• 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!

The Democrats Have Become Socialists

Jack Hays said:
Please read the thread. I have no dog in the fight. It's an open question whether Dems or Repubs will benefit from this. Or both or neither. I'm indifferent.
Click to expand...

The title of your OP is quite clear. You continue to post as a GOP while denying your brand ...
 
NIMBY said:
Sen. McCain's hero was Teddy Roosevelt, who did his best to reign in corrupt crony capitalism, the Bain of our economic problems ...
Click to expand...

Admirable sentiment but I don't see what it has to do with this thread.
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps you did not read what he wrote: The Democrats have become socialists. I don't have a dog in this fight.
Click to expand...

You always have a dog in the fight. It's called GOP disinformation...
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm sure Dana Milbank would appreciate the benefit of your insights.

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the nation’s capital. He joined The Post as a political reporter in 2000, after two years as a senior editor of The New Republic and eight years with the Wall Street Journal. He is also the author of three political books: Tears of a Clown (2010), Homo Politicus (2008) and Smashmouth (2001). He lives in Washington.
Click to expand...

Who knows? But my statement stands unaddressed. Supporting single-payer is not 'socialist'.

Words have meanings. I strongly suggest everyone look into that.
 
NIMBY said:
You posted it. You own it ...
Click to expand...

If you wish. I don't care. Here is how I introduced the article:

This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?
 
Jack Hays said:
I liked the old system. Inefficient? Yes, but no one was coerced. As someone with good health coverage I was happy to subsidize those without. That system is sadly not coming back. Given the available choices I'd prefer single payer over the incoherent mishmash that is Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: Health insurance was a benefit that was covered under my employer's plan, and I never had a problem - when I had children, they were also automatically covered!

When the government decided to make Obamacare the official insurance of the country, things went downhill from there, IMO! Fortunately I had decided to keep my employer coverage with BC/BS that I had when I took an early retirement, and used it as a secondary provider, which came in handy when I suffered a broken leg a few years ago in Houston, because that surgery, and aftercare (the physical therapists that evidently were brought from another solar system to diabolically torment me - :lamo) cost me exactly nothing!

I still carry that insurance, and the small insurance premium that they take directly from my checking account each month is well worth my peace of mind! *knocking on wood that I never have to use it again!*
 
MaggieD said:
Same can be said for socialism. Nothing is perfect. At least with capitalism, I have a fair chance to soar.
Click to expand...

No, unrestricted capitalism brought about massive change coupled with massive loss, and most of that loss was felt by the working class, the vast majority, that fueled the "soaring" you are speaking of.
It was not that long ago that people worked insane hours just to live, in smoke filled, dangerous jobs, children, no environmental checks whatsoever, and the incredible and routine recessions. It was **** MaggieD, and we learned, and we got better.

Everyone in the modern world today uses a hybrid system, taking the best of capitalistic power coupled with the best of government oversight and protections for workers and taking externalities into account( big energy polluting water for millions for example...maybe they shouldn't have that "right", for example). None of this has anything to do with the label right wingers throw around when they say socialism, or better (like apdst did yesterday) communism. It's scare tactics.
 
Jack Hays said:
If you wish. I don't care. Here is how I introduced the article:

This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?
Click to expand...

You must care, since you continue to deny your GOP brand and fail at using socialism as an election cudgel ...
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: Health insurance was a benefit that was covered under my employer's plan, and I never had a problem - when I had children, they were also automatically covered!

When the government decided to make Obamacare the official insurance of the country, things went downhill from there, IMO! Fortunately I had decided to keep my employer coverage with BC/BS that I had when I took an early retirement, and used it as a secondary provider, which came in handy when I suffered a broken leg a few years ago in Houston, because that surgery, and aftercare (the physical therapists that evidently were brought from another solar system to diabolically torment me - :lamo) cost me exactly nothing!

I still carry that insurance, and the small insurance premium that they take directly from my checking account each month is well worth my peace of mind! *knocking on wood that I never have to use it again!*
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Likewise I was able to take my employer-provided health insurance into retirement for Mrs. Hays and myself. It's now my secondary after Medicare.:mrgreen:
 
NIMBY said:
You must care, since you continue to deny your GOP brand and fail at using socialism as an election cudgel ...
Click to expand...

The point of the thread is not that socialism is an election cudgel. The point is nobody knows.
 
MrWonka said:
If you don't like it maybe you shouldn't have bitched so much about the much more reasonable free market-based plans offered by President Obama and Hillary Clinton. There are only two ways this goes. 1.) the ACA(Obamacare) I'm proved in a way that lowers premiums and deductables for more people without kicking poor people off. Or you're going to get medicare for all. It's not question of if, it's a question of when, and which one do you prefer. Every second Republicans waste denying this reality they're just pushing us closer to socialized Medicine.

Republicans refused to help Obama solve our health care problems despite the fact that he put forth a bill that was modeled after all of their ideas and passed by Mitt Romney in Mass. Now they have control of the house, control of the Senate, and the Presidency, and they're waking up to the reality that repealing and replacing was a nice talking point for the last eight years, but it's not going to happen without forcing them to owen a far worse bill that hurts millions of their own voters.

If Medicare for all becomes a reality Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for not doing more to help solve these problems in a freer market-based way.
Click to expand...

Forcing every American to buy insurance and then tell8nh them what plan they have to purchase isn't a free market.
 
The idea that any one economic school of thought has all the answers is just foolish, and doesn't appreciate what an inexact science economics is.

Every economic theory and it's thinkers had their points. Capitalism, socialism, third-way, Keynesian, Austrian, and even communism all have legitimate ideas or observations worth considering.

It's just fanatical to claim any one framework is complete.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?

The Democrats have become socialists


Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All plan and was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues.






When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.
This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Several of them dutifully joined Sanders, who is threatening another presidential run himself, at the rollout event in one of the largest hearing rooms on Capitol Hill and praised the guru of the single-payer movement for government-run universal health care. . . .


Click to expand...

sounds good to me
 
MrWonka said:
Well then you're more of a socialist than the average Democrat because while large swaths of the Democratic party do want single payer, the majority still seems very leary of it, and believes it should be a last resort.
Click to expand...

Uh, what?

80% of Dems believe it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure coverage for all per an Associated Press poll.

52% of Dems/Dem leaning people support singlepayer specifically per Pew Research.

Support for single-payer health insurance grows in U.S. | Pew Research Center

https://apnews.com/658e976fca5e40fe8260cbcc4ae1e865
 
Jack Hays said:
This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?

The Democrats have become socialists


Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All plan and was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues.






When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.
This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Several of them dutifully joined Sanders, who is threatening another presidential run himself, at the rollout event in one of the largest hearing rooms on Capitol Hill and praised the guru of the single-payer movement for government-run universal health care. . . .


Click to expand...

Socialism has proven a very potent populist tool. The greatest threat from it is that the economy degenerates only slowly and that the population gets used to the seeming freebies to react violently, if the punch bowel is removed. So, once into social programmes, there is almost no way out till the economy falters or even implodes.
 
The Democrats will profit politically.

A few decades ago we fought the cold war against a socialistic regime and won without technically going to war. We secured the victory through our use of our capitalistic ideals based in freedom. Apparently the cold war victory was overblown as we now have a Democratic-Socialist that nearly won one of the major parties' primary election for the office of president.

Providing free stuff to the masses paid for by others who can afford it has been the mantra of the Democrat party for many years. They historically have phrased it differently while avoiding the label of socialism. At the end of the day Democrats and Socialists want the same result: government control of basic human services.

I understand that Democrats don't like the comparison, I understand what socialism technically is, but the end result is the same - more government.

Analogy - guy 1 is eating a T-bone and guy 2 is eating a porterhouse, who is eating the better meal? Doesn't really matter as they are both eating a dead cow.
 
RickJames3000 said:
While we might note that the OP has made a rare departure from shilling for the fossil fuels industry, we must recognize that he continues to demonstrate his failure to apprehend the issues he posts about.
Click to expand...

I found a depiction of Dana Milbank trying to apprehend an issue.

th
 
Bernie's Medicare for all bill is nonsense. If you introduce a bill that fundamentally changes nearly 1/5th of the economy and you don't have a funding mechanism, then you don't have a serious bill. It's just like the "repeal and replace" garbage we heard for years out of Republicans. Their ideas were never serious and it showed this year.

People need to get it through their thick heads, we will not have single payer in this country. The time to have done so was 30 or 40 years ago when our peer nations did it, not today when healthcare is nearly 1/5th of GDP. Yesterday I listened to an interview with Bernie about his bill on NPR. He correctly pointed out we pay for more per-capita in this country for healthcare than any of our peer nations and do not get better results. Yes, that is absolutely true. He then put the blame for it on insurance companies and big pharma.

1. Pharmaceuticals are 10% of healthcare costs. You could give every drug away for free, and healthcare costs would still be far higher than our peer nations. That is not to say that drugs are not expensive and something needs to be done, but its not a panacea.

2. Even if you take out every dollar of profit from private insurers, every bonus they give out, all of it, you will take a family health insurance down from day 21k a year to 19k a year. Still way more than our peer nations.

Point being, our healthcare is more expensive because our providers make more than they would anywhere else. Our hospitals offer more amenities than they do anywhere else. We do more testing, often unnecessarily, than they do any where else. For example, patients here expect a private room. Anywhere else you don't get a private room in a hospital unless you have a communicable disease. Otherwise you are in a multi-bed ward. Our hospitals here are like hotels compared to other countries. That doesn't lead to better care, but it does lead to more amenities. My point being is that your specialist here in the states is not going to all of a sudden take a pay cut from 600 or 800k a year to 300k a year. We are not going to all of a sudden build European style hospitals that are economically much more efficient, but offer less amenities. People over hear are not going to accept an HMO style system where you can't just up and decide to go to a specialist and get a bunch of testing (which you probably don't need), but rather have to be referred by your primary.

My point in all of this is that health systems in other countries are far more efficient than ours is because they do things completely differently and people here will throw a fit about such a system even if it is better.

Instead of focusing on pie and the sky crap like single payer which will never happen, why not look the real problems that are driving up costs so much in this country like our fee-for-service model of care?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Bernie's Medicare for all bill is nonsense. If you introduce a bill that fundamentally changes nearly 1/5th of the economy and you don't have a funding mechanism, then you don't have a serious bill. It's just like the "repeal and replace" garbage we heard for years out of Republicans. Their ideas were never serious and it showed this year.

People need to get it through their thick heads, we will not have single payer in this country. The time to have done so was 30 or 40 years ago when our peer nations did it, not today when healthcare is nearly 1/5th of GDP. Yesterday I listened to an interview with Bernie about his bill on NPR. He correctly pointed out we pay for more per-capita in this country for healthcare than any of our peer nations and do not get better results. Yes, that is absolutely true. He then put the blame for it on insurance companies and big pharma.

1. Pharmaceuticals are 10% of healthcare costs. You could give every drug away for free, and healthcare costs would still be far higher than our peer nations. That is not to say that drugs are not expensive and something needs to be done, but its not a panacea.

2. Even if you take out every dollar of profit from private insurers, every bonus they give out, all of it, you will take a family health insurance down from day 21k a year to 19k a year. Still way more than our peer nations.

Point being, our healthcare is more expensive because our providers make more than they would anywhere else. Our hospitals offer more amenities than they do anywhere else. We do more testing, often unnecessarily, than they do any where else. For example, patients here expect a private room. Anywhere else you don't get a private room in a hospital unless you have a communicable disease. Otherwise you are in a multi-bed ward. Our hospitals here are like hotels compared to other countries. That doesn't lead to better care, but it does lead to more amenities. My point being is that your specialist here in the states is not going to all of a sudden take a pay cut from 600 or 800k a year to 300k a year. We are not going to all of a sudden build European style hospitals that are economically much more efficient, but offer less amenities. People over hear are not going to accept an HMO style system where you can't just up and decide to go to a specialist and get a bunch of testing (which you probably don't need), but rather have to be referred by your primary.

My point in all of this is that health systems in other countries are far more efficient than ours is because they do things completely differently and people here will throw a fit about such a system even if it is better.

Instead of focusing on pie and the sky crap like single payer which will never happen, why not look the real problems that are driving up costs so much in this country like our fee-for-service model of care?
Click to expand...

When we lived in Berlin both my wife and our daughter had occasion to spend time in German hospitals. In both cases they had private rooms. There were many other private rooms besides theirs. A German friend made your point about communicable diseases, and then added that most who had private rooms had them because they wanted them and could pay for them. In the cases of my wife & daughter they benefited from US policy authorizing private rooms.
 
We are all socialists, except on different subjects. Why in my town, we even have federal employees delivering the mail.
 
Jack Hays said:
When we lived in Berlin both my wife and our daughter had occasion to spend time in German hospitals. In both cases they had private rooms. There were many other private rooms besides theirs. A German friend made your point about communicable diseases, and then added that most who had private rooms had them because they wanted them and could pay for them. In the cases of my wife & daughter they benefited from US policy authorizing private rooms.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight, but its worth pointing out that Germany has a universal muti-payer system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom