What does the word "socialism" mean to you?

[alexey]

Have you ever worked on a government bid?

They take all potential profit out of deals, rewarding the lowest bidder. It doesn't matter what quality they recieve, they always take the lowest bidder.

Do you want low quality health care simply because an Insurance Company hires cheap physicians and are able to cut costs?

Not to side track our discussion, but from what I understand having a great track record (and resulting relationships) plays a big role in getting those contracts as well.

Look, here is the only thing I am saying:

There is nothing making it fundamentally impossible for a Government to provide a high quality public education at a reasonable price.

[GoSkins561]

You are taking the taxation rate from Denmark and applying it to YOUR situation. And to back up your point you are asking another US resident (me) about my groceries. This is what I mean by taking things (Denmark taxation rate) out of context (Denmark).

Let's do $400 a month if you would like to continue with your point.

There will be a substantial increase in taxes no matter which way you cut it.

I could use a different Country if you would like, I could even use Maryland? It all adds up.

Denmark =25% on $400.00 per month (very very low)

Groceries $400.00 per month

Taxes $100.00 per month

Total $500.00 per month

$1200.00 per year

$1200 x 18 years (childs birth to college age) = $21,600.00

less 5% current tax $1080.00

$20,520.00 Total Sales Tax

That is a lot of money not including possible interest earned that you could have used to pay for your childs education.

[alexey]

um, that's not an example, that's an assertion.

I'd say it's both

Maybe it would sound better like this:

For example, it is possible to structure the system in a way that would create healthy competition within a single provider.

[alexey]

There will be a substantial increase in taxes no matter which way you cut it.

I could use a different Country if you would like, I could even use Maryland? It all adds up.

Denmark =25% on $400.00 per month (very very low)

Groceries $400.00 per month

Taxes $100.00 per month

Total $500.00 per month

$1200.00 per year

$1200 x 18 years (childs birth to college age) = $21,600.00

less 5% current tax $1080.00

$20,520.00 Total Sales Tax

That is a lot of money not including possible interest earned that you could have used to pay for your childs education.

Alrighty then.

[DGreenistheBest]

There will be a substantial increase in taxes no matter which way you cut it.

An increase in taxes does NOT mean you pay more. Please go back and read my previous post, at the bottom of the last page. I've explained it about as clearly as possible.

[GoSkins561]

An increase in taxes does NOT mean you pay more. :laugh: How do you figure? Please go back and read my previous post, at the bottom of the last page. I've explained it about as clearly as possible.

Sure your right in a way, however as an American.

1. I don't want the government having control over my hard earned money.

2. When the government takes money from you through taxes they invest that money and make money from my hard earned $.

3. If people would put money away they would be able to capitalize simply from their investments and do what ever they want to do with their HARD EARNED money.

3.1 Suppose someone doesn't want to go to College and they want to start their own business. All of the money they have given to the government could have been applied to start up and other costs associated with owning your own business.

4. I don't want to pay for your healthcare, it is not my responsibility to make sure you keep yourself healthy. For all I know you could be a drunk and a drug addict.

5. Why should I have to pay for your kids college?

[dg28daman]

Socialism is something in theory that works wonders, but in reality, isn't possible to succeed with.

[GibbsFactor]

Can someone name one, just one, Government program that works as advertised, is economically favorable and provides a high level of service.

Just one.

[DGreenistheBest]

Sure your right in a way, however as an American.

1. I don't want the government having control over my hard earned money.

But you trust private entities that answer to no one with it?

2. When the government takes money from you through taxes they invest that money and make money from my hard earned $.

What do you think the private companies do with it? And with those profits, they go out and buy expensive cars and houses. The government at least could be expected to recirculate those profits back into the economy.

3. If people would put money away they would be able to capitalize simply from their investments and do what ever they want to do with the money.

Until something like the health care system comes along and bankrupts them. Under a universal system people could save their money and feel more secure about it. They would also be able to save more.

3.1 Suppose someone doesn't want to go to College and they want to start their own business. All of the money they have given to the government could have been applied to start up and other costs associated with owning your own business.

This is implies that that would still have this money if they hadn't given it to the government. It would have been going somewhere else is all. And more of it.

