If Democratic Socialism Works, Why Doesn’t Venezuela Have Toilet Paper?

You didn't understand what I wrote or what it meant. Because another country's government can provide cheaper health care than our private sector doesn't mean it will work the same in the U.S. I am certain that it wouldn't. No fantasy, just life experience.

 

And you base this on "life experience"? Very limited and subjective experience...otherwise known as "biased opinion"

 

Very subjective.

 

Get back to us when you can be objective

 

Same to you. You provided nothing but opinion. I disagree with your opinion objectively.

 

You disagree with my opinion and facts in general...subjectively.

Words have meanings

 

No. It's a legitimate question. It's one Bernie Sanders has been asking for years. It's one Elizabeth Warren has been asking for years. It's one Andrew Yang tried to draw attention to during his campaign. And it's one we should all be considering before we vote in November.

 

I stated the same in one of posts saying - we would never adopt one of these other systems straight across the board.

This whole conversation is premised on "If we did swap straight across the board"

you are saying "but we wouldn't" - I get that .. that is why the discussion is premised on "If we did". These guys are not going to address the systemic issues - no way.

This does not help your claim however - which is that Private will always be cheaper than Gov't. While this should be the case - often it is not, which is due to bastardization of fair and free markets.

The EU Systems are inefficient bureaucratic monstrosities. It should be easy to do better - yet - we pay way more for roughly the same quality of service. That is the reality.

Does it make sense ? Absolutely not - How could Private - who pay employees much less - with less benefit - and these employees work harder and are more productive cost more than Gov't ? Answer - Price fixing and other anti competitive practices.

There are various other reasons - some examples from the private part of our system - some from the Bureaucratic side - as to why our system costs double.

None of this changes the stark reality - that Total HC cost for 2017 was 3.5 Trillion; and we are paying double what other nations pay for an equivalent quality product.

The odds of going to a 100% private system in the US are next to non existent. The odds of doing a EU swap - getting rid of most private HC in one broad stroke - are nearly but not quite as low.

So where does this leave us ? What we could do ( and will do) is move towards a different system slowly rather than one shot straight across the board.

Which direction should we go ? - which is realistic ? I can point to a number of EU systems that are half the cost - these are socialized medicine systems. You can't point to any extant Private system that is half the cost. That does not mean that such a system could not exist .. what it does mean is that there is none that exist that you can point to.

So we have two paths

Path A) Socialized Medicine - exists right here - right now - in numerous examples and forms - all way cheaper than our system.

Path B) Privatized Healthcare - Doesn't exist.

Could path B be cheaper than our current system ? - Perhaps but who knows - there are many examples to the contrary.

Unlike Path B - with Path A - we know that system is way cheaper - by half. Would we be able to implement such a system here in short order ? - highly unlikely - but this does not change the fact that a "legitimate" cheaper alternative exists.

 

So surprise, we don't agree with one another.

 

What socialist politicians ask for is of no interest to me unless it supports common sense. This doesn't deal with logic or common sense to me. Sorry.

 

I agree.

 

Why? I state opinions that are in opposition to your opinions. What can be objective about that?

 

Your blubbering gibberish - disagree on what ? It is a fact that HC systems in Europe cost half of what ours cost.

You can deny that water is wet if you like -but that will not change reality.

 

I'm not quibbling about the fact. I'm quibbling about the lack of logic in thinking that the U.S. Government would produce similar results. That is an opinion, not a fact. To me it is a pie-in-the-sky opinion. Are more clear now?

 

Based on nothing

 

Comparing Sweden to the United States is like comparing Chicago to a rural village of 10k people. There is no logic in that argument at all.

Additionally, the people of the countries you hold up as examples have accepted that an effective tax rate of 60% is applied in order to facilitate government cradle to grave mentality. As such, these countries standard of living is far inferior to what we enjoy in the United States, just not quantified in the "how happy" criteria used to push this agenda.

