Dims love socialism, but only because they don't know what it is

[regent]

Bismarck brought socialism to Germany because he was afraid that people would soon demand communism in Germany.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bismarck brought socialism to Germany because he was afraid that people would soon demand communism in Germany.

So, he picked up a taipan and got bit because he didn't want to get bit by a black mamba?

 

[basquebromance]

there's much more to be gained by targeting non-voters than by targeting republicans. thats why this move to socialism by the democrat party will go a long way. people vote based on authenticity or emotional factors more than political ideology

 

[Votto]

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens even though everyone has access to "health care" there.

But should that be our focus? For the Progressive, it is the only focus it seems.



As seen in the video above, before the passing of Obamacare, they wish to reduce costs by limiting treatment.

And the US has seen this in socialized care for US war Veterans. In the US, veterans in Arizona were put on secret "do not treat" lists because they were too sick and expensive to treat.

Overall, from what I can gather, socialized health care seems better so long as what you need is not emergent and does not need expensive treatments. For example, many come to the US from socialized health care around the world to obtain special treatments that are needed quickly and are expensive, mostly regarding cancer. Cancer outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality is far higher in socialized health care than in the US because in the US you tend to get treated quicker and with more expensive treatments.

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens

You don't think that's a false equivalent? I'm talking about MY country and we do care about our people. We live longer and are in general healthier. NOT anecdotal but rather a statement of fact. Bringing up N-Korea is simply a dishonest argument.

Why is brining North Korea into the conversation dishonest? What is dishonest is to call your country a socialist country when NK is really a socialist country. Granted, you may have socialized medicine but so does NK. This is important because when health care is socialized, it is up to the government to provide it. All governments vary from election to election. Not knowing what to expect then becomes an issue, and watching government spending sky rocket, like in the US, is very disconcerting. I mean, how can the government continue to function and provide decent health care with escalating debt like that?

I know, I know, you don't live in the US, but what will happen to YOUR country if the US does? No longer will your country just be concerned with health care. You will then have other issues to worry about such as defending yourself from Putin, etc. For it is the US military has been a type of socialized entitlement to ensure the freedom of Western Europe from the USSR and Putin.

-Bringing N-Korea up when I state that our healthcare system is 50 percent cheaper, with the implication that they "don't care about their people", is about as dishonest as it comes. You know that a Western European country is NOT N-Korea in its viewpoint on it's people. It's yet another time when you try to conflate separate issues to try to not have to answer the premise. This premise is that "socialized medicine" is simply more efficient and in most cases better and for sure cheaper then "for profit healthcare".
-All governments vary so healthcare becomes uncertain? Again this isn't bearing out in almost ANY country that provides socialized healthcare. What will happen is as budget issues creep in, some changes will be made but nothing drastic. Now take what happens in the US were the different insurance companies have varied tariffs and differences in policies even on a state to state basis, it seems that your system has way more uncertainty built in.
- If a ballooning debt is a problem, why do you think it's alright to add trillions to it, by reducing the income the government gets by raising taxes? It sure was aimed more to the 1 percent who is already rich, why do they need more, at the expense of a further ballooning debt?
- As to the cost of your military involvement in Europe. At the moment Belgium spends a bit more then 1 percent of GDP on self defense. The set goal by NATO is 2 percent. So in order to comply we would have to spent another 1 percent. The US spends about 6 percent of GDP more on healthcare, so even with that 1 percent we would spend extra that wouldn't be a great difference. You guys constantly overestimate the cost of the military as a percentage of GDP.

I understand that a state controlled health care would be more efficient and cheaper. For me though, the issue is the nefarious things that can occur under such a system. As I've pointed out, the issue at the VA in Arizona is foremost on my mind. Secret "do not treat" lists are equivalent to death lists that opponents of a single payer system warned about. The main issue regarding government control of anything is accountability. If a private entity harms someone or is negligent, you have the government over them to hold them accountable. However, when the government runs things who do you run to? In terms of what happened at the VA in Arizona, whistleblowers tried to notify their Congressman John McCain, shortly after which they were fired. John threw them under the bus. Now you would think that McCain would be the person to run to, since he was also a veteran and all, but no. If it were not for some obscure Congressman in Florida who broke the story, the whole affair more than likely would have been swept under the rug and never heard. It makes me wonder how often this sort of thing goes on, but what I'm certain of, it will continue. Once the story broke, Obama made a ceremonial firing of someone who had really nothing to do with any of it, so in effect, nothing was done to fix the issue.

I also know of an American who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction. She was 70 years old and the first surgery did not resolve the issue. Their response was, we tried and she has had a good life, so let nature take its course. Fortunately for her, her son was a doctor who flew over and raised hell till the operated again. That was over 10 years ago and she is still doing fine.

So what do patients do who don't have a doctor son to advocate for them? I guess they should just be happy with the notion that a government run health program is saving trillions of dollars and is brutally efficient and die. I also see what happens with Planned Parenthood in the US. They are funded by the government and participate in abortions. They were then caught on camera selling body parts of those dead unborn children. So what happens in the US? Just a bunch of BS covering up what everyone saw on film. Nothing is done regarding this inhumane Nazi like program. They may as well be Nazis selling the gold teeth and hair of their victims.

And that is the other end of all this. Those who come from socialized medicine seem to be far more secular. As a result, their world view on the value of life or even what constitutes a life is far different. Those who are secular tend to see nothing wrong with such things as abortion, or even selling their body parts to save money so that our fabulous government can save even more money. And the elderly are not valued as much either as such things as euthanasia is common place and those who are too old or sick are just left to die to save money. The extreme of this would be how the Nazi government would go into hospitals and determine who was no longer productive for the Fatherland. Those deemed to be a drain on society, in terms of money and man power, were sent to the basements to die. Now I'm not suggesting that this will happen again, but I am suggesting it is happening in a kinder, more gentler way by just deciding to not treat them, and once the government takes over the power then all is lost. They will never give such power back.

From a conservative perspective in the US, the situation is even more unsettling knowing that the IRS has been used by the government to target conservatives politically. Again, Obama apologized and made some ceremonial firing that changed essentially nothing. Then the IRS was given power over our medical insurance. What if Obama, or some other government goon, decides to target political foes when it comes to paying for that heart transplant?

