines alone – all because the federal government enforces monopolies by private corporations.

    Without the patent system, who would work to develop anything, since the financial rewards of his labor would be stolen by those who didn’t put forth the work, who didn’t do the research. Without copyrights, authors would be writing for nothing, since anything they produced would be, if it was any good, simply appropriated by other people who wanted to profit from it.

    Of course, other corporations could compete with the patent holders, by doing the research themselves, and developing the medicines or devices which performed the same functions but worked differently.

    But, perhaps you believe that the fruits of one person’s — or one corporation’s — labors somehow belong to everyone. That, I suppose, would fit right into your socialist mindset.

  27. Jeffery says:

    dava,

    It’s ironic that you’re concerned about a misspelled name.

    So you support violating your free market principles, as long as the rigged system protects the wealthy. Either you believe in a free market or you don’t.

    Do you oppose the free market idea of allowing physicians to immigrate to the US dropping the exorbitant pay that US physicians receive or do you support limiting the number of docs to keep the pay high?

    Do you oppose or support international trade agreements that encourage US corporations to use low wage foreign labor in direct competition with US labor?

    Do you oppose the government imposing minimum wages, preferring that wages only be set by the wealthy? Yet support the same government enforcing (by jailing violators if necessary) monopolies for the wealthy!

    Since you’re a man of principle, you support shifting the entire tax burden of the nation onto the poor and working classes, exempting the wealthy of any significant taxes, but you bend your free market principles to reward wealthy corporations with government enforced monopolies!

    How would you (or would you?) modify your unworkable, cruel and extreme tax policy so that a family of 4 making $62,000 wouldn’t owe 70% of their earnings to the government? I still think you’re joking and being provocative. No rational person would consider such a thing.

  28. gitarcarver says:

    Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s because I have problems with a system that funnels money up to the wealthy at the expense of working classes.

    Gee, so you whine about a system that you willingly participate in, boast about how much money you have made and then say “no one else should have the same opportunity I had!”

    As I said, you have the chance to vacate the patent and voluntarily pay higher taxes but you wont’

    You just want others to do what you will not.

  29. Jeffery says:

    Explain again how an inventor “vacates” a patent and how this impacts the patent owners’ income.

    If you can’t or won’t it illustrates how little you know about your typed droppings.

    Let me give you an out. It IS true that a pharma scientist could publicly disclose trade secrets or confidential information weakening the patent position of the corporation and potentially allowing competitors into the market. In these cases the government typically sides with the “harmed” corporation in the legal cases against the “leaker”. Is that what you advocate? That employees publically disclose confidential information before it is patented?

    There exists an entire multibillion industry protecting technology patents from infringement. Clever, sometimes genius, patent attorneys waste their lives on strategies to block marketplace competition. Many, if not most, “improvements” in existing drug lines are not to improve patient response but to improve a corporation’s patent position, and hence their government enforced monopoly and their ability to charge above-market prices. Companies spend billions on government subsidized research and development to keep their products under government protection. Billions! Venture capitalists understand this system all too well when they invest $10 million in a biotech company. Do they expect a 10, 20 or 50% return? A 100% return? LOL. No, they expect a 2000% return, made possible by our rigged system for funding medicine research, and a government that enforces private monopolies!

  30. gitarcarver says:

    Explain again how an inventor “vacates” a patent and how this impacts the patent owners’ income.

    Do you not even read the stuff you write?

    You say that patent holders make lots of money off of patents (as you have done) and then say the system is terrible.

    You made the ridiculous statement “that drug companies can charge 100 times the free market cost of a drug…” not understanding that the price of any good absent government controls is the “free market” price.

    You once said that your business partners won’t let the patents you own become public. You can’t even convince your own partners of your beliefs. Furthermore, instead of standing on your principles and leaving the company, you stay there merrily making money – the same money you decry others make in the same situation.

    When you decide to live up the ideals you want others to do, then maybe people will listen.

  31. Jeffery says:

    You say that patent holders owners make lots of money off of patents (as you have done) and then say the system is terrible.

    Yes, that is my point. It rewards the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. I have made lots of money working hard and long hours, living simply, saving and investing wisely and luckily.

    You made the ridiculous statement “that drug companies can charge 100 times the free market cost of a drug…” not understanding that the price of any good absent government controls is the “free market” price.

    And your statement is nonsensical. Why do you suppose the price of a drug drops 90% or more when it comes off patent? Competition. The initial price is high because the government is preventing the competition from marketing a product. We have decided that the value of developing drugs is worth this gutting of the free market system. The government “regulation” in this case is the protection offered by the USPTO and the DOJ. The generic houses are still making a profit after dropping the drug price 90%. Don’t you agree that having the government eliminate the competition is not a free market?

    Do you really think our current system is perfect? Might there be a better way to develop valuable medicines and tech devices without bankrupting the middle class?

    How does an inventor “vacate” a patent?

  32. gitarcarver says:

    Yes, that is my point.

    So you agree that you have made tons of money in a system without the moral fortitude to hold onto you convictions and walk away,.

    You also admit that your method of making money harms the middle class and although you can do something about, you won’t.

    Got it.

    And your statement is nonsensical.

    It is nonsensical to you because you don’t understand the term “market value price.”

    Don’t you agree that having the government eliminate the competition is not a free market?

    The government doesn’t eliminate the competition and you know it. What a moronic thing to say,

    In essence you seem to think that the work product of people should belong to everyone.

