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

[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?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

Lol
Socialism has been tried countless times and has a 100% failure rate so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

lol
You can keep your socialism to yourselves I don’t give two shits… Leave the rest of us out of it and shut the fuck up

 

[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?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

LOL
because most Americans can never benefit from socialism, it’s against all they believe in, control freaks are fucked up that way like yourself thinking you can control and know what’s best for everybody else so shut the fuck up asshole

 

[Rustic]

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

Socialism has a 100% failure rate… Fact

 

[Rustic]

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

You are missing the point, socialize medicine has to be forced on everybody in socialism that’s fucked up altogether and Unacceptable so fuck your village...

 

[Rustic]

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.

It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.

So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?

That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

-In my view Communism used the concepts of Marxism and used them not as they were intended, meaning as a way for the entire population to share the resources of the country. Instead they used them as a justification for the Politburo and the Communist Party to hold sway over the Russian population. Also in my view straight up Communism is unworkable. It's a concept that disregards some basic truths. People aren't all equal in ability or work ethic, by in essence disregarding those differences and forcing people to both contribute and share the fruits of their labor completely disregarding the relative value of the contribution, they created a system that was both corrupt and required a way to self delude itself as such it inevitable collapsed in on itself. As an answer to your question, no we shouldn't fear Communism because of the ideology. We should fear it because of it's instability. Leaders of powerful but unstable countries are dangerous, cause the temptation is always there to try to mask that instability by attacking a foe they can blame.
- This brings me to the Nazi's. The Nazi's WERE socialist but that fact didn't cause them to be assholes. They were assholes because of the FIRST word of their party name, National. As in nationalists. They weren't more socialist then the other countries of Europe. What they were was a big powerful country, with an immoral government and a huge chip on their shoulder. Because of the fact that they were nationalists they felt that they had a RIGHT to do whatever they wanted. Call it Germany First. Because of that they didn't feel hindered by such things as international agreements or diplomacy. If this feels familiar, it's because it is meant to feel that way by the way.
- Socialism has given the world universal suffrage, a banning of child labor, and all social programs that prevent the weakest among us from getting in a situation they won't be able to get out of. The 2 examples you gave are not a result of Socialism, but rather countries that had a form of socialism and had national interests that were detrimental to the world

Only thing worse than nationalism is globalism asshole

 

[Rustic]

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

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.

Lol
Keep your socialism to yourselves, we want nothing to do with it so shut the fuck up

 

[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

Pin this to the board for every con who starts a “socialism bla bla bla “ thread .

lol
Quit falling down the well, that’s the problem with socialism everyone has to be forced into the shit, if it was worth a shit it would be 100% voluntary so fuck your village you fucking asshole

 

[Mac1958]

Socialism has a 100% failure rate… Fact

What is your definition of socialism?

Do you consider Canada, Australia, Germany & Finland to be socialist?
.

 

[bullwinkle]

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?

Maybe it would be helpful if you defined socialism. I know it is thought of as slur, and the poster icons are the old USSR but not Kibbutz models but in theses days of 'alternative facts', how do you describe socialism? The bad points, and the good ones, and is it possible to assume one without the other? After all, we call ourselves a 'free trade' nation, but evidently that's no longer a good thing since we now need tariffs and the accompanying bail out (socialism?) to be "Great Again"!

 

[Mac1958]

I guess those who use the term "democratic socialism" are partially to blame for this silliness.

It allows the Right to pretend it's about Venezuela and avoid an honest conversation.

 

[Votto]

s

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

While your are correct in rolling eyes at and highlighting the distinction between contemporarily branded American Democratic Socialism and the historically, severely misunderstood political-philosophical ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism implemented repeatedly last century as State Socialism to murderous effect, there are those currently calling for, on the American radical Left, much steeper American descent into socialist hell than the tame by comparison economic infrastructural interventionism in the form of universal healthcare and education. Thus the importance of what you deem the Alarmist movement currently unfolding on the American Right. Despite yours and others here and in the media downplaying of the conflation of Democratic Socialism as boys crying wolf, historically, there is a damn good precedent for doing so.

There are zealots on both ends of this argument, from communists to pure libertarians.

Both pollute their parties, and both parties are afraid to distance themselves, even though they know those people are kooks.

The best we can do is marginalize them. They won't be part of any constructive conversation.
.

Perhaps a better way

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

Damn, and I was hoping it was something bad.

All you have to do is look at countries who implement it like Venezuela and NK.

So who brought socialism to Germany and why?

Hitler embraced socialism for one specific reason. He was terrified of an uprising during the war, like the one that happened during WW1 due to poor living standards.

As a result, he centralized power and money and spent money on two programs, the war effort and the entitlement programs. In addition to that, soldiers looted other countries to send home even more goodies and Jews were stripped of their gold and sent off to die. As a result of all this, the average German had a higher living standard throughout the entire war than those in other countries.

And it worked. There were not uprisings. A war weary society steeped in genocide simply sold their collective soul to Hitler.

This is what is never really discussed.

 

[bullwinkle]

s

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

While your are correct in rolling eyes at and highlighting the distinction between contemporarily branded American Democratic Socialism and the historically, severely misunderstood political-philosophical ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism implemented repeatedly last century as State Socialism to murderous effect, there are those currently calling for, on the American radical Left, much steeper American descent into socialist hell than the tame by comparison economic infrastructural interventionism in the form of universal healthcare and education. Thus the importance of what you deem the Alarmist movement currently unfolding on the American Right. Despite yours and others here and in the media downplaying of the conflation of Democratic Socialism as boys crying wolf, historically, there is a damn good precedent for doing so.

There are zealots on both ends of this argument, from communists to pure libertarians.

Both pollute their parties, and both parties are afraid to distance themselves, even though they know those people are kooks.

The best we can do is marginalize them. They won't be part of any constructive conversation.
.

Perhaps a better way

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

Damn, and I was hoping it was something bad.

All you have to do is look at countries who implement it like Venezuela and NK.

So who brought socialism to Germany and why?

Hitler embraced socialism for one specific reason. He was terrified of an uprising during the war, like the one that happened during WW1 due to poor living standards.

As a result, he centralized power and money and spent money on two programs, the war effort and the entitlement programs. In addition to that, soldiers looted other countries to send home even more goodies and Jews were stripped of their gold and sent off to die. As a result of all this, the average German had a higher living standard throughout the entire war than those in other countries.

And it worked. There were not uprisings. A war weary society steeped in genocide simply sold their collective soul to Hitler.

This is what is never really discussed.

Please expand that argument. America has a form of private socialism called Co-ops, or are they now defunct since the advent of factory farms? But my main question is that your final sentence seems to be a tad backwards, unless I am reading your meaning wrong. You write, "And it worked. There were not uprisings. A war weary society steeped in genocide simply sold their collective soul to Hitler." Because it is my understanding that there were no uprisings and there was genocide solely because they sold their collective souls to Hitler, AND his supporting henchmen, in the first place. He was a great scapegoater too. Hitler wasn't the Hitler we hate until AFTER he was given power, bit by bit, beginning with the "Enabling Act". So I ask what you meant and if I mis-interpreted your last remark.

 

[forkup]

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

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.

 

[Votto]

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

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?

 

[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

So Trump’s gift of $12B to farmers wasn’t socialism?

What was it?

 

[Rustic]

Socialism has a 100% failure rate… Fact

What is your definition of socialism?

Do you consider Canada, Australia, Germany & Finland to be socialist?
.

They are all underwater financially, so long-term all socialism fails 100% of the time

 

[Mac1958]

What is your definition of socialism? Do you consider Canada, Australia, Germany & Finland to be socialist?

They are all underwater financially, so long-term all socialism fails 100% of the time

So you consider those countries to be socialist?
.

 

[Votto]

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

So Trump’s gift of $12B to farmers wasn’t socialism?

What was it?

Both parties are sold to the notion of government redistribution. For example, Bush created the Drugs for Seniors program, a program that rivaled the Great Society Programs of LBJ. Obama then joked about not knowing how to pay for it, before embarking on Obamacare as the next great entitlement.

Problem is, it did virtually nothing to contain costs. Kucinich said that it was nothing more than a stimulus package for insurance companies and voted against it, that is, until one day after he met with Obama secretly, then voted for it.

And we all know why, it was just a way to further destroy the system so that they could implement a single payer system.

 

[Rustic]

What is your definition of socialism? Do you consider Canada, Australia, Germany & Finland to be socialist?

They are all underwater financially, so long-term all socialism fails 100% of the time

So you consider those countries to be socialist?
.

Politically correct on their way to socialism… Socialism always fails