Democrats Applaud

SimplyMe said:

Let me stop you here. The issue is that what some Democrats are calling for is not "socialism" as you are trying to define it -- you are trying to equate socialism with communism. What most liberal Democrats are wanting is a what is frequently called "European socialism" which is basically capitalism but with socialist protections -- for industries such as health care and education.

Click to expand...

My turn to stop you right there.

Communism and Socialism only have subtle differences, but the same idea. Don't delude yourself.
Socialism is Socialism is Socialism. Your "European socialism" is a transition to the next step. Take note to how our country slowly desensitizes itself in morals, politics, etc. sliding down on the path of socialism. Europe is just a bit further on this path than we are. The people shift themselves on the path due to the promised free stuff, and the supposed greatness of the healthcare for all, and thats how it starts. "let me get free things, for nothing at all". They have less of a desire to work harder, more of a desire to slack off, and everything degrades from there.

Your smart, lets call it like it is.

SimplyMe said:

And this would be false. As a prime example; how well do you think a capitalist police force would work, much less a capitalist justice system? It isn't hard to imagine, particularly with the current claims of how the rich can "buy" verdicts, how a capitalistic justice system would work. It would end up that the rich would pay for their protection -- to the point that they could beat you up, or even murder you, and have their court find you guilty of getting in the way of the bullet from their gun (and your estate would be forfeited to cover their damages).

Click to expand...

Your really going to go there?

You will never get rid of corruption. However, at least you would be free enough in the capitalist society to get rid of the corruption once found, more so than the socialist regime.
Socialist regimes don't need to buy verdicts, they just tell you what will happen. And you best listen to them.
There are private securities.
There are private hospitals.
And the protections you are talking about here are not the issue. These are obvious laws that even the Lord our God put in place.

We are talking about the Ideology/structure that made America so great. With statements like these you place down, I am not sure you are completely understanding of the topic.

SimplyMe said:

As is being explained to you, healthcare has some of the same issues. If you are sick, you can't "shop around" to see what hospital has the best deal, and check the Yelp reviews, of their emergency services while you are headed to the hospital. If you have cancer, you can't wait six months for the treatment you need, but can't afford, to go on sale.

Click to expand...

I actually had an pneumonia slapping me around at almost 106, 2 months ago. Didn't think about going to the hospital for 3 days since the fever hit. Know what I did? I shopped around to see which hospital had better service. Then went in to find out thats what I had in both lungs.

As far as cancer, dont they have a family or friends to help? Why should I have to pay for someone that didn't even give me the decency of at least asking me if I would chip in first.
It's called budgeting. Bob purchases a house for 350,000. Are you going to help him pay for his house? If no, why not? It's not fair you get a house and he doesn't.
Hospitals allow for you to have a monthly payment to pay off your debt. I have done this before. I also have had a time without insurance and a 15/hour job, and had a time in the hospital, and I also paid it off all by myself.

SimplyMe said:

On top of that, sick people can't work, and if they can't work they can't afford health care -- it is a never ending circle where some people just can't win. At one point (and it is likely true now, with current unemployment rates), the vast majority of homeless people were mentally ill -- they were unstable to the point they couldn't hold down a job and can barely take care of themselves. If we could get these people treatment, instead of being homeless they might end up as productive members of society.

Click to expand...

So their own family cannot take care of them, I have too? I have a family. Why should you come before my own family, when they take out taxes from me first and give me the scraps for my family and I last? How is that fair? Its MY money. I worked for it to feed and support MY family.

Your facts are wrong about the homeless. The facts I pulled up state only about 20% "MIGHT" be mentally ill. See, estimates are just that, an estimate. Not fact. Your use of "vast" is not even close to what I found.

SimplyMe said:

And this is much of the idea, while you might "pay" for some sick person now, who is unable to work, the idea is that in the future, when he is better and working, he will "pay" when you get sick. It's the whole basis of our capitalistic health insurance -- just done on a national scale where everyone is covered.

Click to expand...

I budget very well for my single income family, and do not require you or anyone to help. Nor will I call upon a total stranger, who works hard for their money and their family, to give me money for medical. We have great self control to not up and buy things at our fancy. And we like to save for unpredictable occasions. We buy things we can afford without placing debts on credit cards. Our society lacks this control. I shouldn't have to suffer because of their bad choices.

SimplyMe said:

Except the issue is, fine, you don't have healthcare. But if you get in an accident, or get a disease (particular an expensive one, such as cancer), you're going to be treated "for free." Sure, you will pay for some of it, until your savings and retirement run dry, and you'll likely declare bankruptcy (destroying your credit and possibly harming your ability to get a good job). At that point someone else will still be paying for you -- just they won't be "reimbursed" by you when you are well and they are sick.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The 2008 crash was due to us citizens, for years, buying things we couldnt possibly afford, and the banks who allowed us citizens to do such with loans we knew, and they knew, we couldnt support. Hence the strict laws that went up against loaning and the likes. Unfortunately, there are still a sizable amount citizens who haven't learned yet the importance of budgeting.

Not because of healthcare.

SimplyMe said:

The issue is, they would often have a lifetime limit of as little as $100,000. So, when someone in the family got cancer, had a heart attack, or epilepsy, suddenly they were without insurance -- and most bankruptcies in the US were caused by situations like this.

Click to expand...

While I cant say that there were 0 situations like that, I know for a fact that "most" were not.

I would like to know where you are getting these facts out of curiosity.

Anyhow, thank you for your thoughts on this.

Pommer said:

Are you a fan of Ayn Rand?

Click to expand...

Not so much, no. Why?