    Where does that idea end? Do you think that everyone should be able to live in your home? Live rent free in other places? Is your car free for all to use?

    Those items are all benefits from your work product, right?

    Why do you think that those who create, invent and make a product do not deserve the right to sell it as they see fit?

  33. Jeffery says:

    Alinsky,

    Who is stopping anyone from creating, inventing and making a product and selling it as they see fit? The question is about the government preventing others from making and selling it. When a Pfizer scientist invents a drug and the company patents, develops and markets it, who or what entity stops Ranbaxy from copying it and selling it for half as much? You? Who enforces patents? Governments, that’s who.

    Do you really think a patent should extend indefinitely? Someone at some time invented disc brakes. Are they the only ones to be allowed by the federal government to sell them?

    Do you really not believe in free markets?

    Do you really believe monopolies are good for markets?

    Your personal attacks have two parents 1) envy and 2) tactics (Alinsky Rule 5). When you can’t or are too lazy to make an argument, it’s time to ridicule.

    How does an inventor “vacate” a patent?

    Why do you think that someone knowing something about a topic invalidates their opinions of that topic? Oh, because you’re conservative.

    Trump/Palin 2016!!

  34. gitarcarver says:

    So here we go….. once you are confronted with facts and ideas that you cannot logically refute, you resort to name calling.

    Who enforces patents? Governments, that’s who.

    Wrong. Just flat out wrong.

    Patent holders enforce patents through the civil courts.

    Do you really think a patent should extend indefinitely?

    No. Which is why patents have a lifespan. But you should have known that.

    Do you really not believe in free markets?

    Yes.

    You don’t. Part of your opposition is your ignorance in understanding what the free market is.

    You think that the “free market” should allow for stolen property. You mentioned earlier in your ignorance of the term “free market value” that it was “competition” that lowers prices. To an extent that it true. But you aren’t arguing for competition in the sense of “building a better mouse trap.” You believe in theft. You believe that the people who make illegal copies of movies and CD’s are okay. You support and believe in software piracy. You believe that someone should spend their time, money and effort to make a product only to have someone else steal it and profit from it.

    Do you really believe monopolies are good for markets?

    I would answer this but you are once again trying to make an argument based on your ignorance of terms. “Monopolies” are based on market control – not product control. You mentioned a Pfizer scientist inventing a drug and you think allowing Pfizer to maintain a patent on that drug is a monopoly. It is not. Another company such as Johnson and Johnson is free to come along and develop a drug that does the same thing. Therefore there is no monopoly.

    When you can’t or are too lazy to make an argument, it’s time to ridicule.

    Which is what you have done. You are incapable of making any cognitive argument that supports the stealing of people’s ideas and work. Yet you partake in the system you condemn because you are too much of a hypocrite to walk away from what you think is wrong.

    Why do you think that someone knowing something about a topic invalidates their opinions of that topic?

    When you start letting someone type in your name that knows something about the topic, let me know.

    It sure isn’t you.

    Oh, because you’re conservative.

    Yep.

    And you are a liberal.

    Liberals love to steal from the work of others.

  35. Jeffery says:

    Courts are not part of the government?

    What entity determines the lifespan of a patent? And why is “20 years” sacrosanct?

    The government suppresses competition in the medicine industry, keeping prices high. YOU misrepresent my relating facts as advocacy. But you lie constantly, so what’s new.

    To the bigger picture, which you ignore (it’s your primary tactic, followed by ad hominem attacks), government policies (including our USPTO) reward the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. Tax, trade, labor, fiscal and monetary policies assault the working classes.

    Buh bye.

  36. gitarcarver says:

    Courts are not part of the government?

    Not in the sense that you think they control who can and cannot make something. Courts resolve disputes. Your position is akin to saying that the government controls who can buy property because the deed is registered with the government and courts solve land disputes.

    What entity determines the lifespan of a patent?

    Congress as part of their Constitutional duty. Your question shows that are ignorant of the subject matter.

    And why is “20 years” sacrosanct?

    It’s not. That’s why the lifespan of a patent has changed over time. I suspect that you didn’t know that, once again illustrating your ignorance on the subject matter.

    The government suppresses competition in the medicine industry, keeping prices high.

    You are certainly free to believe in this fantasy. The government doesn’t suppress competition. It does help suppress the theft of property which is what you believe in.

    YOU misrepresent my relating facts as advocacy.

    You haven’t related any facts Jeffery. All you have done is say that companies should be able to steal from others.

    But you lie constantly, so what’s new.

    You’re entitled to that opinion, but you know it isn’t true. You just hate getting caught in making false arguments and statements. You hate it when you are bested by the facts and so you retreat to your time honored and tired act of lashing out at others.

    To the bigger picture, which you ignore (it’s your primary tactic, followed by ad hominem attacks), government policies (including our USPTO) reward the wealthy at the expense of the working classes.

    I haven’t ignored it at all. In fact, I am surprised that you are for a company being able to steal from working class person their invention, discovery or intellectual property.

    In your world, little John Smith could invent something and some left leaning corporation could come in and steal his work and profit from it.

    Leftists are greedy SOB’s as evidenced by your statements and positions here.

    Buh bye.

    Toodles!

    Come back when you have actually learned what you are trying to talk about instead of spouting nonsense based on ignorance.

    I’ll be here along with others exposing your ignorance and hypocrisy.

    By the way, have you walked away from your job in which you make money from the patents you won’t vacate?

    I didn’t think so.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6860 access attempts in the last 7 days.