• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top ten problems with Socialism

Redress said:
That is how insurance works. Well done for understanding that.
Click to expand...

Which is why very few people buy insurance unless they have to usually by force of law unless they know they are the type to consume more than they pay.
 
Groogrux said:
Yup, the pinnacle of the ACA. Isn't your posse a proponent of "paying their fair share"?
Click to expand...

Insurance and risk pools have been around long before ACA.

I do not have a posse. You can call me The Lone Ranger.
 
Redress said:
Insurance and risk pools have been around long before ACA.

I do not have a posse. You can call me The Lone Ranger.
Click to expand...

The difference being young, healthy individuals weren't forced to purchase insurance prior to the ACA.
 
Fenton said:
The only conflict is manufactured by the proponents of Socialism.

It's how Socialist gain power. They manufacture a 2 class narrative, convince as many uniformed and gullible people that they're being exploited by the other class, and then tell them their only hope is to rely on the Government.

Once Socialist are granted power they implement their agenda via appropriating private property and wealth creating industries under the pretense of " fairness " and " equality "

Those Govt run industries which are now run by ideologue Central Planenrs are from that point on completely disconnected from any useful economic and Finacial principles that account for things like cost and waste and allocation of goods and services.

Central planners then run those industries and the economy into the ground.

No, Healthcare shouldn't be Nationalized. Why would want the same people who couldnt manage to build a functioning website to have control over their healthcare ?
Maybe the rest of America can learn what it feels like to languish on hidden waiting list without treatment until they die.
Click to expand...

Why does private healthcare cost so much more in the US than state provided healthcare in the rest of the developed world?
How can you say there isn't a conflict of interest? If what is best for your health is not the most profitable for your doctor, then there is a conflict of interest. Do you really trust your doctor to put your benefit above her profit?
Why do you suppose that US children are put on ADHD medication at far higher rates than the rest of the world? Hmm...maybe because it's more profitable than therapy perhaps??
 
Politicshead said:
Why does private healthcare cost so much more in the US than state provided healthcare in the rest of the developed world?
How can you say there isn't a conflict of interest? If what is best for your health is not the most profitable for your doctor, then there is a conflict of interest. Do you really trust your doctor to put your benefit above her profit?
Why do you suppose that US children are put on ADHD medication at far higher rates than the rest of the world? Hmm...maybe because it's more profitable than therapy perhaps??
Click to expand...

Single Payer is not free and its not cheap. Vermont tried to be the first State to offer Single payer as a alternative to ObamaCare.

ObamaCare actually allows States to opt out of the ACA ONLY if they move over to Single Payer. Says allot about the idiots that wrote that law.

Called " GreenMountain Care " it offered 94% actuarial coverage as opposed to the Bronze ACA plan that offers a 60% actuarial coverage. You pay 40%, Insurance pays the other 60%.

Afer crunching the numbers Vermont scrapped the plan and why ?? Because they couldn't afford " less expensive " single payer.

In order to pay for it Vermont would have had to raise Taxes 160% by 2019, ( 2.9 Billion increase in revenue annually ) and that doesn't include a added 11.5% surcharge tax on local Bussines.

It would have destroyed their local economy, driven their tax base out to other States and led to massive layoffs in the Public and private sector.

Socialism is ironically extremely dependent on the success of Capitalistic profit seeking ventures.

And yes, I trust my Dr way more than I would a bloated, unnacountable Govt run system.

My Dr misdiagnoses me, pisses me off, refuses to see me because he's over booked ? I find a new Dr. You see I have recourse.

What we've learned from the VA scandal is under a Govt run system you have ZERO recourse and what we've learned from Vermont is SinglePayer is not cheap.
 
Redress said:
Every single one of your points is built on a strawman, or is simply inaccurate, or both. I will use your point 4 to illustrate. Let's look at a potential socialized medicine program. It pays for itself with a national sales tax of whatever % would be needed. Nobody is getting free health care, they are paying for it every time they buy something. And yet the program is absolutely socialism. It helps to actually know what you are talking about before explaining the problems with something. Until you learn what socialism is(and in particular what Sanders advocates since you explicitly reference him) before you try and explain the problems with socialism.

And in the meantime, you need to stay off our roads and bridges, since infrastructure work is socialist, and you are taking advantage of free stuff, which you say you are not entitled to.
Click to expand...

What makes you think we need a tax of any kind to pay for national healthcare? It's not like our taxes actually end up "paying" for anything anyways.
 
David_N said:
What makes you think we need a tax of any kind to pay for national healthcare? It's not like our taxes actually end up "paying" for anything anyways.
Click to expand...

