Haseri
Emperor
There is a difference between state ownership and industry regulation.
Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Odd since I support gay couples having the same tax benefits...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&ei=tYD-TKeDFYK0lQeqnojzCA&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQkAE
First definition: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry. So there!
So are you willing to admit you have been wrong from day one? This is what everyone has been telling you. And you have continued to insist that it is any government actions in the economy. Can't you see the difference?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Yep, thus proving the point that UHC is socialist, since it involves state ownership of industry.
@Cutlass- If I said (Which I don't recall too) that any government action on the economy is socialist, then I admit that I was wrong yes.
So maybe you are learning, after all. The number of people who support socialism in the US couldn't fill a football stadium. The number of elected officials in the US that support socialism couldn't fill a phone booth. Get that straight and maybe you can have real conversations with people.
UHC, at least as proposed in the U.S., does not involve state ownership of the industry.
What.
GhostWriter16
Deity
If that statement is true, then you mean that with 300 million people in the United States, less than 100,000 are socialists, or less than 1/3,000th of the people.
Vermont elected a Socialist (Bernie Sanders) to the House of Representatives, so I think that's unlikely. Possible though...
I don't remember if I asked you this question in this thread or a different one, but I'll restate it, are there any Republicans at all you have respect for? If not, is there anyone to the right of the mainstream Democratic party you have respect for?
Barak O'Bama.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
In before teh Socialism claim!
GhostWriter16
Deity
He's not to the right of the mainstream Democratic party...
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Health Care is not an industry, it is a basic human right. Or if you are cold-hearted to not acknowledge that it is an economic benifit for the rich, in that their employees get the treatement they need a lot quicker and with a lot less time wasted (because as it is cheaper they go at the first sign of trouble, instead of when they can't bear the pain no more) and a lot less money spent on the cure.
Giving everybody an equal access to a good level of medicine is not socialist it is simple common sense properly applied in the real world. But I will say what is in America instead of UHC is a rent-seeking industry, as the whole purpose of it is to make as much profit for the insurance/healthcare companies by making people pay through the nose on the off chance they will need treatment, and if that happens by the company doing everything possible to ensure they don't pay out.
Giving everybody an equal access to a good level of medicine is not socialist it is simple common sense properly applied in the real world. But I will say what is in America instead of UHC is a rent-seeking industry, as the whole purpose of it is to make as much profit for the insurance/healthcare companies by making people pay through the nose on the off chance they will need treatment, and if that happens by the company doing everything possible to ensure they don't pay out.
Ask a random Democrat today.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Health Insurance is absolutely an industry.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
sure is, but it shouldn't be
profiting off of illness an injury is immoral
EDIT:
Haseri
Emperor
Yes, but Healthcare shouldn't be. Just as Education, Police, the Military and Firefighters shouldn't be.
Ninja'd by galdre.
Ninja'd by galdre.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@galdre- But for the government to give health insurance, they'd have to control an industry. That is the definition of socialism.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
I'd also like to point out for those of us who don't bother reading, that that was the whole point of my post i.e. what America has is an industry, what it should have (i.e. UHC) isn't.
Also I would like to point out that BIFFOs have never been likely candidates for turning up socialist.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
no, because health care shouldn't be an industry, so govt control of it wouldn't be socialism
GhostWriter16
Deity
But that's an opinion. You could say that about EVERY industry!
It still is, so govt control of it would still be socialism.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&ei=tYD-TKeDFYK0lQeqnojzCA&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQkAE
First definition: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry. So there!
It's also a political theory advocating everyone not being burnt to death. Same as capitalism. Does that mean capitalism is the same thing as socialim?
You are willfully ignorant. You are a 15 year old child who has repeatedly displayed absolute ignorance on political matters to a stunning degree. You are being told with well backed-up and explained reasons by dozens of people who clearly know about a thousand times as much as you why your 'definition' of socialism makes no sense yet you just keep repeating 'no, this is what it means'. You do not have the first idea what you are talking about. This is the equivalent of me insisting to you again and again and again that New York is the capital of the USA.
You are making a fool of yourself by refusing to accept that you do not know anything at all about socialism. It's embarassing and irritating. Why don't you try listening for a while?
