- 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 10:39 am to beerJeep
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:39 am to beerJeep
quote:
Are the systems you are proposing more or less socialist than what we have now?
You have an incredibly hard time reading for some reason. I'm proposing that having one system instead of four would save costs. How those systems are employed will determine a lot of our future costs, as the current model we have will reach 19.4 percent of GDP by 2027. The one system can be the Bismarck, Beveridge, NHI or out of pocket, systems we all employ in this country. I'd prefer the Bismarck system, but from a cost point of view, the current system isn't sustainable, as demand is continually going to rise in a supply limited field.
1
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:39 am to xiv
quote:
“Socialism” and “social programs” are different. We have to make sure and keep these things straight for our agenda.
well they are different. facts don't care about agendas
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:40 am to Sidicous
quote:Don’t be stupid.
your side
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:40 am to IrishTiger89
quote:
Democratic Socialism (meaning socialism with a legit democratic government in place) = Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, maybe France, etc
Wrong. They are social democracies.
Democratic socialism is anti capitalism.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:40 am to DimTigerDontHate
quote:Nope and nope.
We already live in a socialist society in many respects, and it has only worked towards the betterment of society.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:40 am to beerJeep
quote:
Because socialist like socialist systems.
Please tell me where I advocated for a socialist system. Again, my preference is the system of private insurance sponsored by employers, called the Bismarck model.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:41 am to Choctaw
I don't know why you guys even bother engaging with that jackass anymore.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:42 am to Choctaw
quote:I know.
well they are different. facts don't care about agendas
Socialism and Democratic socialism are the exact same.
Socialism and socialist programs are completely different.
Socialism and communism are the exact same.
These are our talking points for our agenda. Make sure and don’t mess it up!
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:43 am to crazy4lsu
The problem with the Bismark model, as with the Beveridge Model and National Insurance model, is going to be barriers to entry. When you look at the U.S., our culture - and this isn't positive - is one that demands immediate consumption. All three of these models require unlimited access to the health industry. As such, you would see a run on services and medical good instantaneously. Right now, payment is a significant barrier to entry that prevents the overuse of the system. That doesn't exist with these models.
Now, if there was some type of hybrid between a Beveridge model with a deductible plan for users; I'd be interested to hear it. But you and I both know that a high % of those advocated a single system will not tolerate limiting access.
Now, if there was some type of hybrid between a Beveridge model with a deductible plan for users; I'd be interested to hear it. But you and I both know that a high % of those advocated a single system will not tolerate limiting access.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:43 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
I said that the US model employs all four healthcare systems, and moving to one single one would save costs, regardless of how that system was employed.
Lol
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:43 am to MontanaTiger
quote:
did you get it from someone else or come up with it yourself?
I heard it somewhere, but I have tried like hell to spread it.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:43 am to Taxing Authority
What’s clear in in this thread is some cannot differentiate between a public good and socialism.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:44 am to DimTigerDontHate
Because there is no such thing. Like dry water.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:44 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
You have an incredibly hard time reading for some reason.
Not at all. The system you propose is socialist compared to what we have now.
quote:
I'd prefer the Bismarck system, but from a cost point of view, the current system isn't sustainable, as demand is continually going to rise in a supply limited field.
Which is more socialist than what we have now
Everyone is magically covered! Woohoo! Pixie dust and angel kisses for everyone!
Magic magic everywhere! Dreams! Hope! Magggic!
quote:
as demand is continually going to rise in a supply limited field.
Except supply rises as well. Each year more doctors arrive on the scene. Each year, more accessible treatments are found. Each year, new drugs are discovered.
All that new supply goes away when you take profit out of the equation.
Weird how you socialist shits always forget about that.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:44 am to Muleriderhog
Dem socialists oppose Stalinist type regimes but promote socialism.
Animal Farm sums up the cycle that occurs when you try to control socialism.
Animal Farm sums up the cycle that occurs when you try to control socialism.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:46 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
The problem with the Bismark model, as with the Beveridge Model and National Insurance model, is going to be barriers to entry.
The Bismarck model can deal with this more effectively, as long as the person is employed. A person can pay for what level of coverage they want. It's the unemployed that are the problem in the Bismarck model. If you do away with all government schemes, you would still need something to fill in gaps for the disabled, infirm, out-of-work and in-between jobs. Beveridge and NHI models are more overt rationing schemes that will be difficult to employ on a national scale.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:47 am to beerJeep
One of the biggest land mines facing the M4A system is that (to my knowledge) the cost estimates are based on current Medicare expenditures. What do they think is going to happen when people with private insurance aren't massively overpaying for the same procedures in order to prop up the medicare payouts?
I'll cut to the chase, either the doctors quit, or the M4A costs go way the frick up.
I'll cut to the chase, either the doctors quit, or the M4A costs go way the frick up.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:48 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Not when one of the four subsidizes the other three.
I said that the US model employs all four healthcare systems, and moving to one single one would save costs, regardless of how that system was employed.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:48 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Beveridge and NHI models are more overt rationing schemes that will be difficult to employ on a national scale.
Every scheme that covers everyone is going to be an “overt rationing scheme.”
Posted on 2/12/20 at 10:49 am to CptRusty
quote:
I'll cut to the chase, either the doctors quit, or the M4A costs go way the frick up.
The vast majority of medical innovation is done right here in America. Not many medical innovations and new drugs coming out of Germany, GB, France, Norway, etc.
Wonder what is behind all those new innovations and breakthroughs.
Do you have any idea cpt? Can you help me figure out why on earth these other countries seem to be unable to come up with new medical procedures and drugs?
Page 7 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News