Time to get health care right once and for all

[Boss]

I guess the picture I posted depicting a child laborer in the early days of Industry were lost on you. Free Market Capitalists, or the closest thing to them, was responsible for that.

No, that's another example of exploitation. Again... Capitalism will often exploit if left unchecked. That is NOT free market capitalism. That's precisely why we can't rely on unfettered Capitalism and we never have. We've always had a SYSTEM..... Read that word really slowly... Free Market Capitalist SYSTEM! It's not a hard word, it's really easy. A SYSTEM is a collection of things that work together.

So, in our SYSTEM.... what we established was a combination of 1) Free Market Capitalism, 2) Free Enterprise, 3) Individual Liberty and 4) A Constitution based on inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. This is the SYSTEM we define as a Free Market Capitalist SYSTEM. Is that getting through that thick head of yours? It's not "unfettered Capitalism" run amok. It's not lack of any and all government oversight and regulation.

Yes, there are times when Capitalism will stray from the principles of Free Market Capitalism. That's why the SYSTEM is important. Socialist countries also utilize Capitalism... they couldn't function economically if they didn't, as Chairman Mao discovered when he tried it. His attempt to kill Capitalism plunged his nation into economic darkness for nearly 40 years. It wasn't until after his death the moderate reformers came in and re-instituted capitalist reforms the nation began to turn things around. "Made in China" is still a running joke in most of the Western world.

 

[JQPublic1]

Hmmm. You are less educated than I thought. I guess you don't know about billionaire Russian oligarchs and Europe's 468 billionaires. Boss, no offense but you really need to open up your horizons. Your education is severely lacking!

So now you're going to offer up the ruling class oligarchs who exploit their people under the glorious Socialist system as some symbol of economic freedom and liberty happening?

That's just goofy as hell.

Was I supposed to put my head in a hole next to yours when you said this?:

"That is the byproduct of a free market capitalist system where people are free to obtain any level of wealth they desire. This doesn't happen in Socialist societies."

I noticed you didn't address the point I made concerning the 468 billionairs of Europe where Socialism and Christianity live together quite comfortably.
But you are right about Russian Capitalists, they have become almost as adroit in exploiting their masses as Capitalists here do. But at least we have Democrats here who created a middle class. Russia is controlled by conservatives where any overtures towards egalitarianism are ruthlessly put down...just like our past, huh?

 

[Boss]

Boss, no offense, but I think conservatives drop the ball when they let themselves get pushed into making these kinds of claims. The law should vigorously protect consumers from fraud.

Last I checked, we have no shortage of laws against fraud. I've not advocated that we make fraud legal. I don't see where I was "pushed" into making any kind of claim. I'm simply describing how free market capitalism works.

You would have consumer advocacy groups analyzing insurance companies and their products to inform consumers on the best values. Companies who screwed people over through tricky legal wording would face serious legal challenges for fraud but they would also develop a PR problem that would bury them in a competitive field. Whereas, in a non-competitive field where they're the only game in town due to government regulations and mandates, they can get away with pretty much anything because the consumer has no choice.

 

[JQPublic1]

I guess the picture I posted depicting a child laborer in the early days of Industry were lost on you. Free Market Capitalists, or the closest thing to them, was responsible for that.

No, that's another example of exploitation. Again... Capitalism will often exploit if left unchecked. That is NOT free market capitalism. That's precisely why we can't rely on unfettered Capitalism and we never have. We've always had a SYSTEM..... Read that word really slowly... Free Market Capitalist SYSTEM! It's not a hard word, it's really easy. A SYSTEM is a collection of things that work together.

So, in our SYSTEM.... what we established was a combination of 1) Free Market Capitalism, 2) Free Enterprise, 3) Individual Liberty and 4) A Constitution based on inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. This is the SYSTEM we define as a Free Market Capitalist SYSTEM. Is that getting through that thick head of yours? It's not "unfettered Capitalism" run amok. It's not lack of any and all government oversight and regulation.

Yes, there are times when Capitalism will stray from the principles of Free Market Capitalism. That's why the SYSTEM is important. Socialist countries also utilize Capitalism... they couldn't function economically if they didn't, as Chairman Mao discovered when he tried it. His attempt to kill Capitalism plunged his nation into economic darkness for nearly 40 years. It wasn't until after his death the moderate reformers came in and re-instituted capitalist reforms the nation began to turn things around. "Made in China" is still a running joke in most of the Western world.

