The general public is well to the left of the Democratic party. They just don't know how to pull it back.
Will technology accomplish what the GOP could not?
- Thread starter DinoDoc
- Start date
The general public is well to the left of the Democratic party. They just don't know how to pull it back.
They lacked the votes for it. Hell man. This abomination barely passed and you thought they'd go for the goal. I'm sure they thought this would go well and they'd be able to sell the people on something even better. That ship seems to be in the process of sailing.
How many times has socialism failed, but people want to try it one more time because this time it will be different?
100%
And 100%
Can fight against socialized medicine for 50+ years, but it is coming sooner or later. It's inevitable.
Actually, I think if the Republican party hadn't been so lockstep, more centrist Republicans could've contributed to the votes and thus been able to 'force out' the need to kowtow to the Democrats who were overly influenced by the health insurance lobby. There's no denying that there was a strong Romney influence underlying the ACA that then seemed to get ruined by needing to obey the lobbyists.
There's a reason Medicare D didn't get reformed even though the problem with it was so well-articulated during the 2008 campaigns.
There's a reason Medicare D didn't get reformed even though the problem with it was so well-articulated during the 2008 campaigns.
There's a very large mixed bag of results, actually. Only large-scale socialization efforts have resulted in failure. Mid-tier interventions have had failures and successes. IMO, given that there have been successes, a stark partisan stance is likely inappropriate and (imo) undeserved.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You wouldn't recognize socialism if it painted itself pink and danced naked on a harpsichord singing: "Socialism is here again".
Such a noble fight.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You're right. After they incorporated a lot of the republican ideas about healthcare it really became a moronic mess.
Obama and his bloody compromises.
If only he had been a Decider you guys would have had UHC.
I love your posts
It reminds me of how I view Socialism:
Little bit of Socialism - Good
Small amount of Socialism - Ok
Moderate amount of Socialism - Mixed bag
Large amount of Socialism - Failures more than successes
Very large amount of Socialism - Collapse
I would say that Social Security was a Little bit of Socialism.
Medicare and food stamps and everything else bumped us up to Moderate amounts of Socialism
Obamacare subsidies bumps us up to Large amounts of Socialism.
Conservatives have always opposed socialism because they know how easy the slide to more and more is. A ratcheting effect when people look backwards and see the initial success.
We are content with a small amount of Socialism, but it is never enough.
People just want to go full hog and blow the system up.
What comes after Universal Health Care?
He still lacked the votes for it regardless of what you think of his backbone.
Found it. It's being championed in Venezuela. Looks like they got the army surrounding Best Buy enforcing fair prices.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/11/venezuela-seizes-stores/3497003/
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Thanks for confirming my statement 
(In both posts)
(In both posts)
Well, UHC is merely an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.
I'd say next on the 'slippery slope' would be an expansion of student aid beyond highschool and student loan subsidies. I cannot predict much beyond that, because I don't think it likely. The 'errors' in Socialism will be borne by smaller countries and their cultural experiments. Western nations are only going to stumble occasionally, providing object lessons for each other in a piecemeal fashion.
The problem lies within that stagnation of the median wage. It's why payroll taxes for these efforts hurt the middle class so much. There's all that income growth occurring, but it's not being captured in increased wages but in other forms. All these programs would be laughably affordable if they were being paid for by the top 1% at a rate similar (in effective taxation rates) to how much the middle class was paying.
That said, if median wages were rising with GDP properly, then payroll taxes would continue to be very effective and much more easily perceived as 'fair'.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
If this slippery slope is so real, why do we still have capitalism?
By now we should have collapsed if I follow Kait's logic.
My apologies to the word: logic. That was uncalled for
By now we should have collapsed if I follow Kait's logic.
My apologies to the word: logic. That was uncalled for
If this slippery slope is so real, why do we still have capitalism?
By now we should have collapsed if I follow Kait's logic.
My apologies to the word: logic. That was uncalled for
The richer a country is, the more socialism they can tolerate. That's why I used Small, Moderate, and Large.
Venezuela probably attempted to provide what we have even though they are a poor country and went straight to Very Large in the attempt.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The Netherlands and the US are both rich western countries.
The US stil is far more anti-social than the Netherlands, so you don't have to worry
Or you can reason Venezuela is a better comparisson. Whatever hot air floats your parti-balloons
The US stil is far more anti-social than the Netherlands, so you don't have to worry
Or you can reason Venezuela is a better comparisson. Whatever hot air floats your parti-balloons
Maybe 'afford' would be a better word. There're points where a socialist policy actually improves things for the citizens compared to the alternative pure capitalism, even in the long run.
I think that the goal 'a rising tide raises all boats' is a fair one, and it's a reasonable one. But, it's a two-way contract, where the rising tide actually has to raise all boats.
Under UHC?
Instead of giving money to a doctor or insurance company, the feds take it.
If they refuse to pay for a procedure, can't sue them to make them pay like an insurance company. Have to pay twice to get what you need.
Maybe they get the bright idea to deny treatments unless I lose weight or quit smoking. Or vote Democrat.
Maybe the doctors lose some motivation when the good ones and bad ones all get paid the same.
Maybe wait times skyrocket.
Under ACA?
Not a whole lot really, unless I'm in a state that didn't expand Medicaid and I fall on hard times.
The subsidies are nice, and going without insurance eventually becomes an expense.
Just put future generations more in debt mostly. They'll just have to suffer permanently higher taxes.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I really worry for nations like Denmark, Germany which are - compared to the USA - so socialist they must be economic failures yet one of them is able to afford to send Every Single Student to University and the other one does UHC, finances bailouts for neighbors, is greening their grid by leaps and bounds, has a higher economic growth rate than the US, and still is a multinational corporate powerhouse.
I forget which is which, and frankly it gets bewildering when we add Dutchlandia, Swedka, Norwegland, Finnnns, and Icebox to the discussion. These places have answered the question "what is an economy for " thusly:
OUR PEOPLE.
Indeed - socialism simply never worked on a large scale. :rollshugeeyes:
I forget which is which, and frankly it gets bewildering when we add Dutchlandia, Swedka, Norwegland, Finnnns, and Icebox to the discussion. These places have answered the question "what is an economy for " thusly:
OUR PEOPLE.
Indeed - socialism simply never worked on a large scale. :rollshugeeyes:
