Replace the ACA with single payer

[Political Junky]

It works well in Western European nations just fine lol. Leadership itself makes or breaks the nation. You're an idiot if you think our healthcare system was viable before ObamaCare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show us the figures on Europeans coming here for treatment.

 

[RodISHI]

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

I am only going to address this one thing you said here as cancer is prevalent here where we live. Once this attitude you have given is taken you have succumbed to the whole corrupt system.

There is a road south of us where on that rural road every other family has had someone die of colon cancer in the last year and not one family down there does not have someone still sick in their house. Most are Amish families but not all. This all came on in a few short years after pigs farms went in and a large feed lot expanded. They dump their shit on the fields all around. When a disease hits their confinement operations they simply start sending out the livestock as quickly as possible.

A few years ago cancer doctor that retired decided that he couldn't pass on all the money down in this part of the state so he opened back up for practice down here. This is the poorest county in the state so who do you think is paying a big portion of his costs?

Cancer is rapidly being narrowed down to viruses, bacteria's, fungi. The cells of any living organism once damaged by outside factors or lacking proper nutrition are susceptible to diseases. Bacteria, viruses and fungi are not killed once you get them. They actually colonize somewhere in you causing misery throughout your life in the way of Arthritis, Heart disease, tooth decay, etc....

All of the water here is highly polluted with Nitrate and Glyphosate along with other chemicals. My guess would be that there is a minuscule amount of grain of any type available that is not tainted with chemicals as Glyphosate and other chemicals are now used as a pre-harvest treatments in order to quicken the harvest times. Grains are not washed prior to milling and Oatmeal isn't even safe at this point to eat.

My son came down to see us last year to tell us he was diagnosed with brain cancer, prostate cancer and a cancerous lesion in his cheek. He headed for the Mayo clinic whom had been telling him for years he had Lupus (which I knew was bullshit and told him so years ago and his sis too). No Lupus ever in their heritage.

.
There are a lot of aspects that go together with having good health. Insurance and capitalism isn't going to solve this issue. It will only make it worse. We have hypocrites in both parties from the bottom to the top using and abusing the political process for their own personal gain and agendas.

If you have a person that has a bad heart, diabetes and other issues that feels like its okay to keep eating shit and getting shots and pills to counteract their own personal bad habits; what incentive is there for them to take a little personal responsibility in their health if others are paying for the majority of that eighteen hundred a month for their meds?

If the company that sells the products that treat these diseases can have a sister company that sells enzymes and products that cause the diseases; how can that be justified to allow them to continue putting crap into the markets?

If Wall Street makes a profit on these transactions either way want difference does it make to them?

When people go on Medical Tourism, where do they go to? Socialized government run, state funded, hospitals? Or private pay-for-service Capitalist based hospitals? Of course they go to the Capitalist, private run hospitals. Socialism sucks. Their service and treatment are terrible. Cheaper.... sure.... but terrible.

If I said you could get free care, but you'll likely die, or expensive care, but you'll survive, which would you choose?

We know this answer. People in Canada mortgage their homes, to pay for quality treatment in the US. They have free care. But they forfeit the free care, to come here, and pay for care.

Any attempt to force people into a system of socialized government run state sponsored health care, is an attempt to doom people to death.

It's that simple.

Our government has had no problem legislating the force and will of greedy people and companies for a long time on the people. The thing is many people allowed it as they truly believe that the legislators had their best interest in mind.

After the last year of studying the whole of the medical aspects and with the full knowledge now that I could have fully avoided four surgeries in my life with the right treatment and care why would I want to spend money on incompetence of the medical system and depend on some scummy insurance company for my life decisions? I mean if that is what some people want for themselves I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with those who would demand that I accept their bad personal choices and pay for it too.

Give me an example of this "legislating the force and will of greedy people and companies"?

What do you mean by "I do have a problem with those who would demand that I accept their bad personal choices and pay for it too"?