So Vermont didn't have to scrap their plans after all ?

Have you contacted their Governor and explained that tax increases aren't necessary ?
 
Fenton said:
So Vermont didn't have to scrap their plans after all ?

Have you contacted their Governor and explained that tax increases aren't necessary ?
Click to expand...

You do realize states function differently then the federal government? States actually have to worry about revenues and collecting money because they can't simply spend .
 
David_N said:
You do realize states function differently then the federal government? States actually have to worry about revenues and collecting money because they can't simply spend .
Click to expand...


Lol !

So SinglePayer is only " affordable " and or feasible if you own a Printing press ?
 
Fenton said:
Lol !

So SinglePayer is only " affordable " and or feasible if you own a Printing press ?
Click to expand...

The us government has the ability to create money out of thin air, and we're nowhere near productive capacity.
 
Fenton said:
Single Payer is not free and its not cheap. Vermont tried to be the first State to offer Single payer as a alternative to ObamaCare.

ObamaCare actually allows States to opt out of the ACA ONLY if they move over to Single Payer. Says allot about the idiots that wrote that law.

Called " GreenMountain Care " it offered 94% actuarial coverage as opposed to the Bronze ACA plan that offers a 60% actuarial coverage. You pay 40%, Insurance pays the other 60%.

Afer crunching the numbers Vermont scrapped the plan and why ?? Because they couldn't afford " less expensive " single payer.

In order to pay for it Vermont would have had to raise Taxes 160% by 2019, ( 2.9 Billion increase in revenue annually ) and that doesn't include a added 11.5% surcharge tax on local Bussines.

It would have destroyed their local economy, driven their tax base out to other States and led to massive layoffs in the Public and private sector.

Socialism is ironically extremely dependent on the success of Capitalistic profit seeking ventures.

And yes, I trust my Dr way more than I would a bloated, unnacountable Govt run system.

My Dr misdiagnoses me, pisses me off, refuses to see me because he's over booked ? I find a new Dr. You see I have recourse.

What we've learned from the VA scandal is under a Govt run system you have ZERO recourse and what we've learned from Vermont is SinglePayer is not cheap.
Click to expand...

Single payer is cheaper. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world.

You still haven't addressed the conflict of interest with private healthcare. If there are 2 different cures, what is the motivation for your doctor to offer the cheapest option when that means less profits for him?

And you can still change GP under single payer if you aren't happy with your current one.
 
Redress said:
Every single one of your points is built on a strawman, or is simply inaccurate, or both. I will use your point 4 to illustrate. Let's look at a potential socialized medicine program. It pays for itself with a national sales tax of whatever % would be needed. Nobody is getting free health care, they are paying for it every time they buy something. And yet the program is absolutely socialism. It helps to actually know what you are talking about before explaining the problems with something. Until you learn what socialism is(and in particular what Sanders advocates since you explicitly reference him) before you try and explain the problems with socialism.

And in the meantime, you need to stay off our roads and bridges, since infrastructure work is socialist, and you are taking advantage of free stuff, which you say you are not entitled to.
Click to expand...

FFS infrastructure doesnt equate Socialism. I do not agree with the OP but it does no good to spread propaganda. Infrastructure Is a element of every type of government that exists today and just about every government that has existed. Hell infrastructure existed long before the concept of Socialism. You cannot retroactively steal concepts and pretend they only exist for what you want them too.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
FFS infrastructure doesnt equate Socialism. I do not agree with the OP but it does no good to spread propaganda. Infrastructure Is a element of every type of government that exists today and just about every government that has existed. Hell infrastructure existed long before the concept of Socialism. You cannot retroactively steal concepts and pretend they only exist for what you want them too.
Click to expand...

Which does not change the simple fact that it falls under the broad description of what is now known as socialism. So do many programs, such as, for example, social security. People have a kneejerk reaction to the word socialism and don't really understand what may be meant. It would be like thinking capitalism is purely laissez faire capitalism.
 
David_N said:
The us government has the ability to create money out of thin air, and we're nowhere near productive capacity.
Click to expand...

Lol !!

That's one hell of a selling point for Sanders or any Progressive who's advocating for switching over to Single Payer.

" We can afford it, we'll just print the difference ! "
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

That's one hell of a selling point for Sanders or any Progressive who's advocating for switching over to Single Payer.

" We can afford it, we'll just print the difference ! "
Click to expand...
What makes you think tax revenue is used to pay for anything at the federal level anyways?
 
Groogrux said:
They're actually making a contribution.
Click to expand...

