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?

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.

That is why we have passed the point of no return, socialist entitlement programs are a failure and always will be a failure. They are not about helping anybody they are all about control

 

[Votto]

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

Everything man puts his hands to fails, some faster than others, some with more suffering than others.

 

[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.

That is why we have passed the point of no return, socialist entitlement programs are a failure and always will be a failure. They are not about helping anybody they are all about control

These programs do help people. That way any time someone mentions reforming them or doing away with them, those voices are demonized as not caring about those being helped.

Look at how Hillary ran her charity. Those that gave got special government perks as money was directed back to the Clintons in various ways. This is how government operates. It's not about helping people per say, but so long as some are helped it gives them legitimacy, much in the same vein as Al Capone starting soup kitchens for the poor.

 

[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

Everything man puts his hands to fails, some faster than others, some with more suffering than others.

Yep, Ultimately socialism always fails because the only people that want socialism are fucking control freaks

 

[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?

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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

 

[Votto]

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

Everything man puts his hands to fails, some faster than others, some with more suffering than others.

Yep, Ultimately socialism always fails because the only people that want socialism are fucking control freaks

People are corrupt, espeiclly when the bigger pots of money come into play.

That is why the US system, and the system of say, Belgium, are not comparable. The US has the largest economy in the world, with the highest GDP. As a result, the stakes are higher along with the corruption.

Just look at how Social Security is run. The government steals from what is not used and leaves a worthless IOU. They whole system was really designed for politicians to receive more money, but they do have to share a bit in order to give them legitimacy.

 

[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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

The definition of socialism is government running industry.

That said, it's not socialism, although it is a socialistic like policy.

I think that most understand that pure socialism is a dead model that is only emulated by countries like the former USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. After all, what do bureaucrats know about running a business? Nothing. Instead, we have a hybrid system that Hitler embraced where government may not own industry in name, but often manipulate it to achieve their goals.

 

[Dr. Evil]

One of the pillars of socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Instead of working hard to earn and save (thus making them more likely to embrace liberty and individualism) , these people see it easier or even justified to lay claim to the labor and equity of others. The army of grifters this produces do not even realize they are pawns to larger interests who history proves eventually discard useful idiots. As you sow, so shall you reap.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

The definition of socialism is government running industry.

That said, it's not socialism, although it is a socialistic like policy.

I think that most understand that pure socialism is a dead model, that is only emulated by countries like the former USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Instead, we have a hybrid system that Hitler embraced.

It was a simple yes or no question.

You can't/won't answer....

Perhaps it is you who doesn't know the definition.

 

[Votto]

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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

The definition of socialism is government running industry.

That said, it's not socialism, although it is a socialistic like policy.

I think that most understand that pure socialism is a dead model, that is only emulated by countries like the former USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Instead, we have a hybrid system that Hitler embraced.

It was a simple yes or no question.

You can't/won't answer....

Perhaps it is you who doesn't know the definition.

But I did give an answer.

Granted, it was not a yes or no answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", but it was the right answer.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

The definition of socialism is government running industry.

That said, it's not socialism, although it is a socialistic like policy.

I think that most understand that pure socialism is a dead model, that is only emulated by countries like the former USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Instead, we have a hybrid system that Hitler embraced.

It was a simple yes or no question.

You can't/won't answer....

Perhaps it is you who doesn't know the definition.

But I did give an answer.

Granted, it was not a yes or no answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", but it was the right answer.

Whatever.

 

[Some Guy]

The definition of socialism to say that it includes the government controlling the means of production and all that isn't accurate. Socialism is just a concept. If you have a group of people, it just means that you take the inputs of the group and share them equally across the group. Everyone does this in their nuclear family. There might be a parent that stays home and cares for the kids and the house while the other makes money. All the money coming in goes to everyone, including the kids who can't really make money until they're older, and so on. Without socialism, the family would be entirely dysfunctional. No one is going to require 3 year old Billy to go get a fucking job already and take care of himself. No functional spouse will tell the other they can't eat tonight unless they go get a fucking job already.

So social security: it's a socialized program. There's lot of socialized programs. You could say they're forms of socialism if you want. The thing is, just the term "socialism" has been used to refer to basically everything in society being socialized, including the economic system. It's like "racism." Racism is just the belief that race determines traits: it doesn't include any institutional power and injustice but people have redefined the term to use it as such.

All that said, you have to look at the pros and cons of socialism as a concept, again, meaning all the people in the game pay in unequally and receive from it equally. Long story short, it makes a lot of sense on a small scale where people are directly invested in the well being of those involved. The nuclear family is one, but even the larger family, or a religious group, a neighborhood, etc. It's a lot easier to continue to put into the group at high levels when you know the other people and you want to ensure that you and them both do well. You're far less likely to say "ah fuck it he'll pick up the slack."