Because that's what government paid for health care is. Every single time someone shoots up drugs, and gets a disease.... you pay for it. Every time someone smokes a cigarette, and gets lung cancer.... you pay for it.

Every bad choice by anyone anywhere in the country, you get to pay for out of your taxes.

Let's start here. I disagree with your lung cancer theory. I am not just talking someone taking drugs or screwing a street corner prostitute knowing there is a good chance of getting god knows what. You have people who give themselves over to being slaves with a ball and chain to a desk all day. They depend on someone else to raise their children, fix the meals they will pick up on the way home with no clue what is actually in that package whether it be viruses, fungus, bacteria or poisons. They get sick and go to the local doctor. That local doctor may not know shit but will take a wild guess at what is wrong with the person without ever testing anything or possible even send out a sample of blood or tissue and take a wild guess from whatever those results may be. The doctor is mainly interested in paying off those students loans and generally only learned a tad of whatever the flavor of the medical associations protocol for that year decided that they should learn so he takes his advice from the local pharmaceutical pusher to make out a prescription for that patient. The college that gave the doc their walking papers even though they knew that as a student the person was inferior to be in that position but they gotta keep up with having enough enrollment to pay for their expenses so that one passed anyhow. Another guy comes along that spent his life eating crappy food and lots of coke. He weighs 400 lbs heart is bad, diabetic and supported by $1,800.00+ of meds that the docs prescribed to keep him going. He still eats all the crap and just takes the shots for the crap he eats won't kill him. Now that guy has Medicare so it pays for the biggest share of the meds bill. He's addicted to the shit but unwilling to take necessary steps to improve his condition so he adds another twenty to thirty pounds on every few months and bitches when someone want come clean his house for ten bucks an hour because he can't. These stories could go on and on about peoples bad choices. It is not just limited to a few druggies but if you want to talk about druggies I could give you some juicy stories on that end I have observed over the years. How about a political leader that has such a fucked up family that all his prodigy either takes street drugs or meds to cope and you pay the bill for that as his connections make sure they got him covered. Your typical street junkies are not the ones collecting that type of welfare generally.

The whole system needs a revamp from top to bottom. Propaganda by the corporate's pushing crap needs to be stopped in its tracks. Instead the government goes after the people trying to get out real food and real help for people. There is not one speck of decent water to be found anywhere at this point as the feds and the states have allowed it to be polluted beyond comprehension by farming and other chemical industrial crap (Its okay Bush's invested in a good water source in South America**sarcasm intended**). Diseases aren't cured they are managed just like everything else for a profit. Commercial food in general has no real sustenance to it when you start looking at it. Chickens are the best example when you look into it. The bones are soft. Back when you would have never gave a dog a chicken bone as the bones could perforate their intestines. I don't need to spend millions on some dumb ass study to understand that is not normal and if the food is doing that type of shit to the chickens its pretty obvious it is doing the same thing to the people. A little common sense goes a long ways.

Too much to cover in it all and I won't go into the BS vaccine push.

You have people who give themselves over to being slaves with a ball and chain to a desk all day.

Nothing we're talking about, has anything to do with that. There are people in Japan who have all the free crap that you want here, and they still live like slaves with a ball and chain to a desk. In fact, they professional men who live in cubes during the week, and never go home. Look it up.

That's literally a choice of lifestyle. It's not our job, or governments job, to fix your lifestyle.

That local doctor may not know shit but will take a wild guess at what is wrong with the person without ever testing anything or possible even send out a sample of blood or tissue and take a wild guess from whatever those results may be.

That also happens everywhere in the world. That's not native to America, or any other country.

Further, we usually have the opposite problem. Doctors take dozens of redundant tests over and over, to prevent the possibility of them being sued for not doing a test.

That's one of the reasons our health care costs are so high. I went to three different doctors, and each one requested a blood sample for testing, and I finally said no... forget that. If the first 2 didn't show anything, then number 3 and 4, are a waste of my money.

