If the US healthcare system is the best and socialism is the worst

[UpAndAbout]

Generally, state control of our economic affairs. Is this confusing to you in some way?

Yup. You may technically own your business, but if the government has the power to tell you where and how you have to operate it, what products you must provide and/or what products you are not allowed to provide, how the products will be produced, what wages and benefits you must pay/provide for your employees, what price you can charge for your finished product or service, and who you have to sell it to, and how much profit you will be allowed to keep, THAT is socialism.

setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?

MINIMUM? You call that MINIMUM? Let's see, a restaurant owner who is either leasing or owns the building, works himself in it, buys all the food, pays the utiliies, pays everything to operate the business is told by the government it can't allow smoking in it, a LEGAL activity. That is NUTS. But of course they can have drinking, oh hell yes, they can get drunker than skunks. Of course Democrats own many of the distilleries, so why not? Other than not serving spoiled food, engaging in illegals acts: murder, rape, prostitution, drug dealing, the restaurant owner should be left alone to run his business as he pleases. If you don't like the smell of smoke, then eat somewhere else. That's just ONE of many assinine regulations.

If the above quote you responded to is how YOU think it should be, honey you're living in the wrong country. At least for now that is.

 

[Oddball]

Generally, state control of our economic affairs. Is this confusing to you in some way?

Yup. You may technically own your business, but if the government has the power to tell you where and how you have to operate it, what products you must provide and/or what products you are not allowed to provide, how the products will be produced, what wages and benefits you must pay/provide for your employees, what price you can charge for your finished product or service, and who you have to sell it to, and how much profit you will be allowed to keep, THAT is socialism.

setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?

We're not talking about setting minimum standards here, comrade...We're talking about setting virtually all the standards, then authoritarian worms like you trying to claim that the business climate isn't socialistic or fascistic...Take your pick of totalitarian mindsets.

 

[Syphon]

Yup. You may technically own your business, but if the government has the power to tell you where and how you have to operate it, what products you must provide and/or what products you are not allowed to provide, how the products will be produced, what wages and benefits you must pay/provide for your employees, what price you can charge for your finished product or service, and who you have to sell it to, and how much profit you will be allowed to keep, THAT is socialism.

setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?

MINIMUM? You call that MINIMUM? Let's see, a restaurant owner who is either leasing or owns the building, works himself in it, buys all the food, pays the utiliies, pays everything to operate the business is told by the government it can't allow smoking in it, a LEGAL activity. That is NUTS. But of course they can have drinking, oh hell yes, they can get drunker than skunks. Of course Democrats own many of the distilleries, so why not? Other than not serving spoiled food, engaging in illegals acts: murder, rape, prostitution, drug dealing, the restaurant owner should be left alone to run his business as he pleases. If you don't like the smell of smoke, then eat somewhere else. That's just ONE of many assinine regulations.

If the above quote you responded to is how YOU think it should be, honey you're living in the wrong country. At least for now that is.

smoking standards are set by the state, not the fed so your anger is misdirected. and smoking is a public health risk, just as asbestos is a public health risk. are you advocating that business go back to being allowed to use asbestos in buildings?

restaurants also must follow FDA and OSHA guidelines and mandates. they tont tell restaurants what products they must offer or what they can charge, but they must follow food handling safety and worker safety laws and regulations as a minimum. this doesnt prevent them from putting in higher standards.

construction sites are mandated to have hardhats by OSHA, but they dont tell you specifically what hard harts to use, they give you the standard that they must meet and the worker is free to choose which one he / she wears based on that standard.

 

[Syphon]

Yup. You may technically own your business, but if the government has the power to tell you where and how you have to operate it, what products you must provide and/or what products you are not allowed to provide, how the products will be produced, what wages and benefits you must pay/provide for your employees, what price you can charge for your finished product or service, and who you have to sell it to, and how much profit you will be allowed to keep, THAT is socialism.

setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?

We're not talking about setting minimum standards here, comrade...We're talking about setting virtually all the standards, then authoritarian worms like you trying to claim that the business climate isn't socialistic or fascistic...Take your pick of totalitarian mindsets.

where in any law does it state that the standards sets must be adhered to exactly as written? youve obviously never heard about meeting and exceeding standards

 

[Oddball]

Not playing that game, because it's a red herring. I don't care about how we categorize our current socio-political situation or that of any other country. I care about the direction we're heading. Is it toward more freedom or bigger government? The trend in America is clear. Perhaps Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president, said it best:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

good to see the right keeps reinforcing the fact that they cant answer simple questions when asked.

