Replace the ACA with single payer

[dblack]

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

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

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

I already have good insurance, I always have. I see no need to change things now when they seem to be working just fine.

I got mine...fuck y'all. You're a true Patriot.

I fail to see where not wanting to support another family along with mine says anything about patriotism, in fact, I would think that by supporting myself and not having to rely on others it shows a great deal more contribution to this country than being a mooch.
There is however, no law that would prohibit you from buying health insurance for any family or families you choose to do so for.

I know this probably bothers you, but "We the people...."

It doesn't bother me at all, as long as it refers to all the people, and not just some.

 

[kaz]

This one, for example~

I support single payer.

You support Socialism. You only proved my point.

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

 

[francoHFW]

So your pre Obamacare plan was over $1000. Not $150.

Prove it. Post proof that you know my family's bill better than me. Do it.

My family paid $150 per month. You will either prove your statement or you'll go back to the Flame Zone where brain dead Liberals belong.

Both the depressions happened after 8 years of GOP in power and deregulated insanity and greed, ignorant dupe. "a result of the government being allowed to run amok and expand its powers far beyond what they should be" ? WTH are you talking about? LOL

Actually, the Great Depression was caused by FDR, who re-implemented a lot of Woodrow Wilson's failed policies. He turned a mild recession into a Great Depression by attacking businesses with the full force unconstitutional powers the president should never have had. Including but not limited to compulsory unionism, locking prices high, minimum wage laws, and basically taking full control of private industry with the NIRA. His policies drastically increased the cost of hiring employees and the cost of goods and services, which actually promoted monopolizing businesses.

Read something- You're out of your tiny brainwashed mind. When FDR became president, it was the height of the depression, over 3 years since the crash....

No, it was a mild recession when he took office, which his regressive policies turned into a Depression.

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

Okay like what?

This one, for example~

I support single payer.

Keep it to yourself then, leave the rest of us out of it…

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

I support single payer.

You support Socialism. You only proved my point.

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You support Socialism. You only proved my point.

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

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

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

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

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

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

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

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

No, it wouldn't be, in either case.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Prove it. Post proof that you know my family's bill better than me. Do it.

My family paid $150 per month. You will either prove your statement or you'll go back to the Flame Zone where brain dead Liberals belong.

Actually, the Great Depression was caused by FDR, who re-implemented a lot of Woodrow Wilson's failed policies. He turned a mild recession into a Great Depression by attacking businesses with the full force unconstitutional powers the president should never have had. Including but not limited to compulsory unionism, locking prices high, minimum wage laws, and basically taking full control of private industry with the NIRA. His policies drastically increased the cost of hiring employees and the cost of goods and services, which actually promoted monopolizing businesses.

Read something- You're out of your tiny brainwashed mind. When FDR became president, it was the height of the depression, over 3 years since the crash....

No, it was a mild recession when he took office, which his regressive policies turned into a Depression.

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

This one, for example~

I support single payer.

Keep it to yourself then, leave the rest of us out of it…

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

You support Socialism. You only proved my point.

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

 

[kaz]

Read something- You're out of your tiny brainwashed mind. When FDR became president, it was the height of the depression, over 3 years since the crash....

No, it was a mild recession when he took office, which his regressive policies turned into a Depression.

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

I support single payer.

Keep it to yourself then, leave the rest of us out of it…

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

I have him on ignore because he said he screwed my mother and when I was like, what?, he said he screwed my sister. So I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him, he knows that and why. He still follows me around like a puppy dog anyway. Just FYI.

It does crack me up with liberals how they say conservatives are black and white and not intelligent like they are, then they're like duh, dar, drool, you're a conservative. Sure, I'm fiscally conservative, but I oppose being in the Middle East and the wars other than retaliating against the Taliban and al Qaeda for 9/11. I oppose nation building in Afghanistan. I'm also against all laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, euthanasia, gay sex and other morality laws. I'd slash the military 1/3 to 1/2 and close all overseas bases and make our military defensive focused. Still, Democrats are duh, dar, drool, Republican. Sure.

While the self described "intelligent" liberals can't grasp anything other than Republican, Republicans seem to overwhelmingly grasp that I'm not Republican or Democrat. My theory is Republicans are smarter than Democrats. All empirical data seems to back that up

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, it was a mild recession when he took office, which his regressive policies turned into a Depression.

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

Keep it to yourself then, leave the rest of us out of it…

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

I have him on ignore because he said he screwed my mother and when I was like, what?, he said he screwed my sister. So I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him, he knows that and why. He still follows me around like a puppy dog anyway. Just FYI.