The doctor is mainly interested in paying off those students loans and generally only learned a tad of whatever the flavor of the medical associations protocol for that year decided that they should learn so he takes his advice from the local pharmaceutical pusher to make out a prescription for that patient.

Bull

The college that gave the doc their walking papers even though they knew that as a student the person was inferior to be in that position but they gotta keep up with having enough enrollment to pay for their expenses so that one passed anyhow.

Bull

Now that guy has Medicare so it pays for the biggest share of the meds bill. He's addicted to the shit but unwilling to take necessary steps to improve his condition so he adds another twenty to thirty pounds on every few months and bitches when someone want come clean his house for ten bucks an hour because he can't.

That's my point. That right there is my point. If you demand socialized health care, every single lazy tub of lard in the country, you'll be paying for.

We had this guy in my family years ago. Alcoholic. Destroyed his wife and kids. And it was finally ruining his health. He went to the doctor over and over. The doctor did his best, but told him, if you don't stop you'll die. He kept drinking. He's dead now.

Who paid for that? He did. He worked, and paid for his own health care.

Under a gov-care system, YOU will.

Your typical street junkies are not the ones collecting that type of welfare generally.

I'm a low-wage worker. I am unfortunately around street junkies all the time. They put their name in at the temp agency, and get whatever they can, to collect a few bucks before they fall off the planet, and lose that job, and move on to the next.

I haven't met a single street junkie yet, that wasn't collecting government handouts.

They wouldn't survive if they didn't. They'd all die off.

They tell me they are collecting government funding. They are proud of it. We had a lady walk around the room asking people if they wanted to buy her SNAP card.

There is not one speck of decent water to be found anywhere at this point as the feds and the states have allowed it to be polluted beyond comprehension by farming and other chemical industrial crap

Really.... that would interest my relatives who live off well water up to this very day. In fact, there are tons of Amish around there, that would be shocked to know that the water they have been drinking for the last hundred years is toxic....even though their numbers of doubled over the last several decades.

Diseases aren't cured they are managed just like everything else for a profit.

Actually, the exact opposite has happened.

Back in the 1960s, after the Polio vaccine was created, the vaccine was sold for profit by different companies. They were sold to doctors, who in turn sold them at a profit, to customers.

It was because of the free-market capitalist profit motive, that the polio vaccine was spread across the entire country, and eventually in 1979, the US was declared polio free.

TODAY.....

Because of Medicare, Medicaid, and due to the Center for Diease Control (CDC), all of these, as well as other regulations and government agencies, all of them place price caps on vaccines.

The result is there is no profit. Because there is no profit, the number of vaccine suppliers in the US has drastically fallen. Only about three vaccine suppliers left, with the exception of flu vaccine suppliers.

If you remember for a number of years, we had massive flu vaccine shortages, and government upped the price for flu vaccines, so now we have 3 or 4 companies that only make one vaccine... flu.

But other than those areas were government relaxed the price cap, vaccines supplies have fallen.

Today, the only company that produces a Polio vaccine in the entire country... the country that the vaccine was created in.... is French company, Sanofi Pasteur.

But even though the vaccine is available here, few doctors buy them, and sell them to patients. Why? Well read for yourself.

Vaccines are Money Makers for Docs? | Immunize for Good

The truth is doctors often lose money on vaccines. A study published in the Journal Pediatrics shows that the costs of giving vaccines exceeded the amount that the insurers and health plans pay.​

Doctors are losing money on vaccines. So many don't offer vaccines.

AFM: The polio-like illness paralyzing US children - CNN.com

And now.... Polio is coming back.

This is the reality. Capitalism works. Everything we have is due to capitalism. When you eliminate capitalism, the result is the return of all the dangerous illnesses we got rid of before.

Evidently you work for someone else. What kind of 'low wage' job do you do?

Vaccines are a rip off especially flu vaccines. Polio vaccines contained the cancer causing SV40 virus clear up until the 90's you may wanna check that out.

