It's already proven that universal healthcare will lower costs compared to Medicate, the AHCA and the ACA due to it being a simpler and more effective system. I don't condone just seizing everything if you're concerned, only in the when large companies have clearly violated an agreement with the state or broke tax evasion laws when moving out. I'm certainly against seizing assets from citizens except maybe under very specific circumstances (which I can't even think of now). And of course, implementing correct import taxes can help. Competition can be good, so these don't need to be too heavy, but they need to be heavy enough to level the playing field somewhat.

Sure it will.  We just have to degenerate our standard of living to match the lowest in the world.  That will certainly solve things.  Of course, that will result in other countries lowering their standards in order to attract businesses, too, so we'd have to downgrade again.  Maybe end up in situations where we are not only getting rid of corporate taxes but are actually paying corporations to stay.

Yeah, in the real world, that's not really an option.  Trump is well aware that doing so isn't nearly enough which is why he has talked about tariffs so often.

It's a capitalist market.  That means countries should leverage their buying power and operate just like multi-national corporations, not just sit and beg for jobs or wait to get used and thrown away.  If a shopping mall can charge companies for doing business in their market-place then a country can do the same.  

You incentivise staying but you also decentivise moving.  That's the only thing that's going to actually work.

Entry level job pays $32 an hour here at Ford. Most would be closer to $45-50 an hour with 5+ years exp.

What do you think is more likely...

A) future where wealth is redistributed, so that these machines that do the work, means everyone on the planet gets all they need.

B) future where a few companys own all the wealth, machines do all work, but they have almost no one to sell their stuff too. Money losses value, and we revert back to trade X for Y ect (where only companys can really trade one another). The humans that arnt part of that elite group, will have to learn to live off of the land/sea.

Uh, this just isn't true at all.

I wouldn’t say it’s proven. If it is such a good plan, why are premiums higher now than they were 2 years ago? Why do most people have less coverage but pay more now than they did 2 years ago? What I find interesting is that in an age of science and math, the politicians still seem to only look at the numbers they like and fail to see the entire equation. I will explain my position below.

In theory having everyone pay into a system will generate more income into each plan which would allow for more coverage for everyone. What it fails to take into consideration however is how many people do not have coverage because they can’t afford it, are not required to pay anything based on income or how much medical care actually costs. This needs to include an increase in front office staff, insurance adjusters etc. to allow for an increase in signups for people who didn’t have coverage before but are now required to sign up and an increase in patients due to people taking advantage of the coverage they have now been forced to have. For the people who are not required to pay, the money from everyone else is now paying for their coverage.

So on a positive side it should in theory create jobs in the medical field and insurance field. What it doesn’t stop however, are the insurance providers increasing rates, participating in exchanges in all states or providing affordable plans with adequate coverage. What you end up with is what is happening now, insurance companies are leaving entire states because they don’t want to participate in the exchange, rates are going up because people are forced to purchase insurance and coverage’s are going down because the insurance companies know they will get paid regardless of coverage. 

What needs to happen if we really want "universal healthcare" is an end to the insurance model. You create one government agency to manage hospital claims with an independent oversight committee. You add a 2% tax on all income for every person and company with no tax loopholes or write offs allowed to reduce that amount, 2% on all income before taxes. This will offset the individual’s income tax liability much like a 401K. You would still pay a little more overall in tax however you would not need to deal with an insurance agency, any and all medical issues would be covered with no exclusions and everyone would be covered. Laws would need to be in place to prevent the government from denying claims for procedures required like cancer treatments, aids medication etc. Any plastic surgery would be paid for by the individual and not covered by the universal healthcare unless it was medically required due to an accident or life threatening situation.

Making something mandatory and still allowing 3rd party companies to control it is asking for abuse. Car insurance is no different right now in California. You are required to have it yet they are not required to pay out regardless of how much you pay in. You could have paid in 200K for the life of your plan and they can still deny payment based on your level of coverage. Where did that 200K go?

..... Do you not read the articles that you source?

First of all, the new study was done by a professor from Berkeley of all schools..... A very liberal school that's been in the news not that long ago that suggests that the staff there might not be so objective on anything.

Further along in that article.

"A city-commissioned report by University of Washington researchers last year reached a more mixed conclusion.

That study said the law indeed helped to raise the hourly pay for low-wage workers.

But it also concluded that while the employment rate for such workers was better than the historical average due to the booming overall economy, the minimum-wage law itself appeared to have slightly lowered their employment rate and hours worked, relative to regional trends."

"Heidi Mann, who with her husband owns a Subway franchise near the Shoreline border, said she had seven employees, including her husband, two years ago. But she’s gradually had to let four of them go and is down to one full-timer, one part-timer and her husband, who’s working 60 hours a week and likely to take on more hours soon, she said.

Because she’s a franchisee, her Subway is considered a big business and must pay $15 an hour. “That’s why our prices are higher than the Subway in Shoreline or the mom-and-pop shop down the street,” Mann said.

She raised the prices of sandwiches an average of 86  cents to help offset the minimum-wage boost, and said she’s lost customers because of the increases."

It sounds like this isn't going so well. I'd like to see multiple studies done on this when the full 15 is affecting every business there for a bit. I also want to see how it affects overall hours per employee, weekly/monthly/yearly earnings etc in comparison to before the law took effect.

This is where the unions are hurting american jobs. Why would a company stay in the US if they are forced to hire Union employees at inflated rates?  They can move overseas, not pay medical benefits, high wages or retirement and rake in the savings. They still wont pass that savings onto the consumer.

That's false. If that was case then they would be making even more money since the keep charging more for the same services. Costs keep rising due to a multitude of things like unions, employee benefits, prices of materials, new taxes/fees, inflation,  etc. It's a fact.  For example, those $15/hr minium wage knuckleheads don't realize they'll lose a lot of jobs if that's implemented because it would increase the cost for businesses by a considerable amount. Mcdonalds would just become automated and everyone would suffer in some sense because of that. I can't imagine what their sandwhiches would taste like if that happened. haha. People need to learn how to be more pragmatic. 

Competition between countries for business. That's never gonna stop and it's a good thing in general. 

I already gave a solution. Just reduce costs for businesses to operate and have employees. It will solve itself.