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

 

[dblack]

Generally, state control of our economic affairs. Is this confusing to you in some way?

Yup. You may technically own your business, but if the government has the power to tell you where and how you have to operate it, what products you must provide and/or what products you are not allowed to provide, how the products will be produced, what wages and benefits you must pay/provide for your employees, what price you can charge for your finished product or service, and who you have to sell it to, and how much profit you will be allowed to keep, THAT is socialism.

setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?

Yep.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does anybody else get the impression that the point being made went right over Syphon's head?

 

[dblack]

Does anybody else get the impression that the point being made went right over Syphon's head?

Nah... I think it bounced off to the side.

 

[Syphon]

does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?

 

[dblack]

does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?

I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.

 

[Syphon]

does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?

I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.

can you define socialism with using a dictionary then?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

good to see the right keeps reinforcing the fact that they cant answer simple questions when asked.

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Europe's Sad Socialism Experiment & What America Can Learn From It




Very often when discussing the issue of universal health care with liberals, they almost always resort to the argument that "we're the only nation in the free world that doesn't have universal health care. Other countries have figured out a way to pay for it, so why can't we?"

Well, now we know the answer to that question, thanks to a startling new article from the New York Times, entitled "Payback Time: Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits."

For years, liberals have turned green with envy at the European Union's 30-hour work week, its lengthy vacation packages, its wide-ranging early retirement benefits and its government-sponsored health care coverage. The European social model has been copied by countries outside the EU, and liberal American Democrats have put tremendous pressure on the federal government to adopt a similar framework for these government-backed spending sprees here at home. President Barack Obama has made great strides toward implementing the European Socialist form of government with passage of his recent health care reform plan, and his current push for amnesty is being described by liberal Democrats as an answer to America's illegal immigration problem.

It appears, however, that the European Union is finally waking up to the fact that nothing in life comes for free. The citizens of the European Union are becoming angry as they realize they will have to pay dearly if they want to continue to enjoy their existing lifestyle or make dramatic spending cuts if they want to maintain the little wealth they have left. Greece was the first to wake up to a debt crisis, but every country in the EU is facing a similar fate. Most recently, Spain has succumbed to a crisis of its own.



So what does all this mean for the U.S.? Why should we care what happens across the Atlantic?

Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the social issues angle raised in the Times' report, there are a number of reasons the European Union's woes should trouble the United States. First and foremost, after suffering through one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, America is finally beginning to emerge. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the European Union operates its collective economies, the crisis in Europe will set off another recession. If America fails to insulate itself from the impending implosion, it likely will be sucked into the vortex right along with the rest of the world. Secondly, President Barack Obama and Congress must take a hard look at the policies it's been pursuing since last year and take corrective measures to reduce America's long-term debt and eliminate as much deficit spending as possible.

There is an age-old problem that exists in politics. People want the government to provide them with everything, but they don't want to pay for anything. When the government does begin to provide its citizens with everything, it creates an unsustainable entitlement. Then, when future generations are forced to deal with the poor decisions of its predecessors, those who feel entitled to these "free" services are revolting because they are being taken away. That, folks, is a recipe for revolution.

How could anyone forget the woman who, after attending an Obama rally in 2008, believed that if she helped lift Obama to victory, she'd no longer have to "worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage ..."

Imagine how disappointed that woman must be today after discovering that she did indeed have to pay for her own gas and she still has to pay her mortgage even though the candidate she supported became president.

Thanks for the link.
Now lets examine the story, better yet let's examine the far right lean of the article. Let's look deeper into how unbiased this article is not.
The author is Justin Quinn. Who is he what is his political affiliation. First he writes for About.com in the section on US Conservative politics. That tells me something about his opinion.

Justin Quinn:
An 11-year veteran of journalism, Justin spent more than four of them covering national, state and local politics in Central Pennsylvania -- perhaps the most conservative area in the country.

You will note the word conservative.

From Justin Quinn:

The mission of this site is to provide accurate, thoughtful and informative content for people interested in learning more about the conservative movement and its political agenda. It is my hope that it will serve as a clearinghouse for conservative politics and issues, and also as a place for discussion and healthy debate. Readers looking to break into conservative politics at any level will find this site to be a great first-step toward familiarizing themselves with conservative ideologies and the contemporary challenges facing political conservatives in the US.

