Replace the ACA with single payer

[Pumpkin Row]

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

No, "any government program" is NOT Socialism, you just have no idea what Socialism is. You seriously need to read the Communist Manifesto, or just understand any topic you choose to talk about in general, people would probably take you a tiny bit more seriously if you weren't completely ignorant of everything regarding politics in general. In order for something to fit the definition of Socialist policy, it has to include Social ownership of private industry or Equity. Literally that's the definition. That means that by definition it excludes infrastructure, and "any government program" not using those aforementioned components is not Socialist.

Look, it's a pretty broad term, but its basic definition has nothing to do with communism. Socialism refers to a program that is owned by citizens. Anything citizens pay for belongs to them. Sure this gets corrupted in some systems, but that doesn't change the actual definition of the word. The military is paid for with tax revenue. It's funded by society. That is socialism.

You're right, it has nothing to do with Communism. Communism is a system where everyone is completely equal. It has no government, no currency, and no social classes, as the individual components of the name suggest. No, that is not the definition of Socialism, you have no source for this definition you pulled out of nowhere, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. Know why? Because it's completely wrong. My source is the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia agrees as well(Not that Wikipedia is a credible source, but it at least has to back up all of its sources as well). Once again, no, that is not Socialism, as usual, you're completely wrong. Not even the nutjob Socialists on this forum use such a broad definition, and they're desperate to prove it works.

Lol all you have to do is look up any objective definition of socialism and you would see that I am correct. You meanwhile insist you are right because of Wikipedia and the Communist Manifesto. Lol WTF? You're talking non sense.

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

 

[Andylusion]

First, it's not leadership. You can have all the leadership in the world, and the Soviet Union was still doomed to failure, because of something called 'economics' and 'math'. When you run against math, you lose, no matter how much leadership you have. When you fight economics, you lose, no matter how much leadership you have.

This idea that if you vote for something, or if you just elect the right guy, that magically you'll have all the money, and all services you want... you are crazy. It's never worked that way.

Second, our system isn't viable now. If this was an improvement, then you might have a point. But there is absolutely now way that we can afford this in the long run. We will absolutely end up like Greece under the system as it is.

As for how it was before, Medicare wasn't viable, but the private health insurance market was. Like I have said many times, I got a policy for $67 a month, back in 2006, that covered everything I needed.

Today the cheapest I can get is $250 a month. And you think this system is better? You are crazy.

And even back then, the main problem in health care, wasn't capitalist, it was socialism. The governments interventions into health care, were directly the cause of the increasing costs, before Obama Care ever existed. You guys act like before Obama Care, everything was free-market capitalism. You are wrong. It was not. It was extremely socialized back then.... which is why it was so costly.

The irony of Obama Care, is that you used the exact poison that was destroying the system, to try and fix the system. Now things are much worse.

I am talkibg specifically about the system before ObamaCare. Whether or not ObamaCare made improvements to the system is debateable. My point is, our healthcare system was a complete joke prior to ObamaCare. In comparison to many developed nations, drug prices and critical medical treatment is/was through the roof. You can buy prescription drugs for a fraction of the cost in European countries or Canada. Why? Because those nations have laws that cap how high a corporation can charge for drugs in their country. The USA doesn't have those kind of regulations so corporations can charge whatever the fuck they want for the sake of profit. As a result, prescription drug prices are astronomical and poor people can't afford basic cancer treatment.

There's a problem with that. Most European countries simply don't have access to the latest drugs. If the government puts a cap on drug prices, so that companies can't recoup the money they invested creating that drug, then they simply don't sell drugs there. As many as half of all new drugs are simply not available to patients in France and many others.

That's why survival rates in those countries are lower than here in the US.

So yes, average drug prices are lower in Europe... because you just die without drugs. How is that a better system?

Why do you think in the UK, they routinely, ever other year, sue their government to try and force them to pay for a new drug, that they can't get?

Patients sue NHS for denying them new £120,000 treatment

Why do they have to do this all the time? Because the NHS simply doesn't pay for expensive treatments, thus...... it's cheaper.

Well crap dude... yeah if you don't get treatment, then the treatment is cheaper.