No, I don't want to live in 800 square feet with out a private yard, I don't want cars to cost twice as much to encourage public transport and cycling. I don't want excessive costs on utilities. I don't want a country dependent on others for our defense. Idon't want to give government 50% of the fruits of my labor to be taken care of. All of these sacrifices are required to make the plans you support work.

Not to mention, the US is far more diverse, and these systems require uniform education and work ethic so everybody contributes to the state funding.

These countries are not nearly as innovative or entrepreneurial as the United States, mostly because the incentive for such risk doesn't exist.

People in the US want our style of life, while ignoring the sacrifices made for a collective society that makes everybody a lemming to the State.

There it is! Odd, we have had three European and two central or south American Au Pairs live with us for the last 7 years, and not one wanted to leave the United States to return home after living here. Not one. We have a line of people wanting to come here, even from these glorious European countries. What your indexes don't touch on is the qualities of life that come from individualism over collectivism.

They also aren't allowed to have large sugary drinks, their fast food is regulated, a pack of smokes is nearly $20 US. They sure have it good with government taking the role of mom and dad for life.

Socialism is rife with corruption. Just like our social programs.

 

Dupe

 

I didn't say the US Gov't would produce similar results - Quit making stuff up and attributing to me. I stated the reverse in the previous posts - get some reading comprehension.

 

I will do better than that. I will stop playing your game.

 

Opinions are always based on something but it you say yours are based on nothing then I have no reason to argue with you.

 

Now you are projecting Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person.

You were the one playing games - accusing others of things they did not say .. aka "building strawmen".

 

Someone else said that. Not I. Accusing others of theings they did not say?

 

You said - "I'm quibbling about the lack of logic in thinking that the U.S. Government would produce similar results. That is an opinion, not a fact. To me it is a pie-in-the-sky opinion. Are more clear now?"

I did not say the US Gov't would produce similar results. That is not the discussion. That question has been dealt with and dispensed with numerous times.. so why are you pretending otherwise ?

You are inferring that I stated otherwise ... and I have not - so why are you repeating this - as if it addresses what is being claimed ?

It is you who is not on the right page

 

You argue just to argue. What you quoted is what I said. Obviously you didn't find the "building strawmen" because I didn't say it. We disagree. It isn't a reason to get argumentative about something I didn't say and then doubling down on the fact that you think I said it. Calm down. Enjoy life.

 

Who is not calm here ? You said what is stated - but as you say this is a small thing - It was a rather benign inference which bothered me not.

The point that you are missing - is that you were arguing a point - that had no relevance to the conversation. So it wasn't the inference - but that it had nothing to do with what was being discussed - hence the comments related to "we are not on the same page" - talking about two different things.

You say - we disagree. I say - about what ?.

You say - "I'm quibbling about the lack of logic in thinking that the U.S. Government would produce similar results"

This is inferring that I held an opposite position - which I don't.

So where do we disagree ? and who is being argumentative

Your premise - Our Gov't would not produce similar results - if it implemented a HC system like in Europe. Got it.

I agree that our Gov't would mess up the implementation - and thus not produce the same results - but, then this would not be swapping straight across the board.

I also agree that should the Gov't - try to implement some partial changes - which is likely what will happen- they will fk it up.

I also agree that these other systems are bloated inefficient bureaucratic monsters -

Even with all this - I still think it is the only path plausible path. The Gov't would have to mess it up really bad to not be cheaper - but the Gov't will not attempt to swap straight across the board - as I have recommended.

Even not doing the above - it should still be cheaper. We already have the bloated bureaucracy - will it get bigger ? Yep -but not by that much - some the employees would just work for a different boss - and in some of these other systems you have private along side.

3.5 Trillion was the total paid in 2017. The entire Federal Budget was 3.6 for the year. That is ridiculous - Gov't end was half so that is half of Federal income + the other 1.75 Trillion that we pay out of pocket.

These other systems are "HALF" dude .. meaning - you could drop all out of pocket payments to zero .. and not increase the Federal Spend .. with a straight across the board swap. I would recommend a splitting it half half to start .. personal and Gov't payment decreases by half.

This is what we could do .. not what we would - or will do.