1. 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

Discussion in 'Elections' started by KenS, Feb 26, 2020.

  1. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,417
    Ratings:
    +3,217
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    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.

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

    Was that a product of socialist ideology or American sanctions?
    Good point. Castro was a good soldier, and talked a good game, but, in the end, he became an oppressive dictator.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Are reactionaries too shallow to see the whole, historical picture? Are they unaware of the prosperity socialist policies have effected in Western Europe?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    But a single payer system would cost people less, not more. It would save money.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Yet every developed country except America has managed it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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.
     
    #65 Valjean, Feb 27, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  6. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    The founding fathers had monarchy in mind when they created our system.
     
  7. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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?).
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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?
     
  9. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    14,754
    Ratings:
    +6,059
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    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.

    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.
     
  10. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    #70 Valjean, Feb 27, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  11. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    It didn't end the depression, but it buffered its effects. It kept Americans employed -- and fed.
    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]
     
    #71 Valjean, Feb 27, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    14,754
    Ratings:
    +6,059
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    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.
     
  13. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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.
    I was making ~$50.00/h before I retired, as an RN. A specialist can make considerably more.
    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.
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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.
    before I retired, as an RN, I was making ~$50.00/h. A specialist could make considerably more than $100.000/y.
    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]
     
  15. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,158
    Ratings:
    +10,571
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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.
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,183
    Ratings:
    +2,561
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian


    The people did NOT like Castro after his true colors came out.... but he had control
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,183
    Ratings:
    +2,561
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    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.
     
  18. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,183
    Ratings:
    +2,561
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    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.
     
  19. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,183
    Ratings:
    +2,561
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian

    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.
     
  20. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,183
    Ratings:
    +2,561
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    And limited Government where people held the responsibility
     
Loading...