The whole reason we have the absolute best possible care in the world, is because we pay for it. People don't work for free. Companies don't work for free. Doctors don't work for free.

There was this lady I worked with at my last job. She had to quit working because her hands were all screwed up. She decided to get treatment through workers compensation. I told her to her face, she should forget that, and pay for treatment at a private clinic. Well of course she looked at me, and was shocked... why should I pay for it, if the state will pay for it?

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He had the exact same hand problem. He could have gotten free care through the VA, but he heard so many bad stories, and saw how poorly free care was run, that he said forget it, and went to a private clinic, and paid to have his hands fixed.

Today, he's regularly fixes cars, and does home repairs, and is almost certified to be an EMT.

That lady, who went to the 'free' gov-care doctor? She never came back to work. She's permanently retired. That's your gov-care for you.

Are there cancer treatments the poor can't afford? Sure.
I would rather have expensive cancer treatments, than simply not have them available at all.

That's a better system, than in France, where doctors simply don't tell patients about treatments at all, because the state doesn't cover them. Living in ignorance, might be bliss... but it's not better.

Good god dude. Okay so your point is that there are drug shortages in those countries? I don't buy that without evidence but let's entertain that idea for a second. So granted in the US there is no shortage in SUPPLY of drugs but the problem is that the DEMAND isnt being met. 10s of millions of Americans can't afford basic cancer treatment. They can't afford many prescription cost. Now, no healthcare system on the planet is perfect, but when it comes to a large percentage of the population not being able to afford health services to begin with, America is the worst in the developed world. The World Health Organization rates the US's healthcare system well below many developed nations on the planet.

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

 

[Andylusion]

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

No, "any government program" is NOT Socialism, you just have no idea what Socialism is. You seriously need to read the Communist Manifesto, or just understand any topic you choose to talk about in general, people would probably take you a tiny bit more seriously if you weren't completely ignorant of everything regarding politics in general. In order for something to fit the definition of Socialist policy, it has to include Social ownership of private industry or Equity. Literally that's the definition. That means that by definition it excludes infrastructure, and "any government program" not using those aforementioned components is not Socialist.

Look, it's a pretty broad term, but its basic definition has nothing to do with communism. Socialism refers to a program that is owned by citizens. Anything citizens pay for belongs to them. Sure this gets corrupted in some systems, but that doesn't change the actual definition of the word. The military is paid for with tax revenue. It's funded by society. That is socialism.

You're right, it has nothing to do with Communism. Communism is a system where everyone is completely equal. It has no government, no currency, and no social classes, as the individual components of the name suggest. No, that is not the definition of Socialism, you have no source for this definition you pulled out of nowhere, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. Know why? Because it's completely wrong. My source is the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia agrees as well(Not that Wikipedia is a credible source, but it at least has to back up all of its sources as well). Once again, no, that is not Socialism, as usual, you're completely wrong. Not even the nutjob Socialists on this forum use such a broad definition, and they're desperate to prove it works.

Lol all you have to do is look up any objective definition of socialism and you would see that I am correct. You meanwhile insist you are right because of Wikipedia and the Communist Manifesto. Lol WTF? You're talking non sense.

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

What you said is technically true. You are right... violence and authoritarianism is not inherently part of the definition of the word "Socialism".

However, while not being in the part of the definition, it is necessarily a inherent result of socialism.

See, all human beings inherently have an understanding of right and wrong. All humans, understand that having what they rightfully worked for, taken away from them, is wrong.

As a result, people will inherently go about circumventing the system.

Take Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. One of the original policies of Hugo Chavez, was to mandate low prices for food. Well the farmers didn't want to sell their hard work and labor, for low prices. So they simply didn't sell their food, in order make a bid to change the law.

So Hugo Chavez, ordered the military to go and confiscate the warehouses of food.

So the farmers started selling off everything they had to smugglers into Columbia.

So Chavez starts arresting farmers.

So the Farmers shut down operations, and vacation in Columbia.

By the way, same thing happened at stores. Stores bought products to sell, and Hugo Chavez required a lower price for items, and stores started hiding stock, and selling them out the back door at higher prices. Chavez sent the military to surround the stores.

