The case for Social Democracy.

This is all nonsense talk. Ok fine I change my premise to 'why another way would be better'. Please explain to me why your plan would be better.

 

in order to debate a position you have to first find someone who agrees on the premise I disagree with the premise.

if that's nonsense. You clearly were being dishonest when you said you wanted to have a debate.

explain the criteria that would make something better.

 

This is really just garbage talk man. Post some stuff and lets argue our points. I will agree on your points if you are arguments are convincing and vice versa. For goodness sake you haven't even explained your position on what healthcare should look like in the US.

 

no this is debate.

Most people don't like it you have to think like a lawyer.

I don't care about your points.

I don't care if you agree with my points and I don't care if you're persuaded. Your agreement with me has no bearing on whether or not my points are correct.

I don't see the point you would simply reject anything you don't find convincing.

 

What is your ideal premise?

 

On what?

 

On healthcare, what would've been your ideal premise.

 

A consistent one. First it was an argument supporting the position that universal health Care is good or bad for our country, than it changed to a serious argument then it changed to an argument containing a similar proposal.

I reject the premise that an argument for why it's bad for the country requires an alternative proposal.

We've been over this already.

 

I guess you didn't really want a debate. You wanted someone to argue with so you could counter it with opinion and convince yourself that you are correct.

 

Not true, just managing time. I've got exams. I didn't just want someone to argue with so I can counter and convince myself that I am correct. I genuinely want to debate our points of view on this issue and where we stand.

 

You don't debate points of view. Where you stand is where you stand it likely won't change. Especially since you can't nail down a premise.

 

Medicare for all will not work. It will cost 3 trillion a year. If you doubled taxes on taxpayers it still would not be enough to pay for it.

 

The idea of socialism is like the idea of a nude beach. It sounds like a great idea until you actually show up see it for what it is.

 

Capitalism works, Communism kills. Why do you think the Soviet Union built a wall? Not to keep people from flooding in.

You want Socialism? Move to Venezuela. Be sure to bring plenty of water and toilet paper, they don't have any there.

 

It's true for you personally.....see that road in front of your house....lol

 

Except they dont.

Per the facts provided, they make a small amount more post tax, yet cost of living is 40% or more higher than ours.

This lack of income for investment results in less social mobility often afforded by investing

I'll agree with that. I support a voluntary group plan offered by the government for those that dont have alternative insurance providers. What I oppose is forcing everybody into this plan or subsidizing the costs of this plan with tax payer dollars.

Level the playing field? I thought the goal was to provide insurance, not social engineering outcomes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by level the playing field.

Sure, in the same format that I think a trust fund kid is happy without realizing that the lack of responsibility to earn the wealth is really a disservice to their individual development of life skills and personal responsibilty. Happy sure, but at what cost?

I'm not saying government has zero responsibility to healthcare. What I'm saying is that the desire to create a mandatory universal plan ignores the fact the millions that are happy with their insurance and doctors would be forced to change. I dont think that's right to support other people's happiness.

 

Again, I am not advocating for a complete capitalist system.

Please dont make this a black and white only discussion of talking points.

 

Sorry for interrupting here but I had to interject as the Venezuela meme is becoming so overused by and misrepresented by rightists and Trumpers that some context needs to be provided. Venezuela is failing largely because it based it's economy on one commodity whose value has dropped dramatically since the Saudi overproduction began hurting the economies of many oil producing countries around the world including Russia and Canada.

The Chavez government actually brought in some needed reforms and helped many of the poor and peasant classes with land and programs and used petro-dollars to life many out of poverty. Unfortunately, the leadership that has followed has led the country poorly after the crash of Venezuela's oil economy and pressure from outside has not helped. That Venezuela is now facing a repressive and corrupt dictatorship that does not know how to manage the economy is hardly a unique trait of the left.

It is as if the rightists who are always using the country as a trope of how awful socialism is have never heard of brutal, vicious right-wing dictators who destroyed the economy to enrich themselves such as Pinochet or Marcos and that Venezuela is somehow endemic of socialist or communist regimes.

Let's look at the record.

The Soviet Union was actually communist in name only just as China today has a Communist economy in name only. Yet, rightists are always using these countries as examples of the evils of socialism without the foggiest idea what socialism or communism really means. Without actually understanding the difference between Communism, Socialism or State Capitalism, most of the commentators using the horrible plight of Venezuela to demonize everything left of Ronald Reagan really are using a logical fallacy to make sweeping generalizations without understanding the history or context behind what they are saying.

But lets take them at their face and look at the record of a country like China which though not really a Communist economy, would be defined as one by those who are politicizing Venezuela. China has literally modernized it's economy and lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in the history of the world considering where they started from after the revolution.

How do you square that circle with the Bucky's point that Communism kills? Capitalism always works" For who?

The contradictions of capitalism always lead to the kind of gross inequality of economic and political power we are seeing increasingly today. This was true is Marx's time, it was true in the 1890's and the Gilded Age and it is true today.

 

No, they aren't right wing smears.You like "social benefits" which you didn't earn. That's why you are willing to put up with a cobbled form of capitalism. It's not true capitalism, else you wouldn't be able to force people to pay for those wonderful social benefits.

Capitalism is simply private ownership. By saying you like social democracy, that's just mob rule socialism. You're still looking around at what people own and thinking how much of that you'd like to have, and then using the power of the state to get it. If you really believed in capitalism, you'd work for your own stuff.

 

Wrong. I am simply looking at the right policies that would benefit the middle class and poor. Universal healthcare and education do just this. Has nothing to do with me wanting to take stuff from people, but for believing in the right policies which help those struggling. I just posted numerous times in here facts about healthcare pre-govt intervention in this country. It leaves swaths of people uninsured, including seniors. I know all of these facts are hard to swallow, and that's why you strawman, but that's fine. Government intervention in healthcare has nothing to do with why there are many uninsured. If the least regulated market in our history, gave us high uninsured numbers, this has nothing to do with regulations. It is the for-profit model that does this. Face it, if you don't have the money and you are sick, you will either go bankrupt or die. Upwards of 45,000 people in this country are dying every year due to lack of care. Medical bankruptcies are the one of the top bankruptcies in this nation. 30 million are uninsured. This is not because people don't work. It is because they are working hard and still struggling to afford healthcare costs, and education for their kids. It is because capitalism doesn't work in healthcare or education. It is not the same as buying furniture. If you can't afford care, you will either go bankrupt or die. Name me one area on the planet where free-market healthcare works. You can't because there isn't any. And you can keep calling me a socialist or social democracy socialism, but you're wrong.


https://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/1-in-2-working-americans-make-less-than-30000-a-year/

https://washingtonsblog.com/2015/10...kers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/people-die-without-health-care_us_5910b4e8e4b0104c7351257b

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcare-republican-bill-no-coverage-death

 

Nope. Though I'd have been happy to live there prior to the advent of the Hair Pony.

 

This.

 

Only if they're actually utilised for that purpose. The reality is that the long term (multi-generational, now) safety and food security of the First World has led to a huge sector of society thinking they shouldn't even have to do that. So sure are they of their own safety, that they're willing to take the tiny risk.

 

Once again, ONLY if they're utilised.

What benefits the 'poor' most, in the Third World where no one is starving? EDUCATION. What percentage of 'poor' First Worlders do you see ensuring their kids are educated out of poverty? When you can answer that truthfully, you'll understand why these programs are important, but that they are not a magic bullet. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

Which just coincidentally, I'm sure, requires taking stuff from people.