He states his mission is to spread the conservative movement. I guess that leaves us with a very biased source.
There is a mention of an eleven year career. I am able to find nothing published by him in any national news source.
Your link is biased at best and hold little water. It would be akin to using a post from this site as a source. He did quote an article from the New York Times, but that alone doesn't make this any sort of real journalism. Thanks for the effort but you'll need to do better than that.

The source for the quotes: http://usconservatives.about.com/bio/Justin-Quinn-33020.htm

 

[UpAndAbout]

setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?

MINIMUM? You call that MINIMUM? Let's see, a restaurant owner who is either leasing or owns the building, works himself in it, buys all the food, pays the utiliies, pays everything to operate the business is told by the government it can't allow smoking in it, a LEGAL activity. That is NUTS. But of course they can have drinking, oh hell yes, they can get drunker than skunks. Of course Democrats own many of the distilleries, so why not? Other than not serving spoiled food, engaging in illegals acts: murder, rape, prostitution, drug dealing, the restaurant owner should be left alone to run his business as he pleases. If you don't like the smell of smoke, then eat somewhere else. That's just ONE of many assinine regulations.

If the above quote you responded to is how YOU think it should be, honey you're living in the wrong country. At least for now that is.

smoking standards are set by the state, not the fed so your anger is misdirected. and smoking is a public health risk, just as asbestos is a public health risk. are you advocating that business go back to being allowed to use asbestos in buildings?

restaurants also must follow FDA and OSHA guidelines and mandates. they tont tell restaurants what products they must offer or what they can charge, but they must follow food handling safety and worker safety laws and regulations as a minimum. this doesnt prevent them from putting in higher standards.

construction sites are mandated to have hardhats by OSHA, but they dont tell you specifically what hard harts to use, they give you the standard that they must meet and the worker is free to choose which one he / she wears based on that standard.

smoking is a public health risk? Then don't go the restaurant that allows smoking. Drinking alcohol is a public health risk. At least people who smoke a cigarette are safe to drive a car. I don't have "anger" over this, just disgust. There is a difference. Asbestos has been outlawed. Cigarettes have not. THAT is the difference. Oh, but wait you all want to legalize marijuana and you smoke marijuana. Is the smoke from marijuana not a publich health risk? My mother smoked for the first 25 years of my life, I have NO lung ailments. My husband smoked for the first 5 years of our marriage. Neither one of us have any health ailments and we are in our 60s. People get lung cancer who have never smoked. I do agree with not smoking in an airplane as there is no ventilation. But in a bar? it's nuts. Again, no anger, just disgust.

 

[Foxfyre]

does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?

I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.

Well the Wikipedia definition is pretty comprehensive when it comes to a Definition for Dummies re socialism:

Socialism is an economic and political system where the use of property and capital (money) is used for the common good.[1] According to socialists, the wealth of a society should be shared, and everyone in it should have everything they need. Individual rights and needs cannot be more important than the needs of everyone. Although socialist ideas go back in history to Plato, the word socialism was first used in Britain in the 1820's.[1] Louis Blanc described socialism as being “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”[2]

Socialism is an economic or governmental system in which the public, or the state, owns or runs important industries. Its goal is to have the industries make money which can be used for the benefit of everyone. It wants to give workers some control over their work places. When economic planning is applied extensively, it is referred to as "communism", although communism as used by Karl Marx had a different meaning originally.

Social Democracy is a form of socialism that tries to mix parts of socialism with capitalism. Much of the time the people, when social democracy is practiced as a form of government, collectively (as a group) contribute money or other goods for the benefit of the entire community. An example of this would be America's fire departments, which rely on taxes paid by the people to maintain equipment and staff for the benefit of the community, should something catch on fire. Some social democratic countries have a higher income tax for people with high incomes, called a "progressive tax". This tax, and other measures, helps to reduce the gap between rich and poor within a nation.

In many countries that practice social democracy, industries are subsidized and/or partially controlled by the government. For example, education, health care or public transportation are some industries that might be owned/maintained by the government or people in a socialist system. For the most part, people working in these industries are paid by the government, with money paid by the people as taxes.
Socialism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?

I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.

can you define socialism with using a dictionary then?

Sure! So can you. It's easy on the world wide web. Here ya go:

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

 

[UpAndAbout]

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Europe's Sad Socialism Experiment & What America Can Learn From It




Very often when discussing the issue of universal health care with liberals, they almost always resort to the argument that "we're the only nation in the free world that doesn't have universal health care. Other countries have figured out a way to pay for it, so why can't we?"

