• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Socialism -- a pathway to disaster

atanu

Member
Premium Member
As someone who lived in Venezuela and married a Venezuelan, have friends in Cuba and was in the neighboring countries when the Socialist Sandanistas were in power, I can't help but wonder how people can follow Socialism with Bernie Sanders leading the charge.

I have seen it again and again. They promise utopia, using real-life issues, and it ends up being worse than what they had when they started.

Example: Bernie's "Great education with Cuba -- you can't throw out the good of what he did"... really?

It was an education in communism and not in growing in education. It was an elimination of faith-religion and the promotion of the state religion of communism. Yes, graduated doctors in medicine with no medicine to treat the people. Yes, it was agriculture... but for export while each family had delegated 2 chickens a months (to eat), a few pounds of coffee, and other bare minimal sustenance to get you by while the cows were exported and if you killed one, certain prison time.

BUT THEY DID HAVE HOSPITALS FOR ALL AND EVERYONE WAS EQUAL... equal in poverty unless you were in the upper echelon and medicine shelves were bare.

I still remember in an interview with a Cuban pastor in the US (year ago when it was a rare event) - as he began to perspire profusely when asked questions about Cuba. Why? Because his family was still in Cuba and a wrong statement heard by other Cubans (who might be plants by the government) would mean disaster for their family.

So, what do we have today? What is the carrot on the hook of Socialism?

1) Free university education (as long as you don't mind getting the same pay as one who didn't go)
2) Free medical for all (as long as you don't mind not getting the treatment you want when you want it - IF - there are medicines
3) Everybody gets minimum wages $20/hr - you keep $10/ hour and then the government parcels out your monthly need.

See it happen again and again--and they say it would never happen! That is what THEY ALL PROMISED!

Bernie and the rest of them are no different. They are simply adding some heat to the frog in the water.

Are people blind?

Capitalism at its roots works with greed of a few and therefore is exploitative. It promotes inequality and ergo unsustainable. If left unregulated the moneyed (most of whom inherited the wrongly gotten wealth) will milk dry the common people to death. This is historically true and this fact itself has led to concepts of socialism.

No system can be perfect. But capitalism has greed at its root.

...
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As someone who lived in Venezuela and married a Venezuelan, have friends in Cuba and was in the neighboring countries when the Socialist Sandanistas were in power, I can't help but wonder how people can follow Socialism with Bernie Sanders leading the charge.

I have seen it again and again. They promise utopia, using real-life issues, and it ends up being worse than what they had when they started.
The problem isn't the socialism. It's the totalitarians who hijack these initially popular and successful revolutions, often with the help of industrialists and the US government.
Example: Bernie's "Great education with Cuba -- you can't throw out the good of what he did"... really?
But Castro and the Sandinistas did promote literacy and education. They did raise many of the poor out of poverty. That's all Bernie's pointing out.
Nothing is completely black or white. Hitler eliminated unemployment; Mussolini made the trains run on time.
It was an education in communism and not in growing in education. It was an elimination of faith-religion and the promotion of the state religion of communism.
There are reasons revolutions occur. People are being exploited and kept in poverty. But when the exploiters are reigned in they scream bloody murder and seek foreign intervention, in the name of capitalism and free trade.
Yes, graduated doctors in medicine with no medicine to treat the people.
And who's economic sanctions prevented them from from realizing their goals? We undermine their government then say "see, socialism doesn't work!" Even so, Cuba managed to send hundreds of doctors to third world countries all over the world.
Yes, it was agriculture... but for export while each family had delegated 2 chickens a months (to eat), a few pounds of coffee, and other bare minimal sustenance to get you by while the cows were exported and if you killed one, certain prison time.
As with most 'socialist' programs, initially they're successful, but if they're taken over by greedy authoritarians or undermined by capitalist manipulators, things fall apart.
BUT THEY DID HAVE HOSPITALS FOR ALL AND EVERYONE WAS EQUAL...
equal in poverty unless you were in the upper echelon and medicine shelves were bare.
Was that a product of socialist ideology or American sanctions?
I still remember in an interview with a Cuban pastor in the US (year ago when it was a rare event) - as he began to perspire profusely when asked questions about Cuba. Why? Because his family was still in Cuba and a wrong statement heard by other Cubans (who might be plants by the government) would mean disaster for their family.
Good point. Castro was a good soldier, and talked a good game, but, in the end, he became an oppressive dictator.
So, what do we have today? What is the carrot on the hook of Socialism?