Whether you call it free market capitalism or just plain capitalism, the exploitation factor within each depends on the integrity of those indulging.

 

[Boss]

Hmmm. You are less educated than I thought. I guess you don't know about billionaire Russian oligarchs and Europe's 468 billionaires. Boss, no offense but you really need to open up your horizons. Your education is severely lacking!

So now you're going to offer up the ruling class oligarchs who exploit their people under the glorious Socialist system as some symbol of economic freedom and liberty happening?

That's just goofy as hell.

Was I supposed to put my head in a hole next to yours when you said this?:

"That is the byproduct of a free market capitalist system where people are free to obtain any level of wealth they desire. This doesn't happen in Socialist societies."

I noticed you didn't address the point I made concerning the 468 billionairs of Europe where Socialism and Christianity live together quite comfortably.
But you are right about Russian Capitalists, they have become almost as adroit in exploiting their masses as Capitalists here do. But at least we have Democrats here who created a middle class. Russia is controlled by conservatives where any overtures towards egalitarianism are ruthlessly put down...just like our past, huh?

I think you should put your head in an oven instead of a hole.

You're offering the example of oligarchs and ruling class elite who've exploited the trappings of a socialist system built on the backs of the people. The People are NOT free to obtain any level of wealth they desire... that's why SO many of them want to come here!

And Christianity is definitely on the decline in Europe as it grows everywhere else on the planet. What I said earlier about Marx and his teachings of Marxist Socialism is true but that has since been modified over the years. Stalin, for example, saw a benefit to allow religion as long as it was kept in check by the State. It seems that trying to wrench religious faith from man entirely is difficult to accomplish.

Socialism and Capitalism do not live together comfortably, they coexist out of necessity. And there is no such thing as "middle class" in America, we don't have classes here. That's a concoction of Socialists in order to engage in class warfare. In our system, man is free to be in any class he desires. People move into and out of what you define as "middle class" all the time, and to the extent it exists, it was made possible by the Free Market Capitalist System, not Democrats.

 

[Boss]

Whether you call it free market capitalism or just plain capitalism, the exploitation factor within each depends on the integrity of those indulging.

It's not a matter of what I call it, it's a matter of what it is. Free Market Capitalism is a specific form of Capitalism. All Capitalism is not Free Market. I defined the differences and you're ignoring my post.

 

[dblack]

Boss, no offense, but I think conservatives drop the ball when they let themselves get pushed into making these kinds of claims. The law should vigorously protect consumers from fraud.

Last I checked, we have no shortage of laws against fraud. I've not advocated that we make fraud legal. I don't see where I was "pushed" into making any kind of claim. I'm simply describing how free market capitalism works.

I understand. But we see these kinds of 'debates' routinely, where regulation enthusiasts equivocate on "regulations" and "free" markets, as though we're advocating for no laws at all and relying, as a matter of faith, on the market as a solution to every injustice. It's fine to recognized that the market can provide, eventually, an incentive for companies to avoid screwing people, but that's weak tea for the person getting screwed here and now.

I guess I'm just saying that "the market will take care of it all" comes off as bit tone deaf. It doesn't mean a thing to people who don't understand economics, or don't see the danger in using government to intervene.

I'm reminded of one of the debates in 2012, when Wolf Blitzer demagogued Ron Paul with "Should we just let them die?". Ron Paul, of course, answered "no" (a point which many pundits glossed over) - but members of the crowd fell for it. They shouted "Let 'em die", in defiance of the implication that government should be responsible. Which was exactly what Blitzer was trying to provoke. They do whatever they can to equate conservative reluctance to expand the welfare state with a mean-spirited, social darwinism.

We need to be more aggressive in rejecting that false dichotomy. Saying we don't want caretaker government doesn't mean we think that people who need help shouldn't get any. We just think government is the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Flopper]

Policies and premiums would be constructed to minimize claims and maximize premiums excluding coverage and subscribers that would jeopardize that goal.

And we get to the actual root of the problem... You don't trust free market capitalism. This is a fundamental problem with most socialists. You are convinced (in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that you'd be better off in a Nanny State.

In a free market, policies would be constructed to attract customer share. Competition would force paying of claims and encourage lower premiums. The problem is cutting through decades of layered government collusion, corruption, bureaucracy and regulation prohibiting the free market from functioning.

