- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How much would single payer cost?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:03 pm to roadGator
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:03 pm to roadGator
quote:
Bernie will die. The next socialist will be closer to a Stalinist.
Based on what evidence?
As the link showed, that history of social democracy has been one toward the embracing of markets and capitalism, and was persecuted by stalinists, its hard to imagine the next Bernie seeking alignment with a philosophy of marxist-leninism that has no real following in America or with his followers. Except in right-wing fantasies.
Just like it was absurd to say that Teddy Roosevelt was seeking American Prussianism because he advocated universal sickness funds, or the next FDR seeking healthcare reform would be a stalinist because of some slippery slope fallacy with fear as its compass. It made no sense then and it makes none now.
1
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:08 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Based on what evidence?
History
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:29 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:What does that even mean?
There has never been a full scale movement to emulate Britain's system
Two of the most prominent Dems in the arena, Daschle and Zeke Emanuel, idolize the NHS. Given the opportunity, they'd implement the NHS model here in a heartbeat.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:35 pm to roadGator
quote:
History
In the link I provided, what you see historically is that social democracy was the direct result of an evolution toward foundational principles of markets, capitalism, and social safety nets, and away from socialism, to the point of persecution and decried by stalinists, which over time, and a multitude of influences, has formed into the larger cohesive movement of social democracy we see today. Which today is deeply embedded in a respect for markets, and their ability to, when used properly as they define it, enable a greater welfare of a citizenry. Social Democrats would be right there arguing against a stalinists desire for state control of all means of production in a theoretical debate between a stalinist, a social democrat and a neoliberal. If you included an hardcore libertarian, then you would start to see the breaks as a social democrat and neoliberal would likely jostle over what level of government intervention should play in that market from a regulatory standpoint. Further divisions between the social democrat and the neoliberal.
So, the history does not really agree with you on this front. Social democracy, at its core these days, embraces the benefits of markets, mixed with a narrow set of highly controlled areas for explicit social well being purposes(like healthcare), but acknowledges as not needing to be identical in their implementation(hence why you don't see a dogmatic command of how welfare programs are structured as long as the end goal is met). As circumstantial differences within borders necessitate adjustment. A formula seen by its supporters as superior to the failed ideal of marxist-leninism and original Marxism. Or even Democratic socialism. Which all failed to recognize how markets and capitalism can raise the well being of a society.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:39 pm to bonhoeffer45
A market society in its broadest sense is private individuals, with their private assets and property, engaging in trade with others.
"Social Democracy", while using private industry to actually produce the goods, is inherently a non-market economy because it distorts where those private assets and funds go.
The money in my pocket is as much a private good as a factory.
"Social Democracy", while using private industry to actually produce the goods, is inherently a non-market economy because it distorts where those private assets and funds go.
The money in my pocket is as much a private good as a factory.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:41 pm to bonhoeffer45
What you see is how socialist democracy had to change to stay relevant. There is no guarantee that it won't evolve back to its roots or that another flavor of the day socialistic platform won't emerge and push further left.
You can't be arguing that moving further left isn't the goal.
You can't be arguing that moving further left isn't the goal.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What does that even mean?
Two of the most prominent Dems in the arena, Daschle and Zeke Emanuel, idolize the NHS. Given the opportunity, they'd implement the NHS model here in a heartbeat.
That there is no evidence of a movement centered specifically around transitioning our country to a Beveridge model of National Health services and no compromises until we are there.
I think what you are confusing is people on the left that advocate that Britain's system, as a whole, is better then America's, in their eyes. Because it keeps costs lower, covers everyone and provides good outcomes they would argue. And given a choice would take it over ours. Which is different from saying if given the choice, what ideal would you seek? Which is also different from saying, given the realities of the current system, what ideal solution to achieve universal quality coverage would you seek? Which I would suspect gains different answers from many. It certainly does me. Zeke Emmanuel doesn't advocate Britain at all though. Don't know about Daschle, or why a single person's view matters on a question of large-scale mobilization toward this particular thing?
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:54 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
A market society in its broadest sense is private individuals, with their private assets and property, engaging in trade with others.
"Social Democracy", while using private industry to actually produce the goods, is inherently a non-market economy because it distorts where those private assets and funds go.
The money in my pocket is as much a private good as a factory.
Hate to break it to you, but even the most libertarian ideal still has a role for government interventionism, which would make you purism on this all but impossible to achieve. Even the most extreme libertarian within that range would have to concede that government is required to protect those engaging in that behavior: defense, currency functions, policing, stepping in to mitigate disputes which requires a court system, some level of infrastructure. Which requires funds. Even if it is just excise taxes, certain sales taxes, and tariffs. But just hope you also don't get dragged into a war...
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:56 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Its the recognition that if you eliminate the host, the parasite will die. Bernie’s hope is to not kill he host. Unfortunately he ignores he fact that hosts are far more mobile than the parasites.
“Social Democracy", while using private industry to actually produce the goods, is inherently a non-market economy because it distorts where those private assets and funds go
Posted on 9/22/17 at 1:59 pm to bonhoeffer45
Not disagreeing with you.
