Socialism good or bad?

[Docscurlock]

I agree with much of what you said. However, for me it's a matter of interpretation. It is unrealistic to expect people to easily agree on the Constitution any more than we can interpret the Bible the same. If we did, there would not be so many forms of Christianity, each being right according to its followers (same for other religions). Per the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers had to work through countless issues to build a system within the tripartite government that would ensure Constitutional disputes could be settled on behalf of the people (the ability of states to override the Supreme Court). This also allows the nation to evolve with the times, while protecting the foundational principles.

I believe the unwillingness to debate in a non-violent fashion is attributed to "responsible adults" who allow the nation to be fractured into "two sides," rather than countless sides bounded by a set of common principles. Bottom line--democracy is hard.

There are areas that are open to interpretation but when the words, Congess shall make no law, shall not be abridged, The Congress shall have Power To...coin Money aren't really open to interpretation, they are just plain old being ignored. The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of government so in essence the creation of a socialist state (which some people think is evolving) could be deemed innappropriate and unconstitutional. Every nation needs to evolve but with our form of government, a constitutional republic (not a democracy) it should only evolve within the framework provided by the Constitution. If someone doesn't like the rules there are even ways to change them in the constitution. There is no matter the government could do a better job than the private sector except for negotiating treaties, maintaining equal weights and values, keeping free trade between the many states and providing for the common defense of our nation.Healthcare, welfare, social programs could all be better run at the state level. If for example, California wants to provide free everything and Wyoming wants to be a bastion of libertenarism, the states can pass laws to that effect, If you want free crap, move to California, if you want government to stay out of your life move to Wyoming. The people of California will have to pay more in taxes to pay for all of the programs and the people in Wyoming can keep their tax dollars and pay for their own college (or not).

The ability to debate in a non violent fashion is rapidly disappearing and I agree, is not the fault of any one age group and that is a shame. The two party system we have is partly to blame for this and partly people are just getting grumpy. We are having a debate and I haven't resorted to name calling and threats of violence and you haven't either (yet).

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

There are areas that are open to interpretation but when the words, Congess shall make no law, shall not be abridged, The Congress shall have Power To...coin Money aren't really open to interpretation, they are just plain old being ignored. The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of government so in essence the creation of a socialist state (which some people think is evolving) could be deemed innappropriate and unconstitutional. Every nation needs to evolve but with our form of government, a constitutional republic (not a democracy) it should only evolve within the framework provided by the Constitution. If someone doesn't like the rules there are even ways to change them in the constitution. There is no matter the government could do a better job than the private sector except for negotiating treaties, maintaining equal weights and values, keeping free trade between the many states and providing for the common defense of our nation.Healthcare, welfare, social programs could all be better run at the state level. If for example, California wants to provide free everything and Wyoming wants to be a bastion of libertenarism, the states can pass laws to that effect, If you want free crap, move to California, if you want government to stay out of your life move to Wyoming. The people of California will have to pay more in taxes to pay for all of the programs and the people in Wyoming can keep their tax dollars and pay for their own college (or not).

The ability to debate in a non violent fashion is rapidly disappearing and I agree, is not the fault of any one age group and that is a shame. The two party system we have is partly to blame for this and partly people are just getting grumpy. We are having a debate and I haven't resorted to name calling and threats of violence and you haven't either (yet).

I won't touch the (not a democracy) part other than to say we are a combination of all three--constitutional, democratic republic. But that goes back to getting distracted by labels vice specific elements of each label.

I'm still stuck on the interpretation piece. For example, I personally believe in gun ownership (with some common sense limits--less than some, more than others). But, when I read the Second Amendment verbatim, I understand how it can be interpreted several ways--everyone is right in his own mind: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Some could read it to say, "yeah, but the purpose is for a well-regulated militia (Switzerland, Estonia, etc)." Others can focus on the "right of the people." Counter again, "yes, people vice federal government, subject to regulations related to the militia..." and on and on. So, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment was intended to support ownership for the purpose of militias. It later re-ruled that it is about the individual. Point--it will be a never-ending argument, understandably. One example of many. Fortunately, there are mechanisms for debating and adapting it over time, as has been done.

 

[rebellovw]

Didn't say that but free market principles lead to innovation and competition leads to better care at better prices. Take the cool cars we have now, Ford, GM and Dodge are competing against each other to get your discretionary spending for modern muscle cars. Each one ups the game every year. They also compete to keep prices down to make their products more appealing. Now imagine healthcare run by people that all make the same amount of money, no room for advancement and no competition to get your healthcare money. I for one look or quality when I look for healthcare, I don't want to be treated or diagnosed by someone who doesn't strive to provide good care. All Obamacare is, is a way to distribute the wealth, my healthcare costs go up so they can subsidize someone who doesn't have to pay out of pocket. Healthcare hasn't improved because of it. We already had a state run health program called medicare and medicaid which accomplish the same thing but they are going broke.