You end up with empty shelves, with a sign above them saying "made with socialism".

So you are right that "socialism" does not have violence and authoritarianism as part of the definition, but it is the inherent result. Government must use force and violence, in order to compel people to adhere to the system, because the system itself is inherently immoral and wrong.

Remember, the Berlin wall wasn't to keep others out, it was to force their people in. The whole reason the socialist government built that wall in the middle of the city, is because everyone was leaving the East Berlin. If they had not built that wall, the entire economy of east Germany would have imploded on itself. They had to force people to stay in the system, with lethal threat.

Same is true of Cuba today. Cuba has no laws against people coming to Cuba. They have laws against people leaving Cuba. If everyone could leave Cuba, they would, and the entire socialist system there would collapse.

They have to force people to stay. So inherently all socialism results in authoritarianism and violence.

 

[Billy000]

Look, it's a pretty broad term, but its basic definition has nothing to do with communism. Socialism refers to a program that is owned by citizens. Anything citizens pay for belongs to them. Sure this gets corrupted in some systems, but that doesn't change the actual definition of the word. The military is paid for with tax revenue. It's funded by society. That is socialism.

You're right, it has nothing to do with Communism. Communism is a system where everyone is completely equal. It has no government, no currency, and no social classes, as the individual components of the name suggest. No, that is not the definition of Socialism, you have no source for this definition you pulled out of nowhere, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. Know why? Because it's completely wrong. My source is the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia agrees as well(Not that Wikipedia is a credible source, but it at least has to back up all of its sources as well). Once again, no, that is not Socialism, as usual, you're completely wrong. Not even the nutjob Socialists on this forum use such a broad definition, and they're desperate to prove it works.

Lol all you have to do is look up any objective definition of socialism and you would see that I am correct. You meanwhile insist you are right because of Wikipedia and the Communist Manifesto. Lol WTF? You're talking non sense.

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

 

[Billy000]

I am talkibg specifically about the system before ObamaCare. Whether or not ObamaCare made improvements to the system is debateable. My point is, our healthcare system was a complete joke prior to ObamaCare. In comparison to many developed nations, drug prices and critical medical treatment is/was through the roof. You can buy prescription drugs for a fraction of the cost in European countries or Canada. Why? Because those nations have laws that cap how high a corporation can charge for drugs in their country. The USA doesn't have those kind of regulations so corporations can charge whatever the fuck they want for the sake of profit. As a result, prescription drug prices are astronomical and poor people can't afford basic cancer treatment.

There's a problem with that. Most European countries simply don't have access to the latest drugs. If the government puts a cap on drug prices, so that companies can't recoup the money they invested creating that drug, then they simply don't sell drugs there. As many as half of all new drugs are simply not available to patients in France and many others.

That's why survival rates in those countries are lower than here in the US.

So yes, average drug prices are lower in Europe... because you just die without drugs. How is that a better system?

Why do you think in the UK, they routinely, ever other year, sue their government to try and force them to pay for a new drug, that they can't get?

Patients sue NHS for denying them new £120,000 treatment

Why do they have to do this all the time? Because the NHS simply doesn't pay for expensive treatments, thus...... it's cheaper.

Well crap dude... yeah if you don't get treatment, then the treatment is cheaper.

The whole reason we have the absolute best possible care in the world, is because we pay for it. People don't work for free. Companies don't work for free. Doctors don't work for free.

There was this lady I worked with at my last job. She had to quit working because her hands were all screwed up. She decided to get treatment through workers compensation. I told her to her face, she should forget that, and pay for treatment at a private clinic. Well of course she looked at me, and was shocked... why should I pay for it, if the state will pay for it?

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He had the exact same hand problem. He could have gotten free care through the VA, but he heard so many bad stories, and saw how poorly free care was run, that he said forget it, and went to a private clinic, and paid to have his hands fixed.

Today, he's regularly fixes cars, and does home repairs, and is almost certified to be an EMT.

That lady, who went to the 'free' gov-care doctor? She never came back to work. She's permanently retired. That's your gov-care for you.

Are there cancer treatments the poor can't afford? Sure.
I would rather have expensive cancer treatments, than simply not have them available at all.