Companies would construct policies to attract customers whose health and demographics made them actuarially sound risks. Those that had serious health problems would pay much higher rates. Those that were racking up healthcare bills of say $100,000+ would simple be declared as un-insurable.

Assuming a pure free market for health insurance, the insured would have no recourse for denied claims other than legal actions.

Since insurers can always out wait patients in approving costly procedure, particular if the patient is seriously ill, delaying approval for seriously ill patients would become common practice in controlling costs. Small claims for common healthcare problems would be paid rapidly which would keep most customers happy at least until they had a very serious problem.

Since government would not be setting reserve requirements, nor other onerous regulations on policies, loopholes in converge contracts would protect the company from large claims and there would be no mandated reserves, and thus there no guarantee that any claims would actually be paid.

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

In short, disreputable operators, nonuniform contracts, and no government oversight would quickly destroy faith in the products.

Since insurers can always out wait patients in approving costly procedure, particular if the patient is seriously ill, delaying approval for seriously ill patients would become common practice in controlling costs. Small claims for common healthcare problems would be paid rapidly which would keep most customers happy at least until they had a very serious problem.

No... word would spread that certain companies cheat their customers and other companies would pride themselves on building solid reputations for handling serious illness in order to gain market share. Nothing would become "common practice" because consumers would demand the best quality for the money and competition would deliver it.

Those that were racking up healthcare bills of say $100,000+ would simple be declared as un-insurable.

Of course, this has to be the case in any viable insurance system. Insurers are not benevolent rich uncles, they are businesses. We see the very same thing happen to people with auto insurance who have multiple accidents. Eventually, they are too high of a risk to be insured.

Since government would not be setting reserve requirements, nor other onerous regulations on policies, loopholes in converge contracts would protect the company from large claims and there would be no mandated reserves, and thus there no guarantee that any claims would actually be paid.

Again, companies would have a reputation to uphold in order to attract market share. Companies who routinely didn't pay out on policies would be sued but they would also develop a bad reputation with consumers. They would quickly be eliminated as competition provided a more reliable service.

And I am not suggesting absolutely NO government regulation. Certain aspects of free market capitalism have to be protected and the government is useful in doing that. Without SOME measures, free market capitalism can be exploited. The delineation is regulations and policies that protect and encourage free markets.

The problem I see with your argument is that the public would not put their faith in an insurance company, bank, or other financial service companies simply because they have a good reputation today and hope to keep it. These companies collect money from customers now promising future services that may not be delivered for many years. Over the years, ownership in the company may change many times as well as policies and procedures. Companies that may seem sound and reputable today may not be when it's time for them to deliver on their promises.

People trust these companies because they are regulated by the government. They must meet reserve requirements, their practices are subject to government scrutiny, audits, and reviews. Insurance policies must be standardized and can't contain deceptive wording that would allow the company to escape payment. Without these government regulation, the health insurance industry would cease to exist and the government would provide the service.

The free market with little government interference works best in business sectors in which the products are easy evaluated by the customer and delivered at the time of sale. For example, sales of fruits and vegetables and many other commodities in which the customer can evaluate the product at the time of sale works fine with little government regulation. However, products like insurance and retirement products where the customer will not actually receive the product possibly for many years in the future requires a lot regulation otherwise the public would not buy it.

 

[Political Junky]

Hope those supporting Trump Care are rich, otherwise you'll get screwed.
It's success is dubious.

 

[JQPublic1]

Hmmm. You are less educated than I thought. I guess you don't know about billionaire Russian oligarchs and Europe's 468 billionaires. Boss, no offense but you really need to open up your horizons. Your education is severely lacking!

So now you're going to offer up the ruling class oligarchs who exploit their people under the glorious Socialist system as some symbol of economic freedom and liberty happening?

That's just goofy as hell.

Was I supposed to put my head in a hole next to yours when you said this?:

"That is the byproduct of a free market capitalist system where people are free to obtain any level of wealth they desire. This doesn't happen in Socialist societies."

I noticed you didn't address the point I made concerning the 468 billionairs of Europe where Socialism and Christianity live together quite comfortably.
But you are right about Russian Capitalists, they have become almost as adroit in exploiting their masses as Capitalists here do. But at least we have Democrats here who created a middle class. Russia is controlled by conservatives where any overtures towards egalitarianism are ruthlessly put down...just like our past, huh?

I think you should put your head in an oven instead of a hole.

You're offering the example of oligarchs and ruling class elite who've exploited the trappings of a socialist system built on the backs of the people. The People are NOT free to obtain any level of wealth they desire... that's why SO many of them want to come here!