When socialism is applied to groups who don't have a personal stake in each other's well being, that's when the problems arise. If you're telling me i need to work harder for less reward because this guy somewhere and that chick somewhere else can't or won't pull their weight, then fuck this. I'm guaranteed the same from this as they are, so why am i working hard and they're not? As soon as you don't have a personal connection to the people involved, it gets really easy to just take and not give, and that's why large scale socialism has, and will always have, such a high failure rate.

 

[Votto]

The definition of socialism to say that it includes the government controlling the means of production and all that isn't accurate. Socialism is just a concept. If you have a group of people, it just means that you take the inputs of the group and share them equally across the group. Everyone does this in their nuclear family. There might be a parent that stays home and cares for the kids and the house while the other makes money. All the money coming in goes to everyone, including the kids who can't really make money until they're older, and so on. Without socialism, the family would be entirely dysfunctional. No one is going to require 3 year old Billy to go get a fucking job already and take care of himself. No functional spouse will tell the other they can't eat tonight unless they go get a fucking job already.

So social security: it's a socialized program. There's lot of socialized programs. You could say they're forms of socialism if you want. The thing is, just the term "socialism" has been used to refer to basically everything in society being socialized, including the economic system. It's like "racism." Racism is just the belief that race determines traits: it doesn't include any institutional power and injustice but people have redefined the term to use it as such.

All that said, you have to look at the pros and cons of socialism as a concept, again, meaning all the people in the game pay in unequally and receive from it equally. Long story short, it makes a lot of sense on a small scale where people are directly invested in the well being of those involved. The nuclear family is one, but even the larger family, or a religious group, a neighborhood, etc. It's a lot easier to continue to put into the group at high levels when you know the other people and you want to ensure that you and them both do well. You're far less likely to say "ah fuck it he'll pick up the slack."

When socialism is applied to groups who don't have a personal stake in each other's well being, that's when the problems arise. If you're telling me i need to work harder for less reward because this guy somewhere and that chick somewhere else can't or won't pull their weight, then fuck this. I'm guaranteed the same from this as they are, so why am i working hard and they're not? As soon as you don't have a personal connection to the people involved, it gets really easy to just take and not give, and that's why large scale socialism has, and will always have, such a high failure rate.

I oppose socialism in state government on the ground that:

1. It is not voluntary.
2. Checks and balances are virtually nonexistent which only adds indefinitely to corruption.
3. It takes a nearly all powerful centralized government to impose it on everyone and every financial transaction.
4. It creates world conquering armies.
5. It creates division within society.

Where it DOES work are places like the Amish community. These are people who are joined together because of their faith which inclines them to actually give a damn about people rather than just collecting a pot of money to take care of them and doing it, or not doing it, how they see fit. This only works because it is a local community and not a cold distant entity. And most importantly, you can get out if you want. In fact, they are all required a moment of freedom to decide for themselves. The Amish system brings a community together to help each other out when in need, instead of pitting poor against rich, black against white, those of faith against those not.

It works so well, they are able to opt out of Obamacare.

 

[Some Guy]

The definition of socialism to say that it includes the government controlling the means of production and all that isn't accurate. Socialism is just a concept. If you have a group of people, it just means that you take the inputs of the group and share them equally across the group. Everyone does this in their nuclear family. There might be a parent that stays home and cares for the kids and the house while the other makes money. All the money coming in goes to everyone, including the kids who can't really make money until they're older, and so on. Without socialism, the family would be entirely dysfunctional. No one is going to require 3 year old Billy to go get a fucking job already and take care of himself. No functional spouse will tell the other they can't eat tonight unless they go get a fucking job already.

So social security: it's a socialized program. There's lot of socialized programs. You could say they're forms of socialism if you want. The thing is, just the term "socialism" has been used to refer to basically everything in society being socialized, including the economic system. It's like "racism." Racism is just the belief that race determines traits: it doesn't include any institutional power and injustice but people have redefined the term to use it as such.

All that said, you have to look at the pros and cons of socialism as a concept, again, meaning all the people in the game pay in unequally and receive from it equally. Long story short, it makes a lot of sense on a small scale where people are directly invested in the well being of those involved. The nuclear family is one, but even the larger family, or a religious group, a neighborhood, etc. It's a lot easier to continue to put into the group at high levels when you know the other people and you want to ensure that you and them both do well. You're far less likely to say "ah fuck it he'll pick up the slack."

When socialism is applied to groups who don't have a personal stake in each other's well being, that's when the problems arise. If you're telling me i need to work harder for less reward because this guy somewhere and that chick somewhere else can't or won't pull their weight, then fuck this. I'm guaranteed the same from this as they are, so why am i working hard and they're not? As soon as you don't have a personal connection to the people involved, it gets really easy to just take and not give, and that's why large scale socialism has, and will always have, such a high failure rate.

I oppose socialism in state government on the ground that:

1. It is not voluntary.
2. Checks and balances are virtually nonexistent which only adds indefinitely to corruption.
3. It takes a nearly all powerful centralized government to impose it on everyone and every financial transaction.
4. It creates world conquering armies.
5. It creates division within society.

Where it DOES work are places like the Amish community. These are people who are joined together because of their faith which inclines them to actually give a damn about people rather than just collecting a pot of money to take care of them and doing it, or not doing it, how they see fit. This only works because it is a local community and not a cold distant entity. And most importantly, you can get out if you want. In fact, they are all required a moment of freedom to decide for themselves. The Amish system brings a community together to help each other out when in need, instead of pitting poor against rich, black against white, those of faith against those not.

It works so well, the are able to opt out of Obamacare.

Yep, basically exactly what i had said.

The worst part of socialism as a concept is that is commoditizes everyone involved. As far as society is concerned, you're only as good as what you can provide. If you can't or don't want to, you're a liability, and therefore entirely expendable, and helps to explain how our beloved communist dictators were able to kill upwards of 100 million people in the 20th century in the name of the ideology.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[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

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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

Equal suffering by all... with exception of the control freaks. They determine the suffering of the collective

 

[Rustic]

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.

I asked you if it was socialism.

What was your answer?

The definition of socialism is government running industry.

That said, it's not socialism, although it is a socialistic like policy.

I think that most understand that pure socialism is a dead model, that is only emulated by countries like the former USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Instead, we have a hybrid system that Hitler embraced.

It was a simple yes or no question.

You can't/won't answer....

Perhaps it is you who doesn't know the definition.

But I did give an answer.

Granted, it was not a yes or no answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", but it was the right answer.

Socialism has been tried countless times in countless ways, it is not gonna work “this time” Because you cannot make something out of nothing

 

[Rustic]

The definition of socialism to say that it includes the government controlling the means of production and all that isn't accurate. Socialism is just a concept. If you have a group of people, it just means that you take the inputs of the group and share them equally across the group. Everyone does this in their nuclear family. There might be a parent that stays home and cares for the kids and the house while the other makes money. All the money coming in goes to everyone, including the kids who can't really make money until they're older, and so on. Without socialism, the family would be entirely dysfunctional. No one is going to require 3 year old Billy to go get a fucking job already and take care of himself. No functional spouse will tell the other they can't eat tonight unless they go get a fucking job already.

So social security: it's a socialized program. There's lot of socialized programs. You could say they're forms of socialism if you want. The thing is, just the term "socialism" has been used to refer to basically everything in society being socialized, including the economic system. It's like "racism." Racism is just the belief that race determines traits: it doesn't include any institutional power and injustice but people have redefined the term to use it as such.

All that said, you have to look at the pros and cons of socialism as a concept, again, meaning all the people in the game pay in unequally and receive from it equally. Long story short, it makes a lot of sense on a small scale where people are directly invested in the well being of those involved. The nuclear family is one, but even the larger family, or a religious group, a neighborhood, etc. It's a lot easier to continue to put into the group at high levels when you know the other people and you want to ensure that you and them both do well. You're far less likely to say "ah fuck it he'll pick up the slack."

When socialism is applied to groups who don't have a personal stake in each other's well being, that's when the problems arise. If you're telling me i need to work harder for less reward because this guy somewhere and that chick somewhere else can't or won't pull their weight, then fuck this. I'm guaranteed the same from this as they are, so why am i working hard and they're not? As soon as you don't have a personal connection to the people involved, it gets really easy to just take and not give, and that's why large scale socialism has, and will always have, such a high failure rate.

I oppose socialism in state government on the ground that:

1. It is not voluntary.
2. Checks and balances are virtually nonexistent which only adds indefinitely to corruption.
3. It takes a nearly all powerful centralized government to impose it on everyone and every financial transaction.
4. It creates world conquering armies.
5. It creates division within society.

Where it DOES work are places like the Amish community. These are people who are joined together because of their faith which inclines them to actually give a damn about people rather than just collecting a pot of money to take care of them and doing it, or not doing it, how they see fit. This only works because it is a local community and not a cold distant entity. And most importantly, you can get out if you want. In fact, they are all required a moment of freedom to decide for themselves. The Amish system brings a community together to help each other out when in need, instead of pitting poor against rich, black against white, those of faith against those not.

It works so well, they are able to opt out of Obamacare.

That is why socialism of any type will never work for the good of America, Rural and urban America will never have the needs/wants/goals/morality. They were never meant to have the same as the way it should be.
As far as obama care/single payer goes the only way it would acceptable is for it to be an “opt in” None of that shit should be forced on anybody for any reason...
It’s Impossible for any sort of freedom and individuality to exist in a socialist environment... fact

 

[forkup]

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?

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.