Senate Democrats to Introduce A Socialist 'Public Option'

non sequitur

 

Other than Medicare and Medicaid, the US does not have govt run health care.

 

I didn't call Medicare socialism and fire and police protection and the military is not socialism.

 

Correction; Our fire, police, and the military is socialism

Example; Firefighters

State-owned Means/Factors of Production; State-owned Facilities, State-owned Equipment and tools, State-owned Hydrant, State Employees.

Agree or disagree?

 

Your ability to completely confuse Democrats with Republicans is astounding.

Just for the record, and grins, the framers knew nothing about Republicans or Democrats. If they had been aware they would have disliked both equally.

 

So you don’t know what either mean.

 

If we must buy into ObamaCare
I prefer buying into a Federal or State program.

Requiring to support the profits of
private insurance companies is MOST repulsive.


Moi

It Is So Very ​

 

@Libhater is calling government social programs as 'socialism', and so are many on the right.

Maybe you are not, but many on the right are.

 

The only reason Obama introduced the bill was he perceived that republicans could live with it as mandated insurance was their idea in the first place, and Romney had a version of it in Massachusetts when he was governor.

Of course, in retrospect, he was wrong and he could have gotten a single payer system enacted, so many on the left knock him for it.

 

No one comes up with a 2700 page bill that is perfect out of the gate, it requires tweaking and cooperation between parties to make it better, over time.

However, republicans would not work at all with Obama to correct it's imperfections.

 

You inability to stay on point is astounding, I mentioned nothing about the 'framers' and your interjecting it is non sequitur.

You only say 'confuse' because you are accusing dems of what republicans are guilty of, in spades, and the evidence is very clear, on that front.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

By the way, when you refer to something not directly in the post you are quoting, it's courtesy to specify what you are talking about, because one thing is certain, you are not making any sense whatsoever

 

So you are not calling the military and the police and the fire protection and Medicare socialism?

 

You attacked the source and dismissed the content. That is the genetic fallacy. I was just pointing that out. Thanks.

 

No I don't agree that is socialism. Just because my city maintenance department owns a hammer that my city government is socialistic.

 

They're not. Those are public services, mostly at a local level, that people agree on providing as a "public good". That's an economic concept that has fairly clear definitions and criteria. The government providing "public goods" is NOT socialism.

This debate ploy is very common. List public goods that are most efficiently provided by government and claim it's socialism, because almost everyone is in favor of it - then say, "see, you support socialism, too!" Meh. A sign of someone who's never taken an economics class for sure.

 

You got it backwards, Patricio. Totally backwards. It’s the left that holds that the solution for any problem, large or small, is more bureaucracy, more laws, and at least one or two new agencies to solve the problem.

Just because the party’s name is Democratic doesn’t mean that’s the governing style the support.

 

Don't forget a massive unfunded budget where we print money our great grandkids haven't earned yet to fund them.

 

This is one of my pet peeves; the fact that an entity like a city or state provide a service to the population doesn’t make it “socialism’. Municipality have been providing these type of services for centuries. Rome built road, bridges, viaducts, etc. doesn’t make them socialists. Police and fire services also have been around for centuries.

 

Which is why there should never be a 2700 page bill in the first place

 

Well, they're not socialism for lots of reasons, but we can take "roads" as an example.
1) Roads themselves are not a "means of production". They facilitate the distribution of produced goods, but they are not a means of production.
2) Roads are most always produced by private industry.
3) Contrast public roads with driveways, which benefit mostly the homeowner, but are also paved areas on which we drive vehicles. Driveways are most efficiently provided for by individual homeowners.
4) Roads in poor areas are often in poor shape.
5) Roads are difficult to build in a way that makes them rivalrous. Even toll roads charge everyone roughly the same.
6) Roads are not exclusive. My use of a road does not prohibit you from using the same road.
7) The public provision of roads is very easily arguably the most efficient way to provide roads. This is not so with other goods and services. Socialism is not concerned with efficiency, only method of provision and production and the ownership of the two.

The public's provision of roads is simply not what is meant by socialism.

 

LOL, or it turns into a 3700 page pile of poop, with tons of perks and gifts to donors.

 

If someone is making an argument regarding socialism, I'll proceed in a debate based on the person's concept of what socialism is, as long as they are consistent.

I, personally, understand that the term 'socialism' cannot be reduced to a dictionary entry. Both terms, 'socialism' and 'democratic socialism', if put to print on standard letter size paper, will take up about 150 pages derived from the Wikipedia entries, and quite a bit more if the annotations are printed.

So, the term depends on context, and I will argue or debate anyone on the subject, but they explain to me what they mean when they use the term.

I'm flexible on the definition, however, given the depth of the information that is available regarding the term.

A number of those on the right have asserted that Biden, Obama, and democrats, in general, that their policies are 'socialism'.

Because those policies, many of them, are based on government sponsorship, I will conclude that THEIR DEFINITION is that socialism = government sponsored or government run programs.

IF that is their definition, and that IS their definition, based on how the right tosses around the term with respect to democrats, then all government run enterprise are 'socialism'. Now, I'm not saying that is what socialism is, I'm saying that is what republicans and many on the right are saying that is what it is. In other words, You can't select one government run enterprise, call it socialism, but not another, that doesn't cut it. You have to be consistent.

Now, you tell me what YOU mean by the term.

But, if the definition of democrats policies were left up to me, I'd go with.......

"Capitalism Plus"

 

Again, you refer to items not actually in the post you are rebutting. Given that I'm responding to many posts, I can't keep track of every conversation and I dont have time to back track to see what the **** it is you are talking about, so be a little more courteous......

Be specific, what are you referring to?

IF you can't answer the question, don't bother answering, thank you.