We have had that system for years upon years and it is terrible we certainly do not have mustang GT quality healthcare. I agree with you regarding widgets but not a persons health.

What are your options to buy healthcare on your own and not worry about pre existing conditions or being laid off.

Healthcare is something people shouldn’t have to worry about. As it is now you can work for 25:years and completely lose your healthcare. You can get sick and go broke. How can you justify that?

Obamacare is what most early retires depend on. The system is a mess for someone that has worked a long time and built up a large savings.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250229

 

[Docscurlock]

We have had that system for years upon years and it is terrible we certainly do not have mustang GT quality healthcare. I agree with you regarding widgets but not a persons health.

What are your options to buy healthcare on your own and not worry about pre existing conditions or being laid off.

Healthcare is something people shouldn’t have to worry about. As it is now you can work for 25:years and completely lose your healthcare. You can get sick and go broke. How can you justify that?

Obamacare is what most early retires depend on. The system is a mess for someone that has worked a long time and built up a large savings.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250229

I think you would be hard pressed to find "better" healthcare anywhere. There may be certain instances of a hospital or doctor in the world that may be better at certain things but not overall. Maybe its my libertarian streak but I also think I shouldn't have to worry about your healthcare either. I am a compassionate person but there are limits to the people I can afford to support. Health insurance is available to everyone, government assistance , ie medicare and Medicaid is available to the less fortunate.
"You can get sick and go broke"
That is the real problem, cost. Let's go back to my original opinion and the recommendation of exploring tort reform. Maybe that would be a good place to start fixing our medical system. Obamacare is and was a disaster, lets look at ways to make healthcare affordable so it isn't financially devastating to someone. Lets look at undocumented migrants and their taxation of the current medical system. Lets look at the FDA approval hoops that have to be jumped through at great cost to get a medication or medical item to market in the US. There are lots of medications and procedure available in other countries that we can't utilize because of crazy FDA guidelines and expensive liability insurance (going back to tort reform).

 

[Docscurlock]

I won't touch the (not a democracy) part other than to say we are a combination of all three--constitutional, democratic republic. But that goes back to getting distracted by labels vice specific elements of each label.

I'm still stuck on the interpretation piece. For example, I personally believe in gun ownership (with some common sense limits--less than some, more than others). But, when I read the Second Amendment verbatim, I understand how it can be interpreted several ways--everyone is right in his own mind: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Some could read it to say, "yeah, but the purpose is for a well-regulated militia (Switzerland, Estonia, etc)." Others can focus on the "right of the people." Counter again, "yes, people vice federal government, subject to regulations related to the militia..." and on and on. So, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment was intended to support ownership for the purpose of militias. It later re-ruled that it is about the individual. Point--it will be a never-ending argument, understandably. One example of many. Fortunately, there are mechanisms for debating and adapting it over time, as has been done.

The second amendment, along with the common good clause have been sticking points that are unending, I will agree to that. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems pretty simple to me but if you want to take guns away the first part adds some murkiness to it. I think the original intention of the document should be examined to try and interpret its meaning. For example, the first (free speech, religion), third (no quartering of troops in private residences), fourth (citizens safe from unreasonable search and seizure, search warrant) and fifth (due process), 6th (right to a speedy trial), 7th (right to a trial by jury of your peers), 8th (no excessive bail) are all personal rights of a citizen. So in between all of those personal rights, they stuck in a states right to have a militia?

Geez, no one wants to debate Article 1 section 8 and the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve?

 

[rebellovw]

I think you would be hard pressed to find "better" healthcare anywhere. There may be certain instances of a hospital or doctor in the world that may be better at certain things but not overall. Maybe its my libertarian streak but I also think I shouldn't have to worry about your healthcare either. I am a compassionate person but there are limits to the people I can afford to support. Health insurance is available to everyone, government assistance , ie medicare and Medicaid is available to the less fortunate.
"You can get sick and go broke"
That is the real problem, cost. Let's go back to my original opinion and the recommendation of exploring tort reform. Maybe that would be a good place to start fixing our medical system. Obamacare is and was a disaster, lets look at ways to make healthcare affordable so it isn't financially devastating to someone. Lets look at undocumented migrants and their taxation of the current medical system. Lets look at the FDA approval hoops that have to be jumped through at great cost to get a medication or medical item to market in the US. There are lots of medications and procedure available in other countries that we can't utilize because of crazy FDA guidelines and expensive liability insurance (going back to tort reform).

I appreciate your thoughtful response but you really miss the point about our healthcare being private sector for years and still it is in terrible shape. I agree the legal aspect needs fixing but that is only one facet.

What are you going to use for healthcare when you retire? Let’s start with that. If your job provides retirement healthcare then you can easily sit behind your argument. If it doesn’t and you are like me and will have to obtain healthcare (along with fund your own retirement) for early retirement then this will be interesting and I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Cheers.

 

[Hack]

Socialism is not state control of business, Hack. There is are forms of socialism based on state control (ownership) of all means of production, but those are not the only forms of socialism. It is the form most commonly associated with communism (5th stage). The logic in that case is the state has to reorder the economy on behalf of the people. Then, control passes to the people, classes disappear and so does the government (rainbows and unicorns)...communism by definition. So, the key to socialism is not who controls production; the key is distribution of wealth. How can wealth be redistributed if the businesses are not heavily taxed? Plenty of examples across Europe (income tax, dog tax (yeah, really), TV tax, road tax...).

The key to fascism (a governance concept without an inherent economic concept) is nationalism (complete with xenophobia, etc) and centralized control by a single party and single leader. The idea of the stick bundle is that the nation is stronger when unified (in a xenophobic way), and stronger still when the unity is projected by the state on behalf of the people (per Mussolini). In that case, of course the state owns means of production and distribution of wealth--claiming it was socialism (fair distribution) won favor of lower social classes who were in financial dire straits (World War I; Great Depression, etc) and got the fascists elected.

No amount of arguing will change history, political theory or (European) political categorization. I believe effective self-governance (democracy) requires us to break apart the labels and focus on implementing principles. We (Americans) do not believe in government controlling means of production. We do believe in some form of wealth distribution. How much? With what controls? What oversight? Those, I think, are the issues our elected representatives have to present solutions for, rather than making news talk shows richer by arguing whether something is "socialist" or "fascist" or left or right (or pick a label) and therefore inherently evil. The labels distract from the real issues.

Well said.

I agree that labels are less important - as long as the label isn't used to misconstrue or misinform people about an ideology. I think people want to call fascism right wing because they want to compare Trump to Hitler. And there's no comparison between them. So the correct information of fascism being left wing actually becomes important because people think good things happen when the government gains lots of power over individuals. People should realize that the American right wing ideals are for government to have LESS power. And so the American right is the opposite of fascism in many ways and the American left is advocating policies that will lead to a government that functions in a way more similar to past fascist governments - at least in that the government would have much more authority to do whatever they want.

The American left wants to divide by race just like past fascist governments did. They are constantly talking about race differences and advocating policies that divide us by race. I'm not saying they are identical, though. Just that the theories of the right wing in America are opposite from both fascism and the left wing in that the right wing advocates color blindness rather than emphasizing racial differences. The right wing wants to bring us all together rather than divide us like the left wing wants.

The key to me is that when government gains too much power, there are abuses. And we in the US have already gone too far down that path. Quite a few government officials have been caught breaking laws and it's still in question whether they will be punished for their crimes. And our president has been "investigated" for over 2 years based on fabricated information when there was no crime. It's a very scary situation to me, as in my opinion we are right at the cusp of punishing people for having "wrong" thoughts while allowing those that have "correct" thinking to do whatever they want with no consequences.

 

[Docscurlock]

I appreciate your thoughtful response but you really miss the point about our healthcare being private sector for years and still it is in terrible shape. I agree the legal aspect needs fixing but that is only one facet.

What are you going to use for healthcare when you retire? Let’s start with that. If your job provides retirement healthcare then you can easily sit behind your argument. If it doesn’t and you are like me and will have to obtain healthcare (along with fund your own retirement) for early retirement then this will be interesting and I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Cheers.

I quoted your whole post but will break it down into sections for my response
"]I appreciate your thoughtful response but you really miss the point about our healthcare being private sector for years and still it is in terrible shape."
Two things, I would appreciate you giving me some examples of how terrible it is. It's not perfect but even you must agree that its better than what you would get in most countries. No one goes to Canada, Mexico or Central or South America to receive medical care. Lots of people come to the US to receive treatments. Our healthcare system is at least as good as you get anywhere else if we compare quality of care and innovation. Second, if we look at the parts of the healthcare system that the government does control they are no where near models of perfection. Look at the terrible care our veterans receive, that's down right criminal. I've never heard anyone say now that I'm on Medicaid my worries are gone. These are examples of our government running your future healthcare.

" I agree the legal aspect needs fixing but that is only one facet. " It is the part that leads directly to your largest concern, cost. Lots of lawyers have made lots of money from class action lawsuits. So much so that if you watch late night TV enough you will eventually find one you could fit into on an advertisement. That money that is paid in lawsuits comes from somewhere, my guess is its from medical care costs and insurance premiums.

"What are you going to use for healthcare when you retire? " God willing, I won't be forced into some government program and can continue to be covered by my insurance plan that I make monthly payments to that cover the costs of my healthcare after my deductible is met.

" Let’s start with that. If your job provides retirement healthcare then you can easily sit behind your argument." OK, I own a small business and pay my own insurance premiums every month. Can't wait til my kids are all grown up and gone so I can drop them to save some money. My retirement planning also has to include saving money to continue to pay that premium until I die or something else comes along.

" If it doesn’t and you are like me" Sounds like we are in the same boat
"will have to obtain healthcare (along with fund your own retirement)" Yes, I am saving money every paycheck, no trust fund baby here, unfortuneately. No cushy pension or disability plans.

"early retirement " I wish, I have to keep working to keep saving for retirement or live in penury when I get older. My retirement plans will likely include me starting a new second career (part time hopefully) to help pay for health insurance and gas for my mustangs. I'm hoping to be done with my current gig in 8-10 years. I'm looking at 50 years of age. I've been thinking about what to do after. I was thinking part time bartender or open an ice cream shop.
Lets at least try and agree on one thing right now, if you don't pay current market rate for your health insurance, whether its Obamacare or a single payer socialistic medical system, someone else does have to pay for it. Even if its the government system, that money has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear. If you decide to retire early, expect to have health insurance or health care, someone else is going to be paying the tab. Can we agree that at least that is true?

 

[Caballus]

Lots of people go to Mexico for medical care...

https://psmag.com/economics/medical-tourism-is-booming-in-mexico

https://www.thisisinsider.com/medical-tourism-americans-save-money-healthcare-2018-6

 

[Caballus]

Well said.

I agree that labels are less important - as long as the label isn't used to misconstrue or misinform people about an ideology. I think people want to call fascism right wing because they want to compare Trump to Hitler. And there's no comparison between them. So the correct information of fascism being left wing actually becomes important because people think good things happen when the government gains lots of power over individuals. People should realize that the American right wing ideals are for government to have LESS power. And so the American right is the opposite of fascism in many ways and the American left is advocating policies that will lead to a government that functions in a way more similar to past fascist governments - at least in that the government would have much more authority to do whatever they want.

The American left wants to divide by race just like past fascist governments did. They are constantly talking about race differences and advocating policies that divide us by race. I'm not saying they are identical, though. Just that the theories of the right wing in America are opposite from both fascism and the left wing in that the right wing advocates color blindness rather than emphasizing racial differences. The right wing wants to bring us all together rather than divide us like the left wing wants.

The key to me is that when government gains too much power, there are abuses. And we in the US have already gone too far down that path. Quite a few government officials have been caught breaking laws and it's still in question whether they will be punished for their crimes. And our president has been "investigated" for over 2 years based on fabricated information when there was no crime. It's a very scary situation to me, as in my opinion we are right at the cusp of punishing people for having "wrong" thoughts while allowing those that have "correct" thinking to do whatever they want with no consequences.

All fair points. However, we somehow ended up back at the left and right thing, which I don't subscribe to. I particularly don't believe racism and race baiting are left-right unique. I believe they're an American thing. Color blindness, in my opinion, is an excuse not to address what is a long-standing, deep, complex problem in the U.S. Closing our eyes to it and pretending everything is normal will not make it go away any more than reverse discrimination will make it go away. It takes active, continuous attention and leadership.

Investigation--definitely mired in politics and embarrassing as a nation. Nevertheless, the criminality, corruption, and lack of integrity it unveiled is even more embarrassing (the indictments were all based on confessions--after false statements). Another instance where left-right comparisons are inappropriate--wrong is wrong.

 

[Docscurlock]

Lots of people go to Mexico for medical care...

https://psmag.com/economics/medical-tourism-is-booming-in-mexico

https://www.thisisinsider.com/medical-tourism-americans-save-money-healthcare-2018-6

Apparently I stand corrected, but lets analyze the article in the context of my debate points. I just read the first article, BTW.
"For Alexis Monson, it was worth traveling from San Francisco all the way to Mexico City even for basic health-care appointments. In October, she managed to fit visits to the dermatologist, gynecologist, and dentist into a three-day trip south of the border.
Monson, who's self-employed, has gone about a year without insurance. She used to have insurance through the Affordable Care Act, but she says it was too expensive to maintain. Before the Mexico City trip, she hadn't seen a gynecologist or dentist in over two years."

She has forgone medical insurance because of the ACA that rebellovw is arguing for because it solves all our problems. It just made it necessary for this woman to travel to a foreign country to receive medical care that is available 4 miles from her house.

"The Medical Tourism Index ranks Mexico 29th in the world for its volume of medical travelers." Wonder where the US fits?A report of McKinsey and Co. from 2008 found that between 60,000 and 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care, The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the US for medical care (Wikipedia)

"When the Affordable Care Act came, there was a lot of hope, and a lot of people who needed [non-emergent medical care], for example, knee replacements ... they decided to hold off. They had a lot of hope Obamacare would take care of that," Datta says. "But as time proceeded, that hope evaporated. So we had a lull in those types of procedures for a couple of years, and they are are back again, going to Mexico for [these treatments]." Obamacare didn't solve the BIG problem, affordability, in fact it made it less affordable for lots of folks, myself included.

They also mention that taking advantage of the strong dollar helps in keeping the costs low to Americans who can afford procedures many Mexicans can't in their own country. Having a devastated economy makes it nice for rich tourists.

"Even if you have access to Seguro Popular, many times you will encounter that they don't have the prescriptions that you need at the hospital, or some services are not covered, so most Mexicans actually have to pay out of pocket in the private market ... to compensate the inefficiencies and lack of coverage that they should be receiving from public hospitals, but, given resource constraints, they're unable to get," Vargas Bustamante says.

This says volumes about state run socialist medicine, gee, I can't wait.

"While his American clientele is largely seeking a reprieve from financial costs three and four times more expensive than those in Mexico, Canadian patients often head south to skip lengthy wait times under their nationalized health-care system."

Wow, Canadians go even further but it's not about saving money, it's about not standing in line until you die.

 

[Docscurlock]

Investigation--definitely mired in politics and embarrassing as a nation. Nevertheless, the criminality, corruption, and lack of integrity it unveiled is even more embarrassing (the indictments were all based on confessions--after false statements). Another instance where left-right comparisons are inappropriate--wrong is wrong.

I only quoted part of your response to Hack because I definitely agree with the left-right disparity. They are all jerkwads.
Lets talk about the recent investigations, definitely a few of those guys were scum, they definitely broke some laws, but not one indictment that was related to Russian collusion or Trump. Several of the indictments were on the charge of lying to Congress, anyone who ever answers questions that can be turned around and the answers can be used as a new crime is a fool. I would definitely use the 5th amendment to keep from answering any questions. Lets take this one step further, Adam Schiff states in front of the House Intelligence Committee says he has proof that Trump colluded with Russia. I say show that proof or be guilty of lying in front of Congress the same as Michael Flynn. Put up or shut up , Adam. Michael Flynn's only crime he was charged with was lying under oath.

Theres another point I'd like to make as far as this obstruction of justice crap, how could Trump obstruct an investigation into a crime that by Mueller's admission didn't exist. Obstruction is knowingly trying to influence an investigation of a crime, if no crime existed, how could you possibly obstruct the investigation of it. More crap from Schiff.

 

[CAL Captain]

I'd say it's both. To many loop holes for business to skirt paying what they should. Sadly the people that are also in charge of closing those loopholes also get kickbacks. A US business should not be allowed to figure ways to pay less federal tax than a US family.

You realize that businesses don't pay taxes, right?

 

[Docscurlock]

You realize that businesses don't pay taxes, right?

I only wish that were true, I'd have a new GT500 on order right now. My business pays lots of taxes, property tax, sales tax, use tax, corporate tax, matching FICA, SS, Medicare, matching state tax , the list goes on. It can be argued that my clients pay the taxes through the fees I charge but businesses write lots of checks to state , federal and local governments.

OMG, I'm turning into "that" guy. I wish the weather would warm up so I could go outside.

 

[CAL Captain]

I only wish that were true, I'd have a new GT500 on order right now. My business pays lots of taxes, property tax, sales tax, use tax, corporate tax, matching FICA, SS, Medicare, matching state tax , the list goes on. It can be argued that my clients pay the taxes through the fees I charge but businesses write lots of checks to state , federal and local governments.

OMG, I'm turning into "that" guy. I wish the weather would warm up so I could go outside.

Hey, I'm self-employed, too. I get sick writing the checks to the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board every quarter that total in low-mid 5 figures.

Without my clients to pass that burden on to, I wouldn't be able to pay those taxes. Every business builds their tax burden into their customer/client pricing. They have to.

Business are just another conduit from the taxpayer to the govt.

Sponsored