That's a better system, than in France, where doctors simply don't tell patients about treatments at all, because the state doesn't cover them. Living in ignorance, might be bliss... but it's not better.

Good god dude. Okay so your point is that there are drug shortages in those countries? I don't buy that without evidence but let's entertain that idea for a second. So granted in the US there is no shortage in SUPPLY of drugs but the problem is that the DEMAND isnt being met. 10s of millions of Americans can't afford basic cancer treatment. They can't afford many prescription cost. Now, no healthcare system on the planet is perfect, but when it comes to a large percentage of the population not being able to afford health services to begin with, America is the worst in the developed world. The World Health Organization rates the US's healthcare system well below many developed nations on the planet.

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You're right, it has nothing to do with Communism. Communism is a system where everyone is completely equal. It has no government, no currency, and no social classes, as the individual components of the name suggest. No, that is not the definition of Socialism, you have no source for this definition you pulled out of nowhere, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. Know why? Because it's completely wrong. My source is the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia agrees as well(Not that Wikipedia is a credible source, but it at least has to back up all of its sources as well). Once again, no, that is not Socialism, as usual, you're completely wrong. Not even the nutjob Socialists on this forum use such a broad definition, and they're desperate to prove it works.

Lol all you have to do is look up any objective definition of socialism and you would see that I am correct. You meanwhile insist you are right because of Wikipedia and the Communist Manifesto. Lol WTF? You're talking non sense.

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

There's a screenshot of the post I quoted. I've been repeating that through the entire thread, you're just trying to broaden the definition to fit your false narrative.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

 

[Billy000]

Lol all you have to do is look up any objective definition of socialism and you would see that I am correct. You meanwhile insist you are right because of Wikipedia and the Communist Manifesto. Lol WTF? You're talking non sense.

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

 

[dblack]

Arguing over definitions is pointless.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

 

[WillReadmore]

You've been proven wrong on this so solidly there is absolutely zero defense of your position.

The health care expenditures of other industrialized nations (ALL of which have some form of single payer system) are less than our expenditures. And many of them have highly competitive quality. In some areas (such as infant mortality) they out perform us.

It is you who have been proven wrong, on solid historical evidence of the inherent inefficiencies of central planning and monopolies.

Lower expenditures are because of centralized rationing, not because bureaucrats deliver more product for less.

Infant mortality is an irrelevant deflection, as there are numerous other factors that play into that statistic.

To prove the total lack of defensibility of your position, I defy you to name ONE THING that the central government has taken over, were the costs fell as a matter of economic forces and the level of service increased beyond anything freedom offers. Just one.

Health care.

We can compare our system to that of every other industrialized nation.

The systems are all running in parallel, with the same level of health concerns, the same limits of medical science, the same expectations of health, health care, and health care distribution, the same drug companies, the same living conditions, the same understanding of sources of health problems, etc., etc.

You can't come up with a better comparison than REAL LIFE!!!


And, one of the central points is that OUR system is based on insurance companies working to maximize profit. In general, we love capitalism. But, health isn't a product that is fully susceptible to capitalist forces. Under capitalism, people get to freely make choices. But, if your doctor says you need to have a tumor removed, to have regular insulin injections, etc., etc., you can't decide that you'll buy another TV instead. It's just NOT a case susceptible to the downward forces on price that we might hope would come from capitalism. Get it?

You mean like how Medcare and Medicaid expenditures have exceeded 12 times their projections, even when counting in inflation, all while delivering only but the most bare minimum of actual services?

You mean how wonderfully efficient, effective and caring the VA has been shown to be?

Please, I'm busting a gut over here at your foolishness.

First, whether projections are exceeded isn't the point. Medicare addresses a population segment that is especially expensive, so it is NOT an example of total expenses were we to all be on Medicare. We CAN compare that with other countries. For example, we can notice that Medicare administration costs less per person than what insurance companies charge.

Medicaid has to do with people who can't pay. That is part of the problem we face, but there is NO CAPITALIST SOLUTION to that.