1) Free university education (as long as you don't mind getting the same pay as one who didn't go)
Huh? What does that mean? The last time we tried free education the government made a huge profit on the program, millions were raised out of poverty and a thriving middle class was created.
2) Free medical for all (as long as you don't mind not getting the treatment you want when you want it - IF - there are medicines
And why wouldn't there be medicines? Currently, it's the industry's profit motive that's eliminating needed but unprofitable drugs, and raising prices on indispensable medications to astronomical levels. I've seen previously cheap, common medicines like Heparin or antibiotics become unavailable in my own hospital. It's Neoliberalism that cares nothing for the general welfare, and won't hesitate to cause harm if there's a profit to be made.
3) Everybody gets minimum wages $20/hr - you keep $10/ hour and then the government parcels out your monthly need.
Socializing the commons will raise your standard of living. It will make services like education, fire and police protection, healthcare, &c; services used by the whole of society, affordable and available to everyone, not just the well-to-do, as is the case now.
What's wrong with that? Other countries manage it, but we're told it's impracticable in this, the richest of countries.
See it happen again and again--and they say it would never happen! That is what THEY ALL PROMISED!
You've seen exploitative regimes toppled, then taken over by other exploitative regimes when their socialist policies were undermined.
Again, it's not socialism that's the problem.
Bernie and the rest of them are no different. They are simply adding some heat to the frog in the water.

Are people blind?
Are reactionaries too shallow to see the whole, historical picture? Are they unaware of the prosperity socialist policies have effected in Western Europe?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's not really... cough, cough... socialism Bernie is pushing. :rolleyes:

So healthcare is the problem, for millions of Americas and a single payer system is the promised cure.

Transitioning to a universal healthcare system is going to be costly — in terms of dollars — no matter what. But by adopting a single-payer system, Americans would be forced to endure high costs that aren’t calculated in dollars: long wait times, rationed care, and few choices beyond the government-controlled system.

The innovation, quality improvements, and timely care offered by competing private firms would be largely destroyed by adopting a single-payer system. Although these advantages have been only partially preserved by multi-payer systems that allow some of the advantages of a free marketplace, those now clamoring for a single-payer system would have us believe this all must be abolished in favor of near-total government control.
Single-Payer Healthcare Is The Worst Kind Of Universal Healthcare. - Center for Individualism


More government control does not necessarily translate to better healthcare.
But a single payer system would cost people less, not more. It would save money.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which I have now, but I understand not everyone does. So, how do you provide healthcare for everyone without destroying what millions of Americans already have? That's where it gets complicated.
Yet every developed country except America has managed it.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Now folks can understand why single payer won't work in the U.S.
I don't understand. Please explain.

Note the interviewees had English accents. England does not have a single-payer system. England has a socialized system.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then, socialism wouldn't be the answer. There is a reason why the purpose of our fathers was a "limited government" and not a government control for all people
The founding fathers had monarchy in mind when they created our system.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So single payer does what exactly? How does single payer fix our broken system? We are not a socialist country, none of these other countries are socialist either. So there no point bringing socialism into the conversation, no point, no point in saying we need to raise taxes.
Single payer is co-operative insurance. Ensuring everyone gets all the healthcare s/he needs at low cost.

True, we're a mixed economy, like all countries. But we have a much greater percentage of our wealth concentrated at the top, and a very large percentage of the population working paycheck to paycheck, who would be ruined by an unexpected expense of just a few hundred dollars.
Government is supposed to help us; to increase our prosperity through organizing co-operative ventures. "Government" is supposed to be us.

