"Socialism", by any other name...

[roscoe]

If you don’t work, you don’t eat (among the able bodied). Godly principal. Look it up.

This nation was founded upon Godly (Judeo Christian) principals. If ever a society votes its way into socialism (of any degree) it will have to shoot its way out. There is no “part way” for socialism/communism . The two are not mutually exclusive, nor functionally separable, due to human nature. Nor will everyone pull their own freight. That fact removes the chances for a commune’s sustainability. Starvation is a great motivator. As graves are great separators (as in the quick from the dead).

Some will rail that those concepts are harsh, selfish even barbaric. Those will find themselves in harsher circumstances, subservient to selfish barbarians should they get their way. Thankfully, throughout history, there have been brave men willing to do and endure violence to save all. Even those ignorant of their need for salvation.

Incorrect on socialism - there are many countries, such as the USA, that are socialist, but do not seem to have become communist (if you really understand what that means). Would you say America is communist?

Americans have government-built roads, government-funded police, government-funded fire departments, a professional military, as well as a variety of laws prohibiting free acts, such selling privately-produced narcotics, and capturing others as slaves. In a truly free society, we can exercise our freedoms in any way we so choose, and I would certainly sell narcotics to my slaves using roads I built myself.

 

[NassauBob]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

Our introduction to the political indoctrination program would come to be known as “Brainwashing” as reinforced with the Leniency Policy. The Chinese would employ this system in hopes of converting us to Communism. All of us knew our system of government was not perfect, but it sure as hell was better then theirs. Those who were converted (brain washed) or were willing to collaborate with the Chinese were called “progressives.” The “progressives” would be compensated with favors

After several days of demands for signatures, the Chinese instructors informed us that we were reactionaries, opposing the Chinese People, their plans for world peace, and all the things that they and the other peace-loving people were striving for.

Korean War Educator: Memoirs - Franklin "Jack" Chapman

The Korean War Educator is dedicated with appreciation and rememberance to the thousands of American veterans who served and fought in war-torn Korea in 1950-1953 and beyond. These are the memoirs of those veterans.

www.koreanwar-educator.org

 

[CrustyCoot]

POS Democrat?
When we paint with a broad brush paint gets where it wasn’t intended. The consequence when civil talk ends is someone gets enough, gets angry, and nothing is solved. I learned about taking sides and name calling at recess in grade school.
Loss of life and destruction of property happened in D.C. and in other places prior. One wild eyed brainless mob is no better than the other. No reasonable and prudent person would equivocate on that.
Say a prayer for the faithful departed.........on both sides.

Only the guilty need be offended.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The reason it is tiring, is because its not true.

Says the guy whos avatar evokes the iconography of the Soviet Union........a Communist state responsible for the outright murder of millions of its own citizens in Stalins purges, not to mention the oppression, misery, and starvation resulting from their failed and corrupt economic policies.

Move along, citizen, no communists to see here.

 

[roscoe]

Every time the right gives an inch, the#^&#%^& left takes a mile. I'm done turning the other cheek. The right needs to play by the accepted rules of the left. When our cities burned last year, not one POS democrat said anything against that behavior. But it's insurrection when a handful of assholes breaks a few windows in the Capitol? And more likely than not,they were not Trump supporters in the first place.

Um - every factual assertion you made in this post is incorrect. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts!

 

[Ranb]

For you guys who think government funded programs are socialist or communist, where do you draw the line? In the USA, the government funds most of the roads, ATC, the military, health care for the elderly, military and some of the poor, secures the borders, operates prisons, schools and other programs. Is this communism? Should I be responsible for building my own roads, practicing my own medicine and securing my own borders? A group effort is far superior.

I think that a single payer health care system is far superior to what we have now. I'm retired Navy and have family coverage for health care (not dental) for my family at about $600/year. I did not spend 20 years in the military just to see hard working Americans go bankrupt to pay for life saving medical bills. I think all Americans are entitled to decent basic health care, just for being Americans.

I'm willing to pay more in taxes to see this happen. If every American had Tricare Prime like I do, I think the increase in taxes would more than offset the cost of medical care for the average family.

 

[Howland937]

For you guys who think government funded programs are socialist or communist, where do you draw the line? In the USA, the government funds most of the roads, ATC, the military, health care for the elderly, military and some of the poor, secures the borders, operates prisons, schools and other programs. Is this communism? Should I be responsible for building my own roads, practicing my own medicine and securing my own borders? A group effort is far superior.

I think that a single payer health care system is far superior to what we have now. I'm retired Navy and have family coverage for health care (not dental) for my family at about $600/year. I did not spend 20 years in the military just to see hard working Americans go bankrupt to pay for life saving medical bills. I think all Americans are entitled to decent basic health care, just for being Americans.

I'm willing to pay more in taxes to see this happen. If every American had Tricare Prime like I do, I think the increase in taxes would more than offset the cost of medical care for the average family.

I understand there are plenty of programs currently available in the United States that are rooted in Socialism. I also understand that we aren't given a choice as to how much we contribute to these programs through taxation. The local, public school district cries and threatens to cut sports, music, art etc...every time they blow the budget and need more money. Local government, same thing. Go shake the money tree.

I've heard multiple first hand accounts/horror stories of veterans waiting months to see a doctor through the VA...then being misdiagnosed only to wait more months to see a different specialist. Thats been a few years, but it's stuck in my head. If the government struggles to provide adequate healthcare for the roughly 7% of the population that has served, how can we expect them to run it for the other 93%?

I'm not opposed to paying more in taxes if there's a real world benefit. The problem I see is that almost without fail, our government breaks anything it gets it's hands on. Whether the quality of what they're "providing" us deteriorates or the program becomes so bloated, its crushed under it's own weight.

 

[roscoe]

I understand there are plenty of programs currently available in the United States that are rooted in Socialism. I also understand that we aren't given a choice as to how much we contribute to these programs through taxation. The local, public school district cries and threatens to cut sports, music, art etc...every time they blow the budget and need more money. Local government, same thing. Go shake the money tree.

I've heard multiple first hand accounts/horror stories of veterans waiting months to see a doctor through the VA...then being misdiagnosed only to wait more months to see a different specialist. Thats been a few years, but it's stuck in my head. If the government struggles to provide adequate healthcare for the roughly 7% of the population that has served, how can we expect them to run it for the other 93%?

I'm not opposed to paying more in taxes if there's a real world benefit. The problem I see is that almost without fail, our government breaks anything it gets it's hands on. Whether the quality of what they're "providing" us deteriorates or the program becomes so bloated, its crushed under it's own weight.

Just look around - plenty of countries have national healthcare that are highly-functioning countries. Canada, for example, but most countries in European countries also have it - even our favorite gun-owning poster child, the Czech Republic, has an obligatory-insurance model.

Ask Canadians, if you know any. You just won't hear any widespread cry for abolishing the healthcare system. But that is because there was not the kind of resistance to healthcare that Obama faced. Everyone agreed to its importance and they figured out the best way to get it done. Here, if something like that gets proposed, the right-wingers start screaming 'communism'. So, now we have a healthcare system that largely caters to the wealthy. Thanks, Republicans!

 

[Howland937]

Just look around - plenty of countries have national healthcare that are highly-functioning countries. Canada, for example, but most countries in European countries also have it - even our favorite gun-owning poster child, the Czech Republic, has an obligatory-insurance model.

Ask Canadians, if you know any. You just won't hear any widespread cry for abolishing the healthcare system. But that is because there was not the kind of resistance to healthcare that Obama faced. Everyone agreed to its importance and they figured out the best way to get it done. Here, if something like that gets proposed, the right-wingers start screaming 'communism'. So, now we have a healthcare system that largely caters to the wealthy. Thanks, Republicans!

 

[Howland937]

Funny...I was quoting a post of yours on another thread.

Granted, there are multiple first-world countries with a national health care system. Those same countries are typically rank ahead of the U.S. in terms of education, lower poverty levels, less obesity, etc...
None of those countries are near our numbers in population though. I don't know the nuances of those governments, but I wonder if those programs could be "scaled up" to meet the needs of so many.
Regardless, I have zero faith that anything on such a scale could be managed by the current leaders of this country. Those of the past 30+ years didn't give me any reason to believe it can be done effectively here.

 

[roscoe]

Funny...I was quoting a post of yours on another thread.

Granted, there are multiple first-world countries with a national health care system. Those same countries are typically rank ahead of the U.S. in terms of education, lower poverty levels, less obesity, etc...
None of those countries are near our numbers in population though. I don't know the nuances of those governments, but I wonder if those programs could be "scaled up" to meet the needs of so many.
Regardless, I have zero faith that anything on such a scale could be managed by the current leaders of this country. Those of the past 30+ years didn't give me any reason to believe it can be done effectively here.

If you value the health of your population you have to start somewhere, because right now the US healthcare system is a mess, and losing a job, and the subsequent loss of health insurance, is potentially catastrophic to many families.

There are many models for getting it done, but just saying 'oh, it couldn't be done' is far too dismissive. You make an empirical assessment of the other systems, and start in pilot programs to see what works, then scale up. It is a long-term project and results over the short-term have to be considered preliminary. If we can only get folks to think over the longer term . . .

The US has done many large-scale programs well, but it requires honest good intentions by the relevant parties. Right now, the health insurance companies are strongly incentivized to prevent it, and are happy to pay politicians to sabotage any efforts.

 

[Howland937]

If you value the health of your population you have to start somewhere, because right now the US healthcare system is a mess, and losing a job, and the subsequent loss of health insurance, is potentially catastrophic to many families.

There are many models for getting it done, but just saying 'oh, it couldn't be done' is far too dismissive. You make an empirical assessment of the other systems, and start in pilot programs to see what works, then scale up. It is a long-term project and results over the short-term have to be considered preliminary. If we can only get folks to think over the longer term . . .

The US has done many large-scale programs well, but it requires honest good intentions by the relevant parties. Right now, the health insurance companies are strongly incentivized to prevent it, and are happy to pay politicians to sabotage any efforts.

We are talking about the same government who provides a delivery service that can get a package 1800 miles in 2 days, then take 15 days to get it the last 27 miles to my house.

 

[Ranb]

If the government struggles to provide adequate healthcare for the roughly 7% of the population that has served, how can we expect them to run it for the other 93%?

Whre are you getting these numbers? I was talking about Tricare, not the VA. Tricare covers about 9 million active duty, retirees and dependents. It is the disabled non-retirees for the most part that get VA medical benefits. I hear few complaints about Tricare these days. I like it; better than when I was depending upon other health care.

I'm not opposed to paying more in taxes if there's a real world benefit. The problem I see is that almost without fail, our government breaks anything it gets it's hands on. Whether the quality of what they're "providing" us deteriorates or the program becomes so bloated, its crushed under it's own weight.

I'd rather take my chances with a government drone than a for profit medical hack that profits more by giving less care.

 

[WrongHanded]

We are talking about the same government who provides a delivery service that can get a package 1800 miles in 2 days, then take 15 days to get it the last 27 miles to my house.

That sounds like a local issue. The local service in my area is very fast. Perhaps no one ever complains about the issue, or doesn't take it far enough up the chain. Either way, how your local branch of the USPS is run, has little to do with how government programs work on a national scale.

A single payer healthcare system will work far better for most people than what we currently have. It also has the potential to create a lot of jobs.

 

[Howland937]

Whre are you getting these numbers? I was talking about Tricare, not the VA. Tricare covers about 9 million active duty, retirees and dependents. It is the disabled non-retirees for the most part that get VA medical benefits. I hear few complaints about Tricare these days. I like it; better than when I was depending upon other health care.

I'd rather take my chances with a government drone than a for profit medical hack that profits more by giving less care.

I didn't do a lot of research. I googled "percentage of the U.S. population who are veterans". Maybe presumptuous on my part to have not included active duty as veterans. It's great that you have access to top-notch health care. You've earned that AFAIC. I never hear current or former Senators or Rep's complain about theirs either.

For profit medical care is no different than for profit anything. Yes, some follow that path because they're the true believers. It's no secret though that most of the "best" are among the highest paid, just like in sports and many industries where the individual can directly impact their earning power through hard work, preparation and continued training. Remove that incentive and pay them on a schedule based on longevity, then watch the talent pool dwindle.

ETA. It's nearly impossible to find a hospital, even in my rum-dum part of rural Ohio, that doesn't employ a very diverse staff of doctors from all over the world. I don't suspect they're here due to a surplus of physicians in their home countries (or lack of people in need of medical care). I'd surmise they're here because working in the medical field in the U.S. offers a chance at financial success unobtainable back home. Would those people still be able to be lured here to work in a field limited by what the government decides is sufficient compensation?

 

[Howland937]

That sounds like a local issue. The local service in my area is very fast. Perhaps no one ever complains about the issue, or doesn't take it far enough up the chain. Either way, how your local branch of the USPS is run, has little to do with how government programs work on a national scale.

A single payer healthcare system will work far better for most people than what we currently have. It also has the potential to create a lot of jobs.

Granted, my only basis for comparison is the small sample size that I've personally experienced. That experience has led me to believe that the privately owned companies in the same industry perform better, since their revenue stream is dictated by customer satisfaction.

The USPS comparison was meant tongue-in-cheek however.

 

[WrongHanded]

Granted, my only basis for comparison is the small sample size that I've personally experienced. That experience has led me to believe that the privately owned companies in the same industry perform better, since their revenue stream is dictated by customer satisfaction.

The USPS comparison was meant tongue-in-cheek however.

The problem with private healthcare coupled with an insurance based payment system is that we find ourself corralled into using certain providers, and never getting an honest and upfront answer to the cost. The providers and the insurance companies work out deals we know little about and have no control over, and we are no longer customers but instead are seen as commodities.

When the hospitals charge more, the insurance companies charge more. But it's not an open system. Ask yourself: How many places can you get car insurance? Do they dictate where you must go to have repairs made? How easy is it to switch? This may vary from State to State, but my experience has been I have a lot of options. With healthcare I am far more limited. I'm not trying to make a direct comparison so much as I'm trying to illustrate a point; we don't have nearly so many choices with healthcare. It's simply not a free market with real competition, so we don't enjoy the benefits such a market would offer.

The concept of a single payer system is simple. Medicare. The government sets the prices and the hospital either takes the work, or they don't. If they don't, they miss out on a big source of income. If we were to adopt a medicare for all system, the hospitals would actually have to compete, and the system would balance itself. The providers need not become government owned or run, only the payment. Think of it like one big insurance company that is not run for profit, and we're all insured. Not only that, but we all get a small say in how it's run. That's a lot of buying power.

 

[Howland937]

The government sets the prices and the hospital either takes the work, or they don't

I understand the concept of it, whether it's single payer or full-on gov't run. Trust me, I hate our current system as much as anyone. I work in a small repair shop with my boss and one other guy. I'm not part of a group plan so my premium is high and my deductible is 4 grand with no vision or dental.
That being said, If the government becomes the sole payer or "insurance", will my premiums be lower? Will my deductible go away? Will I pay more by the time taxes are factored in? Sure, that can all be hashed out...but once gov't becomes the only player, there's no going back if it doesn't work. (Lots of eggs, one basket)

Then there's the biggest concern I have, and it isn't my finances. When the government decides what's an acceptable amount a hospital can charge, the hospital could then be considered like a contractor. "This is what the job pays, take it or leave it" Of course they'll take it if that's the only gig in town. The hospital still has to provide all the state of the art equipment and facilities unless they limit investing in those things. Of course they can always offset those expenses by lowering labor cost. Lower labor cost= lower earning ability for healthcare workers across the board, which in turn leads younger people to seek a different path with more earning potential. Or my kid's allergist decides 20% more income isn't worth the hassle and stays in India.
If income becomes fixed, there will be sacrifices.

Just don't ask me for sources. I made it all up on my own.

 

[CrustyCoot]

Just look around - plenty of countries have national healthcare that are highly-functioning countries. Canada, for example, but most countries in European countries also have it - even our favorite gun-owning poster child, the Czech Republic, has an obligatory-insurance model.

Ask Canadians, if you know any. You just won't hear any widespread cry for abolishing the healthcare system. But that is because there was not the kind of resistance to healthcare that Obama faced. Everyone agreed to its importance and they figured out the best way to get it done. Here, if something like that gets proposed, the right-wingers start screaming 'communism'. So, now we have a healthcare system that largely caters to the wealthy. Thanks, Republicans!

Before Honolulu Barry trashed the health care system, I had low deductible, low out of pocket cost coverage. Instead of getting coverage for those that needed it, no.. lets eff up the whole damn system. The mouse trap works because the mouse doesn't understand why the cheese is free.

 

[WrongHanded]

I understand the concept of it, whether it's single payer or full-on gov't run. Trust me, I hate our current system as much as anyone. I work in a small repair shop with my boss and one other guy. I'm not part of a group plan so my premium is high and my deductible is 4 grand with no vision or dental.
That being said, If the government becomes the sole payer or "insurance", will my premiums be lower? Will my deductible go away? Will I pay more by the time taxes are factored in? Sure, that can all be hashed out...but once gov't becomes the only player, there's no going back if it doesn't work. (Lots of eggs, one basket)

Then there's the biggest concern I have, and it isn't my finances. When the government decides what's an acceptable amount a hospital can charge, the hospital could then be considered like a contractor. "This is what the job pays, take it or leave it" Of course they'll take it if that's the only gig in town. The hospital still has to provide all the state of the art equipment and facilities unless they limit investing in those things. Of course they can always offset those expenses by lowering labor cost. Lower labor cost= lower earning ability for healthcare workers across the board, which in turn leads younger people to seek a different path with more earning potential. Or my kid's allergist decides 20% more income isn't worth the hassle and stays in India.
If income becomes fixed, there will be sacrifices.

Just don't ask me for sources. I made it all up on my own.

Those are all very reasonable concerns. I can't answer them with any kind of certainty, because as far as I know, there's not written plan as of yet. But as other first-world nations seem to be doing it quite successfully, I would offer them up as potential blueprints. Though it's worth noting that some countries with a national healthcare system do still have a private hospital and health insurance market. I don't think those will go away whilst the US remains the wealthiest country in the world.

The prospect of letting government take up the reigns may seem daunting to many. But for anyone who can't afford to pay out of pocket, the reigns are not currently in our hands anyway. I actually think Biden's idea of a "public option" is a fairly good one. It can run as a test along side private insurance.