Are Social Security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare "socialism?"

NiftyNiblick

1960s Chick Magnet
That's EXACTLY what all three of those things are.

If you support them, you are to some extent a socialist, and also in the significant American majority.

If you don't support them, you are a right wing extremist.

And if you do support them but refuse to acknowledge that they're socialism, then, without any room for argument, you're a fucking idiot.
 
That's EXACTLY what all three of those things are.

If you support them, you are to some extent a socialist, and also in the significant American majority.

If you don't support them, you are a right wing extremist.

And if you do support them but refuse to acknowledge that they're socialism, then, without any room for argument, you're a fucking idiot.

You can also add in the Veterans Administration
 
That's EXACTLY what all three of those things are.

If you support them, you are to some extent a socialist, and also in the significant American majority.

If you don't support them, you are a right wing extremist.

And if you do support them but refuse to acknowledge that they're socialism, then, without any room for argument, you're a fucking idiot.

Everyone is a socialist. It's all a matter of degree. Public education, roads, the military, Medicare, Social Security. The act of taxation is inherently socialist. Any services provided by the government are socialist.
Reminds me of the old joke: A wealthy man approaches a beautiful woman and asks how much he would have to pay to spend the night with her. She responds with '10 million dollars'. The man counters; 'how about five bucks?'. The woman is outraged and says 'sir, I am not a whore', and he responds 'well, of course you are, we're just arguing over the price'.

And that applies to every Trumptard here. They are all socialists. We're just figuring out how far they'll go.
 
Except when it comes to helping others, competition is total crap, everywhere and always. Individualist animals die out, co-operative ones survive. All countries live by co-operation, but greed does make for faster development, at a huge cost. Only nutters believe competition is sacred: it can only survive by police action and brainwashing, which is why McCarthy is so important in American history. Everywhere, capitalism survives only by introducing strong co-operative elements into their economy, but the US, as the centre of capitalism, has to pretend it doesn't, at terrible cost. Take health - the US version costs twice as much as the British, and misses out millions. Silly system really!
 
Except when it comes to helping others, competition is total crap, everywhere and always. Individualist animals die out, co-operative ones survive. All countries live by co-operation, but greed does make for faster development, at a huge cost. Only nutters believe competition is sacred: it can only survive by police action and brainwashing, which is why McCarthy is so important in American history. Everywhere, capitalism survives only by introducing strong co-operative elements into their economy, but the US, as the centre of capitalism, has to pretend it doesn't, at terrible cost. Take health - the US version costs twice as much as the British, and misses out millions. Silly system really!

It's a horrible system that benefits mostly the insurance companies and the health care providers. If you drive around a typical American city or suburb, you will see construction cranes at many of the hospitals. They're constantly adding on. It's not that more ppl are sick -- it's that they are competing against each other for patients. Everyone has to have a dedicated heart center, a cancer center, a dialysis clinic, a women's health center. One of the reasons we chose to retire to this area was its excellent medical center and stable of physicians and other providers. Guess what? In the 4.5 years since we moved here, they built an ENTIRELY NEW HOSPITAL! The final cost was estimated at ~$1 million per patient bed. The perfectly-fine prior hospital sits there, abandoned.

Who's paying for that? Everyone who pays health insurance premiums, whether private-pay or through their employer.
 
That's EXACTLY what all three of those things are.

If you support them, you are to some extent a socialist, and also in the significant American majority.

If you don't support them, you are a right wing extremist.

And if you do support them but refuse to acknowledge that they're socialism, then, without any room for argument, you're a fucking idiot.

Nothing to add, Nifty. Just wanted to make the comment bigger.

I loved it.
 
SS no. You paid for it.
Unemployment yes.
Medicare somewhat. You did pay for it but you got a great deal.
Medicaid yes.
 
The GOP through their well financed propaganda machine have managed to persuade people to hate the word socialism, although these individuals don't understand what the word socialism means and how it impacts them.
 
No. I was answering the thread's question.

Well, if you were, you made a huge mistake on the Social Security.

First of all...we all paid for all of those things. That does not mean their nature is not socialistic.

And of the four you mentioned, Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare and Medicade...

...the most socialistic in nature is Social Security.

The notion that "socialism" means people get something for nothing is an absurdity. If you are going to discuss this issue intelligently, you must rid yourself of that idea immediately.
 
That's EXACTLY what all three of those things are.

If you support them, you are to some extent a socialist, and also in the significant American majority.

If you don't support them, you are a right wing extremist.

And if you do support them but refuse to acknowledge that they're socialism, then, without any room for argument, you're a fucking idiot.

Give me back the $ that my employers and I have paid and we'll call it even.
 
Except when it comes to helping others, competition is total crap, everywhere and always. Individualist animals die out, co-operative ones survive. All countries live by co-operation, but greed does make for faster development, at a huge cost. Only nutters believe competition is sacred: it can only survive by police action and brainwashing, which is why McCarthy is so important in American history. Everywhere, capitalism survives only by introducing strong co-operative elements into their economy, but the US, as the centre of capitalism, has to pretend it doesn't, at terrible cost. Take health - the US version costs twice as much as the British, and misses out millions. Silly system really!

is oppressing dissent cooperative?
 
Socialism is a label the rightys use to fire up people who do not understand what it is. They use that label on programs that help the people instead of leaking money to the rich and powerful. "I don't know what it is, but I don't like it." Americans are just that easy to play.
 
Well, if you were, you made a huge mistake on the Social Security.

First of all...we all paid for all of those things. That does not mean their nature is not socialistic.

And of the four you mentioned, Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare and Medicade...

...the most socialistic in nature is Social Security.

The notion that "socialism" means people get something for nothing is an absurdity. If you are going to discuss this issue intelligently, you must rid yourself of that idea immediately.

Just wrong but youre entitled to your opinion
 
Everyone is a socialist. It's all a matter of degree. Public education, roads, the military, Medicare, Social Security. The act of taxation is inherently socialist. Any services provided by the government are socialist.

If we label all governmental programs and services as socialism, that makes no distinction between capitalist and socialist economic systems.

The term as used today distorts its meaning beyond usefulness and serves as a whipping boy between liberals and conservatives.

Capitalist countries whose major industries are largely private can have extensive social welfare systems (Norway) while socialist countries with largely state owned industries can have little in the way of social welfare systems (China).
 
It's a horrible system that benefits mostly the insurance companies and the health care providers. If you drive around a typical American city or suburb, you will see construction cranes at many of the hospitals. They're constantly adding on. It's not that more ppl are sick -- it's that they are competing against each other for patients. Everyone has to have a dedicated heart center, a cancer center, a dialysis clinic, a women's health center. One of the reasons we chose to retire to this area was its excellent medical center and stable of physicians and other providers. Guess what? In the 4.5 years since we moved here, they built an ENTIRELY NEW HOSPITAL! The final cost was estimated at ~$1 million per patient bed. The perfectly-fine prior hospital sits there, abandoned.

Who's paying for that? Everyone who pays health insurance premiums, whether private-pay or through their employer.

The US system is a direct result of wage and price controls imposed by the FDR administration on the US economy during WW 2. Employers were limited in the wages they could offer workers and in a market where there was a shortage of workers to begin with, many started offering other benefits in kind in lieu of higher wages. One of these was "free" health care / insurance.

When WW 2 ended, many of these benefits in kind disappeared or were slowly reduced to nothing. But health insurance continued to be one that was offered by many employers. This spread across industry and we ended up where we are.
Interestingly, the one segment of the health care market that hasn't seen outrageous price increases is the one that doesn't rely on health insurance or government payment (like Medicare / Medicaid). That is, cosmetic and related surgery and products. This remains an out-of-pocket market segment and has actually seen prices fall compared to inflation. It makes a strong argument that possibly the best solution to the cost of healthcare is to return to a largely market driven model rather than a government take over.

As for the cost of building a hospital... A good part of that has to do with extant building codes. As a small example: Look around you if you are at home or work (assuming you don't work in a hospital). See those receptacles and switches for electric power? At home the residential grade ones cost about $1 apiece. If you have the "Decor" ones (the paddles) that are popular now those are about $2 each (you are paying for the 'look' and nothing more). Commercial grade receptacles and switches cost about $3 each.
The ones required in hospitals cost around $7 each. It gets worse. If you see one of these in a hospital

s-l300.jpg


That's an orange isolated ground receptacle

They run about $16 a shot.

If they spec this sort:

82250_l.jpg


You are paying about $14 a shot for that green dot on it.

Hospitals also generally spec epoxy or terrazzo flooring that is ungodly expensive to install per square foot.

One reason they might have built an entirely new hospital is because the old one was built pre-late 80's and would be too expensive to refit to current standards. Much of what I'm saying about hospitals is massive overdesign out of an almost paranoid level of caution for safety and reliability brought on in good part by the plethora of liars... err, lawyers and lawsuits against the medical profession when they make an error.
 
Back
Top