Finally, the problem with VA (and Medicare to some extent) is that most Americans don't use it. If we all used VA, our voting behavior would be MAJORLY different, and the congressmen who protect inept administrators, who deny basic care, who refuse adequate records keeping, etc., would simply be voted out of office. Our VA is FAR worse than the civil health care of other industrial nations.

What we should be comparing is our total cost of health care (our tax contributions to hospitals and other providers, Medicare, Medicaid, our payments to insurance companies, our other payments such as deductibles, per-visit costs, etc., our prescription drug costs, our costs of eye and dental care, etc.).

That is, we need to compare apples to apples, using actual costs we have today compared to the similar medical support those in other companies get.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Arguing over definitions is pointless.

As is any discussion with Billy.

 

[Billy000]

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.


I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

 

[WillReadmore]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

Oh dear, someone has lost faith in hope and change.

Actually, Switzerland and Holland, two other eminently capitalist countries, have systems based on private insurance. It's just that after years, the insurers become non-profits thru regulation.

Yes. There are a number of varieties systems out there. They don't all just do pure single payer for everyone.

Belgium, I believe, has uniform coverage that doesn't cover everything. Individuals can then buy additional coverage from for-profit corporations if they want.

 

[Billy000]

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

First, whether projections are exceeded isn't the point. Medicare addresses a population segment that is especially expensive, so it is NOT an example of total expenses were we to all be on Medicare. We CAN compare that with other countries. For example, we can notice that Medicare administration costs less per person than what insurance companies charge.

Actually, it is the point. Your model has FAILED to contain costs and deliver a superior product.

Medicaid has to do with people who can't pay. That is part of the problem we face, but there is NO CAPITALIST SOLUTION to that.

Never heard of Shriners and St. Judes, have you?

Finally, the problem with VA (and Medicare to some extent) is that most Americans don't use it. If we all used VA, our voting behavior would be MAJORLY different, and the congressmen who protect inept administrators, who deny basic care, who refuse adequate records keeping, etc., would simply be voted out of office. Our VA is FAR worse than the civil health care of other industrial nations.

Your economic illiteracy is only exceeded by your political naiveté.

What we should be comparing is our total cost of health care (our tax contributions to hospitals and other providers, Medicare, Medicaid, our payments to insurance companies, our other payments such as deductibles, per-visit costs, etc., our prescription drug costs, our costs of eye and dental care, etc.).

That is, we need to compare apples to apples, using actual costs we have today compared to the similar medical support those in other companies get.

What we should be comparing is the relatively low costs and high quality for cash-and-carry services, versus the ghastly costs and staggering inefficiency and ineptitude of government monopolies. But your only solution is to do even more of what has clearly failed. In the real world, we refer to this as insanity.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

"Ownership of a program funded by citizens". Orwell would be proud.

 

[WillReadmore]

Lol all you have to do is look up any objective definition of socialism and you would see that I am correct. You meanwhile insist you are right because of Wikipedia and the Communist Manifesto. Lol WTF? You're talking non sense.

The Communist Manifesto, which defined the movement for the rest of the world. Not only that, but THE PREFIX FOR THE NAME even supports my definition. You also seem to be, incorrectly as usual, thinking that ONLY Wikipedia is what I'm citing, but what I'm citing is ALL of the sources that it lists at the bottom of the page. IF you had anything to back up your assertion, you'd be SHOWING me, but you haven't, because absolutely nothing supports the definition that you outright made up on the spot.

Controlled by the community as a whole, which is one of the components I listed under the definition of "SOCIAL OWNERSHIP". However, I won't stop there.

Among the definitions of the word "Public" is "Common", "Communal" and "Collective", concerning the people as a whole. Public is the word used to describe works owned and controlled by the government, "for the community". So, not only does the prefix in the very name mean exactly what I was explaining to you, you dense Fopdoodle, but so do the definitions of that I looked up. Know what's missing? The definition you made up on the spot. Go figure. Nowhere is "Democracy" mentioned in any way, shape, or form. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim and somehow I'M talking nonsense? No, you're just a confused Socialist that doesn't even know what the word means or what the movement even is. You're just trying to broaden the definition as much as possible so you can claim that more of it won't hurt. Under the proper definition, Socialism has destroyed many Nations, and killed many people. It's a destructive force that's like cancer, it destroys everything it infects, slowly and painfully.