Well, now we know the answer to that question, thanks to a startling new article from the New York Times, entitled "Payback Time: Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits."

For years, liberals have turned green with envy at the European Union's 30-hour work week, its lengthy vacation packages, its wide-ranging early retirement benefits and its government-sponsored health care coverage. The European social model has been copied by countries outside the EU, and liberal American Democrats have put tremendous pressure on the federal government to adopt a similar framework for these government-backed spending sprees here at home. President Barack Obama has made great strides toward implementing the European Socialist form of government with passage of his recent health care reform plan, and his current push for amnesty is being described by liberal Democrats as an answer to America's illegal immigration problem.

It appears, however, that the European Union is finally waking up to the fact that nothing in life comes for free. The citizens of the European Union are becoming angry as they realize they will have to pay dearly if they want to continue to enjoy their existing lifestyle or make dramatic spending cuts if they want to maintain the little wealth they have left. Greece was the first to wake up to a debt crisis, but every country in the EU is facing a similar fate. Most recently, Spain has succumbed to a crisis of its own.



So what does all this mean for the U.S.? Why should we care what happens across the Atlantic?

Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the social issues angle raised in the Times' report, there are a number of reasons the European Union's woes should trouble the United States. First and foremost, after suffering through one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, America is finally beginning to emerge. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the European Union operates its collective economies, the crisis in Europe will set off another recession. If America fails to insulate itself from the impending implosion, it likely will be sucked into the vortex right along with the rest of the world. Secondly, President Barack Obama and Congress must take a hard look at the policies it's been pursuing since last year and take corrective measures to reduce America's long-term debt and eliminate as much deficit spending as possible.

There is an age-old problem that exists in politics. People want the government to provide them with everything, but they don't want to pay for anything. When the government does begin to provide its citizens with everything, it creates an unsustainable entitlement. Then, when future generations are forced to deal with the poor decisions of its predecessors, those who feel entitled to these "free" services are revolting because they are being taken away. That, folks, is a recipe for revolution.

How could anyone forget the woman who, after attending an Obama rally in 2008, believed that if she helped lift Obama to victory, she'd no longer have to "worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage ..."

Imagine how disappointed that woman must be today after discovering that she did indeed have to pay for her own gas and she still has to pay her mortgage even though the candidate she supported became president.

Thanks for the link.
Now lets examine the story, better yet let's examine the far right lean of the article. Let's look deeper into how unbiased this article is not.
The author is Justin Quinn. Who is he what is his political affiliation. First he writes for About.com in the section on US Conservative politics. That tells me something about his opinion.

Justin Quinn:
An 11-year veteran of journalism, Justin spent more than four of them covering national, state and local politics in Central Pennsylvania -- perhaps the most conservative area in the country.

You will note the word conservative.

From Justin Quinn:

The mission of this site is to provide accurate, thoughtful and informative content for people interested in learning more about the conservative movement and its political agenda. It is my hope that it will serve as a clearinghouse for conservative politics and issues, and also as a place for discussion and healthy debate. Readers looking to break into conservative politics at any level will find this site to be a great first-step toward familiarizing themselves with conservative ideologies and the contemporary challenges facing political conservatives in the US.

He states his mission is to spread the conservative movement. I guess that leaves us with a very biased source.
There is a mention of an eleven year career. I am able to find nothing published by him in any national news source.
Your link is biased at best and hold little water. It would be akin to using a post from this site as a source. He did quote an article from the New York Times, but that alone doesn't make this any sort of real journalism. Thanks for the effort but you'll need to do better than that.

The source for the quotes: Justin Quinn's Biography - Biography of the Guide for Conservative U.S. Politics and Issues at About.com

I didn't expect any liberal to believe this. But you DO believe Greece went belly up right, it was on all the news channels, even MSNBS. Do a little research then on possibly relocating to Sweden or somewhere with your precious socialized medicine and see what you find. The fact is you believe what you want to believe. The German people refused to believe that Hitler was up to no good until it was too late. The Cubans refused to believe anything bad about Castro -- until it was too late. Stop and expand your brain a bit and ask yourself what would happen if all of us decided to hell with it and quit our jobs, which trust me as crossed my mind, sold our homes and decided to rely on the goverment. With fewer and fewer tax payers, where is the government going to get the money? From money trees? or just print it in the basement. You liberals haven't got the sense God gave a goose!! You DO believe the sky is blue and grass is green, right? Or do you need a "link" for that?