And Christianity is definitely on the decline in Europe as it grows everywhere else on the planet. What I said earlier about Marx and his teachings of Marxist Socialism is true but that has since been modified over the years. Stalin, for example, saw a benefit to allow religion as long as it was kept in check by the State. It seems that trying to wrench religious faith from man entirely is difficult to accomplish.

Socialism and Capitalism do not live together comfortably, they coexist out of necessity. And there is no such thing as "middle class" in America, we don't have classes here. That's a concoction of Socialists in order to engage in class warfare. In our system, man is free to be in any class he desires. People move into and out of what you define as "middle class" all the time, and to the extent it exists, it was made possible by the Free Market Capitalist System, not Democrats.

Sooner or later our entire bodies will end up in either a hole or an oven. It will be sooner for a lot of seniors if Trump-care is implemented.

The examples I offered were in response to your erroneous assertion wealth attainment is limited in Socialist countries.. My revelation that those socialist countries have billionaires was just the tipi of the economic iceberg. Russia, for instance, also has a growing middle class. You may not think a middle class exists either here or in Russia but most readers understand what I mean when I use the term so I will keep using it. I will concede that Capitalism does create wealth ; but, socialism... i.e. collective bargaining, makes greater individual wealth more accessible to those millions of workers seeking to rise out of poverty.
In that sense, Socialism and Capitalism do co-exist in the form of Mgt/Labor relations and is governed by contracts known as collective bargaining agreements. Democrats embraced Unionism and Republicans became corporate shills. But lobbyists do influence representatives of both parties whichI see as an affront to the will of We The People. And now that the sanctity of the vote in a general election has been compromised by voter suppression based on false accusations of widespread fraud, those with the greatest wealth can subvert the interests of the general public at will by eliminating millions of legitimate votes via Crosscheck..just as they did to get Trump elected.

In our system man may have "legislated freedom" to be any class he desires but that does not necessarily translate into access to that freedom for a variety of reasons to include outright discrimination. And due to familial obligations, moving to another place may not be reasonably possible.

Again, the middle class was created by having access to higher wages and benefits. Capitalism in an of itself did not raise the poor out of poverty into middle class status, an outside force did.. I call it collective bargaining, others call it socialism.

 

[Boss]

It's fine to recognized that the market can provide, eventually, an incentive for companies to avoid screwing people, but that's weak tea for the person getting screwed here and now.

Again, the free market capitalist system doesn't screw anybody. It actually mitigates getting screwed because of competition. If I am a free market capitalist who is screwing you, another free market capitalist will come along and offer you a better alternative.

I guess I'm just saying that "the market will take care of it all" comes off as bit tone deaf. It doesn't mean a thing to people who don't understand economics, or don't see the danger in using government to intervene.

I don't base my opinions on what ignorant people think. I go by facts instead. It's not tone deaf to say the free market capitalist system works. It's ignorance of history to deny it. The government doesn't need to intervene, that's when the system gets corrupted through collusion. The government needs to ensure the principles of free market capitalism are working by eliminating fraud and protecting against exploitation of people and resources. That is their role in the system.

We need to be more aggressive in rejecting that false dichotomy. Saying we don't want caretaker government doesn't mean we think that people who need help shouldn't get any. We just think government is the wrong tool for the job.

We need to be more aggressive in defending and advocating the free market capitalist system because that's what works.

 

[Boss]

Again, the middle class was created by having access to higher wages and benefits. Capitalism in an of itself did not raise the poor out of poverty into middle class status, an outside force did.. I call it collective bargaining, others call it socialism.

You make some pretty good arguments but this is where you get really stupid. Collective bargaining killed our manufacturing sector jobs. It's the biggest reason many of our jobs have gone overseas. Long before there were any unions, this country built the greatest nation that ever existed on principles of freedom and free market capitalism. Yes, I know we had slaves, it was our system that resolved it. It wasn't until after slavery we became a world superpower.

What you call the "middle class" was created through the free market capitalist system long before any labor unions. It also created an upper-middle class and wealthy class... not that we actually have classes, people are free to aspire to whatever class they want in our system. I don't know how to make this point to you... if you buy an airline ticket that says "3rd Class" but you are allowed to sit anywhere on the plane you like, are you really 3rd Class? Or is this a "classless" system where "3rd Class" is a meaningless label?