In short, I don't trust the government, and should not have to. My own thought is that the government should allow people to save medical funds tax free so that they can pay for things themselves verses having to beg the government or private insurer to treat them. If they are healthy and don't use the funds, they should be allowed to use it for their loved ones or friends. It could free a great percentage of the population from having the depend on the government or private health insurance.

Do I have all the answer? No, but I also know that neither to the bureaucrats in government who have run up a $20 trillion plus debt. And what makes me even more wary is that Obamacare was just shoved down our throats with lie after lie. The ink is not even dry on the legislation and these same voices are trying to shove a single payer system on us. Now why on earth should anyone trust them now?

First coming out with some super secret "do not treat" list that I can't find any reference to seems a bit silly. Secondly "nefarious" things? Let me tell you. My mother-in-law, who was an RN in New York, earned good money, had her own house and a nice bit of savings, died without any of that. Not because of no insurance but because she had the bad luck of having to get two vertebrae in her lower back fused at age 56. She ended up without decent post op care and an opioid addiction. That to me is nefarious.
One of my brother-in-laws was a victim of a hit and run. This was in the pre ACA era. He wasn't insured, had a shattered shoulder. The ER stabilized him send him on his merry way, because the reconstructive surgery required wasn't deemed essential. The result is he has severely limited mobility in his right shoulder. A productive member of society was effectively taken out of the work force because he couldn't come up with the money to get a surgery. That to me is nefarious.
Thirdly, as to accountability. The government here is accountable. They call it elections. In contrast to your country those elections aren't privately funded, have all kinds of limits imposed on it, and have more then 2 parties that have a real chance of winning those election. So no lobbyist allowed and you get judged on your performance. To what pray tell is a company accountable to? Certainly not the customers. They're accountable to their shareholders, which means the motivation is profit not customer satisfaction perse. They will charge the most they can get away with and have NO incentive to make it cheap.
The whole " you guys are secular" so you have no respect for life" argument, I'm not even gonna dignify with an answer.

No health care system is perfect, just look at Canada.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

In citing those numbers in its 2015 report, "Leaving Canada for Medical Care," the organization said difficulties in obtaining timely medical care at home is, increasingly, leading Canadians to seek it abroad. "It is possible [they] may have left the country to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care, such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death," the report says. "Some may leave simply to avoid delay and to make a quicker return to normal life."

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

As for elections, you probably have no idea how Obamacare was passed, do you? It was at a time when Senator Kennedy had just been diagnosed with brain cancer. This was problematic for the democrats because they needed his vote to pass Obamacare. It was then that the democrats tried to get the election laws changed so that Kennedy could step down without incurring an election to replace him that might put someone in office who might vote against the legislation, but the failed to change the law. Instead, a Republican ran for office in a completely democrat state and won because he ran on stopping Obamacare. For you see, those in MA had Romneycare and did not much like the idea of switching to Obamacare. So you would think that the voters had spoken, but the democrats used a thing called "Reconciliation" to get around the democratic process and just rammed it through anyway.

I'm sure you don't believe this either it is so crazy, just like the secret death lists, so here is an article.

How Obamacare Became Law — Brian Sussman

I don't much like the idea of saying I have control over my government run health care based on one or two votes here or there every 2 to 4 years. It's really a joke thinking you do have a say in such a system. In fact, Obama had to bribe members of his own party to pass the legislation. That is how screwed up the US government has become. Obamacare was done so nefariously, that Nancy Pelosi famously said that the House needed to pass the legislation first to then later find out what was in it, for you see, the process of Reconciliation to bypass the Senate meant that the House could not see what they were voting on, and this is life and death health care for Americans!

As for the Arizona scandal, you may have trouble finding anything about it on fake news sites, so here is a good article.

The doctor who launched the VA scandal

Now do you understand what American voters are up against?

 

[forkup]

You don't think that's a false equivalent? I'm talking about MY country and we do care about our people. We live longer and are in general healthier. NOT anecdotal but rather a statement of fact. Bringing up N-Korea is simply a dishonest argument.

Why is brining North Korea into the conversation dishonest? What is dishonest is to call your country a socialist country when NK is really a socialist country. Granted, you may have socialized medicine but so does NK. This is important because when health care is socialized, it is up to the government to provide it. All governments vary from election to election. Not knowing what to expect then becomes an issue, and watching government spending sky rocket, like in the US, is very disconcerting. I mean, how can the government continue to function and provide decent health care with escalating debt like that?

I know, I know, you don't live in the US, but what will happen to YOUR country if the US does? No longer will your country just be concerned with health care. You will then have other issues to worry about such as defending yourself from Putin, etc. For it is the US military has been a type of socialized entitlement to ensure the freedom of Western Europe from the USSR and Putin.

-Bringing N-Korea up when I state that our healthcare system is 50 percent cheaper, with the implication that they "don't care about their people", is about as dishonest as it comes. You know that a Western European country is NOT N-Korea in its viewpoint on it's people. It's yet another time when you try to conflate separate issues to try to not have to answer the premise. This premise is that "socialized medicine" is simply more efficient and in most cases better and for sure cheaper then "for profit healthcare".
-All governments vary so healthcare becomes uncertain? Again this isn't bearing out in almost ANY country that provides socialized healthcare. What will happen is as budget issues creep in, some changes will be made but nothing drastic. Now take what happens in the US were the different insurance companies have varied tariffs and differences in policies even on a state to state basis, it seems that your system has way more uncertainty built in.
- If a ballooning debt is a problem, why do you think it's alright to add trillions to it, by reducing the income the government gets by raising taxes? It sure was aimed more to the 1 percent who is already rich, why do they need more, at the expense of a further ballooning debt?
- As to the cost of your military involvement in Europe. At the moment Belgium spends a bit more then 1 percent of GDP on self defense. The set goal by NATO is 2 percent. So in order to comply we would have to spent another 1 percent. The US spends about 6 percent of GDP more on healthcare, so even with that 1 percent we would spend extra that wouldn't be a great difference. You guys constantly overestimate the cost of the military as a percentage of GDP.

I understand that a state controlled health care would be more efficient and cheaper. For me though, the issue is the nefarious things that can occur under such a system. As I've pointed out, the issue at the VA in Arizona is foremost on my mind. Secret "do not treat" lists are equivalent to death lists that opponents of a single payer system warned about. The main issue regarding government control of anything is accountability. If a private entity harms someone or is negligent, you have the government over them to hold them accountable. However, when the government runs things who do you run to? In terms of what happened at the VA in Arizona, whistleblowers tried to notify their Congressman John McCain, shortly after which they were fired. John threw them under the bus. Now you would think that McCain would be the person to run to, since he was also a veteran and all, but no. If it were not for some obscure Congressman in Florida who broke the story, the whole affair more than likely would have been swept under the rug and never heard. It makes me wonder how often this sort of thing goes on, but what I'm certain of, it will continue. Once the story broke, Obama made a ceremonial firing of someone who had really nothing to do with any of it, so in effect, nothing was done to fix the issue.

I also know of an American who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction. She was 70 years old and the first surgery did not resolve the issue. Their response was, we tried and she has had a good life, so let nature take its course. Fortunately for her, her son was a doctor who flew over and raised hell till the operated again. That was over 10 years ago and she is still doing fine.

So what do patients do who don't have a doctor son to advocate for them? I guess they should just be happy with the notion that a government run health program is saving trillions of dollars and is brutally efficient and die. I also see what happens with Planned Parenthood in the US. They are funded by the government and participate in abortions. They were then caught on camera selling body parts of those dead unborn children. So what happens in the US? Just a bunch of BS covering up what everyone saw on film. Nothing is done regarding this inhumane Nazi like program. They may as well be Nazis selling the gold teeth and hair of their victims.

And that is the other end of all this. Those who come from socialized medicine seem to be far more secular. As a result, their world view on the value of life or even what constitutes a life is far different. Those who are secular tend to see nothing wrong with such things as abortion, or even selling their body parts to save money so that our fabulous government can save even more money. And the elderly are not valued as much either as such things as euthanasia is common place and those who are too old or sick are just left to die to save money. The extreme of this would be how the Nazi government would go into hospitals and determine who was no longer productive for the Fatherland. Those deemed to be a drain on society, in terms of money and man power, were sent to the basements to die. Now I'm not suggesting that this will happen again, but I am suggesting it is happening in a kinder, more gentler way by just deciding to not treat them, and once the government takes over the power then all is lost. They will never give such power back.

From a conservative perspective in the US, the situation is even more unsettling knowing that the IRS has been used by the government to target conservatives politically. Again, Obama apologized and made some ceremonial firing that changed essentially nothing. Then the IRS was given power over our medical insurance. What if Obama, or some other government goon, decides to target political foes when it comes to paying for that heart transplant?

In short, I don't trust the government, and should not have to. My own thought is that the government should allow people to save medical funds tax free so that they can pay for things themselves verses having to beg the government or private insurer to treat them. If they are healthy and don't use the funds, they should be allowed to use it for their loved ones or friends. It could free a great percentage of the population from having the depend on the government or private health insurance.

Do I have all the answer? No, but I also know that neither to the bureaucrats in government who have run up a $20 trillion plus debt. And what makes me even more wary is that Obamacare was just shoved down our throats with lie after lie. The ink is not even dry on the legislation and these same voices are trying to shove a single payer system on us. Now why on earth should anyone trust them now?

First coming out with some super secret "do not treat" list that I can't find any reference to seems a bit silly. Secondly "nefarious" things? Let me tell you. My mother-in-law, who was an RN in New York, earned good money, had her own house and a nice bit of savings, died without any of that. Not because of no insurance but because she had the bad luck of having to get two vertebrae in her lower back fused at age 56. She ended up without decent post op care and an opioid addiction. That to me is nefarious.
One of my brother-in-laws was a victim of a hit and run. This was in the pre ACA era. He wasn't insured, had a shattered shoulder. The ER stabilized him send him on his merry way, because the reconstructive surgery required wasn't deemed essential. The result is he has severely limited mobility in his right shoulder. A productive member of society was effectively taken out of the work force because he couldn't come up with the money to get a surgery. That to me is nefarious.
Thirdly, as to accountability. The government here is accountable. They call it elections. In contrast to your country those elections aren't privately funded, have all kinds of limits imposed on it, and have more then 2 parties that have a real chance of winning those election. So no lobbyist allowed and you get judged on your performance. To what pray tell is a company accountable to? Certainly not the customers. They're accountable to their shareholders, which means the motivation is profit not customer satisfaction perse. They will charge the most they can get away with and have NO incentive to make it cheap.
The whole " you guys are secular" so you have no respect for life" argument, I'm not even gonna dignify with an answer.

No health care system is perfect, just look at Canada.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

In citing those numbers in its 2015 report, "Leaving Canada for Medical Care," the organization said difficulties in obtaining timely medical care at home is, increasingly, leading Canadians to seek it abroad. "It is possible [they] may have left the country to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care, such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death," the report says. "Some may leave simply to avoid delay and to make a quicker return to normal life."

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

As for elections, you probably have no idea how Obamacare was passed, do you? It was at a time when Senator Kennedy had just been diagnosed with brain cancer. This was problematic for the democrats because they needed his vote to pass Obamacare. It was then that the democrats tried to get the election laws changed so that Kennedy could step down without incurring an election to replace him that might put someone in office who might vote against the legislation, but the failed to change the law. Instead, a Republican ran for office in a completely democrat state and won because he ran on stopping Obamacare. For you see, those in MA had Romneycare and did not much like the idea of switching to Obamacare. So you would think that the voters had spoken, but the democrats used a thing called "Reconciliation" to get around the democratic process and just rammed it through anyway.

I don't much like the idea of saying I have control over my government run health care based on one or two votes here or there every 2 to 4 years. It's really a joke thinking you do have a say in such a system. In fact, Obama had to bribe members of his own party to pass the legislation. That is how screwed up the US government has become. Obamacare was done so nefariously, that Nancy Pelosi famously said that the House needed to pass the legislation first to then later find out what was in it, for you see, the process of Reconciliation to bypass the Senate meant that the House could not see what they were voting on, and this is life and death health care for Americans!

As for the Arizona scandal, you may have trouble finding anything about it on fake news sites, so here is a good article.

