Fewer poor and elderly are dying today due to Social Security regardless of how you wish to spin it.
Well, I never said SS was a bad program or didn't help the poor and elderly. In fact, it was a rather brilliant idea in it's inception and original intent. The problems arose when the system was 'corrupted' as most socialist systems are, eventually. Now, in the case of SS, it was a 'legal' corrupting, as Congress after Congress heaped on new mandates and responsibilities and borrowed money from the trust fund. Now we're faced with a system, regardless of how great it is, that simply can't remain solvent. This brings up the second big problem with socialist policy, what to do when they fail? Obviously, we just can't see how we can live without some kind of social security system, because that is what we've become accustomed to, so what can we do about this now? Well, the answer is simple, we need to
reform the system, so that it doesn't go broke, so that it will be there for this generation and the next, and we can rest assured of that. But Democrats and Liberals want to continue exploiting SS for political gain, by falsely claiming Republicans want to get rid of it, and scaring old people with rhetoric. Therefore, Democrats and Liberals stand in the way of reforming the system, fixing it so it remains solvent and viable. You see, if we actually FIX social security, the Dems can't exploit the issue anymore.
You're arguing against yourself. If social policies are Socialist then Capitalists wouldn't have voted for them but they did which means social policies does not constitute a Socialist government.
No, I am not arguing against myself, I am trying to figure out where you stand. Here, you are saying that social policies are NOT Socialism, but a couple posts back, you launched into a tirade against
capitalists (opposite of socialists) who
"have had almost 80 years since the New Deal (1933) to step up to the plate." And suggest it's time for a new ideology. It would appear you want to support socialist policy and vehemently attack capitalism, but you also want to claim that it's not Socialist. Perhaps you are right, perhaps it's Marxist?
Riiiight. Harvard always has someone pulling something out their ass.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ Why should people believe a Harvard study when we have a Dixie study?
This is funny.... So basically, pinheads can put "A Harvard study says...." in front of ANY statement, and it becomes TRUE! No need to discuss it further, because, A Harvard Study SAYS! Again... I don't give a damn WHO says it, Harvard included, find me a fucking example of a human being who has ever died, and the cause of death was found that they lacked an insurance policy!!! People simply do not die because they don't have a piece of paper showing they have insurance, it has never happened in recorded history, and it's not likely going to start happening anytime soon.
This is the perfect example of your lack of understanding. No one is trying to get rid of the 1%. When there are sufficient "life's necessities" available everyone is entitled to an adequate amount. After receiving an adequate amount the 1% can keep all the extras they wish.
But that's not going to happen either. There will always be a Top 1% who have more than they need, and we will always have people who don't have enough. The definition of "adequate" and "necessities" can change, and has changed. (Currently, politicians are debating whether contraceptives are a necessity.) It's a moving goal post, which is never achieved by Liberals. We're
always going to be just one funding bill away... one tax increase removed... one more regulatory mandate or social program... from saving the world and preventing death of old and poor people, and making life FAIR! It's like an ever-elusive dangling carrot. Poor and old people will still die. Rich people will most likely keep getting richer, and poor people will most likely still struggle. The difference in your Socialist model and my Capitalist model is, in my model, capitalists who have an interest in a robust economy and achieving goals through freedom and entrepreneurial human spirit, tend to be the Top 1%. In your model, the Top 1% are the Ruling Class elite, who control all the political power, and thus, the people.
We look at the two systems in the best two examples we have, the United States of America, and The United Soviet Socialist Republic. While capitalism was responsible for fighting and winning two world wars, launching the industrial age, inventing countless things to make life better for everyone, generating more money and resources for humanitarian aid that all other countries of the world combined, provided the greatest breakthroughs in medicine, as well as all other areas of science, went to the Moon and Mars, and developed the most powerful military force ever known to mankind. While your model resulted in approximately 100 million deaths, gave us a couple of the world's most ruthless tyrant dictators, and eventually collapsed, (incidentally, without ever solving the problem of old and poor people dying, or poor people getting a bigger piece of the pie.)
Greece's problems are due to corruption. For example, buyers and sellers do not declare transactions so no tax is paid. The corruption is so deep no one complains, until now. The same thing happens in other societies. People try to pay cash and avoid taxes. However, that is slowly changing as more and more transactions are done through credit and debit cards and don't forget the Biblical admonition that we'll all require a "chip" in order to make financial transactions. That will throw a wrench in the gears of the people who are nothing more than society's thieves.
Again, the argument wasn't whether Socialism ends in corrupt failure, the evidence for this is abundant. The point you tried to make was, democracies don't turn into Socialist governments, but they do... Greece is as good example as any. And Greece is also a great example of why Socialism fails. Instead of "spreading the wealth," as it portends, what happens is, the Ruling Class emerges... the government cronies who are to distribute the wealth, never seem to get the job done, the money always seems to find its way to their bank accounts and interests. Pretty soon, when all the capitalists are executed or banished, the only people who really have any wealth to speak of, just so happen to also be the people in charge of everything, including the political control.
Wow! You really are brainwashed. Without getting into details I can get an appointment with my family doctor (non-emergancy) within one week. When he referred me to specialists all the appointments were within two weeks. Furthermore, again, without getting into details, there are certain drugs and drug policies in the US which result in people being denied pain medication. Certain places in Canada have a computerized system where all prescriptions are entered into a database. That prevents one from being able to get fraudulent prescriptions filled. Therefore, those who require certain pain meds have no difficulty in obtaining them.
I have no idea why you are off on a rant about how wonderful your health care is. What you don't seem to grasp is, the most wonderful plan in the world is useless if it can't be sustained or paid for. We can't just live in a fantasy world, where we dream up some great idea that everyone gets free health care and no one has to pay... that isn't reality-based. In the real world, health care is expensive, it has to be. It's expensive because it takes people who know what the fuck they are doing, who have gone to school for countless hours, passed all kinds of tests, completed all kinds of registries and certifications for what they do, and this stuff isn't cheap or easy, it is very expensive and difficult. There isn't a way to make it cheap and affordable, without destroying the quality or availability.
Of course governments complain about costs even though medical costs with a government plan is 1/3 to 1/2 less expensive per capita. Dozens of countries have had government medical for 50+ years. Some much longer. It works.
No it doesn't. Everywhere they have attempted to have full government-run health care, it has been a disaster. It doesn't really matter how cheap it is to see a doctor, if you can't see a doctor because none are available. The ONLY way such a plan is even tenable, is if you can RATION health care. Now, in a country which doesn't have a Constitution, with citizens who do not have Constitutional rights, maybe they can get away with rationing health care, because, after all, what are the people going to do about it? Maybe vote someone out of power, only to be replaced with someone else who can't get rid of the Socialist albatross? And what are they going to "go back to?" The private sector infrastructure is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, you killed it off in the first chapter, remember? The only choice people have, is to remain enslaved to the government-run system, and learn to live with it.
You really have to do some serious research because, frankly, when if comes to talking out one's ass you're the board champion.
I've done plenty of research, it's just that, when I do research, I seek out all kinds of impartial information, whereas, you will gulp down whatever Socialist kool-aid you come across, because you believe it is making your case and proving your point, and helping to move the country toward Socialist government. Where I am truth-driven, you are agenda-driven... that's the big difference in our research methods.
Oh... and modestly, I am NOT the board champ of talking out of my ass... that would have to be either \\\|||/// or poet.
who pay a large portion of the cost. One can’t do “this”, they have to do “that” or they are disqualified. The same applies to other government programs.