Why not bring up socialism? That's the subject of the OP. That's the proposed solution to many of our problems. It's what we're discussing.
We have enough money in our current system of capitalism. How does making people who are otherwise covered by private healthcare change to a single payer system fix anything?
Because those people paying for private insurance could get better coverage at half the price with a different system.
Or calling it single payer is silly. It's really asking the government to get involved in everyone's healthcare, whether they like it or not.
Right now it's insurance companies who largely control what care you get. Coverage is hashed out between insurance clerks, who's job it is to minimize costs and maximize profits, and doctors, who are rarely able to prescribe the optimum treatments. Government, at least, has no profit motive.

Single payer is not government involvement. It's government payment. Unlike the current system, there's no third person between you and your doctor.
You're confusing single payer with socialized medicine, like the UK has (had?).
Right now I have a choice in health coverage. I can pay for more, pay for less. Not pay anything. How does taking away my choice fix the problem?
If you want to pay exorbitant prices for poor quality, be my guest. Keep your private insurance. Most people, though, would opt for high quality and low price.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Exactly. No sense in giving money to a government that we already know is incapable.
So fix the government. Right now the only candidates we have are rich corporatists and oligarchs who pander to rich special interests who fund their campaigns.
What are your views on public funding of elections?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Single payer is co-operative insurance. Ensuring everyone gets all the healthcare s/he needs at low cost.

True, we're a mixed economy, like all countries. But we have a much greater percentage of our wealth concentrated at the top, and a very large percentage of the population working paycheck to paycheck, who would be ruined by an unexpected expense of just a few hundred dollars.
Government is supposed to help us; to increase our prosperity through organizing co-operative ventures. "Government" is supposed to be us.

Why not bring up socialism? That's the subject of the OP. That's the proposed solution to many of our problems. It's what we're discussing.
Because those people paying for private insurance could get better coverage at half the price with a different system.
Right now it's insurance companies who largely control what care you get. Coverage is hashed out between insurance clerks, who's job it is to minimize costs and maximize profits, and doctors, who are rarely able to prescribe the optimum treatments. Government, at least, has no profit motive.

Single payer is not government involvement. It's government payment. Unlike the current system, there's no third person between you and your doctor.
You're confusing single payer with socialized medicine, like the UK has (had?).

All this, not that I'm saying you are wrong, but it seems like speculation to me. It's like pie in the sky. Maybe it'd work but, maybe not. Just don't see a necessary correlation.

If you want to pay exorbitant prices for poor quality, be my guest. Keep your private insurance. Most people, though, would opt for high quality and low price.

Actually don't pay that much. Well paid less before the ACA. Actually I don't mind paying for healthcare, premiums or taxes. the claim is that we'll get better coverage for less. I don't think however any politician can actually guarantee that though.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"The new deal" was a plethora of tax funded programs thrown at the wall hoping to end the depression. It didn't work, and some economist credit it for a longer depression.
What ended the depression was WW2.
It didn't end the depression, but it buffered its effects. It kept Americans employed -- and fed.
The new deal violated some constitutional restraints, was used by FDR as a political tool to buy political influence, and was rife with waste.

It was a case of "something must be done, do something" rather than a coherent policy with specific well thought out goals.
FDR wasn't afraid of trying new approaches. Those that worked, he kept, Those that didn't he scrapped or altered.
Republicans are so scared of change they fear doing anything.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
So fix the government. Right now the only candidates we have are rich corporatists and oligarchs who pander to rich special interests who fund their campaigns.
What are your views on public funding of elections?

