Freedom or Socialism?

[comana]

That simply means you've always been in an HMO, regardless of what it is called.

Feel free to do the research.

You may want to do a little research. HMO means Heath Maintenance Organization. Yes, when your plan is HMO you must see only providers in that organization. Still, all those other “great” plans out there also have networks. A PPO still has a network but they let you use providers outside the network at a higher cost.

 

[Clare73]

Corporate spending to influence public opinion is considered the voice of a corporate person, protected by the first amendment, which can very feasibly be related to a lack of public support. If we didn't have corporate personhood,

Or political party personhood. . .

we would have to rely on human citizens to influence opinion if not think for ourselves.

You sound like, in the name of free expression, you wish to control the free expression of those with whom you disagree.

Recipe for totalitarianism. . .and it's already cooking.

 

[Clare73]

They assumed the initial risk. They should be richer than Jeff.

How much of the conception, planning, work, managment and "nursing" did they do?

 

[TheWhat?]

Do you think there is? Where do you see this phenomena? What denied freedoms are desired?

I already listed a few of the freedoms I want. The real question is why are you so ornery about my desire for freedoms, who convinced you to be so ornery, and how? I ask because this is the story just about everywhere in America. In other words, public opinion is being influenced, somehow. My freedoms are being limited because public opinion is absurdly oppositional to the freedoms I desire.

 

[pacomascarot]

How much of the conception, planning, work, managment and "nursing" did they do?

How much planning, management and nursing of the job do the people who currently work for Jeff but who require public assistance to stay alive do?

Jeff's parents took the initial risk they deserve the majority of the gains. Remember we are debating why people who found companies can get paid millions of dollars per hour while others who keep the company running earn much, much less (to the point where tax payers need to help pay for their food).

 

[TheWhat?]

But no response. . .
Are you being compensated for your investment at the rate at which the actual market values it?

Your issue?
And their market success?

Demonstration?

I desire the freedom to collaboratively own and manage the business I work for. In America there's lack of opportunity for this. There are reasons. If you want to know more about cooperatives you can do your own homework. There's no real need to be so oppositional to my desire for this freedom.

 

[Clare73]

No, that’s not what it means. Even the “best” policies come with networks.

Not good news. . .PPO is as good as it gets.

 

[98cwitr]

What? Where? What developed country other than the US has had a major electrical failure in recent decades? The US has more power outages then any other developed country, you've had several major blackouts a decade there going back over the last 70 years or so.

A lot actually: A better detailed explanation here: https://electrical-engineering-port...-in-united-states-and-around-the-world-part-1

Electricities is what comes to mind; a "non-profit" which is simply an extension of government. Where the organization's sole customer is municipalities and power utility is publicly controlled.

Their outages are here on full display: https://www.electricities.com/services/emergency-assistance/outage-map/

This is less a conversation about how power is generated, and more about who pays for it (boiled down, it's a conversation about collectivism versus individualism): https://www.electricities.com/services/emergency-assistance/outage-map/

 

[Clare73]

Did you not see the picture?

Where is the general problem?

 

[Clare73]

I already listed a few of the freedoms I want.

Are these freedoms guaranteed under the Consitution?

Because if they aren't, then they aren't a "right" in the USA, there is no entitlement to them in the USA.

They will have to be acquired as best you can, with no guarantees.
That's how it works here. . .perhaps you would like to try somewhere else for these "freedoms."

 

[TheWhat?]

Are these freedoms guaranteed under the Consitution?

Because if they aren't, then they aren't a "right" in the USA, there is no entitlement to them in the USA.

They will have to be acquired as best you can, with no guarantees.
That's how it works here. . .perhaps you would like to try somewhere else for these "freedoms."

I didn't say they were rights. But the title of the thread is "Freedom or Socialism," implying that the side that opposes socialism is in favor of freedom.

I don't think that's true in America, when my desire for freedoms is opposed by that side.

And it's not just about this thread or this debate, it's the usual case.

 

[Clare73]

How much planning, management and nursing of the job do the people who currently work for Jeff but who require public assistance to stay alive do?

Jeff's parents took the initial risk they deserve the majority of the gains.

Remember we are debating why people who found companies can get paid millions of dollars per hour while others who keep the company running earn much, much less (to the point where tax payers need to help pay for their food).

Well. . .let's begin with, is anyone forcing them to work for Jeff?
Do they not have the freedom to work elsewhere?
So what is their real issue?

The real issue is the value of their skills in the market place. . . computer programming is worth more than lawn mowing in the market place.

And those skills with higher value usually require more work, time, effort and sacrifice to acquire.
So that the way things generally shake out is that those willing to do what it takes to acquire a marketable skill are "rewarded" in the marketplace for the value of that skill in which they invested so much time, effort, work and sacrifice to acquire.

We are paid the value of our skill in the marketplace.
Sounds equitable and fair to me.
You get what you paid for in your investment in yourself.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Single-payer medical is probably the most crucial issue for the public or politicians to decide in favor of freedom or socialism.

The argument for socialism is that the cost would be half as much as the existing non-system, and we know that from all the other wealthy countries, results are also a lot better.

Our forefathers, and foremothers, fought for our freedom and we all know a bit of extra money* for the health insurance companies is a small price to pay for our freedom.

*This is English Understatement

The amount of money is a thousand million dollars per year, required by the 907 health insurance companies to fill their pockets and create endless amounts of useless complexity.

After health insurance companies have taken away your money you will have less freedom than before, so the title should be 'Freedom in Socialism'.

I have no problem with a government run healthcare for people that want it. Forcing everyone on it is unethical and greatly reduces our liberties. If is turns out to be great, then more people will move to it. This is not what the socialists want.

 

[rturner76]

There is more than one on government disbility who is able to work.

I know. I am considered "disabled" by the government but I can manage part-time work and volunteering so people do it all the time. With reasonable accommodations most of the "disabled" (I try to say "differently-abled")

 

[Clare73]

I desire the freedom to collaboratively own and manage the business I work for.

And my family desires to collaboratively own the new car you just bought. . .we are in desperate need of a ride to work and school.

Okay, so you want to collaboratvely own and manage the business you work for? Then round up some folks and start a cooperative.
Who's stopping you?

There's no "lack of opportunity" to do this, other than your willingness to put in the time, work and effort to do so.

Oh. . .why didn't you say so? You want it set up and given to you without all the personal investment of your own. . .
well, that's good work if you can get it.

 

[Clare73]

I didn't say they were rights. But the title of the thread is "Freedom or Socialism," implying that the side that opposes socialism is in favor of freedom.

I don't think that's true in America, when my desire for freedoms is opposed by that side.

And it's not just about this thread or this debate, it's the usual case.

You had no clue that by "freedom" the title meant freedom as it is defined in the USA by the Constitution?

You actually thought someone was proposing "unbridled" freedom?
Nah. . .you didn't think that, you just deliberately misrepresented his statement because that is the only way you could build an "argument" to refute it.

That's called a "strawman."

 

[TheWhat?]

You had no clue that by "freedom" the title meant freedom as it is defined in the USA by the Constitution?

You actually thought someone was proposing "unbridled" freedom?
Nah. . .you didn't think that, you just deliberately misrepresented his statement because that is the only way you could build an "argument" to refute it.

That's called a "strawman."

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Is there a problem with a desire for freedom in America, especially to innovate? This is supposed to be one of the crowning benefits of capitalism.

As I was saying, some places in europe are beating us in the area of entrepreneurial ventures. We are not in favor of innovation as much as we say we are. Conservatives who think they're doing something good by opposing innovation because they're opposing change can't walk the talk. Your version of capitalism is the version that seeks to purchase public opinion, to obtain what should belong to the many in a healthy economy, and to squash the little guy. It gives free market and entrepreneurial capitalism a bad name.

It's corruption.

 

[comana]

I have no problem with a government run healthcare for people that want it. Forcing everyone on it is unethical and greatly reduces our liberties. If is turns out to be great, then more people will move to it. This is not what the socialists want.

I don’t see the commercial insurers going away even if some sort of National coverage/single payer for all was instituted. Even current Medicare has commercial options with extra benefits for those who want that.

 

[pacomascarot]

Where is the general problem?

Oh, sorry, yeah, I see your question there. How many disabled people should we get to mock as President of the USA?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. What's your motive? What do you have to gain by being oppositional, anyways?

You're about the 4th or 5th person on here I've seen saying "I wanna work at a co-op"...and what they really mean is "I don't want a boss".

There's nothing stopping you, corporations don't invest money against co-ops because they don't have to. You want to work at a co-op....there's nothing stopping you at all except your own fear of failure.

Worker co-op sector continues to grow in the USA - Co-operative News

Don't blame others for what you won't do.