The doctor who launched the VA scandal

Browsed the article real quick. No mention of a " do not treat" list. Secret list did exist but they were a way to falsify the books so the VA looked more efficient. Probably the reason I didn't find any references. Pretty important distinction I think.
- I also never claimed any healthcare system is perfect. What I claimed having FIRST hand experience in both the US and Belgium, I can say without reservation that my healthcare system is better. Those waits you were referring to in Canada, are not a problem here. I'll give you another anecdote.
My wife has had a gastric bypass last year. From the first appointment to the actual surgery it took 4 months, for which the doctor apologized, cause he said it was unusually busy. It took besides that first appointment a full day of test to get the surgery, in total it ended up costing us about 400 euro. Her friend who lives in the US had a gastric band put in. It took her about a year and a half, countless doctor visits including a year of therapy (mandotory) to get approved. It set her back over 10K. Which of these 2 you feel is the best service?
So you're a conservative, but I can show you that affordable, efficient, high quality healthcare can be achieved by socializing healthcare so what is your objective objection? I think I've effectively rebutted everything you have tried to argue, as an objection.

 

[regent]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

According to that definition, there is a whole raft of things called socialism by conservatives that are not socialism. Thank you.

 

[Rustic]

Bismarck brought socialism to Germany because he was afraid that people would soon demand communism in Germany.

Socialism is much worse than communism

 

[Rustic]

there's much more to be gained by targeting non-voters than by targeting republicans. thats why this move to socialism by the democrat party will go a long way. people vote based on authenticity or emotional factors more than political ideology

...and only fools think socialism is a good thing...

 

[Rustic]

Why is brining North Korea into the conversation dishonest? What is dishonest is to call your country a socialist country when NK is really a socialist country. Granted, you may have socialized medicine but so does NK. This is important because when health care is socialized, it is up to the government to provide it. All governments vary from election to election. Not knowing what to expect then becomes an issue, and watching government spending sky rocket, like in the US, is very disconcerting. I mean, how can the government continue to function and provide decent health care with escalating debt like that?

I know, I know, you don't live in the US, but what will happen to YOUR country if the US does? No longer will your country just be concerned with health care. You will then have other issues to worry about such as defending yourself from Putin, etc. For it is the US military has been a type of socialized entitlement to ensure the freedom of Western Europe from the USSR and Putin.

-Bringing N-Korea up when I state that our healthcare system is 50 percent cheaper, with the implication that they "don't care about their people", is about as dishonest as it comes. You know that a Western European country is NOT N-Korea in its viewpoint on it's people. It's yet another time when you try to conflate separate issues to try to not have to answer the premise. This premise is that "socialized medicine" is simply more efficient and in most cases better and for sure cheaper then "for profit healthcare".
-All governments vary so healthcare becomes uncertain? Again this isn't bearing out in almost ANY country that provides socialized healthcare. What will happen is as budget issues creep in, some changes will be made but nothing drastic. Now take what happens in the US were the different insurance companies have varied tariffs and differences in policies even on a state to state basis, it seems that your system has way more uncertainty built in.
- If a ballooning debt is a problem, why do you think it's alright to add trillions to it, by reducing the income the government gets by raising taxes? It sure was aimed more to the 1 percent who is already rich, why do they need more, at the expense of a further ballooning debt?
- As to the cost of your military involvement in Europe. At the moment Belgium spends a bit more then 1 percent of GDP on self defense. The set goal by NATO is 2 percent. So in order to comply we would have to spent another 1 percent. The US spends about 6 percent of GDP more on healthcare, so even with that 1 percent we would spend extra that wouldn't be a great difference. You guys constantly overestimate the cost of the military as a percentage of GDP.

I understand that a state controlled health care would be more efficient and cheaper. For me though, the issue is the nefarious things that can occur under such a system. As I've pointed out, the issue at the VA in Arizona is foremost on my mind. Secret "do not treat" lists are equivalent to death lists that opponents of a single payer system warned about. The main issue regarding government control of anything is accountability. If a private entity harms someone or is negligent, you have the government over them to hold them accountable. However, when the government runs things who do you run to? In terms of what happened at the VA in Arizona, whistleblowers tried to notify their Congressman John McCain, shortly after which they were fired. John threw them under the bus. Now you would think that McCain would be the person to run to, since he was also a veteran and all, but no. If it were not for some obscure Congressman in Florida who broke the story, the whole affair more than likely would have been swept under the rug and never heard. It makes me wonder how often this sort of thing goes on, but what I'm certain of, it will continue. Once the story broke, Obama made a ceremonial firing of someone who had really nothing to do with any of it, so in effect, nothing was done to fix the issue.

I also know of an American who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction. She was 70 years old and the first surgery did not resolve the issue. Their response was, we tried and she has had a good life, so let nature take its course. Fortunately for her, her son was a doctor who flew over and raised hell till the operated again. That was over 10 years ago and she is still doing fine.

So what do patients do who don't have a doctor son to advocate for them? I guess they should just be happy with the notion that a government run health program is saving trillions of dollars and is brutally efficient and die. I also see what happens with Planned Parenthood in the US. They are funded by the government and participate in abortions. They were then caught on camera selling body parts of those dead unborn children. So what happens in the US? Just a bunch of BS covering up what everyone saw on film. Nothing is done regarding this inhumane Nazi like program. They may as well be Nazis selling the gold teeth and hair of their victims.

And that is the other end of all this. Those who come from socialized medicine seem to be far more secular. As a result, their world view on the value of life or even what constitutes a life is far different. Those who are secular tend to see nothing wrong with such things as abortion, or even selling their body parts to save money so that our fabulous government can save even more money. And the elderly are not valued as much either as such things as euthanasia is common place and those who are too old or sick are just left to die to save money. The extreme of this would be how the Nazi government would go into hospitals and determine who was no longer productive for the Fatherland. Those deemed to be a drain on society, in terms of money and man power, were sent to the basements to die. Now I'm not suggesting that this will happen again, but I am suggesting it is happening in a kinder, more gentler way by just deciding to not treat them, and once the government takes over the power then all is lost. They will never give such power back.

From a conservative perspective in the US, the situation is even more unsettling knowing that the IRS has been used by the government to target conservatives politically. Again, Obama apologized and made some ceremonial firing that changed essentially nothing. Then the IRS was given power over our medical insurance. What if Obama, or some other government goon, decides to target political foes when it comes to paying for that heart transplant?