GoldenBoy89 said:

The same way paying for a local fire department (through those God awful taxes) is fair to both the people whose house is on fire and those that aren't. You don't need everyone's house to be burning to realize a fire department is a good civic investment for everyone.

Same goes for healthcare.

Click to expand...

Your silly. Don't even compare those to healthcare.

LoAmmi said:

Might want to try to square that with Obamacare and see if the means of production were brought under public instead of private ownership.

Click to expand...

It is public. Government run healthcare (obamas healthcare plan) IS public and not private. They take your money in the form of taxes and disperse it to all, no choice in the matter. Sounds like socialism to me.

Yea. I do remember I told you that.

Acts2:38 said:

It is public. Government run healthcare (obamas healthcare plan) IS public and not private. They take your money in the form of taxes and disperse it to all, no choice in the matter. Sounds like socialism to me.

Yea. I do remember I told you that.

Click to expand...

It is not government run healthcare. You purchase insurance from private insurance companies. There was no public option which would have allowed people to purchase plans from the government. People can qualify for subsidies if they don't earn a certain threshold, but people making over that received no subsidy.

The means of production were still firmly within the grasp of private companies who benefited greatly by people being required to sign up for one of their plans.

Acts2:38 said:

Your silly. Don't even compare those to healthcare.

Click to expand...

Why not? It's an example of something that is better handled through use of public funds.

GlabrousDory4 said:

Employers provide benefits to ATTRACT the best and brightest labor.

It's not like they take a hit to provide these things. It's all part of the "compensation package".

I'd be A-OK with no employer healthcare benefits if we lived in a country that didn't see healthcare as benefit only the wealthy deserve.

Click to expand...

Thats not the country you live in if you live in the US.

New Birth said:

Thats not the country you live in if you live in the US.

Click to expand...

Yup.

loveofourlord said:

You know the difference between people being dead and utilties right?

Click to expand...

So im hungry now will you help me I think i can last until friday, you can wire me the money.

Acts2:38 said:

Not so much, no. Why?



Your silly. Don't even compare those to healthcare.

Click to expand...

Do you feel it is important for all people to have access to adequate healthcare? Just as it is important for all people to have adequate police and fire protection?

We live in a society that finds it morally necessary to pay for a serial killers legal council, but when it comes to health, never mind.

Acts2:38 said:

Not so much, no. Why?



Your silly. Don't even compare those to healthcare.

Click to expand...

I asked because this “the free market will save us all”, mantra is endemic in Rand-ers.

Ringo84 said:

So should they force their employees to go without because they're too selfish and bottom line driven to care?

Also what GoldenBoy said.
Ringo

Click to expand...

obviously your not a business owner.

New Birth said:

obviously your not a business owner.

Click to expand...

Not an answer to my question.
Ringo

New Birth said:

My light bill is due. I will give you my address if you are willing to help me pay for it. Water bill is coming up also, and dont forget my house note, I gotta have shelter. Are you a Christian?

Click to expand...

Sure! I don't want to see you in need. I'm super-interested in increasing my taxes a few cents if it helps people like you who can't afford your utilities. That's called the social safety net.

I'm personally not a believer that all other Americans are shiftless grifters hoping only to screw me out of everything. I assume most people are good people and if I help them in their time of need, that same help will be available for ME in my time of need.

I've been poor. I've had my utilities shut off in cold weather. I know the anxiety and I know the fear. I'm doing a lot better economically many years later. I have a very good life. I want others to have help when they need it.

Sure some people will abuse me, but I cannot believe all people will abuse me.

...and I'm not even a Christian.

New Birth said:

So im hungry now will you help me I think i can last until friday, you can wire me the money.

Click to expand...

If you have PayPal I'll send you $20 so you can get something to eat.

Ringo84 said:

Not an answer to my question.
Ringo

Click to expand...

businesses

Ringo84 said:

Not an answer to my question.
Ringo

Click to expand...

businesses are not forcing their employees to do without, that is an absurd narrative your repeating from someone else with socialist ideals.
again it is apparent you do not own a business. Why would a business owner of 6 employees be obligated to provide health care? Do you have any idea what the burden of cost be for that owner?

New Birth said:

businesses

businesses are not forcing their employees to do without, that is an absurd narrative your repeating from someone else with socialist ideals.

Click to expand...

They're absolutely forcing them to go without if they don't have group insurance.

again it is apparent you do not own a business. Why would a business owner of 6 employees be obligated to provide health care? Do you have any idea what the burden of cost be for that owner?

Click to expand...

Someone answered that for you already: healthy workers are productive workers.

But once again, your selfishness (my burden of cost) is noted.
Ringo

New Birth said:

obviously your not a business owner.

Click to expand...

Are you?

Ringo84 said:

They're absolutely forcing them to go without if they don't have group insurance.



Someone answered that for you already: healthy workers are productive workers.

But once again, your selfishness (my burden of cost) is noted.
Ringo

Click to expand...

so what does that business owner need to do that has only 6 employees? provide health care?
again your taking personal responsibility away from the individual and placing it on the business owner. this is typical with leftist and non business owners.
The employee chooses to work at their Job. The business is forcing absolutely nothing.

New Birth said:

businesses

businesses are not forcing their employees to do without, that is an absurd narrative your repeating from someone else with socialist ideals.
again it is apparent you do not own a business. Why would a business owner of 6 employees be obligated to provide health care? Do you have any idea what the burden of cost be for that owner?

Click to expand...

Who is saying a business owner of 6 emplyees, is forced to provide health insurance?

bhsmte said:

Are you?

Click to expand...

yes I own my own business. And if I were forced to pay for healthcare for anyone I employ I could not afford it.