They aren't paying income taxes and they consume quite a bit of tax-funded material. (much of which goes boom)
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

That's one hell of a selling point for Sanders or any Progressive who's advocating for switching over to Single Payer.

" We can afford it, we'll just print the difference ! "
Click to expand...

That answer demonstrates a lack of understanding. You see, money can be spent into existence. It needn't be loaned to us by the fed, with interest. When we allowed private banks to control our currency, we screwed ourselves needlessly. When you consider the original purpose for setting up the fed and compare that to the reality of its history, you will see that was a lousy deal for Americans and it's still lousy, nearly a century later.

Furthermore, the worst thing we can do is allow huge amounts of money to be stagnant in the accounts of a few filthy rich people. It's far better to insure the currency has some velocity in the market, by putting the money into the hands of average Americans, even as a handout, rather than have it be used to bribe our representatives or gambled in the stock market. Speculators are more of a national security risk than welfare recipients EVER will be. That's where conservatives have it very, very wrong.
 
Redress said:
Which does not change the simple fact that it falls under the broad description of what is now known as socialism. So do many programs, such as, for example, social security. People have a kneejerk reaction to the word socialism and don't really understand what may be meant. It would be like thinking capitalism is purely laissez faire capitalism.
Click to expand...

Infrastructure is a element of ALL GOVERNMENTS, it is not socialism. You cannot rename infrastructure and think that will fly. To say so it a point blank lie or misinformed. In most cases though it is a bait and switch type of propaganda. A way to say: look you already believe in and use socialism why not some more?

And yea people get all worked up about socialism, including socialists. I like how socialists always assume that they are the only ones who know what socialism is, but never can actually define. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Socialism isnt the occasional public ownership of things like roads and bridges. In many countries the infrastructure is simply a nationalist thing. Or infrastructure may support the authoritarian needs not the peoples needs. In the US and Nazi Germany the highway system was originally developed for quick mobilization of the military. Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways had zero to do with socialism.

And in many cases in the US, infrastructure is the result of capitalism not at all socialism. Industry needed infrastructure in order to expand. many cities and counties spend money creating infrastructure support of industrial parks hoping to pull in companies.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Infrastructure is a element of ALL GOVERNMENTS, it is not socialism. You cannot rename infrastructure and think that will fly. To say so it a point blank lie or misinformed. In most cases though it is a bait and switch type of propaganda. A way to say: look you already believe in and use socialism why not some more?

And yea people get all worked up about socialism, including socialists. I like how socialists always assume that they are the only ones who know what socialism is, but never can actually define. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Socialism isnt the occasional public ownership of things like roads and bridges. In many countries the infrastructure is simply a nationalist thing. Or infrastructure may support the authoritarian needs not the peoples needs. In the US and Nazi Germany the highway system was originally developed for quick mobilization of the military. Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways had zero to do with socialism.

And in many cases in the US, infrastructure is the result of capitalism not at all socialism. Industry needed infrastructure in order to expand. many cities and counties spend money creating infrastructure support of industrial parks hoping to pull in companies.
Click to expand...

Just because all governments do it does not mean it does not fall under socialism.
 
D_NATURED said:
That answer demonstrates a lack of understanding. You see, money can be spent into existence. It needn't be loaned to us by the fed, with interest. When we allowed private banks to control our currency, we screwed ourselves needlessly. When you consider the original purpose for setting up the fed and compare that to the reality of its history, you will see that was a lousy deal for Americans and it's still lousy, nearly a century later.

Furthermore, the worst thing we can do is allow huge amounts of money to be stagnant in the accounts of a few filthy rich people. It's far better to insure the currency has some velocity in the market, by putting the money into the hands of average Americans, even as a handout, rather than have it be used to bribe our representatives or gambled in the stock market. Speculators are more of a national security risk than welfare recipients EVER will be. That's where conservatives have it very, very wrong.
Click to expand...

So, you have a problem with large stagnant piles of cash in the hands of the wealthy ?

And you think Left wing solutions that include raising rates on the top earners and Corporations is the answer ? Because I cant think of a better way to create massive amounts of stagnant wealth.

Demonize the Rich ( Investors, Corporatipns, Bussineses ) with empty and toxic class warfare based rhetoric, and then tell them you're coming for their property.

Brilliant !!!

Don't you realize that the " Rich ", Corporations, investors and Bussineses have other options that don't include paying homage to some Socialist twisted fantasy ?

When France raised tax rates to 75% did it fix disparity ? Nope. It led to a 78% drop in foreign investment the following year and they had to scrap it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom