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

[Dr Grump]

this guy............. bwaahahahahaha

stupid post is.... well stupid....

come back and join the adults when you can actually add something to the conversation

Don't mind Odd...he's one of the board's trolls....

Yeah...It's not like I've laid down one of the two substantive bitch slappings on this thread (Meister being the other), or anything like that.

You might see throwing out one liners as bitch slaps. I see them as adding nothing to the debate....

 

[Vidi]

Socialists think that if it's not a union job, it's a minimum wage job.

Hehe funny but untrue.

As someone who borders fairly close to socialist in my views, I'm grateful for the well paying non union job I have.

But it wouldn't pay as well as it does had Unions not existed.

And believe it or not, you like unions too. You're a part of the greatest one in all of history. The United States.

Let's just say I like A union, with what your posts reflects.

Do you know WHY we were pissed off about the Tea Tax England was imposing on us?

The tax was put in place to increase the profits of the East India Tea Company. Look up the Tea Act of 1773.

But to cut to the chase, our country was founded on the principle of resisting corporate controls of the people and wealth. We weren't just overthrowing a King, we were overthrowing a corporation.

And here we are again...paying taxes to support corporate power over the people.

 

[Vidi]

Spain is a parliamentary monarchy not a socialist country. nice fail...

try again

Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The political form of government of Spain is a parliamentary monarchy,[1] that is, a social representative, democratic, constitutional monarchy in which the Monarch is the head of state and the Prime Minister — whose official title is "president of the Government" — is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by "The Government", which is integrated by the prime minister, the deputy prime ministers, and other ministers, which collectively form the Council of Ministers. Legislative power is vested in the Cortes Generales (General Courts), a bicameral parliament constituted by the Congress of Deputies and the Senate. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, administering justice on behalf of the King by several judges and magistrates. The Supreme Court of Spain is the highest court in the nation, with jurisdiction in all Spanish territories, superior to all in all affairs, except in constitutional matters, which are competence of the Constitutional Court.

They were until the last election.....So...no not exactly a fail. The party failed because it just wasn't working over there. Go figure.....


The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Spanish: Partido Socialista Obrero Español [parˈtiðo soθjaˈlista oˈβrero espaˈɲol] listen (help·info); PSOE [peˈsoe] listen (help·info) ) is a social-democratic[1] political party in Spain. Its political position is Centre-left. The PSOE is the former ruling party of Spain, until beaten in the elections of November 2011 and the second oldest, exceeded only by the Partido Carlista, founded in 1833.[citation needed]
Spanish Socialist Workers' Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just because a socialist party got elected to power, doesnt make the country a socialist nation. so yes its still a fail.

your own post calls them center-left. Clinton was a center left president, and was nowhere near a socialist.

Center-left means different things in different countries.

Take England for example. Ask an English Conservative if they want to do away with their Government Run Health Care system, and the answer is a decisive," No!"

Our political terms are not universal.

 

[dblack]

Hehe funny but untrue.

As someone who borders fairly close to socialist in my views, I'm grateful for the well paying non union job I have.

But it wouldn't pay as well as it does had Unions not existed.

And believe it or not, you like unions too. You're a part of the greatest one in all of history. The United States.

Let's just say I like A union, with what your posts reflects.

Do you know WHY we were pissed off about the Tea Tax England was imposing on us?

The tax was put in place to increase the profits of the East India Tea Company. Look up the Tea Act of 1773.

But to cut to the chase, our country was founded on the principle of resisting corporate controls of the people and wealth. We weren't just overthrowing a King, we were overthrowing a corporation.

And here we are again...paying taxes to support corporate power over the people.

Yep... Not much has changed. You're referring to PPACA I assume?

 

[regent]

Can anyone name a socialist country?

 

[eflatminor]

Can anyone name a socialist country?

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.”

 

[Syphon]

Can anyone name a socialist country?

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.

 

[Oddball]

If it's a fact, then you should be able to prove it.

But you don't. For ANY of it.
Ever.

"....then you should be able to prove it."

Actually, that is not the case.
Attention to the posts such as yours will yield the following conclusion to those of us who apply a scholarly approach:

1. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince individuals such as you....

2. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

3. It is my hope that those on my side of the argument will operate on the basis of "triage," consigning you the the category of those who cannot be saved....and will concentrate on those whose minds have not been warped, and wills sapped.

a. Present the facts, make the righteous argument. Hope for the best.

either you slept through that class in High School regarding argumentation and debate, or you are totally full of it!


Oddball made several statements as if they are fact. I asked him to provide proof BEYOND HIS OPINION that supports his statements. To date, neither him (or YOU) can meet that simple burden of proof.

That means Oddball and you lose the argument.....just ask any high school or college debate team instructor.

Now grow the fuck up and deal with reality, will ya please?

They are facts and I later linked to sources backing them, fool.

 

[Oddball]

There was no "diversion", YOU just don't like the FACTS, so now you try to distort the information:

1) Are you implying that there are hoards of people who qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but haven't applied? Where's your proof of such an allegation? And are you aware of the qualifications for application, and how those qualifications are measured in actual applications and acceptances?

2) WTF does undocumented and illegal aliens have to do with health insurance with regards to those who are legal/born citizens who are WORKING but CANNOT afford decent healthcare?

3) Are you implying that there are hoards of people who can pay for their own healthcare but "game" the system? Where's your proof of such an allegation?

I know the facts and you are a liar.

1) I'm not only implying it, it's a fact.

PROVE IT, bunky! You're mind fart does not automatically equate to facts based in reality. If you can't prove it, don't waste everyone time...just go blow that smoke up some other neocon/teabagger's ass who'll appreciate it.

2) People here illegally and not citizens of this country are being used by useful idiots like you to inflate the number of "uninsured"....Why not just extend Obolshevikcare to all of Mexico while we're at it?

Another claim that YOU have yet to prove...and you compound it to the previous incredible leap from the REALITY of American middle class and working class citizens who CANNOT afford health care. Come, come you Odd little person, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

3) I'm implying nothing...There are millions of people who can afford to pay for their medical care out of pocket and do so....That's not gaming the system in any way.

What you state here is a moot point that no one disputed.
The chronology of the posts shows YOU ORIGINALLY stating that those people who can pay are NOT doing so, and therefore are "CHEATING" the system. I asked you to provide proof of this, and it's obvious that you can't.

The "X million of uninsured" number has been jimmied and inflated for no less than 20 years now.

You keep stating that but yet you can't prove it beyond your worthless opinion. The chronology of the post makes YOU out to be a LIAR, Oddball. Carry on.

Heere are the links again, lazy ass.

First of all, Canada is backpedaling on their mandate that there be no for-hire medicine, so there's ONE country with socialized medicine moving back toward a more free system....Therefore your claim that no countries are making such a move is false on its face.

I' could post numerous links, viz. the outright lie of the inflated numbers of uninsured, all with legitimate citations, and I'll wager that you'll reject them all...Here are a few from just a cursory Google search...

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

The myth of the uninsured - Raleigh Libertarian | Examiner.com

US Medicare and the Myth of "the 46 Million*Uninsured" - Bill's Commentary - William Gairdner, freethinker

Can you give a link to "Canada is backpedaling on their mandate that there be no for-hire medicine"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=all
Timely Medical Services
Find Private Clinics in Canada for Walk in Clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver
MMS: Error
Canada Sees Boom In Private Health Care Business | Fox News
Private Insurance In Canada | In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007
CIMCA | ACMIC
Private health care company to open five clinics with 50 doctors in Windsor-Essex
Canadian Doctors for Medicare | Private clinics continue explosive growth
Private & Executive Healthcare Clinic | Medcan Clinic Toronto
Private health clinics remain unregulated in most of Canada
The rise of private care in Canada | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Can anyone name a socialist country?

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.

 

[eflatminor]

Can anyone name a socialist country?

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.

One, I'm not "right". Two, why should anyone respond to a red herring?

 

[Syphon]

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.

One, I'm not "right". Two, why should anyone respond to a red herring?

so dont answer questions when asked, it just reinforces the fact that you avoid them and cant have an adult conversation without coming up with excuses.

 

[regent]

Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy.
The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it. What is socialism?

 

[Meister]

I don't think this is your thread, Syphon...why don't you start a thread on your question. Maybe then people will take you and your views more serious, and have a good debate on your topic.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Can anyone name a socialist country?

Sweden comes to mind:

Sweden is no socialist paradise | Adam Smith Institute

Since governments cannot force their citizens to adopt a Lutheran work ethic or create a largely homogenous population without engaging in large scale social engineering (inappropriate on one side of the scale, genocide on the other), what lessons can the struggling state learn from the Swedish model? Simply: that growth and wealth creation is best left to individual entrepreneurs, and the best action the government can take is to create a pro-business environment in which these individuals have the highest chance of success.


And this is interesting:

Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe

Instead of growing, the capital stock of socialist countries has been declining. They've been consuming it. Most of the textile mills in eastern Czechoslovakia were built before the First World War. They still operate with the original machinery. In East Germany, many of the buildings seem not to have been painted since 1945. In some cases, no one even painted over the old and faded Nazi slogans on the walls. In the Soviet Union, there are chemical factories built 110 years ago that are still producing the same chemicals in the same way. It is a general principle that under socialism no factory is ever closed.

The capital stock inherited from previous generations has been largely worn out, and there are real declines in the standards of living of many East European countries. Those declines would have taken place sooner had it not been for the enormous amount of Western capital that was pumped in by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other international lending institutions and used largely to finance current consumption.

A second factor that led to the revolutions of 1989 was the difficulty of controlling information. I mean not just political news but also the kind of information about how people live in other countries that you get from watching Western movies. The VCR and the Walkman have had a tremendous impact on life in socialist countries. Radio Free Europe was certainly important, especially in countries such as Romania that didn't have much access to VCRs, but Radio Free Europe could always be discounted as propaganda. In other countries, principally Poland and Hungary but also the Soviet Union, there was a massive influx of electronic devices. Initially, the state tried to control or outlaw them because it knew how subversive they could be. But their suppression was simply impossible.

The bolded paragraph sound familiar? The libs want to shut down Fox News for the same reasons.

 

[dblack]

Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy.
The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it. What is socialism?

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

 

[UpAndAbout]

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.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy.
The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it. What is socialism?

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.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy.
The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it. What is socialism?

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.

And for liberals who may currently own their own business, is THIS what they really want?

 

[Syphon]

Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy.
The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it. What is socialism?

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?