Your relatives should be able to get with their local county to get their wells tested.

The Amish have lots of children. A road south of us has mostly Amish people living on it. Not one Amish family on that road hasn't had at least one family member die of colon cancer in the last year.

Capitalism with unethical corporate leaders making up the rules to exempt themselves is the bane of the modern world and a disgrace on this country. I agree in part with Obummer when he said "You didn't build that" as the majority of corporate's didn't build shit they bought in and started looking for ways to raid other people's bank accounts. There are very few privately owned or privately built companies left in this country.

 

[Onyx]

Lol what are you even talking about? I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I said nothing about violence.

You didn't have to. You want to force others to pay for your 'entitlements.' That is a coercive and violent act.

 

[Onyx]

Explain the difference.

Between health insurance and health care? Seriously?

 

[francoHFW]

Lol what are you even talking about? I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I said nothing about violence.

You didn't have to. You want to force others to pay for your 'entitlements.' That is a coercive and violent act.

Taxes. Not real violent lol. A scam for the GOP rich tho...

 

[Onyx]

Taxes. Not real violent lol. A scam for the GOP rich tho...

Coercion is not violent per say, but it is the result of a violent social complex. There is no morality in forced taxation.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lol what are you even talking about? I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I said nothing about violence.

You didn't have to. You want to force others to pay for your 'entitlements.' That is a coercive and violent act.

Taxes. Not real violent lol. A scam for the GOP rich tho...

As I recall you don't even pay taxes, you took taxpayer money and pretended to pay taxes.

 

[francoHFW]

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

I am only going to address this one thing you said here as cancer is prevalent here where we live. Once this attitude you have given is taken you have succumbed to the whole corrupt system.

There is a road south of us where on that rural road every other family has had someone die of colon cancer in the last year and not one family down there does not have someone still sick in their house. Most are Amish families but not all. This all came on in a few short years after pigs farms went in and a large feed lot expanded. They dump their shit on the fields all around. When a disease hits their confinement operations they simply start sending out the livestock as quickly as possible.

A few years ago cancer doctor that retired decided that he couldn't pass on all the money down in this part of the state so he opened back up for practice down here. This is the poorest county in the state so who do you think is paying a big portion of his costs?

Cancer is rapidly being narrowed down to viruses, bacteria's, fungi. The cells of any living organism once damaged by outside factors or lacking proper nutrition are susceptible to diseases. Bacteria, viruses and fungi are not killed once you get them. They actually colonize somewhere in you causing misery throughout your life in the way of Arthritis, Heart disease, tooth decay, etc....

All of the water here is highly polluted with Nitrate and Glyphosate along with other chemicals. My guess would be that there is a minuscule amount of grain of any type available that is not tainted with chemicals as Glyphosate and other chemicals are now used as a pre-harvest treatments in order to quicken the harvest times. Grains are not washed prior to milling and Oatmeal isn't even safe at this point to eat.

My son came down to see us last year to tell us he was diagnosed with brain cancer, prostate cancer and a cancerous lesion in his cheek. He headed for the Mayo clinic whom had been telling him for years he had Lupus (which I knew was bullshit and told him so years ago and his sis too). No Lupus ever in their heritage.

When people go on Medical Tourism, where do they go to? Socialized government run, state funded, hospitals? Or private pay-for-service Capitalist based hospitals? Of course they go to the Capitalist, private run hospitals. Socialism sucks. Their service and treatment are terrible. Cheaper.... sure.... but terrible.

If I said you could get free care, but you'll likely die, or expensive care, but you'll survive, which would you choose?

We know this answer. People in Canada mortgage their homes, to pay for quality treatment in the US. They have free care. But they forfeit the free care, to come here, and pay for care.

Any attempt to force people into a system of socialized government run state sponsored health care, is an attempt to doom people to death.

It's that simple.

Our government has had no problem legislating the force and will of greedy people and companies for a long time on the people. The thing is many people allowed it as they truly believe that the legislators had their best interest in mind.