In short, I don't trust the government, and should not have to. My own thought is that the government should allow people to save medical funds tax free so that they can pay for things themselves verses having to beg the government or private insurer to treat them. If they are healthy and don't use the funds, they should be allowed to use it for their loved ones or friends. It could free a great percentage of the population from having the depend on the government or private health insurance.

Do I have all the answer? No, but I also know that neither to the bureaucrats in government who have run up a $20 trillion plus debt. And what makes me even more wary is that Obamacare was just shoved down our throats with lie after lie. The ink is not even dry on the legislation and these same voices are trying to shove a single payer system on us. Now why on earth should anyone trust them now?

First coming out with some super secret "do not treat" list that I can't find any reference to seems a bit silly. Secondly "nefarious" things? Let me tell you. My mother-in-law, who was an RN in New York, earned good money, had her own house and a nice bit of savings, died without any of that. Not because of no insurance but because she had the bad luck of having to get two vertebrae in her lower back fused at age 56. She ended up without decent post op care and an opioid addiction. That to me is nefarious.
One of my brother-in-laws was a victim of a hit and run. This was in the pre ACA era. He wasn't insured, had a shattered shoulder. The ER stabilized him send him on his merry way, because the reconstructive surgery required wasn't deemed essential. The result is he has severely limited mobility in his right shoulder. A productive member of society was effectively taken out of the work force because he couldn't come up with the money to get a surgery. That to me is nefarious.
Thirdly, as to accountability. The government here is accountable. They call it elections. In contrast to your country those elections aren't privately funded, have all kinds of limits imposed on it, and have more then 2 parties that have a real chance of winning those election. So no lobbyist allowed and you get judged on your performance. To what pray tell is a company accountable to? Certainly not the customers. They're accountable to their shareholders, which means the motivation is profit not customer satisfaction perse. They will charge the most they can get away with and have NO incentive to make it cheap.
The whole " you guys are secular" so you have no respect for life" argument, I'm not even gonna dignify with an answer.

No health care system is perfect, just look at Canada.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

In citing those numbers in its 2015 report, "Leaving Canada for Medical Care," the organization said difficulties in obtaining timely medical care at home is, increasingly, leading Canadians to seek it abroad. "It is possible [they] may have left the country to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care, such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death," the report says. "Some may leave simply to avoid delay and to make a quicker return to normal life."

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

As for elections, you probably have no idea how Obamacare was passed, do you? It was at a time when Senator Kennedy had just been diagnosed with brain cancer. This was problematic for the democrats because they needed his vote to pass Obamacare. It was then that the democrats tried to get the election laws changed so that Kennedy could step down without incurring an election to replace him that might put someone in office who might vote against the legislation, but the failed to change the law. Instead, a Republican ran for office in a completely democrat state and won because he ran on stopping Obamacare. For you see, those in MA had Romneycare and did not much like the idea of switching to Obamacare. So you would think that the voters had spoken, but the democrats used a thing called "Reconciliation" to get around the democratic process and just rammed it through anyway.

I don't much like the idea of saying I have control over my government run health care based on one or two votes here or there every 2 to 4 years. It's really a joke thinking you do have a say in such a system. In fact, Obama had to bribe members of his own party to pass the legislation. That is how screwed up the US government has become. Obamacare was done so nefariously, that Nancy Pelosi famously said that the House needed to pass the legislation first to then later find out what was in it, for you see, the process of Reconciliation to bypass the Senate meant that the House could not see what they were voting on, and this is life and death health care for Americans!

As for the Arizona scandal, you may have trouble finding anything about it on fake news sites, so here is a good article.

The doctor who launched the VA scandal

Browsed the article real quick. No mention of a " do not treat" list. Secret list did exist but they were a way to falsify the books so the VA looked more efficient. Probably the reason I didn't find any references. Pretty important distinction I think.
- I also never claimed any healthcare system is perfect. What I claimed having FIRST hand experience in both the US and Belgium, I can say without reservation that my healthcare system is better. Those waits you were referring to in Canada, are not a problem here. I'll give you another anecdote.
My wife has had a gastric bypass last year. From the first appointment to the actual surgery it took 4 months, for which the doctor apologized, cause he said it was unusually busy. It took besides that first appointment a full day of test to get the surgery, in total it ended up costing us about 400 euro. Her friend who lives in the US had a gastric band put in. It took her about a year and a half, countless doctor visits including a year of therapy (mandotory) to get approved. It set her back over 10K. Which of these 2 you feel is the best service?
So you're a conservative, but I can show you that affordable, efficient, high quality healthcare can be achieved by socializing healthcare so what is your objective objection? I think I've effectively rebutted everything you have tried to argue, as an objection.

Socialized medicine cannot and will not ever work in the United States, because it does not suit the United States

 

[Rustic]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

According to that definition, there is a whole raft of things called socialism by conservatives that are not socialism. Thank you.

Socialism under any other name and/or any type is wrong for any freedom loving individuals

 

[forkup]

-Bringing N-Korea up when I state that our healthcare system is 50 percent cheaper, with the implication that they "don't care about their people", is about as dishonest as it comes. You know that a Western European country is NOT N-Korea in its viewpoint on it's people. It's yet another time when you try to conflate separate issues to try to not have to answer the premise. This premise is that "socialized medicine" is simply more efficient and in most cases better and for sure cheaper then "for profit healthcare".
-All governments vary so healthcare becomes uncertain? Again this isn't bearing out in almost ANY country that provides socialized healthcare. What will happen is as budget issues creep in, some changes will be made but nothing drastic. Now take what happens in the US were the different insurance companies have varied tariffs and differences in policies even on a state to state basis, it seems that your system has way more uncertainty built in.
- If a ballooning debt is a problem, why do you think it's alright to add trillions to it, by reducing the income the government gets by raising taxes? It sure was aimed more to the 1 percent who is already rich, why do they need more, at the expense of a further ballooning debt?
- As to the cost of your military involvement in Europe. At the moment Belgium spends a bit more then 1 percent of GDP on self defense. The set goal by NATO is 2 percent. So in order to comply we would have to spent another 1 percent. The US spends about 6 percent of GDP more on healthcare, so even with that 1 percent we would spend extra that wouldn't be a great difference. You guys constantly overestimate the cost of the military as a percentage of GDP.

I understand that a state controlled health care would be more efficient and cheaper. For me though, the issue is the nefarious things that can occur under such a system. As I've pointed out, the issue at the VA in Arizona is foremost on my mind. Secret "do not treat" lists are equivalent to death lists that opponents of a single payer system warned about. The main issue regarding government control of anything is accountability. If a private entity harms someone or is negligent, you have the government over them to hold them accountable. However, when the government runs things who do you run to? In terms of what happened at the VA in Arizona, whistleblowers tried to notify their Congressman John McCain, shortly after which they were fired. John threw them under the bus. Now you would think that McCain would be the person to run to, since he was also a veteran and all, but no. If it were not for some obscure Congressman in Florida who broke the story, the whole affair more than likely would have been swept under the rug and never heard. It makes me wonder how often this sort of thing goes on, but what I'm certain of, it will continue. Once the story broke, Obama made a ceremonial firing of someone who had really nothing to do with any of it, so in effect, nothing was done to fix the issue.

I also know of an American who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction. She was 70 years old and the first surgery did not resolve the issue. Their response was, we tried and she has had a good life, so let nature take its course. Fortunately for her, her son was a doctor who flew over and raised hell till the operated again. That was over 10 years ago and she is still doing fine.

So what do patients do who don't have a doctor son to advocate for them? I guess they should just be happy with the notion that a government run health program is saving trillions of dollars and is brutally efficient and die. I also see what happens with Planned Parenthood in the US. They are funded by the government and participate in abortions. They were then caught on camera selling body parts of those dead unborn children. So what happens in the US? Just a bunch of BS covering up what everyone saw on film. Nothing is done regarding this inhumane Nazi like program. They may as well be Nazis selling the gold teeth and hair of their victims.

And that is the other end of all this. Those who come from socialized medicine seem to be far more secular. As a result, their world view on the value of life or even what constitutes a life is far different. Those who are secular tend to see nothing wrong with such things as abortion, or even selling their body parts to save money so that our fabulous government can save even more money. And the elderly are not valued as much either as such things as euthanasia is common place and those who are too old or sick are just left to die to save money. The extreme of this would be how the Nazi government would go into hospitals and determine who was no longer productive for the Fatherland. Those deemed to be a drain on society, in terms of money and man power, were sent to the basements to die. Now I'm not suggesting that this will happen again, but I am suggesting it is happening in a kinder, more gentler way by just deciding to not treat them, and once the government takes over the power then all is lost. They will never give such power back.

From a conservative perspective in the US, the situation is even more unsettling knowing that the IRS has been used by the government to target conservatives politically. Again, Obama apologized and made some ceremonial firing that changed essentially nothing. Then the IRS was given power over our medical insurance. What if Obama, or some other government goon, decides to target political foes when it comes to paying for that heart transplant?

In short, I don't trust the government, and should not have to. My own thought is that the government should allow people to save medical funds tax free so that they can pay for things themselves verses having to beg the government or private insurer to treat them. If they are healthy and don't use the funds, they should be allowed to use it for their loved ones or friends. It could free a great percentage of the population from having the depend on the government or private health insurance.

Do I have all the answer? No, but I also know that neither to the bureaucrats in government who have run up a $20 trillion plus debt. And what makes me even more wary is that Obamacare was just shoved down our throats with lie after lie. The ink is not even dry on the legislation and these same voices are trying to shove a single payer system on us. Now why on earth should anyone trust them now?

First coming out with some super secret "do not treat" list that I can't find any reference to seems a bit silly. Secondly "nefarious" things? Let me tell you. My mother-in-law, who was an RN in New York, earned good money, had her own house and a nice bit of savings, died without any of that. Not because of no insurance but because she had the bad luck of having to get two vertebrae in her lower back fused at age 56. She ended up without decent post op care and an opioid addiction. That to me is nefarious.
One of my brother-in-laws was a victim of a hit and run. This was in the pre ACA era. He wasn't insured, had a shattered shoulder. The ER stabilized him send him on his merry way, because the reconstructive surgery required wasn't deemed essential. The result is he has severely limited mobility in his right shoulder. A productive member of society was effectively taken out of the work force because he couldn't come up with the money to get a surgery. That to me is nefarious.
Thirdly, as to accountability. The government here is accountable. They call it elections. In contrast to your country those elections aren't privately funded, have all kinds of limits imposed on it, and have more then 2 parties that have a real chance of winning those election. So no lobbyist allowed and you get judged on your performance. To what pray tell is a company accountable to? Certainly not the customers. They're accountable to their shareholders, which means the motivation is profit not customer satisfaction perse. They will charge the most they can get away with and have NO incentive to make it cheap.
The whole " you guys are secular" so you have no respect for life" argument, I'm not even gonna dignify with an answer.

No health care system is perfect, just look at Canada.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

In citing those numbers in its 2015 report, "Leaving Canada for Medical Care," the organization said difficulties in obtaining timely medical care at home is, increasingly, leading Canadians to seek it abroad. "It is possible [they] may have left the country to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care, such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death," the report says. "Some may leave simply to avoid delay and to make a quicker return to normal life."

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

As for elections, you probably have no idea how Obamacare was passed, do you? It was at a time when Senator Kennedy had just been diagnosed with brain cancer. This was problematic for the democrats because they needed his vote to pass Obamacare. It was then that the democrats tried to get the election laws changed so that Kennedy could step down without incurring an election to replace him that might put someone in office who might vote against the legislation, but the failed to change the law. Instead, a Republican ran for office in a completely democrat state and won because he ran on stopping Obamacare. For you see, those in MA had Romneycare and did not much like the idea of switching to Obamacare. So you would think that the voters had spoken, but the democrats used a thing called "Reconciliation" to get around the democratic process and just rammed it through anyway.

I don't much like the idea of saying I have control over my government run health care based on one or two votes here or there every 2 to 4 years. It's really a joke thinking you do have a say in such a system. In fact, Obama had to bribe members of his own party to pass the legislation. That is how screwed up the US government has become. Obamacare was done so nefariously, that Nancy Pelosi famously said that the House needed to pass the legislation first to then later find out what was in it, for you see, the process of Reconciliation to bypass the Senate meant that the House could not see what they were voting on, and this is life and death health care for Americans!

As for the Arizona scandal, you may have trouble finding anything about it on fake news sites, so here is a good article.

The doctor who launched the VA scandal

Browsed the article real quick. No mention of a " do not treat" list. Secret list did exist but they were a way to falsify the books so the VA looked more efficient. Probably the reason I didn't find any references. Pretty important distinction I think.
- I also never claimed any healthcare system is perfect. What I claimed having FIRST hand experience in both the US and Belgium, I can say without reservation that my healthcare system is better. Those waits you were referring to in Canada, are not a problem here. I'll give you another anecdote.
My wife has had a gastric bypass last year. From the first appointment to the actual surgery it took 4 months, for which the doctor apologized, cause he said it was unusually busy. It took besides that first appointment a full day of test to get the surgery, in total it ended up costing us about 400 euro. Her friend who lives in the US had a gastric band put in. It took her about a year and a half, countless doctor visits including a year of therapy (mandotory) to get approved. It set her back over 10K. Which of these 2 you feel is the best service?
So you're a conservative, but I can show you that affordable, efficient, high quality healthcare can be achieved by socializing healthcare so what is your objective objection? I think I've effectively rebutted everything you have tried to argue, as an objection.

Socialized medicine cannot and will not ever work in the United States, because it does not suit the United States

It would suit the United States just fine. Who it wouldn't suit is the insurance industry, the privately owned hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry. As it is now they can use healthcare as a product they can make money on. They have money to burn and they can effectively buy the politicians on both sides of the aisle. They are so good at it, that a significant part of the population is willing to get crappy care for twice the cost compared to most other countries. And they will consider it their patriotic duty to NOT be healthy.

 

[Rustic]

I understand that a state controlled health care would be more efficient and cheaper. For me though, the issue is the nefarious things that can occur under such a system. As I've pointed out, the issue at the VA in Arizona is foremost on my mind. Secret "do not treat" lists are equivalent to death lists that opponents of a single payer system warned about. The main issue regarding government control of anything is accountability. If a private entity harms someone or is negligent, you have the government over them to hold them accountable. However, when the government runs things who do you run to? In terms of what happened at the VA in Arizona, whistleblowers tried to notify their Congressman John McCain, shortly after which they were fired. John threw them under the bus. Now you would think that McCain would be the person to run to, since he was also a veteran and all, but no. If it were not for some obscure Congressman in Florida who broke the story, the whole affair more than likely would have been swept under the rug and never heard. It makes me wonder how often this sort of thing goes on, but what I'm certain of, it will continue. Once the story broke, Obama made a ceremonial firing of someone who had really nothing to do with any of it, so in effect, nothing was done to fix the issue.

I also know of an American who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction. She was 70 years old and the first surgery did not resolve the issue. Their response was, we tried and she has had a good life, so let nature take its course. Fortunately for her, her son was a doctor who flew over and raised hell till the operated again. That was over 10 years ago and she is still doing fine.

So what do patients do who don't have a doctor son to advocate for them? I guess they should just be happy with the notion that a government run health program is saving trillions of dollars and is brutally efficient and die. I also see what happens with Planned Parenthood in the US. They are funded by the government and participate in abortions. They were then caught on camera selling body parts of those dead unborn children. So what happens in the US? Just a bunch of BS covering up what everyone saw on film. Nothing is done regarding this inhumane Nazi like program. They may as well be Nazis selling the gold teeth and hair of their victims.

And that is the other end of all this. Those who come from socialized medicine seem to be far more secular. As a result, their world view on the value of life or even what constitutes a life is far different. Those who are secular tend to see nothing wrong with such things as abortion, or even selling their body parts to save money so that our fabulous government can save even more money. And the elderly are not valued as much either as such things as euthanasia is common place and those who are too old or sick are just left to die to save money. The extreme of this would be how the Nazi government would go into hospitals and determine who was no longer productive for the Fatherland. Those deemed to be a drain on society, in terms of money and man power, were sent to the basements to die. Now I'm not suggesting that this will happen again, but I am suggesting it is happening in a kinder, more gentler way by just deciding to not treat them, and once the government takes over the power then all is lost. They will never give such power back.

From a conservative perspective in the US, the situation is even more unsettling knowing that the IRS has been used by the government to target conservatives politically. Again, Obama apologized and made some ceremonial firing that changed essentially nothing. Then the IRS was given power over our medical insurance. What if Obama, or some other government goon, decides to target political foes when it comes to paying for that heart transplant?

In short, I don't trust the government, and should not have to. My own thought is that the government should allow people to save medical funds tax free so that they can pay for things themselves verses having to beg the government or private insurer to treat them. If they are healthy and don't use the funds, they should be allowed to use it for their loved ones or friends. It could free a great percentage of the population from having the depend on the government or private health insurance.

Do I have all the answer? No, but I also know that neither to the bureaucrats in government who have run up a $20 trillion plus debt. And what makes me even more wary is that Obamacare was just shoved down our throats with lie after lie. The ink is not even dry on the legislation and these same voices are trying to shove a single payer system on us. Now why on earth should anyone trust them now?

First coming out with some super secret "do not treat" list that I can't find any reference to seems a bit silly. Secondly "nefarious" things? Let me tell you. My mother-in-law, who was an RN in New York, earned good money, had her own house and a nice bit of savings, died without any of that. Not because of no insurance but because she had the bad luck of having to get two vertebrae in her lower back fused at age 56. She ended up without decent post op care and an opioid addiction. That to me is nefarious.
One of my brother-in-laws was a victim of a hit and run. This was in the pre ACA era. He wasn't insured, had a shattered shoulder. The ER stabilized him send him on his merry way, because the reconstructive surgery required wasn't deemed essential. The result is he has severely limited mobility in his right shoulder. A productive member of society was effectively taken out of the work force because he couldn't come up with the money to get a surgery. That to me is nefarious.
Thirdly, as to accountability. The government here is accountable. They call it elections. In contrast to your country those elections aren't privately funded, have all kinds of limits imposed on it, and have more then 2 parties that have a real chance of winning those election. So no lobbyist allowed and you get judged on your performance. To what pray tell is a company accountable to? Certainly not the customers. They're accountable to their shareholders, which means the motivation is profit not customer satisfaction perse. They will charge the most they can get away with and have NO incentive to make it cheap.
The whole " you guys are secular" so you have no respect for life" argument, I'm not even gonna dignify with an answer.

No health care system is perfect, just look at Canada.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

In citing those numbers in its 2015 report, "Leaving Canada for Medical Care," the organization said difficulties in obtaining timely medical care at home is, increasingly, leading Canadians to seek it abroad. "It is possible [they] may have left the country to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care, such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death," the report says. "Some may leave simply to avoid delay and to make a quicker return to normal life."

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

As for elections, you probably have no idea how Obamacare was passed, do you? It was at a time when Senator Kennedy had just been diagnosed with brain cancer. This was problematic for the democrats because they needed his vote to pass Obamacare. It was then that the democrats tried to get the election laws changed so that Kennedy could step down without incurring an election to replace him that might put someone in office who might vote against the legislation, but the failed to change the law. Instead, a Republican ran for office in a completely democrat state and won because he ran on stopping Obamacare. For you see, those in MA had Romneycare and did not much like the idea of switching to Obamacare. So you would think that the voters had spoken, but the democrats used a thing called "Reconciliation" to get around the democratic process and just rammed it through anyway.

I don't much like the idea of saying I have control over my government run health care based on one or two votes here or there every 2 to 4 years. It's really a joke thinking you do have a say in such a system. In fact, Obama had to bribe members of his own party to pass the legislation. That is how screwed up the US government has become. Obamacare was done so nefariously, that Nancy Pelosi famously said that the House needed to pass the legislation first to then later find out what was in it, for you see, the process of Reconciliation to bypass the Senate meant that the House could not see what they were voting on, and this is life and death health care for Americans!

As for the Arizona scandal, you may have trouble finding anything about it on fake news sites, so here is a good article.

The doctor who launched the VA scandal

Browsed the article real quick. No mention of a " do not treat" list. Secret list did exist but they were a way to falsify the books so the VA looked more efficient. Probably the reason I didn't find any references. Pretty important distinction I think.
- I also never claimed any healthcare system is perfect. What I claimed having FIRST hand experience in both the US and Belgium, I can say without reservation that my healthcare system is better. Those waits you were referring to in Canada, are not a problem here. I'll give you another anecdote.
My wife has had a gastric bypass last year. From the first appointment to the actual surgery it took 4 months, for which the doctor apologized, cause he said it was unusually busy. It took besides that first appointment a full day of test to get the surgery, in total it ended up costing us about 400 euro. Her friend who lives in the US had a gastric band put in. It took her about a year and a half, countless doctor visits including a year of therapy (mandotory) to get approved. It set her back over 10K. Which of these 2 you feel is the best service?
So you're a conservative, but I can show you that affordable, efficient, high quality healthcare can be achieved by socializing healthcare so what is your objective objection? I think I've effectively rebutted everything you have tried to argue, as an objection.

Socialized medicine cannot and will not ever work in the United States, because it does not suit the United States

It would suit the United States just fine. Who it wouldn't suit is the insurance industry, the privately owned hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry. As it is now they can use healthcare as a product they can make money on. They have money to burn and they can effectively buy the politicians on both sides of the aisle. They are so good at it, that a significant part of the population is willing to get crappy care for twice the cost compared to most other countries. And they will consider it their patriotic duty to NOT be healthy.

Actually insurance companies love socialized medicine, because it is all about control not about people’s health

 

[candycorn]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

According to that definition, there is a whole raft of things called socialism by conservatives that are not socialism. Thank you.

I asked him earlier if giving $12B to the farmers was socialism. He wouldn't say "yes" or "no".... Perhaps he doesn't have access to the truth?

 

[candycorn]

It would suit the United States just fine. Who it wouldn't suit is the insurance industry, the privately owned hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry. As it is now they can use healthcare as a product they can make money on. They have money to burn and they can effectively buy the politicians on both sides of the aisle. They are so good at it, that a significant part of the population is willing to get crappy care for twice the cost compared to most other countries. And they will consider it their patriotic duty to NOT be healthy.

I work for a heathcare system. We make money hand over fist and are expanding in nearly every market where we have a presence. Not because of anything other than the public's penchant for unhealthy lifestyles. When the ACA came out, we did about the same as we did when it was not around. The myth is that more insured persons would automatically (key word there--automatically) mean more people at the hospital. That didn't happen. I admit I thought it would happen myself. What we saw was that people would just wait until they got critically ill and showed up here at the for-profit hospital instead of the County General. What would have happened eventually, according to the social scientists I have saw comment on the subject is that over-time, the parents would avail themselves of the entire galaxy of healthcare products; smoking cessation, pre-diabetes therapies, psychological/mental health programs, etc... for both themselves and their children. Time would have told the tale there.

Anyway, we're ballin'. What we like is stability in the market and thanks to canards like Diet Coke and "low fat" foods, we're never going to run out of sick folks.

 

[Camp]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

According to that definition, there is a whole raft of things called socialism by conservatives that are not socialism. Thank you.

I asked him earlier if giving $12B to the farmers was socialism. He wouldn't say "yes" or "no".... Perhaps he doesn't have access to the truth?

In his world, he has options on which truth he wants to select. Those guys have alternate truths, variable truths and sometimes it is just OK to lie if it is for the right cause. Trump Universe.

 

[candycorn]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

According to that definition, there is a whole raft of things called socialism by conservatives that are not socialism. Thank you.

I asked him earlier if giving $12B to the farmers was socialism. He wouldn't say "yes" or "no".... Perhaps he doesn't have access to the truth?

In his world, he has options on which truth he wants to select. Those guys have alternate truths, variable truths and sometimes it is just OK to lie if it is for the right cause. Trump Universe.

Well, that's politics. Your guy's shit doesn't stink.

The difference is that with Trump dick suckers like the OP...Trump doesn't even shit and if you were to make the accusation that he does, you'd be accused of not having proof that she shits because there are no pictures of him shitting. Which is even fine I suppose in this new world where the truth is open to interpretation.

But the red line the little pussies dare not cross is being critical of Trump...ever. This is why they run and hide from simple "yes" or "no" questions because they can't be disloyal by being truthful. The concern isn't the opposition; it's speaking truth to fellow Trump ass kissers.

 

[basquebromance]

isnt government funding of police socialism?