 

[Foxfyre]

The money line in that Wikipedia definition I posted is this:

Individual rights and needs cannot be more important than the needs of everyone That is socialism in a nutshell.

In other words the people have no rights that are not assigned/allowed by the government as opposed to the Founder's concept of unalienable rights that are given by God and that the government is charged to protect and defend.

 

[Syphon]

smoking standards are set by the state, not the fed so your anger is misdirected. and smoking is a public health risk, just as asbestos is a public health risk. are you advocating that business go back to being allowed to use asbestos in buildings?

restaurants also must follow FDA and OSHA guidelines and mandates. they tont tell restaurants what products they must offer or what they can charge, but they must follow food handling safety and worker safety laws and regulations as a minimum. this doesnt prevent them from putting in higher standards.

construction sites are mandated to have hardhats by OSHA, but they dont tell you specifically what hard harts to use, they give you the standard that they must meet and the worker is free to choose which one he / she wears based on that standard.

smoking is a public health risk? Then don't go the restaurant that allows smoking. Drinking alcohol is a public health risk. At least people who smoke a cigarette are safe to drive a car. I don't have "anger" over this, just disgust. There is a difference. Asbestos has been outlawed. Cigarettes have not. THAT is the difference. Oh, but wait you all want to legalize marijuana and you smoke marijuana. Is the smoke from marijuana not a publich health risk? My mother smoked for the first 25 years of my life, I have NO lung ailments. My husband smoked for the first 5 years of our marriage. Neither one of us have any health ailments and we are in our 60s. People get lung cancer who have never smoked. I do agree with not smoking in an airplane as there is no ventilation. But in a bar? it's nuts. Again, no anger, just disgust.

drinking is not a public health risk. when you drink a beer, glass of wine or cocktail, no one else is affected but yourself. when you smoke, second hand smoke lingers in the air and has been proven to cause cancer.

Secondhand Smoke and Cancer - National Cancer Institute

just because you didnt get cancer, doesnt mean that it doesnt cause cancer. that like saying just because i didnt die in a car accident today while not wearing my seat belt, doesnt mean that people dont die in car accidents due to not wearing seat belts.


how long did it take before asbestos was outlawed? individuals didnt use asbestos by choice, people who are around smokers are not around them by choice a lot of the time.

 

[Syphon]

smoking standards are set by the state, not the fed so your anger is misdirected. and smoking is a public health risk, just as asbestos is a public health risk. are you advocating that business go back to being allowed to use asbestos in buildings?

restaurants also must follow FDA and OSHA guidelines and mandates. they tont tell restaurants what products they must offer or what they can charge, but they must follow food handling safety and worker safety laws and regulations as a minimum. this doesnt prevent them from putting in higher standards.

construction sites are mandated to have hardhats by OSHA, but they dont tell you specifically what hard harts to use, they give you the standard that they must meet and the worker is free to choose which one he / she wears based on that standard.

smoking is a public health risk? Then don't go the restaurant that allows smoking. Drinking alcohol is a public health risk. At least people who smoke a cigarette are safe to drive a car. I don't have "anger" over this, just disgust. There is a difference. Asbestos has been outlawed. Cigarettes have not. THAT is the difference. Oh, but wait you all want to legalize marijuana and you smoke marijuana. Is the smoke from marijuana not a publich health risk? My mother smoked for the first 25 years of my life, I have NO lung ailments. My husband smoked for the first 5 years of our marriage. Neither one of us have any health ailments and we are in our 60s. People get lung cancer who have never smoked. I do agree with not smoking in an airplane as there is no ventilation. But in a bar? it's nuts. Again, no anger, just disgust.

drinking is not a public health risk. when you drink a beer, glass of wine or cocktail, no one else is affected but yourself. when you smoke, second hand smoke lingers in the air and has been proven to cause cancer.

Secondhand Smoke and Cancer - National Cancer Institute

just because you didnt get cancer, doesnt mean that it doesnt cause cancer. that like saying just because i didnt die in a car accident today while not wearing my seat belt, doesnt mean that people dont die in car accidents due to not wearing seat belts.


how long did it take before asbestos was outlawed? individuals didnt use asbestos by choice, people who are around smokers are not around them by choice a lot of the time.

 

[Vidi]

good to see the right keeps reinforcing the fact that they cant answer simple questions when asked.

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.