Discussing the new socialist manifesto (not a book)

[Ringo84]

Anything "conservatives" don't like is "Socialist/Socialism".
Ringo

 

[mark46]

Sure, if high speed rail were to be developed and run by private sources.

If high speed rail is a government enterprise, it is part of the type of democratic socialism that is so popular in Europe.

And I suppose that Medicare for all isn't socialism, even if the all private health insurance is abolished (as proposed by Harris).

Since when is high speed rail "socialist?" I thought it was just a train.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure, if high speed rail were to be developed and run by private sources.

If high speed rail is a government enterprise, it is part of the type of democratic socialism that is so popular in Europe.

Major rail systems have rarely, if ever, been developed solely by private sources--all the way back to the laying of the Transcontinental Railroad in the 1860s, hardly a "socialist" period in American history.

And I suppose that Medicare for all isn't socialism, even if the all private health insurance is abolished (as proposed by Harris).

If it's Medicare for all, then all private health insurance will certainly not be abolished. Many Medicare recipients have at least a supplemental insurance plan and the market is healthy. But no, it isn't "socialism." To be socialism the government would have to own the capital of the medical care industry.

 

[mark46]

You win 3 debating points or 4. Socialism is indeed technically owning the means of production. HOWEVER, this is a losing political argument.

Government ownership of transportation assets is a socialist not a capitalist proposition. You may believe that it would not be socialism for the government to own all the airlines ( to be abolished by AOC) or all the trains or all the busses or all the automobiles. My guess is the voters would vote against someone who took this position.

And yes, there are many types of government controlled healthcare. So, sure, it wouldn't be technically socialist if there were a single payer system with no private insurance options. But, I have no doubt that this positions will not be supported by the voters. Democrats have different views, with almost all favoring universal coverage.

Personally, I do indeed favor extending Medicare to non-elders gradually, and eventually to everyone. But this preserves private options, supplemental insurance, and prescription drug insurance. And yes, the government should be able to negotiate with drug companies, and sell policies across state lines.

.

If it's mMedicare for all, then all private health insurance will certainly not be abolished. Many Medicare recipients have at least a supplemental insurance plan and the market is healthy. But no, it isn't "socialism." To be socialism the government would have to own the capital of the medical care industry.

 

[Speedwell]

You win 3 debating points or 4. Socialism is indeed technically owning the means of production. HOWEVER, this is a losing political argument.

Lately, it is. The Right have succeeded in turning socialism into a bad word and there is little to be done about it.

Government ownership of transportation assets is a socialist not a capitalist proposition. You may believe that it would not be socialism for the government to own all the airlines...

In other words, I may be stupid. Thanks.

( to be abolished by AOC)

Have you actually read the Resolution?

My guess is the voters would vote against someone who took this position.

I was not making an argument here, just pointing out your false dichotomy:

"Sure, if high speed rail were to be developed and run by private sources.

If high speed rail is a government enterprise, it is part of the type of democratic socialism that is so popular in Europe."

Rail systems are rarely developed solely by private sources. There is always some government involvement and subsidy. Perhaps you meant to say privately owned rail systems, which GND does not rule out.

And yes, there are many types of government controlled healthcare. So, sure, it wouldn't be technically socialist if there were a single payer system with no private insurance options. But, I have no doubt that this positions will not be supported by the voters. Democrats have different views, with almost all favoring universal coverage.

Personally, I do indeed favor extending Medicare to non-elders gradually, and eventually to everyone. But this preserves private options, supplemental insurance, and prescription drug insurance. And yes, the government should be able to negotiate with drug companies, and sell policies across state lines.

What part of the GND rules that out?

 

[mark46]

Socialism IS a bad word in American politics and its has been for a century. Almost all of the platform of the Socialist Party have been passed into law.

However, we don't refer to these policies as socialist or communist. I would note the OP here defined "socialism" as I might define "communism".

Socialism is a bad word if the voters decide that it is. Sanders is a Socialist, and proud to be so, and at the same time around to caucus with Democrats and run as a Democrat. Personally, I don't find this acceptable. This is terrible politics.

As a society, we decide on WHO WE ARE and what system we want. We have chosen heavily regulated capitalism. Yes, and at times there is less regulation or more. We strongly believe in the "free" market", the invisible hand of capitalism, even though we believe in regulations. We strongly believe in having options and choices.

Sure, it would be an improvement for everyone to have health care provided by the government and a minimum income provided by the government. It depends on the choices. Thankfully, we have much better choices, ones consistent with our traditions and understanding of WHO WE ARE.
====
So, no, I don't think that Democrats should proudly present their policies as being "socialist" or their system as "democratic socialism". Of course, that presumes that the goal is actually winning. They could be putting them in pace of Goldwater with no intention of winning, and rather being interested is starting a movement for 16 years down he road. That's possible. We did Have Goldwater in 1964 and reagan in 1980. Of course, the trick is finding a Reagan, arguably one of the three best presidents of the century (usually it's one of the two best).

Lately, it is. The Right have succeeded in turning socialism into a bad word and there is little to be done about it.

 

[Speedwell]

As a society, we decide on WHO WE ARE and what system we want. We have chosen heavily regulated capitalism. Yes, and at times there is less regulation or more. We strongly believe in the "free" market", the invisible hand of capitalism, even though we believe in regulations. We strongly believe in having options and choices.

That would be a good thread in itself. My observation is that Conservatives dislike free markets and do all they can to dominate or destroy them.

 

[Sparagmos]

Since when is high speed rail "socialist?" I thought it was just a train.

Trains are actually very conservative! Ever read Atlas Shrugged? LOL.

 

[Ringo84]

Socialism is only a bad word to those (I don't necessarily include you, mark) who are gullible enough to accept right-wingers' framing of things like high-speed rail.

If we have chosen "heavily regulated capitalism" then that supposedly "heavily regulated" capitalism has failed us. It failed us first in 2007-08, when unregulated banking led to the economy falling off a cliff, and failed us again when all of those bankers and their golden parachutes failed to receive any sort of punishment for their actions.

For-profit health care has been failing us for 60+ years. It's made a few big insurance companies very rich, but it's left most of the rest of us with terrible, expensive insurance.

I'm not afraid of socialism and think that the national religion of unregulated crony capitalism has consistently failed to live up to much more than making the rich richer and the poor remain mostly the same.
Ringo

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So, the right objections to the Green Manifesto moving us much too far along the spectrum toward socialism. Your argument is that we are already at 41%, so we're already there?

There are few details to the Green Agenda. However, the proposals seem very likely to increase the percentage significantly. Surely, this would happen as a result of one-payer health care and high speed rail. Obviously, there are other examples.

It doesn't seem a strong argument in favor of the Manifesto to point out that, if enacted, the US would likely be further along than most European countries on the spectrum towards socialism. [Or, we would at least as much Democratic Socialist as European countries.

If we all agree with the numbers, wouldn't this be a strong issue for the Republicans?

...well, it actually wouldn't increase the numbers by that much if we didn't have to fund an overblown military and play world police.

My objection to the right's objection is that it's based on some false premise that in terms of public spending, we're miles apart from the Nordic countries they love to demonize.

Fact is, the numbers are pretty close, it just seems like the kind of spending that makes them angry is things like healthcare and education....but they seem to be perfectly content with spending larger sums on things that have destruction capability like tanks and fighter jets.

 

[mark46]

Yes, the system failed us because regulation was insufficient is 2007-2008. I would note that both parties were heavily complicit. The Democrats wanted everyone to own a house, even if they couldn't afford one. The Republicans were more than willing to allow banks to devise ways to make this happen.

Sure, bankers should have gone to jail. But that wouldn't have made me feel better. The system still failed. And just BTW, it was the American political system that succeeded in getting out of the recession, under Bush and Obama. Many countries are still failing and feeling the effects of the recession.
=======
With regard to health care, you indicate that the issue is that the system is a for-profit system. In many ways that's true. But let's dig down a bit.

I'm fine with a single payer system even if the doctors, hospitals and drug manufacturers make profits. Regulation can make this work, as well as allowing the single payer to negotiate prices. I have seen HMO's give fine service (Kaiser) and an insurance company negotiate and give great service, the system working since they had a virtual monopoly on hospitals (BC/BS).

We have a single payer for elders, for vets and for the poor. I will speak for the Medicare system. Other than the lack of negotiation, I think that the system works well. I would note that individuals can opt out. They can purchase private supplemental insurance. They can purchase drug coverage. And there are programs where all is consolidated in one program. The VA has its issues, but also can work. So, for me, I think that the answer can be single payer, rather than government-owned and run. What we would need is a plan to migrate folks onto the system, perhaps from birth onward. And yes, during any transition, there always needs to be a public option. Obamacare would have worked much better if there was a federal public option for those in states where the state didn't want to provide the public option.

Socialism is only a bad word to those (I don't necessarily include you, mark) who are gullible enough to accept right-wingers' framing of things like high-speed rail.

If we have chosen "heavily regulated capitalism" then that supposedly "heavily regulated" capitalism has failed us. It failed us first in 2007-08, when unregulated banking led to the economy falling off a cliff, and failed us again when all of those bankers and their golden parachutes failed to receive any sort of punishment for their actions.

For-profit health care has been failing us for 60+ years. It's made a few big insurance companies very rich, but it's left most of the rest of us with terrible, expensive insurance.

I'm not afraid of socialism and think that the national religion of unregulated crony capitalism has consistently failed to live up to much more than making the rich richer and the poor remain mostly the same.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Yes, the system failed us because regulation was insufficient is 2007-2008. I would note that both parties were heavily complicit. The Democrats wanted everyone to own a house, even if they couldn't afford one. The Republicans were more than willing to allow banks to devise ways to make this happen.

Sure, bankers should have gone to jail. But that wouldn't have made me feel better. The system still failed. And just BTW, it was the American political system that succeeded in getting out of the recession, under Bush and Obama. Many countries are still failing and feeling the effects of the recession.
=======

It sounds like lack of regulation was a major problem: What Really Caused the Great Recession?

With regard to health care, you indicate that the issue is that the system is a for-profit system. In many ways that's true. But let's dig down a bit.

I'm fine with a single payer system even if the doctors, hospitals and drug manufacturers make profits. Regulation can make this work, as well as allowing the single payer to negotiate prices. I have seen HMO's give fine service (Kaiser) and an insurance company negotiate and give great service, the system working since they had a virtual monopoly on hospitals (BC/BS).

We have a single payer for elders, for vets and for the poor. I will speak for the Medicare system. Other than the lack of negotiation, I think that the system works well. I would note that individuals can opt out. They can purchase private supplemental insurance. They can purchase drug coverage. And there are programs where all is consolidated in one program. The VA has its issues, but also can work. So, for me, I think that the answer can be single payer, rather than government-owned and run. What we would need is a plan to migrate folks onto the system, perhaps from birth onward. And yes, during any transition, there always needs to be a public option. Obamacare would have worked much better if there was a federal public option for those in states where the state didn't want to provide the public option.

Single-payer is also what I want, but I think that pursuit of profit is part of the problem. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to turn a profit, which means that they're acting in the best business of what makes money, and not in the best interests of people who need excellent care.

Other than that, I don't really see anything I disagree with.
Ringo

 

[mark46]

I think the answer is better insurance regulation.

.
Single-payer is also what I want, but I think that pursuit of profit is part of the problem. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to turn a profit, which means that they're acting in the best business of what makes money, and not in the best interests of people who need excellent care.

Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

I think the answer is better insurance regulation.

I disagree. I think what we need to do is take profit out of the picture completely so that insurance is not about shareholders making money, but about providing excellent care.
Ringo

 

[mark46]

I disagree. I think what we need to do is take profit out of the picture completely so that insurance is not about shareholders making money, but about providing excellent care.
Ringo

How do you do that? Will the governments be the insurance companies? Or do prefer the one-payer model with no private insurance. I suspect that few accept this. One critical element of Medicare is the ability to purchase supplemental health insurance, as well as prescription insurance, and dental insurance. There is a Medicare plan that does all of this. Many choose it.

Currently, insurance companies are heavily regulated by the state.

 

[Ringo84]

How do you do that? Will the governments be the insurance companies? Or do prefer the one-payer model with no private insurance. I suspect that few accept this. One critical element of Medicare is the ability to purchase supplemental health insurance, as well as prescription insurance, and dental insurance. There is a Medicare plan that does all of this. Many choose it.

Currently, insurance companies are heavily regulated by the state.

I think we should have single-payer.
Ringo

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why using a definition of socialism seldom gets us anywhere in these debates.

 

[Gigimo]

Citation needed.

Yeah, far right characterizations of moderate Democrats such as these are pretty silly.

That's your rebuttal?

 

[KCfromNC]

Since when is high speed rail "socialist?" I thought it was just a train.

It's an evil SOCIALIST! train. All aboard to government ownership of the means of production!

 

[KCfromNC]

That's your rebuttal?

To be fair, the posts I was responding to didn't have much actual substance to work off of.