Medicare for all.

[Staidhup]

Not true. The private sector never wastes money by developing anything. Cellphones, the Internet, pacemakers, heart transplants, etc., are all done by the public sector. There is no way the private sector could even begin to allocate the frequency bands, get permission for experiments, etc.

I think Mr Cooper, Tigerstadt, Young, and Cox at Motorola Inc. may find your comment offensive and disrespectful. The next thing you will say is Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb and government funded Nikola Tesla. Technology and innovation come from the private sector not government. Private companies innovate, manufacture, and distribute products to the market place. Competition is the driving force behind R&D, new products, and pricing. The
more players in the market place the greater the competition which forces prices down.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 602020

Yes education, police, fire fighting, the post office, roads, etc., are all socialist.
If you try to think of all the good things, they are all socialist.

 

[Orangecat]

If you try to think of all the good things, they are all socialist.

Limited social policies are a necessary evil of organizing a society. The marxism you champion is a detriment to the human spirit and promotes sloth.

 

[Rigby5]

I think Mr Cooper, Tigerstadt, Young, and Cox at Motorola Inc. may find your comment offensive and disrespectful. The next thing you will say is Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb and government funded Nikola Tesla. Technology and innovation come from the private sector not government. Private companies innovate, manufacture, and distribute products to the market place. Competition is the driving force behind R&D, new products, and pricing. The
more players in the market place the greater the competition which forces prices down.

Wrong.
Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse, etc., could not have afforded to actually electrify whole cities.
It was done by government.
The Wright Bros. were funded by the navy.
Motorola was funded by the army.
Everything significant in the present or past, was done by government.
Do you think anyone would have built the pyramids, aqueducts, colosseum, etc. privately?

If not for strict government regulation, there would only be monopolies with extortion prices.
In fact, if not for strict regulations, private profit motive would have paid for goons to beat heads and turn us all back into serfs.
The profit motive is totally without any ethics or concepts like rights or freedom.
Imperialism, colonialism, conquistadors, dictators, and oppression are what the profit motive always results in.
Look at any dictator in history, and they have ALWAYS profit motivated capitalists.
Never once has anyone taken over by force because they wanted to help people with more innovation.

The best you could possibly be saying is that with sufficient regulation and oversight, capitalists can be played off each other, in order to prevent significant abuse by any one of them.

 

[Rigby5]

Limited social policies are a necessary evil of organizing a society. The marxism you champion is a detriment to the human spirit and promotes sloth.

Even Marx never really defines anything as Marxism.
It is a vague concept in reaction to the massive industrial abuses of the industrial revolution, around 1830.
It in general is saying that all people should cooperative, collectively, communally pool enough resources so they can jointly build the infrastructure they need and want.
That is a gazillion times better than having evil, greedy, capitalists monopolize all the wealthy can control what gets built and what you need to live will cost you.

In general, all the evil rulers, kings, emperors, robber barons, etc., have always been capitalists.
Never once have collective, cooperative, and communal groups ever been evil, abusive, etc.

If you think the USSR disproves that, you clearly are not thinking, because obviously capitalist bank robber, Stalin, killed off all the idealists who supported collective, cooperative, and communal ideas, and he implemented a capitalist dictatorship instead.
The fact there was no competition does not make it collective, cooperative, or communal. It just means the one capitalist wiped out all the competition, as all capitalist would always do if allowed.

Just go over history and look at all the evil rulers:
Pharaohs - capitalist
Alexander - capitalist
Nero - capitalist.
Caesar - capitalist
Atilla the Hun - capitalist
Vikings - capitalist
Vandals - capitalist
Genghis Khan - capitalist
Pirates - capitalist
Napoleon - capitalist
Stalin - capitalist
Mao - capitalist
Castro - capitalist
Putin - capitalist

There really have only been very few democracies, and the main trait is they always then increase collective, communal, and cooperative services.

The only way that any collective, communal, and cooperative services could discourage innovation is if nothing individual was allowed.
But that should NEVER be the case.
Having collective, communal, and cooperative services can't ever prevent anyone from individual innovation.
The only thing is that when they start to effect other people, like hiring more than half a dozen employees, they have to follow some regulations, like collective bargaining, workplace safety, preventing child labor, anti trust laws, etc.

 

[Orangecat]

Even Marx never really defines anything as Marxism.
It is a vague concept in reaction to the massive industrial abuses of the industrial revolution, around 1830.
It in general is saying that all people should cooperative, collectively, communally pool enough resources so they can jointly build the infrastructure they need and want.
That is a gazillion times better than having evil, greedy, capitalists monopolize all the wealthy can control what gets built and what you need to live will cost you.

In general, all the evil rulers, kings, emperors, robber barons, etc., have always been capitalists.
Never once have collective, cooperative, and communal groups ever been evil, abusive, etc.

If you think the USSR disproves that, you clearly are not thinking, because obviously capitalist bank robber, Stalin, killed off all the idealists who supported collective, cooperative, and communal ideas, and he implemented a capitalist dictatorship instead.
The fact there was no competition does not make it collective, cooperative, or communal. It just means the one capitalist wiped out all the competition, as all capitalist would always do if allowed.