Lol well see I don't need to show you sources because you just confirmed my argument all along by showing the objective definitions of those words. The "community" ownership of production. Society pays for government programs. That is socialism. You've been claiming along that socialism refers to authoritarian state government solely controlling these government services. That has nothing to do with violence or oppression for fuck sake lol. Leaders can be oppressive over socialist nations, but the that isn't part of the inherent definition of the word of socialism.

No, I've been saying that falls under the definition of Social Ownership, which is what defines "Socialism" as in the meaning of the prefix of the word. You apparently didn't read any of my posts, which explains your perpetual confusion regarding... literally everything. Social ownership encompasses public, collective, or cooperative ownership, and the means of production being private industry. Do you know how the read? Why are you on a forum if you can't read? At no point did I claim that it's solely authoritarian, I said that the USSR was Socialist, and they were. Socialism CAN be authoritarian, as the definition encompasses government control. If you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in their entirety... well, you probably still wouldn't understand, because you're completely dense, but sure, you'd better understand. Let me reiterate.

You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Social ownership is encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, and common ownership, meaning that if the government owns it, it falls under the definition. Example; USSR. I'd also like to point out that I said "Social Ownership", not "Government ownership". You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I even defined Social Ownership and The Means of Production, and explained to you that it was what defined Socialism. AGAIN, what defines Socialism is Social Ownership of the means of production and equity. Of course, I'm basically explaining politics to a brick wall with CNN playing 24/7 from inside of it, so all of this is going to go RIGHT over your head... again.

lol um no you defined the word in that post and are now pretending you've been saying that all along. You still haven't explained why this definition doesn't have anything to do with programs being funded by tax payer revenue. That is an example of socialism. Socialism has always been part of the framework of this country. Our economy isn't a "free market". It's a mixed economy. It is incorporated by the government which owns our monetary system. That system is funded by tax payers.

Get back to me when you go to college, k pumpkin?

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

There's a screenshot of the post I quoted. I've been repeating that through the entire thread, you're just trying to broaden the definition to fit your false narrative.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

First, whether projections are exceeded isn't the point. Medicare addresses a population segment that is especially expensive, so it is NOT an example of total expenses were we to all be on Medicare. We CAN compare that with other countries. For example, we can notice that Medicare administration costs less per person than what insurance companies charge.

Actually, it is the point. Your model has FAILED to contain costs and deliver a superior product.

Medicaid has to do with people who can't pay. That is part of the problem we face, but there is NO CAPITALIST SOLUTION to that.

Never heard of Shriners and St. Judes, have you?

Finally, the problem with VA (and Medicare to some extent) is that most Americans don't use it. If we all used VA, our voting behavior would be MAJORLY different, and the congressmen who protect inept administrators, who deny basic care, who refuse adequate records keeping, etc., would simply be voted out of office. Our VA is FAR worse than the civil health care of other industrial nations.

Your economic illiteracy is only exceeded by your political naiveté.

What we should be comparing is our total cost of health care (our tax contributions to hospitals and other providers, Medicare, Medicaid, our payments to insurance companies, our other payments such as deductibles, per-visit costs, etc., our prescription drug costs, our costs of eye and dental care, etc.).

That is, we need to compare apples to apples, using actual costs we have today compared to the similar medical support those in other companies get.

What we should be comparing is the relatively low costs and high quality for cash-and-carry services, versus the ghastly costs and staggering inefficiency and ineptitude of government monopolies. But your only solution is to do even more of what has clearly failed. In the real world, we refer to this as insanity.

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

Your idea is proven nonsensical because of the actual examples we have on hand, which I have already pointed out only to have you ignore them.

But THIS TIME the total government takeover and monopoly will work!

Fool.

 

[WillReadmore]

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

Your idea is proven nonsensical because of the actual examples we have on hand, which I have already pointed out only to have you ignore them.

But THIS TIME the total government takeover and monopoly will work!

Fool.

You haven't proposed ANY examples that compare apples to apples.

St. Judes, for example, is not a for-profit agency - it is not capitalist.