It does crack me up with liberals how they say conservatives are black and white and not intelligent like they are, then they're like duh, dar, drool, you're a conservative. Sure, I'm fiscally conservative, but I oppose being in the Middle East and the wars other than retaliating against the Taliban and al Qaeda for 9/11. I oppose nation building in Afghanistan. I'm also against all laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, euthanasia, gay sex and other morality laws. I'd slash the military 1/3 to 1/2 and close all overseas bases and make our military defensive focused. Still, Democrats are duh, dar, drool, Republican. Sure.

While the self described "intelligent" liberals can't grasp anything other than Republican, Republicans seem to overwhelmingly grasp that I'm not Republican or Democrat. My theory is Republicans are smarter than Democrats. All empirical data seems to back that up

That sounds like such a mature and reasonable response.[/Sarcasm]
Liberals typically spew Flame Zone material, so I'm not the least bit surprised.

I agree, people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others. I, personally, can't see why some of that stuff bothers people to an extent that they'd want to stop it altogether.

Well, at this point, it's common knowledge that whatever a Liberal says, the opposite is true~

 

[GHook93]

You are entitled to health care even if you can't afford it .

Moonbat Ron Reagan signed that into law .

you understand?

Does that make it right? EMTALA is an unfunded mandate - trying to squeeze our welfare state our of private companies. Reagan was wrong.

You may have to go bankrupt and lose everything to avoid paying. NOT ANY MORE with ACA.

No, you have to go bankrupt to afford the fucking piece of shit that is Obamacare. Shit for brains
Get your head out of your fucking ass…

You don't have to use Obamacare . Go get your own insurance and see what it costs you .

I have never bought any insurance, I don't need it. I don't believe in the nanny state

That is the stupidest fucking think I have heard.

I will pray for your good health, but bad things strike before you know it. Get injured or sick and you could be staring at $100s of thousands of dollars in medical bills and good luck seeing a specialist or really any doctor outside the ER with out insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[kaz]

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

I have him on ignore because he said he screwed my mother and when I was like, what?, he said he screwed my sister. So I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him, he knows that and why. He still follows me around like a puppy dog anyway. Just FYI.

It does crack me up with liberals how they say conservatives are black and white and not intelligent like they are, then they're like duh, dar, drool, you're a conservative. Sure, I'm fiscally conservative, but I oppose being in the Middle East and the wars other than retaliating against the Taliban and al Qaeda for 9/11. I oppose nation building in Afghanistan. I'm also against all laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, euthanasia, gay sex and other morality laws. I'd slash the military 1/3 to 1/2 and close all overseas bases and make our military defensive focused. Still, Democrats are duh, dar, drool, Republican. Sure.

While the self described "intelligent" liberals can't grasp anything other than Republican, Republicans seem to overwhelmingly grasp that I'm not Republican or Democrat. My theory is Republicans are smarter than Democrats. All empirical data seems to back that up

That sounds like such a mature and reasonable response.[/Sarcasm]
Liberals typically spew Flame Zone material, so I'm not the least bit surprised.

I agree, people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others. I, personally, can't see why some of that stuff bothers people to an extent that they'd want to stop it altogether.

Well, at this point, it's common knowledge that whatever a Liberal says, the opposite is true~

Well put. Democrats only have DNC talking points. When I'm not a Democrat, I have to be a Republican, they can't think through their talking points and adapt them to what I actually think, so I have to be a Republican or they're stranded.

It's not just on the board. Liberals who know me and know I'm a libertarian will fall back into talking points that I'm a neocon, I support Iraq, I voted for W, I'm pro-life and on and on. When they do that and I'm like WTF? You know that isn't true. They either go with you know you really are or oops, but oops doesn't mean they won't do it again five minutes later

 

[WillReadmore]

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

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

No, it wouldn't be, in either case.

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

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

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bendog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clean air and water. although a gop president signed the laws, as I recall.

 

[Political Junky]

Single Payer will eventually win out, when the Right in Congress stops being paid off.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Clean air and water. although a gop president signed the laws, as I recall.

That's not a product provided by the marketplace nor is it something subject to economic laws.

 

[WillReadmore]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care.

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

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

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


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

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Billy000]

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

^^^^
Ah, the good ole "no true Scottsmen" fallacy.

 

[francoHFW]

Read something- You're out of your tiny brainwashed mind. When FDR became president, it was the height of the depression, over 3 years since the crash....

No, it was a mild recession when he took office, which his regressive policies turned into a Depression.

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

I support single payer.

Keep it to yourself then, leave the rest of us out of it…

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

Well so do you when you say you support our military. You realize that right?

Socialism is Social Control of the private industry. Military is infrastructure, you ignorant Fopdoodle.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

BULLLSHYTTE!!! Forget the communist Manifesto- totally moot. Let's see that wiki definition then. Socialism is always democratic, communism NEVER. Get that through your head and cut the cold war dinosaur bs.