After the last year of studying the whole of the medical aspects and with the full knowledge now that I could have fully avoided four surgeries in my life with the right treatment and care why would I want to spend money on incompetence of the medical system and depend on some scummy insurance company for my life decisions? I mean if that is what some people want for themselves I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with those who would demand that I accept their bad personal choices and pay for it too.

Give me an example of this "legislating the force and will of greedy people and companies"?

What do you mean by "I do have a problem with those who would demand that I accept their bad personal choices and pay for it too"?

Because that's what government paid for health care is. Every single time someone shoots up drugs, and gets a disease.... you pay for it. Every time someone smokes a cigarette, and gets lung cancer.... you pay for it.

Every bad choice by anyone anywhere in the country, you get to pay for out of your taxes.

Let's start here. I disagree with your lung cancer theory. I am not just talking someone taking drugs or screwing a street corner prostitute knowing there is a good chance of getting god knows what. You have people who give themselves over to being slaves with a ball and chain to a desk all day. They depend on someone else to raise their children, fix the meals they will pick up on the way home with no clue what is actually in that package whether it be viruses, fungus, bacteria or poisons. They get sick and go to the local doctor. That local doctor may not know shit but will take a wild guess at what is wrong with the person without ever testing anything or possible even send out a sample of blood or tissue and take a wild guess from whatever those results may be. The doctor is mainly interested in paying off those students loans and generally only learned a tad of whatever the flavor of the medical associations protocol for that year decided that they should learn so he takes his advice from the local pharmaceutical pusher to make out a prescription for that patient. The college that gave the doc their walking papers even though they knew that as a student the person was inferior to be in that position but they gotta keep up with having enough enrollment to pay for their expenses so that one passed anyhow. Another guy comes along that spent his life eating crappy food and lots of coke. He weighs 400 lbs heart is bad, diabetic and supported by $1,800.00+ of meds that the docs prescribed to keep him going. He still eats all the crap and just takes the shots for the crap he eats won't kill him. Now that guy has Medicare so it pays for the biggest share of the meds bill. He's addicted to the shit but unwilling to take necessary steps to improve his condition so he adds another twenty to thirty pounds on every few months and bitches when someone want come clean his house for ten bucks an hour because he can't. These stories could go on and on about peoples bad choices. It is not just limited to a few druggies but if you want to talk about druggies I could give you some juicy stories on that end I have observed over the years. How about a political leader that has such a fucked up family that all his prodigy either takes street drugs or meds to cope and you pay the bill for that as his connections make sure they got him covered. Your typical street junkies are not the ones collecting that type of welfare generally.

The whole system needs a revamp from top to bottom. Propaganda by the corporate's pushing crap needs to be stopped in its tracks. Instead the government goes after the people trying to get out real food and real help for people. There is not one speck of decent water to be found anywhere at this point as the feds and the states have allowed it to be polluted beyond comprehension by farming and other chemical industrial crap (Its okay Bush's invested in a good water source in South America**sarcasm intended**). Diseases aren't cured they are managed just like everything else for a profit. Commercial food in general has no real sustenance to it when you start looking at it. Chickens are the best example when you look into it. The bones are soft. Back when you would have never gave a dog a chicken bone as the bones could perforate their intestines. I don't need to spend millions on some dumb ass study to understand that is not normal and if the food is doing that type of shit to the chickens its pretty obvious it is doing the same thing to the people. A little common sense goes a long ways.

Too much to cover in it all and I won't go into the BS vaccine push.

You have people who give themselves over to being slaves with a ball and chain to a desk all day.

Nothing we're talking about, has anything to do with that. There are people in Japan who have all the free crap that you want here, and they still live like slaves with a ball and chain to a desk. In fact, they professional men who live in cubes during the week, and never go home. Look it up.

That's literally a choice of lifestyle. It's not our job, or governments job, to fix your lifestyle.