If you look at the data for middle income families you find they have declined since 1967. This prompts many hand-wringers to proclaim the "middle class" is dying... but the lower income families are also in decline. So where are they going? Well, just so happens they are moving up. Middle income families are becoming upper income families. Actually, families are moving constantly in and out of the so-called classes. So when you formulate these arguments on the basis of "class" it's a misleading argument because the demographics constantly change. It's never the same group of people over a given time.

 

[Boss]

The examples I offered were in response to your erroneous assertion wealth attainment is limited in Socialist countries.

The examples you gave were oligarchs and ruling class elites. Certainly, oligarchs and ruling class elites benefit financially in any socialist system. They do so on the backs of the peasantry and they use capitalism to do it. If you're not an oligarch or part of the ruling class, you are not free to pursue any degree of wealth as you have no individual liberty. You are born into the "worker class" and that's where you stay. This is the primary reason socialist systems fail.... it eventually crushes the human spirit.

 

[dblack]

Again, the middle class was created by having access to higher wages and benefits. Capitalism in an of itself did not raise the poor out of poverty into middle class status, an outside force did.. I call it collective bargaining, others call it socialism.

It's not socialism unless the 'collective' in question is the state. And in that case, there's no bargaining, just coercion.

 

[Care4all]

It's fine to recognized that the market can provide, eventually, an incentive for companies to avoid screwing people, but that's weak tea for the person getting screwed here and now.

Again, the free market capitalist system doesn't screw anybody. It actually mitigates getting screwed because of competition. If I am a free market capitalist who is screwing you, another free market capitalist will come along and offer you a better alternative.

I guess I'm just saying that "the market will take care of it all" comes off as bit tone deaf. It doesn't mean a thing to people who don't understand economics, or don't see the danger in using government to intervene.

I don't base my opinions on what ignorant people think. I go by facts instead. It's not tone deaf to say the free market capitalist system works. It's ignorance of history to deny it. The government doesn't need to intervene, that's when the system gets corrupted through collusion. The government needs to ensure the principles of free market capitalism are working by eliminating fraud and protecting against exploitation of people and resources. That is their role in the system.

We need to be more aggressive in rejecting that false dichotomy. Saying we don't want caretaker government doesn't mean we think that people who need help shouldn't get any. We just think government is the wrong tool for the job.

We need to be more aggressive in defending and advocating the free market capitalist system because that's what works.

In so called "free market" capitalism, both labor and goods cross all borders with no restraints....

if businesses here can get cheaper labor from Mexico, or China, or Guatemala etc., then so be it, they should be allowed to get it and bring this labor in, if goods are cheaper in China, then so be it, the business should be able to buy from there, with no restraints....

is this what you actually mean by "free market" capitalism??

 

[Boss]

In so called "free market" capitalism, both labor and goods cross all borders with no restraints....

if businesses here can get cheaper labor from Mexico, or China, or Guatemala etc., then so be it, they should be allowed to get it and bring this labor in, if goods are cheaper in China, then so be it, the business should be able to buy from there, with no restraints....

is this what you actually mean by "free market" capitalism??

I don't believe there should be absolutely NO restraints. Again, I think it's government's role to protect free market principles in general and ensure free markets for American business entrepreneurs.

Trade policy is a tricky thing with a global marketplace because everyone isn't operating a free market capitalist system. We cannot compete with cheap labor from China. That is an unfair competition and that's not a free market. Therefore, we must implement some form of tariff or restriction in order to protect American interests. But this is where that gets tricky... not everything we import from China is a competitive consumer good. Some things are material goods used in American production. So we need a dynamic policy that distinguishes between products which directly compete in the market and materials which are used in production.

Some people form their opinions on the basis of "trade deficit" and I think that is an incorrect evaluation because it doesn't illustrate the entire picture. We run a trade deficit because we import much more than we export. But much of what we import is used in production of tangible products we sell and even export. Jobs depend on that. Much of our GDP depends on that. Looking at nothing but the trade deficit and forming policy to try and balance that alone is cutting our nose off to spite our face.

Getting back to my point, trade policies, and really any government policies ought to protect and encourage free market capitalism. If they are a hindrance to that, we should eliminate those policies.

 

[dblack]

It's fine to recognized that the market can provide, eventually, an incentive for companies to avoid screwing people, but that's weak tea for the person getting screwed here and now.