Just go over history and look at all the evil rulers:
Pharaohs - capitalist
Alexander - capitalist
Nero - capitalist.
Caesar - capitalist
Atilla the Hun - capitalist
Vikings - capitalist
Vandals - capitalist
Genghis Khan - capitalist
Pirates - capitalist
Napoleon - capitalist
Stalin - capitalist
Mao - capitalist
Castro - capitalist
Putin - capitalist

There really have only been very few democracies, and the main trait is they always then increase collective, communal, and cooperative services.

The only way that any collective, communal, and cooperative services could discourage innovation is if nothing individual was allowed.
But that should NEVER be the case.
Having collective, communal, and cooperative services can't ever prevent anyone from individual innovation.
The only thing is that when they start to effect other people, like hiring more than half a dozen employees, they have to follow some regulations, like collective bargaining, workplace safety, preventing child labor, anti trust laws, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 602190

That is the whole point, in that socialism is collective, cooperative, and communal, so then can not possibly be mandatory.
Anything mandatory is automatically being done for a corrupt motive, which then is always capitalist.

The only time a collective, cooperative, and communal society needs any ability to use force, is to protect from external invasion by capitalists.

 

[dblack]

That is the whole point, in that socialism is collective, cooperative, and communal, so then can not possibly be mandatory.

?

Anything mandatory is automatically being done for a corrupt motive, which then is always capitalist.

?

The only time a collective, cooperative, and communal society needs any ability to use force, is to protect from external invasion by capitalists.

?

So many weird unsupported claims and logical fallacies, in so few words. Impressive!

 

[Rigby5]

?

?

?

So many weird unsupported claims and logical fallacies, in so few words. Impressive!

Not really.
If you examine the history of any human society, it is also inherently communal, cooperative, and collective.
For example, in every hunter/gatherer tribe, what comes back from the hunt or from gathering is shared.
That is the history of how humans almost always lived for 99.9% of the human past.
When they find ancient cities, most homes did not even have their own cooking facilities.
The cooked and ate communally.

It is just since agriculture that we became sedentary, and even had any concepts like value, currency, trade, etc.
And even then, utilities, roads, schools, healthcare, defense, and most things are more efficient if communal, collective, and cooperative.

Capitalism is inherently abusive.
Why should anyone be forced to pay higher rent than a mortgage would be, just because they lack a down payment?

 

[dblack]

Not really.
If you examine the history of any human society, it is also inherently communal, cooperative, and collective.
For example, in every hunter/gatherer tribe, what comes back from the hunt or from gathering is shared.
That is the history of how humans almost always lived for 99.9% of the human past.
When they find ancient cities, most homes did not even have their own cooking facilities.
The cooked and ate communally.

Yep. So what? We're talking about government, not community. They're not the same thing.

Capitalism is inherently abusive.

Yeah. You keep repeating that mantra. Care to prove it?

Why should anyone be forced to pay higher rent than a mortgage would be, just because they lack a down payment?

Because we don't want to live as slaves.

The flip side of what you're saying is that property owners should be forced to provide others with "free shit" - or, rather, rents (and everything else) at rate YOU deem appropriate, rather than sorting out such negotiations via the market.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. So what? We're talking about government, not community. They're not the same thing.

Yeah. You keep repeating that mantra. Care to prove it?

Because we don't want to live as slaves.

The flip side of what you're saying is that property owners should be forced to provide others with "free shit" - or, rather, rents (and everything else) at rate YOU deem appropriate, rather than sorting out such negotiations via the market.

It is easy to prove capitalism is inherently abusive.
Just think of anything abusive, like theft, slavery, feudalism, etc., and they are all what capitalist did and would do if allowed.

The point of socialism is that the people ARE the real property owners, not some slum landlord who cheats by way of manipulating excess capital they came to control.
No one is talking about "free stuff".
What I am saying is that if the community pools its resources, then it can help individuals to create their own housing at a much lower price than through capitalists.
Slavery is always the result of capitalism.

 

[Orangecat]

That is the whole point, in that socialism is collective, cooperative, and communal, so then can not possibly be mandatory.
Anything mandatory is automatically being done for a corrupt motive, which then is always capitalist.

The only time a collective, cooperative, and communal society needs any ability to use force, is to protect from external invasion by capitalists.

Are you contending that socialized medicine allows people to opt out of the funding mechanism?

 

[Rigby5]

Are you contending that socialized medicine allows people to opt out of the funding mechanism?

Good point, except for the fact that not having socialized medicine costs over twice as much.
So then you can't very well get upset about a mandate that saves you money?

 

[Orangecat]

Good point, except for the fact that not having socialized medicine costs over twice as much.

So you admit that socialism isn't voluntary, but it's a good deal for some.
Not having socialized medicine doesn't cost me twice as much, so I'll take my god-given right to not participate in either benefits or funding.

So then you can't very well get upset about a mandate that saves you money?

A: I'm not upset.
B: I have zero medical expenses. How will the higher taxation required to fund socialized medicine save me money?
Please, no "but if you need" guesses about my future. health.

 

[Rigby5]

So you admit that socialism isn't voluntary, but it's a good deal for some.
Not having socialized medicine doesn't cost me twice as much, so I'll take my god-given right to not participate in either benefits or funding.

A: I'm not upset.
B: I have zero medical expenses. How will the higher taxation required to fund socialized medicine save me money?
Please, no "but if you need" guesses about my future. health.

Your health is not the only consideration.
You have relatives, there are children, elderly, there can be accidents, epidemics, etc.
Health care is a joint responsibility, for everyone.

Socialized medicine does not have to raise taxes.
All we have to do is reduce Pentagon spending.
That is what you SHOULD be upset about, that you are being forced to pay excess taxes in order to kill innocent people.

 

[Orangecat]

Health care is a joint responsibility, for everyone.

No, it isn't. You can eat like a pig and smoke 24/7. Your healthcare is not my responsibility.

 

[dblack]

It is easy to prove capitalism is inherently abusive.
Just think of anything abusive, like theft, slavery, feudalism, etc., and they are all what capitalist did and would do if allowed.

Unsupported claim.

The point of socialism is that the people ARE the real property owners, not some slum landlord who cheats by way of manipulating excess capital they came to control.

Horseshit. The point of socialism is state control of the means of production. And the ultimate means of production is the human mind. What you advocate for is slavery. Ultimate subservience to majority rule. Thanks, but no thanks.

No one is talking about "free stuff".
What I am saying is that if the community pools its resources, then it can help individuals to create their own housing at a much lower price than through capitalists.

Yes. I agree. Any worthwhile community can, and should, do that. But don't be coy, you're not talking about voluntary communal action.

Slavery is always the result of capitalism.

Unsupported claim.

 

[Colin norris]

As Baby Boomers we got shuffled into a huge group because returning war veterans came home and started families after an artificial pause of birthrate demography. Some of us who started school in the 1950’s remember class sizes of 40 students to one teacher.

We were lucky because Alexander Fleming and Jonas Salk gifted us clever medications that could eradicate deadly viruses like Small Pox and Polio while fighting bacterial infections that were killing both old and young.

But no one has come up with a cure for old age and so in 1965 Congress enacted Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act better known as Medicare. Medicare was established because the human frailty of aging is inescapable. In addition Medicare was put into place to provide medical coverage for people with disabilities that met certain criteria under the act.

Medicare has worked well as it was designed but it is under attack from democrats that want to swamp it with millions of healthy, able-bodied citizens. Medicare-for-All, championed by Bernie Sanders, follows the playbook of all socialist plans in that it targets the weakest in society, in this case the elderly who through no fault of their own, just got old.

Picture a pond with fifty fish in it all of the same species. The ecosystem remains in balance because the pond exists in a natural state. Now imagine someone dumping thousands of fish into the pond. What happens to those original fifty fish for which the pond was built? What happens to you when the pond is destroyed through the invasive dumping of interlopers that overrun and exhaust the resources of the environment?

Socialism appears throughout history because its supporters know that unlike Polio or small Pox, there is no cure for stupid. When they get control of the educational systems they spread the stupid of socialism like its new idea because as educators they are paid by socialist policies. They intend to be on the controlling end of socialism while you and I head to the camps of poverty and second class medicine.

Sander’s plan would outlaw all other forms of private health insurance by government edict. It’s the same closet communism we were warned against in those Comparative Government classes in the 1960’s before the National Education Association go its hands on educators.

Old?-You are forgiven. Stupid?-That’s your fault.


Medicare for All: A Disaster | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.

The irony of it is America has never experienced government funded health care yet you continue to link it to socialism.
It is but the country was built on socialism. Every government facilities like hospitals etc, are socialism. You don't mind using those facilities but refuse he a lth care.

The experience can be seen in many countries around the world and no hordes of communists took over the government as a result.
You've been schooled from a young age by republicans that it is evil and communist. Big health love that idea and you all pay ridiculous premiums to them and basically get very little in return. But that's the capitalism you all know and love.

 

[dblack]

The irony of it is America has never experienced government funded health care yet you continue to link it to socialism.

Speaking for myself, I don't care whether it's "linked" to socialism or not. The point is that I don't like state controlled health care for the same reasons I don't like socialism -> both inject coercive state control where it isn't necessary.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it isn't. You can eat like a pig and smoke 24/7. Your healthcare is not my responsibility.

Good point, but those conditions usually do not cost much.
They cause heart attacks and cancer, both of which usually can't have much done.
They just shorten life span.
The main cost of health care likely are car accidents.
And the point is that no one person can or should have to foot the bill for an accident, alone.
When one person is unlucky, it is ethical for all those who happened to be lucky, to pitch in a tiny share.
That is why the fire department does not give you a bill for putting out the fire in your house.
Health care should be the same.
That is the way ancient Egypt did health care.
You pay each month you are healthy, and the doctor pays you when you get sick or injured.