- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Why are we afraid of Democratic Socialism?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:06 am to DimTigerDontHate
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:06 am to DimTigerDontHate
quote:
Why do I get the feeling that if public libraries and public schooling didn't already exist today, they would be seen as some far left radical socialist idea?
That's basic government services, along with fire and police, roads and traffic...
As fricked up as some services are, you really want the government controlling your health care...?
0
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:06 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Democratic Socialism (meaning socialism with a legit democratic government in place) = Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, maybe France, etc
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:06 am to DimTigerDontHate
quote:
Why do I get the feeling that if public libraries and public schooling didn't already exist today, they would be seen as some far left radical socialist idea? (i.e. 'Why should we have to pay for someone else's kid to have an education or read books!?') We already live in a socialist society in many respects, and it has only worked towards the betterment of society.
1) There is no such thing as "Democratic Socialism". The Nordic countries who are often referred to as such are actually Constitutional Republics with comparatively large safety nets. There is no socialism because their governments do not own the means of production of industry
2) No one in the U.S. is truly advocating sifting our monetary and fiscal policies to mirror places like Norway, Sweden, etc. Those who advocate "democrat socialism" only advocate the social safety net portions. They never discuss major implications like significantly reduced corporate regulations and tax structure, significant increase in taxation on the middle class, exponentially reduced military spending, etc.
It's just a magic trick. 95% of the left don't know anything about the structures of these nations and Bernie and co. gladly use that ignorance in order to gain support.
3) This type of monetary and fiscal system has never worked long term in a multi-national state with a large population and no one who advocates for it can address the inherent difficulties with instituting such a system in the U.S.
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:07 am to DimTigerDontHate
quote:
Why do I get the feeling that if public libraries and public schooling didn't already exist today, they would be seen as some far left radical socialist idea? (i.e. 'Why should we have to pay for someone else's kid to have an education or read books!?') We already live in a socialist society in many respects, and it has only worked towards the betterment of society.
Check out a guy named Innuendo Studios on YouTube. Watch the video, There's Always A Bigger Fish to get a very detailed answer to your question.
The reason is because many of the posters on here are actually authoritarian in their politics. It's very obvious, but they don't want to admit that their views are actually anti-Republic in nature.
Many don't want to recognize that many of the benefits society has are based on Social Programs not Socialism. Even Ivanka Trump has pushed successfully for more family leave. That's a policy originating in social policies changes notwithstanding.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:07 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
It has always, ever and only been about control.
"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:07 am to IrishTiger89
quote:
Democratic Socialism (meaning socialism with a legit democratic government in place) = Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, maybe France, etc
Yeah, and guess who all is moving away from “democratic socialism”?
Furthermore, are you aware at the vast differences between those countries and our own?
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 10:11 am
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:08 am to Meatflap
quote:
The military? We love funding the shite out of that.
Are you aware of this document known as the US Constitution?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:10 am to DimTigerDontHate
quote:
DimTigerDontHate
I assume since you haven't responded to a single post in your own thread that you have read through it and have been properly educated on the evils of socialism and that social programs/schools does not equal socialism
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:10 am to IrishTiger89
quote:
Democratic Socialism (meaning socialism with a legit democratic government in place) = Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, maybe France, etc
I can't take someone's political opinion seriously when they know so little about political structures.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:11 am to DimTigerDontHate
Biggggggggggg difference between paying for a school that my kids go too and a library that I or my kids can take advantage of and paying for some lazy fricks to sit at home while I work my arse off and paying off stupid people who got liberal arts degrees for 100k in loans while I got loans for a valuable degree (engineering) and bust my arse to pay mine off.
frick off, you prog piece of shite.
frick off, you prog piece of shite.
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 10:13 am
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:12 am to DimTigerDontHate
Your two examples are shitty.
1) the first libraries were privately funded.
2) the education system (public) was set up to provide minimally educated factory workers. They don’t even do that in many cases now.
1) the first libraries were privately funded.
2) the education system (public) was set up to provide minimally educated factory workers. They don’t even do that in many cases now.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:13 am to xiv
quote:
Lowest common denominator is not a standard to aspire toward. It's like doing the Limbo: How low can you go?
quote:You literally picked the absolute bare minimum...and your side is rushing to force immigration of illiterates upon the rest of us.
Nah. Illiteracy rates have dropped by more than 90% in the age of public schools in the US.
Lowest common denominator: literacy.
Now pushing importation of illiterates.
Socialism in a nutshell.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:13 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Can you define socialism?
Problem is, they want to redefine it... attempt to make it more palatable to the masses...
"Your local library is an example of socialism at work. See, it's not so bad, is it?"
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 10:15 am
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:14 am to beerJeep
quote:
No it doesn’t.
Yes it does. It isn't a panel that tells you what isn't and is covered, such as in the UK, but rather an insurance company. I saw it first hand working in a hospital for half a decade, and I've seen it in on my rotations now in medical school. Even a process like an insurance company only paying for a generic and not a name brand is an example of rationing.
quote:
They didn’t die because they were waiting for medical treatment.
They died because they didn't have insurance. The last major study done in the late noughties suggested that around 45000 people died in the US per year due to lack of insurance.
quote:
And neither are on par with the American model
You wouldn't be able to elaborate on any of the differences, regardless.
quote:
Socialist are scum.
If you support socialism, you are scum.
Pointing out that Western European countries had socialist parties for long periods of the post-war era isn't supporting socialism. I have no idea how you read that into my post. It's simply a factual statement.
quote:
And yet, those who have the means, come here for treatment.
We have a great system, but the degree of waste that exists by virtue of the fact that we employ all four major healthcare models, and have massive administrative overheads dealing with all these models. If we chose to go to the Bismarck model, we would save money in terms of NHE, or national health expenditures. Any movement to standardized the healthcare model in the country would automatically lead to savings. Hence why the Blahous study, where the 32 trillion number comes from for M4A, doesn't mention two things. First, the NHE would come down by two trillion as compared to the NHE, as the projected NHE from staying in our current system is something upwards of 59 trillion for the period of 2022-2032, if my math is right. The added federal budget under an M4A would be 32 trillion, but the NHE would be 57 trillion.
But the essential problem is that M4A wouldn't lower per capita healthcare spending, and would only slightly mitigate NHE growth, which is currently projected to increase at 5.5% per year. A similar projection would occur if we moved to a single model such as the Bismarck, Beveridge or NHI, with lower costs but extreme difficulty in dealing with demand, which drives NHE spending.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:16 am to CleverUserName
quote:
Name one thing the US government does on time, on budget, with good quality, and comparable or better than the private sector to directly service the American citizen. Just one.
Now imaging tripling or even quadrupling their scope.
It's easier to be efficient when you can be selective in who you hire and how much your willing to distribute.
Government has the task of trying to treating everyone equally. And distributing resources to places that are less than profitable for a business (like low income neighborhoods).
People like you always leave out that private companies can always cut corners or outright not offer services to certain areas.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:16 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
the U.S. doesn't have a healthcare crisis, it has a cost crisis.
This is mostly right, but this cost crisis is affecting every country in the world, as healthcare costs are rising everywhere. It's a supply limited field, and UHC schemes are explicit in their desire for rationing, but no one has effectively been able to figure out how to deal with the increasing demand, increasing NHE, and increasing per capita spending.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:18 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:Which are these? Name the specific countries and which industries the government runs. TIA
a socialist country in Europe
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:18 am to IrishTiger89
quote:
Democratic Socialism (meaning socialism with a legit democratic government in place) = Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, maybe France, etc
No. These are nanny states that feed off of capitalism and tax the people at extremely high rates. They also don;t have the burden of having to provide for their own national defense, which is provided largely by the U.S. Forbes: Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:18 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Yes it does. It isn't a panel that tells you what isn't and is covered, such as in the UK, but rather an insurance company. I saw it first hand working in a hospital for half a decade, and I've seen it in on my rotations now in medical school. Even a process like an insurance company only paying for a generic and not a name brand is an example of rationing.
so you wanna play semantics? Ohhh he got the generic brand! Rationing!!!!! Reeee!!! quote:
They died because they didn't have insurance. The last major study done in the late noughties suggested that around 45000 people died in the US per year due to lack of insurance.
Good thing you don’t need medical insurance to receive health care
Sounds to me like 45000 people were too stupid. They’re better off dead, just like socialist are better off dead.
quote:
You wouldn't be able to elaborate on any of the differences, regardless.
Because they’re subpar to America. Why would I give a frick about their subpar, shite arse system?
quote:
Pointing out that Western European countries had socialist parties for long periods of the post-war era isn't supporting socialism. I have no idea how you read that into my post. It's simply a factual statement.
And it’s a factual statement that socialist are scum.
quote:
We have a great system, but the degree of waste that exists by virtue of the fact that we employ all four major healthcare models, and have massive administrative overheads dealing with all these models. If we chose to go to the Bismarck model, we would save money in terms of NHE, or national health expenditures. Any movement to standardized the healthcare model in the country would automatically lead to savings. Hence why the Blahous study, where the 32 trillion number comes from for M4A, doesn't mention two things. First, the NHE would come down by two trillion as compared to the NHE, as the projected NHE from staying in our current system is something upwards of 59 trillion for the period of 2022-2032, if my math is right. The added federal budget under an M4A would be 32 trillion, but the NHE would be 57 trillion. But the essential problem is that M4A wouldn't lower per capita healthcare spending, and would only slightly mitigate NHE growth, which is currently projected to increase at 5.5% per year. A similar projection would occur if we moved to a single model such as the Bismarck, Beveridge or NHI, with lower costs but extreme difficulty in dealing with demand, which drives NHE spending.
That’s a lot of hot air that didn’t answer the question.
WHY DO THOSE WHO HAVE THE MEANS COME TO AMERICA FOR TREATMENT. YET THOSE WITH THE MEANS IN AMERICA DO NOT GO TO GB OR FRANCE FOR TREATMENT.
your lack of tangible response is quite fricking telling.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:22 am to beerJeep
quote:
WHY DO THOSE WHO HAVE THE MEANS COME TO AMERICA FOR TREATMENT. YET THOSE WITH THE MEANS IN AMERICA DO NOT GO TO GB OR FRANCE FOR TREATMENT.
I'm not sure why I have to answer your point when this was originally a non-sequitur to mine, but point-of-service care in the US is superb. I'm shadowing a surgeon who is among the best in the world at two procedures, and thus gets people from all over the world, most of whom pay cash, or are paid for through their insurance programs. US healthcare is good, and moving to a single system instead of employing four different ones would make it better, in both an efficiency sense and cost-saving sense.
Page 5 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News