Again, the free market capitalist system doesn't screw anybody. It actually mitigates getting screwed because of competition. If I am a free market capitalist who is screwing you, another free market capitalist will come along and offer you a better alternative.

I guess I'm just saying that "the market will take care of it all" comes off as bit tone deaf. It doesn't mean a thing to people who don't understand economics, or don't see the danger in using government to intervene.

I don't base my opinions on what ignorant people think. I go by facts instead. It's not tone deaf to say the free market capitalist system works. It's ignorance of history to deny it. The government doesn't need to intervene, that's when the system gets corrupted through collusion. The government needs to ensure the principles of free market capitalism are working by eliminating fraud and protecting against exploitation of people and resources. That is their role in the system.

We need to be more aggressive in rejecting that false dichotomy. Saying we don't want caretaker government doesn't mean we think that people who need help shouldn't get any. We just think government is the wrong tool for the job.

We need to be more aggressive in defending and advocating the free market capitalist system because that's what works.

In so called "free market" capitalism, both labor and goods cross all borders with no restraints....

if businesses here can get cheaper labor from Mexico, or China, or Guatemala etc., then so be it, they should be allowed to get it and bring this labor in, if goods are cheaper in China, then so be it, the business should be able to buy from there, with no restraints....

is this what you actually mean by "free market" capitalism??

Yep,

 

[JQPublic1]

Again, the middle class was created by having access to higher wages and benefits. Capitalism in an of itself did not raise the poor out of poverty into middle class status, an outside force did.. I call it collective bargaining, others call it socialism.

You make some pretty good arguments but this is where you get really stupid. Collective bargaining killed our manufacturing sector jobs. It's the biggest reason many of our jobs have gone overseas. Long before there were any unions, this country built the greatest nation that ever existed on principles of freedom and free market capitalism. Yes, I know we had slaves, it was our system that resolved it. It wasn't until after slavery we became a world superpower.

What you call the "middle class" was created through the free market capitalist system long before any labor unions. It also created an upper-middle class and wealthy class... not that we actually have classes, people are free to aspire to whatever class they want in our system. I don't know how to make this point to you... if you buy an airline ticket that says "3rd Class" but you are allowed to sit anywhere on the plane you like, are you really 3rd Class? Or is this a "classless" system where "3rd Class" is a meaningless label?

If you look at the data for middle income families you find they have declined since 1967. This prompts many hand-wringers to proclaim the "middle class" is dying... but the lower income families are also in decline. So where are they going? Well, just so happens they are moving up. Middle income families are becoming upper income families. Actually, families are moving constantly in and out of the so-called classes. So when you formulate these arguments on the basis of "class" it's a misleading argument because the demographics constantly change. It's never the same group of people over a given time.

The problem with you is that you're one- dimensional in your thinking. For you, everything is either black or white. Collective bargaining was one of myriad tools used by the Democrats to assist FDR in expanding the American middle class. The GI Bill was another. Veterans returning from World War II were given unprecedented opportunities to enter into middle class status due to Democrat initiatives. Social Security and other benefits came out of that era. And we haven't forgotten that the Republicans have been trying to destroy Social Security and the middle class itself ever since.

I never posited that the middle class was a group made up of the same people all the time. Indeed, the boundaries of the middle class are ambiguous and ever-changing. As you said, people move in and out of it all the time; but, that does not mean it doesn't exist as a body of people classified by certain income levels.

Now I will reciprocate and return your compliment. You too make some pretty good points. However, to say the dwindling middle class is a result of upward mobility is quite a stretch. The ranks of the middle class is down to 49.9 percent from 61 percent of the population in 1971, with the ranks of the poor and ultrarich growing to a majority in the US.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Healthcare right would be single payer....

Corporate healthcare has always been a cluster fuck.

 

[JQPublic1]

0

The examples I offered were in response to your erroneous assertion wealth attainment is limited in Socialist countries.

The examples you gave were oligarchs and ruling class elites. Certainly, oligarchs and ruling class elites benefit financially in any socialist system. They do so on the backs of the peasantry and they use capitalism to do it. If you're not an oligarch or part of the ruling class, you are not free to pursue any degree of wealth as you have no individual liberty. You are born into the "worker class" and that's where you stay. This is the primary reason socialist systems fail.... it eventually crushes the human spirit.

My refutation of your premise is embodied in the person of former German chancellor Willy Brandt; the product of an unwed mother who never met his father. Rising to Chancellor from those humble beginnings would have been Impossible using your specious logic.