That local doctor may not know shit but will take a wild guess at what is wrong with the person without ever testing anything or possible even send out a sample of blood or tissue and take a wild guess from whatever those results may be.

That also happens everywhere in the world. That's not native to America, or any other country.

Further, we usually have the opposite problem. Doctors take dozens of redundant tests over and over, to prevent the possibility of them being sued for not doing a test.

That's one of the reasons our health care costs are so high. I went to three different doctors, and each one requested a blood sample for testing, and I finally said no... forget that. If the first 2 didn't show anything, then number 3 and 4, are a waste of my money.

The doctor is mainly interested in paying off those students loans and generally only learned a tad of whatever the flavor of the medical associations protocol for that year decided that they should learn so he takes his advice from the local pharmaceutical pusher to make out a prescription for that patient.

Bull

The college that gave the doc their walking papers even though they knew that as a student the person was inferior to be in that position but they gotta keep up with having enough enrollment to pay for their expenses so that one passed anyhow.

Bull

Now that guy has Medicare so it pays for the biggest share of the meds bill. He's addicted to the shit but unwilling to take necessary steps to improve his condition so he adds another twenty to thirty pounds on every few months and bitches when someone want come clean his house for ten bucks an hour because he can't.

That's my point. That right there is my point. If you demand socialized health care, every single lazy tub of lard in the country, you'll be paying for.

We had this guy in my family years ago. Alcoholic. Destroyed his wife and kids. And it was finally ruining his health. He went to the doctor over and over. The doctor did his best, but told him, if you don't stop you'll die. He kept drinking. He's dead now.

Who paid for that? He did. He worked, and paid for his own health care.

Under a gov-care system, YOU will.

Your typical street junkies are not the ones collecting that type of welfare generally.

I'm a low-wage worker. I am unfortunately around street junkies all the time. They put their name in at the temp agency, and get whatever they can, to collect a few bucks before they fall off the planet, and lose that job, and move on to the next.

I haven't met a single street junkie yet, that wasn't collecting government handouts.

They wouldn't survive if they didn't. They'd all die off.

They tell me they are collecting government funding. They are proud of it. We had a lady walk around the room asking people if they wanted to buy her SNAP card.

There is not one speck of decent water to be found anywhere at this point as the feds and the states have allowed it to be polluted beyond comprehension by farming and other chemical industrial crap

Really.... that would interest my relatives who live off well water up to this very day. In fact, there are tons of Amish around there, that would be shocked to know that the water they have been drinking for the last hundred years is toxic....even though their numbers of doubled over the last several decades.

Diseases aren't cured they are managed just like everything else for a profit.

Actually, the exact opposite has happened.

Back in the 1960s, after the Polio vaccine was created, the vaccine was sold for profit by different companies. They were sold to doctors, who in turn sold them at a profit, to customers.

It was because of the free-market capitalist profit motive, that the polio vaccine was spread across the entire country, and eventually in 1979, the US was declared polio free.

TODAY.....

Because of Medicare, Medicaid, and due to the Center for Diease Control (CDC), all of these, as well as other regulations and government agencies, all of them place price caps on vaccines.

The result is there is no profit. Because there is no profit, the number of vaccine suppliers in the US has drastically fallen. Only about three vaccine suppliers left, with the exception of flu vaccine suppliers.

If you remember for a number of years, we had massive flu vaccine shortages, and government upped the price for flu vaccines, so now we have 3 or 4 companies that only make one vaccine... flu.

But other than those areas were government relaxed the price cap, vaccines supplies have fallen.

Today, the only company that produces a Polio vaccine in the entire country... the country that the vaccine was created in.... is French company, Sanofi Pasteur.

But even though the vaccine is available here, few doctors buy them, and sell them to patients. Why? Well read for yourself.

Vaccines are Money Makers for Docs? | Immunize for Good

The truth is doctors often lose money on vaccines. A study published in the Journal Pediatrics shows that the costs of giving vaccines exceeded the amount that the insurers and health plans pay.​

Doctors are losing money on vaccines. So many don't offer vaccines.

AFM: The polio-like illness paralyzing US children - CNN.com

And now.... Polio is coming back.

This is the reality. Capitalism works. Everything we have is due to capitalism. When you eliminate capitalism, the result is the return of all the dangerous illnesses we got rid of before.

Evidently you work for someone else. What kind of 'low wage' job do you do?

Vaccines are a rip off especially flu vaccines. Polio vaccines contained the cancer causing SV40 virus clear up until the 90's you may wanna check that out.

Your relatives should be able to get with their local county to get their wells tested.

The Amish have lots of children. A road south of us has mostly Amish people living on it. Not one Amish family on that road hasn't had at least one family member die of colon cancer in the last year.

Capitalism with unethical corporate leaders making up the rules to exempt themselves is the bane of the modern world and a disgrace on this country. I agree in part with Obummer when he said "You didn't build that" as the majority of corporate's didn't build shit they bought in and started looking for ways to raid other people's bank accounts. There are very few privately owned or privately built companies left in this country.

Sounds lik

Taxes. Not real violent lol. A scam for the GOP rich tho...

Coercion is not violent per say, but it is the result of a violent social complex. There is no morality in forced taxation.

Certainly not these unfair GOP rates...We need services and infrastructure and a health SYSTEM, dreamer.

 

[P@triot]

Coercion is not violent per say, but it is the result of a violent social complex. There is no morality in forced taxation.

Certainly not these unfair GOP rates....

Wow...so you finally acknowledge it as well francoHFW? We need to cut taxes at least 50% on the wealthy to make our current tax rates even remotely "fair". At the same time, we need to drastically increase taxes on the parasite class.

 

[francoHFW]

Coercion is not violent per say, but it is the result of a violent social complex. There is no morality in forced taxation.

Certainly not these unfair GOP rates....

Wow...so you finally acknowledge it as well francoHFW? We need to cut taxes at least 50% on the wealthy to make our current tax rates even remotely "fair". At the same time, we need to drastically increase taxes on the parasite class.

Except all classes pay 19-31% in all taxes and fees, almost flat tax, and the wealthiest end up with all the new wealth, dupe.

 

[RodISHI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can name several people, before ACA. Too dignified to go to ER AGAIN.

Must be Dims....

 

[dblack]

Lol what are you even talking about? I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I said nothing about violence.

You didn't have to. You want to force others to pay for your 'entitlements.' That is a coercive and violent act.

Taxes. Not real violent lol. A scam for the GOP rich tho...

You're right about the last part - taxes being a scam to benefit the rich - but taxes are based on a very real threat of violence. Ask anyone who's refused to pay them.

 

[RodISHI]

When people go on Medical Tourism, where do they go to? Socialized government run, state funded, hospitals? Or private pay-for-service Capitalist based hospitals? Of course they go to the Capitalist, private run hospitals. Socialism sucks. Their service and treatment are terrible. Cheaper.... sure.... but terrible.

If I said you could get free care, but you'll likely die, or expensive care, but you'll survive, which would you choose?

We know this answer. People in Canada mortgage their homes, to pay for quality treatment in the US. They have free care. But they forfeit the free care, to come here, and pay for care.

Any attempt to force people into a system of socialized government run state sponsored health care, is an attempt to doom people to death.

It's that simple.

Why is it that some of our politicians here go overseas to get treated when they are diagnosed with cancer? Any system under corrupt corportist, Demoncrats and Republicans sucks. I have been in and have observed the workings of enough doctors offices, clinics and hospitals in my life in different states from California to Florida to know this. Any medical care is only as good as the doctor and technicians are along with policies from administrators that promote health not just profits. Even when a person has a very nice doctor that same doctor is limited by policy and knowledge.

Now my Dad had a really nice doc when he was bleeding to death internally. Actually he had a whole teams of docs and techs looking at him up close and personal for ten days while he was slowly bleeding to death from three locations in his lungs plus other areas he was bleeding from that he didn't want anyone looking into. Not to mention all the other hospital trips prior to that for years. That last nice lung doc was sure there was no way to stop him fully bleeding out in another six to ten days so they sent him home to be comfy while that transpired. What they did not do through his last fifteen years is give an explanation as to why his arteries, skin and internal organs were all so thin that he would bleed like a stuffed pig at any given time and his arteries would do the little blow outs. A small scratch was like a full blown emergency. He had really super good insurance that would pay X amount for hospital stays for X diagnosed conditions. Ten days was the limit on that last go around before the insurance said that was it and the doctors were sure he would just finish bleeding out internally and they were sure it would take no more than ten days at the rate he was bleeding. This is he said he was not ready to die and asked for some more time after getting home and all comfy. I had warned him fifteen years previously to make some changes in his tainted water supply but he wasn't willing to do that (Spring water is after all supposed to be the best). He was willing to spend several hundred dollars a month on good TV services and thousands on a new big screen though. The problem is he waited too long and got too bad for his body to actually have the capability to restore its self. We did get the bleeding stopped without help from the medical profession (damn good thing there wasn't no feds from the FDA around or any of those medical association docs that want anyone who has a different opinion and no qualifications according to their standards helping a person who is supposed to be dead or suffer with whatever they say it is supposed to be). Dad didn't bleed out. It took a few days but we did get the bleeding stopped. He still wasn't willing to make any changes to that water supply though but kept on paying for and enjoying the boxed confusion in the propaganda gadget and all the rantings available on there to listen to and watch gave him something to bitch about daily. Enjoying may not be the right phrase but it is what he did for his boredom while he waited out his last days. The good Lord gave him another year to consider it all until he decided he'd had enough and was ready to move on to the next step. That all transpired before ACA got into full swing. Now according to you and especially with your low wage job and all dad's whole medical adventure did not cost you anything. He and his union had the best insurance after all and his union paid the premiums and the cost that were not covered by insurance he wrote a check for.

What people from Canada do isn't any of my business I am not Canadian. I ain't Japanese either so really could care less if they chain themselves to their jobs. I do have a problem with folks here though that believe I should fall in line and be a done like them because that is what other people say should be done.

We have always had some government safety nets in place when it comes to people who truly could not care for themselves or afford care.

You are already doomed to death. It is a natural effect of living to the flesh.

Let's talk about those blood test you supposedly had to pay for. are you insured at that 'low wage job' of yours? What kind of test were they? Were they all for the same issue or were the doctors having the lab tech look for different things each time? I highly doubt that each test was merely a repeat of what was already tested or possibly your different doctors did not trust the labs that did the first two test. (just doesn't really say much). Doesn't your low paying job provide insurance? Or do you have to actually pay for those test yourselves?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Taxes. Not real violent lol. A scam for the GOP rich tho...

Try not paying them, then resisting when the taxing agencies show up at your door.

 

[Rustic]

Socialist entitlement programs make for a weak country... fact

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

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

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

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

 

[Moonglow]

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.

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

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

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

More countries through the history of the world have failed that were not socialistic in nature...Try to make a bigger boogey man...

 

[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.

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.

The Communist Manifesto created the movement in the first place, and defined the system for everyone for the following years. Everyone who advocated the systems had read the Communist Manifesto, and understood what they were and how they (didn't) work. One doesn't talk about Light Bulbs and say "Thomas Edison is irrelevant", one doesn't talk about electricity and say "Ben Franklin is irrelevant", as they invented those. The Communist Manifesto has everything to do with this.

Communism - Wikipedia
The USSR, therefor, was not Communist.

As I said.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More countries through the history of the world have failed that were not socialistic in nature...Try to make a bigger boogey man...

Oh, you mean if we add up ALL the other types of governments and their total number of failures, they edge out over Socialist failures? You may be right about that.

 

[Billy000]

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.

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

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

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

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