I suspect it is not only the candidates but embedded into our political system. Obama tried. This idea that single payer will solve the problem might be too optimistic.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In Australia, quite a while back, Doctors worked out of their homes, don't know how much they made then but in UK doctors average less than $100,000 a year, In the US, a little less than $400,000.
Doctors here have massive education loans to pay back, and many go into the field not for humanitarian reasons, but to make a lot of money. That's Neoliberalism for you.
Nurses in the UK make less than $30K. In the US a nurse can make up to $100K. Doctors here claim they have a high cost for malpractice insurance.
I was making ~$50.00/h before I retired, as an RN. A specialist can make considerably more.
So we have the ACA. Many doctors/hospitals will not treat you if you're on the ACA. You might have insurance, doesn't mean you get treated.
Many doctors and hospitals won't treat you if you have "X" insurance. Insurance companies have preferred carriers, co-pays, premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, &c. Policies are incredibly complicated and designed to keep users in the dark and extract the most profit possible. Private insurance is not about helping anyone. It's about making the maximum profit possible. It's a business.
I suspect the government would have to heavily regulate the medical industry to get it to work. A lot less incentive for a person to become a doctor in the first place.
Yet it doesn't dissuade anyone elsewhere in the world, moreover, do you really want a doctor motivated primarily by profit?
Medical personnel should not be motivated by profit.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In Australia, quite a while back, Doctors worked out of their homes, don't know how much they made then but in UK doctors average less than $100,000 a year, In the US, a little less than $400,000.
Doctors here have massive education loans to pay back, and many go into the field not for humanitarian reasons, but to make a lot of money. That's Neoliberalism for you.
Nurses in the UK make less than $30K. In the US a nurse can make up to $100K. Doctors here claim they have a high cost for malpractice insurance.
before I retired, as an RN, I was making ~$50.00/h. A specialist could make considerably more than $100.000/y.
So we have the ACA. Many doctors/hospitals will not treat you if you're on the ACA. You might have insurance, doesn't mean you get treated.
Many doctors and hospitals won't treat you if you have "X" insurance. Insurance companies have preferred carriers, co-pays, out-of-pocket expenses, &c. Policies are incredibly complicated and designed to keep users in the dark and extract the most profit possible. Private insurance is not about helping anyone. It's about making the maximum profit possible. It's a business.

I suspect the government would have to heavily regulate the medical industry to get it to work. A lot less incentive for a person to become a doctor in the first place.[/QUOTE]
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
All this, not that I'm saying you are wrong, but it seems like speculation to me. It's like pie in the sky. Maybe it'd work but, maybe not. Just don't see a necessary correlation.
Don't take my word for it. It's already in effect. Ask the citizens of single-payer countries if they'd go back to an out-of-pocket or insurance based system.
Actually don't pay that much. Well paid less before the ACA. Actually I don't mind paying for healthcare, premiums or taxes. the claim is that we'll get better coverage for less. I don't think however any politician can actually guarantee that though.
You're lucky. For most people the ACA provided better coverage for less, even considering that the republicans forced it to charge higher prices in an effort to scuttle it.
https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2019/07/26/12-ways-the-gop-sabotaged-obamacare/

No, no-one can guarantee you'll get better coverage for less, but that has been the experience everywhere it's been tried.
Does it not seem reasonable that eliminating major expenses like insurance middle-men and extortionate pharmaceutical prices would bring down costs?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Let's look at what he actually said about those things, I'd be interested in the direct quotes.

Pretending there is no difference between authoritarian dictatorships and democracy is what's blinding here.


The people did NOT like Castro after his true colors came out.... but he had control
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The "blindness" actually comes from those who ruled those countries before revolutionaries violently took over the country. Instead of making reasonable reforms when they had the chance to do so, they chose to engage in their corruption and stubbornly cling to power until a bunch of angry revolutionaries were standing on their doorstep.
There is some truth to the "why"!!! The problem is that they went from the pot and landed in the fire of worse corruption and people who still cling to power.... until a counter revolution happens.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Capitalism at its roots works with greed of a few and therefore is exploitative. It promotes inequality and ergo unsustainable. If left unregulated the moneyed (most of whom inherited the wrongly gotten wealth) will milk dry the common people to death. This is historically true and this fact itself has led to concepts of socialism.

No system can be perfect. But capitalism has greed at its root.

...
I think both have greed. That is why, IMV, we need Jesus. Now it is wealth with a purpose that is given (not taken) because one loves his brother as himself.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
But Castro and the Sandinistas did promote literacy and education. They did raise many of the poor out of poverty. That's all Bernie's pointing out.


By evidence of those who live there and give testimony of reality... he did NOT raise people out of poverty... he made everyone EQUAL in poverty. This isn't opinion.
 
Top