• 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

Its just in need of a four hundred year service.

Capitalism is a made up thing.

And people have figured out how to game it.

Greed is an addiction. So is the hunger for power.

Until we admit this to ourselves history is going to repeat itself.

socialism is facade where those who whine the most about capitalistic greed, use a pretext of caring for others as a why to hide their own desire to gain wealth and power
 
socialism is facade where those who whine the most about capitalistic greed, use a pretext of caring for others as a why to hide their own desire to gain wealth and power

". . . SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS TRADITIONALLY DO MAKE A FINANCIAL MESS. THEY ALWAYS RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. . . ."

--Margaret Thatcher
 
". . . SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS TRADITIONALLY DO MAKE A FINANCIAL MESS. THEY ALWAYS RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. . . ."

--Margaret Thatcher

socialism is how slick talking pimps with no real skills convince the slow witted -by appealing to envy-gain wealth and power by whining about wealth and power
 
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 way out? The implosion is the end game.
 
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... ...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...

You're right to point out that providers are the greatest contributor of costs, and that the Medicare for all bill as it stands is not going to happen. That said, I'm about 100% certain that the actual intent of this bill is to help publicize and normalize the idea of SP and build political momentum, not actually pass in a Republican House with a Republican Congress under a Republican President; let's keep it real.

However, you're wrong both about the impossibility of SP, and that the real remedy to costs lies in places other than SP. Further, Bernie is indeed right to blame big pharma and insurers; even though their direct culpability in terms of costs isn't as great as labour it's still quite substantial, meanwhile they have and have always been leading opponents and lobbyists against SP legislation.

The fact is that the current system is a perfect storm of toxic structuring wherein the whole is most costly than the sum of its parts.

For example, insurers not only add a great deal of bloat and inefficiency in terms of their middle man consumption of value which is essentially a pure loss, but in terms of the costly and largely useless administrative layer they impose upon hospitals; in fact, it accounts for 25% of total hospital spending alone (nevermind the administrative costs endured by other healthcare elements); a figure roughly 150% to 208% of other developed countries.

This toxic structuring is largely a result of market fragmentation.

You have administrative bloat because you have to deal with countless disparate insurance plans each with their own complications and loopholes.

You have insanely high drug and medical device/supply prices because you have a government captive to the interests of their producers while a bottomless array of health insurers each negotiate their own prices without nearly the clout and negotiating power of a singular governmental entity; meanwhile, the providers turn around and try to make up for the compromised prices by gouging people not under an insurer.

You have run away salaries and labour costs because there are no price controls on anything beyond what meager concessions insurers can negotiate (largely at the expense of the un/underinsurered who 'compensate'), and there's little incentive to not to gouge (for everything, from labour to medical supplies/drugs like Tylenols for $20) and commit to excess testing and procedures, both due to the threat of legality giving rise to so called 'defensive medicine', and because why _wouldn't_ you drill the insurer as much as you're able?

Then you've got the government paying for the lack of preventative and maintenance care people can't afford as a result of all this via emergency visits which are themselves exorbitantly expensive for all of these reasons, plus similarly inflated prices under Medicare.

And finally, you have ridiculous premiums because your insurer not only has to deal with and pay for all this cascading, cumulative bloat, but also must make a profit. It's not your friend or benefactor, it's there to make money off of you, and so it shall.

For all this expense and excess, the American system doesn't even offer consistently superior outcomes, and in fact under performs more often than not in almost everything but cancer treatment.

What addresses all of these problems effectively and simultaneously? Singlepayer or at a bare minimum, public option/multipayer.

People are coming around to SP; already a majority is in favour as is the trajectory of public opinion. It's only a matter of time; the curve of history is long but it bends towards justice.
 
Last edited:
socialism is facade where those who whine the most about capitalistic greed, use a pretext of caring for others as a why to hide their own desire to gain wealth and power

I have a problem with greed and the hunher for power and have no desire for wealth and power.

So your argument, fails.
 
I have a problem with greed and the hunher for power and have no desire for wealth and power.

So your argument, fails.

when all the socialists and communists, progressives and far lefties actually believe as you claim we do, then perhaps we won't have as many problems. until then, socialism sucks
 
when all the socialists and communists, progressives and far lefties actually believe as you claim we do, then perhaps we won't have as many problems. until then, socialism sucks

It always falls prey to the same problem capitalism is currently suffering from.

Addiction to neurochemicals.

Our brains reward us with addictive, pleasurable chemicals for doing things it feels are pro survival. This is how instincts function. It is Freud's ancient primitive drives.

And like all chemical addictions, tolerance develops.

We have words and phrases representing this phenomenon. "Gold fever", "mad with power".

It is a common theme in our stories. Ebenezer Scrooge. For instance.

And most if not all revolutions are in response to it. Most of man's inhumanity to man can be attributed to it.

It isn't all driven people. But the ones who are really strung out set the tone.

And it goes downhill from there.
 
The way out? The implosion is the end game.

In Germany it took the government till there were 5 milliin plus unemployed and the country was being called 'The Sick Man of Europe" before Schröder made some adjustments to the social system. The reaction has been that his party lost about a third of its voters and has never recovered.
 
The way out? The implosion is the end game.

In Germany it took the government till there were 5 milliin plus unemployed and the country was being called 'The Sick Man of Europe" before Schröder made some adjustments to the social system. The reaction has been that his party lost about a third of its voters and has never recovered.
 
In Germany it took the government till there were 5 milliin plus unemployed and the country was being called 'The Sick Man of Europe" before Schröder made some adjustments to the social system. The reaction has been that his party lost about a third of its voters and has never recovered.

Germany is still not in very good shape. Merkel and the EU can't be considered good models.
Here in the USA, the more we become a Country of citizens dependent on redistribution to facilitate a series of codified entitlements, the more difficult it will be to reverse.
Entitlements are not easily reversed ... even after an "implosion".
Once the "implosion" occurs, that'll be the end sought by Bernie's army.
We'll be eating our pet rabbits here too.
 
Germany is still not in very good shape. Merkel and the EU can't be considered good models.
Here in the USA, the more we become a Country of citizens dependent on redistribution to facilitate a series of codified entitlements, the more difficult it will be to reverse.
Entitlements are not easily reversed ... even after an "implosion".
Once the "implosion" occurs, that'll be the end sought by Bernie's army.
We'll be eating our pet rabbits here too.

That Senator BS ist a catastrophe is doubtless. But to make it easier to deal with the entitlement culture one should possibly make clear that the entitlements are not entitlements in future and that grandfathered welfare will phase out as the grandfathers die.
 
That Senator BS ist a catastrophe is doubtless. But to make it easier to deal with the entitlement culture one should possibly make clear that the entitlements are not entitlements in future and that grandfathered welfare will phase out as the grandfathers die.

No one in a position of authority appears to have the balls to suggest it for obvious reasons.
 
socialism is how slick talking pimps with no real skills convince the slow witted -by appealing to envy-gain wealth and power by whining about wealth and power


Current government aid to FL and TX hurricane victims are socialist policies. Ron Paul wanted to get rid of FEMA and other government aid to areas which are hurricane, flood, or tornado prone. If people are going to build houses there, they should accept the risk, and not look for big nanny government to help them once disaster hits. That's what personal responsibility means.

Do you agree with such a policy?
 
Last edited:
Current government aid to FL and TX hurricane victims are socialist policies. Ron Paul wanted to get rid of FEMA and other government aid to areas which are hurricane, flood, or tornado prone. If people are going to build houses there, they should accept the risk, and not look for big nanny government to help them once disaster hits. That's what personal responsibility means.

Do you agree with such a policy?

I agree if you build in home in a high risk area you should either buy high risk insurance or not demand the government bail you out.
 
I agree if you build in home in a high risk area you should either buy high risk insurance or not demand the government bail you out.

I see. So you are against the current federal aid to TX and FL hurricane victims?
 
I see. So you are against the current federal aid to TX and FL hurricane victims?

I am not versed well enough of the area damaged to know the history of the area Some areas were obviously in high risk areas. Some not so much
 
I see. So you are against the current federal aid to TX and FL hurricane victims?

Some are innocent victims of circumstance; others are foolish victims of their own poor decisions. I favor aid to the former.
 
I am not versed well enough of the area damaged to know the history of the area Some areas were obviously in high risk areas. Some not so much

Regardless, why is it our job to help them? It shouldn't matter. It's not federal government's job to worry about such things, right?
 
Regardless, why is it our job to help them? It shouldn't matter. It's not federal government's job to worry about such things, right?

I think this is the proper answer

Some are innocent victims of circumstance; others are foolish victims of their own poor decisions. I favor aid to the former.
 
I think this is the proper answer

Who's going to be the judge and jury?

Seems like the entire city of Houston, at least, was a victim of its own poor decision making.

"Urban design caused the Hurricane Harvey disaster"
Houston's Flood Is a Design Problem - The Atlantic
Houston's Flooding Problem Reflects Shortfalls In City Planning : NPR

They wanted to be the "city with no limits", meaning they were free from regulations and had no zoning laws. Well, maybe we should let them face the consequences of their freedom. Freedom, after all, comes with risk. You can't take all the freedom, and leave everyone else holding the bag when the risk blows up in your face, right?

Ditto for the Florida Keys. All the people living there certainly knew this was hurricane country. And yet they chose to build rickety houses there anyway. So why should we help?
 
Who's going to be the judge and jury?

Seems like the entire city of Houston, at least, was a victim of its own poor decision making.

"Urban design caused the Hurricane Harvey disaster"
Houston's Flood Is a Design Problem - The Atlantic
Houston's Flooding Problem Reflects Shortfalls In City Planning : NPR

They wanted to be the "city with no limits", meaning they were free from regulations and had no zoning laws. Well, maybe we should let them face the consequences of their freedom. Freedom, after all, comes with risk. You can't take all the freedom, and leave everyone else holding the bag when the risk blows up in your face, right?

Ditto for the Florida Keys. All the people living there certainly knew this was hurricane country. And yet they chose to build rickety houses there anyway. So why should we help?

I assume the remarkably selfish and narrow view you present here does not represent your actual position.
 
Back
Top Bottom