4. I don't want to pay for your healthcare, it is not my responsibility to make sure you keep yourself healthy. For all I know you could be a drunk and a drug addict.

You won't be paying for my healthcare. I will. That's why I get taxed too. However, you already pay for the drunks and addicts. Medicaid. Everytime you go to the hopsital, you're paying your own way AND throwing in a large sum of money towards the uninsured. And they are the ones that drive the price up because they are uninsured. They do nothing in the way of preventative medicine because they can't afford it. Then, when they are finally too sick, they go to the ER. The ER has to treat them. Their bill becomes yours. In a universal system, they are covered and can finally take advantage of cheaper preventative medicine. In turn, bills go down across the board. Your tax payment ends up being less than your old insurance payment.

[DGreenistheBest]

Can someone name one, just one, Government program that works as advertised, is economically favorable and provides a high level of service.

Just one.

Universal health care in France, Australia and Canada.

[alexey]

Can someone name one, just one, Government program that works as advertised, is economically favorable and provides a high level of service.

Just one.

http://usaspending.gov/ (the site itself, the stuff on it is all waste )

[GoSkins561]

But you trust private entities that answer to no one with it?.

Absolutely, I get to choose who I purchase from and the quality I would like.

What do you think the private companies do with it? And with those profits, they go out and buy expensive cars and houses. The government at least could be expected to recirculate those profits back into the economy. .

Again, I choose the investor that I want, as long as I am happy with MY ROI, I would be happy to see someone be succesful and drive a Ferrari. That shows me that he/she is smart and that he/she works hard.

Until something like the health care system comes along and bankrupts them. Under a universal system people could save their money and feel more secure about it. They would also be able to save more..

I have a HSA, and I love it. I put into and take our of it as needed. I make money instead of an insurance company making money, all with a much lower premium.

This is implies that that would still have this money if they hadn't given it to the government. It would have been going somewhere else is all. And more of it..

Not sure what you meant by this.

You won't be paying for my healthcare. I will. That's why I get taxed too. However, you already pay for the drunks and addicts. Medicaid. Everytime you go to the hopsital, you're paying your own way AND throwing in a large sum of money towards the uninsured. And they are the ones that drive the price up because they are uninsured. They do nothing in the way of preventative medicine because they can't afford it. Then, when they are finally too sick, they go to the ER. The ER has to treat them. Their bill becomes yours. In a universal system, they are covered and can finally take advantage of cheaper preventative medicine. In turn, bills go down across the board. Your tax payment ends up being less than your old insurance payment.

Again this is accomplished through higher taxes, I would prefer to see mandatory work and contributions to their own HSA in order to recieve health care. Obviously there are special cases for the most part we are dealing with mostly lazy people who want every thing handed to them.

[DGreenistheBest]

Absolutely, I get to choose who I purchase from and the quality I would like.

No, you get to choose from the quality they are willing to provide, which is to say the cheapest quality they can pass off.

Again, I choose the investor that I want, as long as I am happy with MY ROI, I would be happy to see someone be succesful and drive a Ferrari. That shows me that he/she is smart and that he/she works hard.

This is exactly how it would work in a socialist system.

I have a HSA, and I love it. I put into and take our of it as needed. I make money instead of an insurance company making money, all with a much lower premium.

People who have lived a lucky and safe life do not understand how vulnerable they are. If you are ever seriously injured or become ill, you will suddenly realize why government regulation of health care is needed.

Not sure what you meant by this.

Again this is accomplished through higher taxes, I would prefer to see mandatory work and contributions to their own HSA in order to recieve health care. Obviously there are special cases for the most part we are dealing with mostly lazy people who want every thing handed to them.

The higher taxes supplant the cost of paying to private companies. Your taxes go up but you don't pay insurance anymore. The tax increase will be less than what you paid for insurance.

There are lazy people but they won't benefit anymore in a new system than they do now. They don't pay for medicine now, they won't under universal health care. The people that benefit are the ones that deserve to. They will be contributing to their own HSAs through taxes.

[GibbsFactor]

http://usaspending.gov/ (the site itself, the stuff on it is all waste )

I guess that's it. No one else could respond.

I think this is a clear cut case that we should move to more socialized care!

Not only does it kill the American dream, it also gives everyone the same ****ty service!

Equality above all else!

Here's a news flash. ALL MEN ARE NOT EQUAL.

[DGreenistheBest]

I guess that's it. No one else could respond.

You missed my reply.

Not only does it kill the American dream, it also gives everyone the same ****ty service!

Factually incorrect on both counts.

Equality above all else!

Here's a news flash. ALL MEN ARE NOT EQUAL.

So Thomas Jefferson was wrong? America is a farce?

[GibbsFactor]

Universal health care in France, Australia and Canada.

This country. I don't care about those. I'm an American.

[DGreenistheBest]

This country. I don't care about those. I'm an American.

Not if you don't agree with the Declaration of Independence.

[GibbsFactor]

You missed my reply.

I'm talking about the USA.

Factually incorrect on both counts.

Is it now? :laugh: You are quickly becoming the boards Commie. Congrats!

So Thomas Jefferson was wrong? America is a farce?

He said men are created equal. I said men are not equal. Capitalism works like natural selection. If you don't step up, you had best move and get out of the way.

[DGreenistheBest]

I'm talking about the USA.

We'll see how universal health care pans out.

Is it now? :laugh: You are quickly becoming the boards Commie. Congrats!

Again confusing socialism with communism. They teach that in high school now, you know? And yes, you are wrong on both counts.

He said men are created equal. I said men are not equal. Capitalism works like natural selection. If you don't step up, you had best move and get out of the way.

Natural selection? That could work too. Let's repeal all laws and just have a big shootout. Whoever's left gets all the women.

But seriously, you should actually do a little research into what socialism (not communism) is. In no way does a democratic socialist system supplant capitalism.

[alexey]

I'm talking about the USA.

Was your point specifically about the USA Government?

[Koolblue13]

Socalism= Good of the masses as decided by the gov't

Communism= Good of the Gov't, off the backs of the people.

[headexplode]

He said men are created equal. I said men are not equal. Capitalism works like natural selection. If you don't step up, you had best move and get out of the way.

Here's the problem with this philosophy. In a capitalist system, and indeed with any economic system, there has to be people at the bottom. This country would be no where near as advanced had we not had millions of cheap, uneducated laborers. Not everybody will, or can advance, no matter how hard they try. For instance, road workers have tough jobs, they work hard and in brutal conditions--they are essential to this country yet they are valued lower because so many people can do the work they do. Assume that every road worker decided to get an education and "move up," as they say. The roads still need to be paved. Wherever the previous road workers "moved up" to will now have an overabundance of people for certain industries, bringing wages down. The problem we have now remains.

We need people at the bottom. We need them to accept less pay for harder work, and when they become drunks because their bones hurt (not to mention their spirits), and they get lung conditions from breathing in toxic dust, etc. and can't afford to pay their mortgage because of outrageous medical expenses, the least we can do is show some compassion and help them out. They are, after all, fellow citizens, and they deserve respect for the **** they put up with so we don't have to.

Do lazy, poor people take advantage of certain assistance programs? Absolutely. But, statistically speaking, far more is spent for the super rich (which supposedly means they are smarter and harder working) taking advantage of assistance programs of a different sort.

I feel we need to reevaluate how we assign value to labor or essential goods and services within a capitalistic framework. A healthy balance between socialistic and capitalistic economic philosophies (which we already have to a degree as it is) would go a long way in helping fellow citizens who, try as they might, can't get their legs under them.

[headexplode]

They teach that in high school now, you know? And yes, you are wrong on both counts.

Perhaps in your school, but not in mine. I had to research these systems on my own. If they did teach them, it was simply "Socialism and communism are evil, and so there's no need to bother learning about them."

[GibbsFactor]

Natural selection? That could work too. Let's repeal all laws and just have a big shootout. Whoever's left gets all the women.

But seriously, you should actually do a little research into what socialism (not communism) is. In no way does a democratic socialist system supplant capitalism.

Here's the deal, perhaps they should have taught you kids more about what America is supposed to be and relied less on how collectivism saves all.

You are very liberal, very far left. It would be a compliment from me to you to call you a progressive. Correct?

Now, this particular country, the United States of America was formed to protect it's citizens against high tariffs and tyranny. The size of the government was to be limited by it's power and governed by checks and balances to prevent excess of power and size. When the government grows, it must increase it's income. When income is increased, it must tax it's citizens. When citizens are taxed, they lose power and give it to their government. States rights are becoming an ever reducing ideology, while "big brother" continues to place it's mark over it's owners.

What socialism does is removes some incentives from the people to succeed, work hard and better themselves. What collectivism does is makes us continue to see things as groups. This discourages ambition, liberty, innovation and freedom and encourages discrimination and welfare. What you are defending is welfare. Welfare must be fair and balanced meaning that those who are above average, work hard and provide for their own, must also provide for others that do not have the same ability. That is unAmerican my good friend. Our Government is not meant to provide for the less fortunate. Our people should help those that need help via charities and organizations. If that does not work, then they must start helping themselves.

What you are proposing and advocating is a system of wealth redistribution and a system to further the welfare/nanny state of the United States of America. Many will say that the free market is not the answer, and I will always argue that point by asking when we've ever given the free market time to adjust. As soon as we have a problem, we run to big brother to fix it, ever reducing our freedoms and liberties.

Life is unfair, people will always be better off then others. But what you propose to do is award people for not giving it their all. That my friend, will be a mistake.

Make no mistake about it, no foreign enemy will ever threaten this country's freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No, that threat will inevitably come from within.

[DGreenistheBest]

Here's the deal, perhaps they should have taught you kids more about what America is supposed to be and relied less on how collectivism saves all.

You are very liberal, very far left. It would be a compliment from me to you to call you a progressive. Correct?

I would consider my self leftist, yes.

Now, this particular country, the United States of America was formed to protect it's citizens against high tariffs and tyranny. The size of the government was to be limited by it's power and governed by checks and balances to prevent excess of power and size. When the government grows, it must increase it's income. When income is increased, it must tax it's citizens. When citizens are taxed, they lose power and give it to their government. States rights are becoming an ever reducing ideology, while "big brother" continues to place it's mark over it's owners.

What socialism does is removes some incentives from the people to succeed, work hard and better themselves. What collectivism does is makes us continue to see things as groups. This discourages ambition, liberty, innovation and freedom and encourages discrimination and welfare. What you are defending is welfare. Welfare must be fair and balanced meaning that those who are above average, work hard and provide for their own, must also provide for others that do not have the same ability. That is unAmerican my good friend. Our Government is not meant to provide for the less fortunate. Our people should help those that need help via charities and organizations. If that does not work, then they must start helping themselves.

What you are proposing and advocating is a system of wealth redistribution and a system to further the welfare/nanny state of the United States of America. Many will say that the free market is not the answer, and I will always argue that point by asking when we've ever given the free market time to adjust. As soon as we have a problem, we run to big brother to fix it, ever reducing our freedoms and liberties.

Life is unfair, people will always be better off then others. But what you propose to do is award people for not giving it their all. That my friend, will be a mistake.

Make no mistake about it, no foreign enemy will ever threaten this country's freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No, that threat will inevitably come from within.

No, you've completely misunderstood again. You are confusing elements of communism and even borderline fascism with a system of socialism that has never been implemented before. A proper socialist system that works in conjunction with capitalism and democracy means that free market will continue to exist. The government will regulate certain things such as health care for the people. This is not increased regulation!

The government already regulates quite a bit, but the goal of socialism is to place the wellbeing of all citizens, ALL CITIZENS, above everything else. This means government regulation is adjusted, not increased, but adjusted to provide equal opportunities for everyone. Read: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, not GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK LESS.

People will continue to gain what they earn. Wealth will not be redistributed. The government will not prevent private enterprise, they will simply enforce the rules of fairness and opportunity that this country was founded on. There will be no rewards for people not trying their hardest.

Capitalism and democracy will remain. That's why it's called a social democracy, not a socialist republic or communist regime.

Collectivism is part of communism, not socialism. Socialism CAN emphasize the good of the community while still protecting the good of the individual. What it comes down to is keeping the right people in office through our American right to free speech, free press and free elections.