All government actions are non-market actions, which is not always bad, obviously.
If you want to argue that social democracy and government providing funds for people to buy stuff on private market is a good way to organize society, that's fine. But don't say it is a market system, when it involves the government distorting market outcomes.
All government actions are non-market actions, which is not always bad, obviously.
If you want to argue that social democracy and government providing funds for people to buy stuff on private market is a good way to organize society, that's fine. But don't say it is a market system, when it involves the government distorting market outcomes.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:03 pm to roadGator
quote:
What you see is how socialist democracy had to change to stay relevant. There is no guarantee that it won't evolve back to its roots or that another flavor of the day socialistic platform won't emerge and push further left.
You can't be arguing that moving further left isn't the goal.
What you see is how right-wing authoritarianism had to change to stay relevant. There is no guarantee Trumpism won't evolve back into right-wing fascism. Evolve back to its roots, or that another flavor of the day right-wing populism won't emerge and push further right.'
You can't be arguing that moving further right isn't the goal.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:05 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
You can't be arguing that moving further right isn't the goal.
You are correct. I'm not arguing that. I'm just trying to keep you from moving us further left. I'm just here to slow down your march toward building a red square here eventually. I know it can't be stopped.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Not disagreeing with you.
All government actions are non-market actions, which is not always bad, obviously.
If you want to argue that social democracy and government providing funds for people to buy stuff on private market is a good way to organize society, that's fine. But don't say it is a market system, when it involves the government distorting market outcomes.
It is a market system they advocate though. Just using the less strict definition you are using.
I think you are substituting in laissez fair or free enterprise with a market economy or modern definitions of capitalism. The latter two allow regulation and redistribution so long as the major factors of production in that system are held by private individuals. Which is roughly what this country has done for most of its existence.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:12 pm to TitleistProV1X
Single Payer and a vastly expanded social safety net is off the table until we secure the border.
We can't afford it.
We can't afford it.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:14 pm to roadGator
quote:
You are correct. I'm not arguing that. I'm just trying to keep you from moving us further left. I'm just here to slow down your march toward building a red square here eventually. I know it can't be stopped.
Well, that wasnt actually the purpose of me mirroring back what you said. I kinda thought you might start seeing the problem of only seeing politics in such binary ways.
But interesting to know you are ok and believe you yourself are pushing us toward a right wing authoritarian state by choice. And that Trump represents that.
Strangely enough, I actually don't. At least not at this moment. Just like I would not of seen FDR's New Deal as the step before communism.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:15 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
But interesting to know you are ok and believe you yourself are pushing us toward a right wing authoritarian state by choice
Incorrect. All kinds of incorrect. I just told you what I was trying to do.
ETA: I understood exactly what you were trying to do. It just wasn't applicable.
The nature of a society is to get more and more progressive over time, no?
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:16 pm to member12
quote:
We can't afford it.
When has that ever mattered?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:24 pm to roadGator
quote:
Incorrect. All kinds of incorrect. I just told you what I was trying to do.
ETA: I understood exactly what you were trying to do. It just wasn't applicable.
The nature of a society is to get more and more progressive over time, no?
In the broadest sense of the word, no voter I have ever met doesn't believe that.
Most voters advocate using the lessons they see from human experience to advocate ways to better organize or de-organnize the political bodies of their society.
Right and left.
So I guess in that sense, sure. People on the left and right will argue different ways of doing that, and until we no longer do, use the power of their vote to advance that.
Different groups have different foundational principles and beliefs in how they think that is best achieved. The idea politics is a simple line or binary choice seems wrong by all accounts. Which was the point.
Sometimes the slippery slope has merit, but so far you haven't really established why Bernie means the next one will be seeking a red square. Or better yet, explain why FDR's New Deal never led to a communist alliance and takeover? As if things are not so simple, as if an idea can be found to have merit and be good, while other ideas from a group are found deplorable or unworkable. Like American politicians finding credibility and enlightenment in the Bismarck model of health care in Germany circa late 1800's and into the 20th century, but still willing to go to war with them twice, in part over deep ideological conflicts.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:29 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
In the broadest sense of the word, no voter I have ever met doesn't believe that.
Why use such a small sample size?
The nature of societies as they age is always toward more socialist ideas. We don't need the voters you know to understand that.
You don't believe the next generation of Bernie will be further left. That's fine. I disagree.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 2:32 pm to roadGator
quote:
Why use such a small sample size?
The nature of societies as they age is always toward more socialist ideas. We don't need the voters you know to understand that.
You don't believe the next generation of Bernie will be further left. That's fine. I disagree.
You continue to ignore the history of what got to Bernie, Bernie is far less socialist then many of the groups you would of found in the 40's-60's. Teddy Roosevelt was frankly, much more tough on corporate mergers and monopolies then you would see almost any liberal today.
So once again, history has not been so binary, things ebb and flow, understandings evolve, human experience changes people's perceptions, and the social democracy movement is actually a pretty big proof to that argument.
I am not sure what the evolution of Bernieism is, but a red square evolution doesn't have any real evidence supporting it.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 2:35 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News