Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

bKhR9i5CGkA


To bad The BURN MAN didn't win here in MURICA!

Venezuela is an even better(worse?) example of this. Still, there are so many different kinds of socialism that it's quite unfair to assume that it must be automatically destructive.

Yeah. There are all kinds of Soci... Bad. Crappy. Shitty and The F-ing Worst.

ALL KINDS!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yeah. There are all kinds of Soci... Bad. Crappy. Shitty and The F-ing Worst.

ALL KINDS!
So which one of these is the Nordic model?

The most chilly kind.

Yep. South of the Border Soci truly ROCKS!

WCUq0V-3mgo

i keep forgetting that youtube is considered a news outlet to the intellectually/emotionally stunted.

Countries with the highest standard of living in the world

Finland
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Iceland

Most socialist countries in the world

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

I wonder if there's a correlation

Originally posted by jaden101
Countries with the highest standard of living in the world

Finland
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Iceland

Most socialist countries in the world

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

I wonder if there's a correlation

I wonder as well about correlations. Query about the high standard of living countries: what is the racial makeup of those countries?

obvious racist baiting aside:

https://www.infoplease.com/world/countries-world/ethnicity-and-race-countries

And he wonders why people don't believe him when he pretends to be anti Steve Bannon.

No race baiting, I've just heard discussions before about the great standards of living in these countries. So I was curious because I've heard people like Ben Shapiro argue diversity, or rather the lack of diversity..is perhaps a factor.

Originally posted by Surtur
I wonder as well about correlations. Query about the high standard of living countries: what is the racial makeup of those countries?

Well if recent news is to be believed then half of them are overrun with marauding bands of Islamic extremists.

Originally posted by Robtard
And he wonders why people don't believe him when he pretends to be anti Steve Bannon.

It's a logical thing to wonder given I've never praised him.

BTW, how's your boy Milo doing these days?

Originally posted by Robtard
BTW, how's your boy Milo doing these days?

Last I heard is that there are rumors some conservative publisher might publish his book. Same place that has published books by people like Dinesh D'Souza.

Originally posted by jaden101
Countries with the highest standard of living in the world

Finland
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Iceland

Most socialist countries in the world

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

I wonder if there's a correlation


Only in that the study was done by Socialist Countries.


So ya know.....

maybe they have stricter penalties for welfare fraud?

I know they don't have em for things like RAPE.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
maybe they have stricter penalties for welfare fraud?

Or those who use fraudulent social security numbers, etc. perhaps?

Originally posted by Surtur
Or those who use fraudulent social security numbers, etc. perhaps?

you're doing that as well?

Why am I not surprised.

Originally posted by jaden101
Countries with the highest standard of living in the world

Finland
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
UK
IcelandSomething is wrong here, where is the US?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Something is wrong here, where is the US?

Its in that position where all of those countries with the "higher Standard of Living" put their hands out too for money and help when they can't fix their own problems.

Ya know.. those PROBLEMS created by their GREAT SOCIALIST ENGINEERING!

I bet...

But only if the State says its ok, otherwise they will put your butt in the pokey.


....

Measuring Wealth, Equality, and Prosperity (taken from my Comparative Politics textbook which takes it from the United Nations. Published 2015)

Lower score = better

UN Human Development Ranking:
United States: 5
Germany: 6
Canada: 8
Sweden: 12
UK: 14
S. Korea: 15
Japan: 17
France: 20
...
China: 91
South Africa: 118
India: 135
Nigeria: 152

UN Education Ranking:

USA: 5
Germany: 7
Canada: 16
Sweden: 19
UK: 27
S. Korea: 33
Japan: 24
France: 25
...
China: 107
S. Africa: 68
India: 145
Nigeria: 157

UN Income Ranking:

USA: 10
Germany: 14
Canada: 19
Sweden: 13
UK: 27
S. Korea: 33
Japan: 24
France: 25
...
China: 88
S. Africa: 85
India: 130
Nigeria: 126

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you're doing that as well?

Not at all, it's just I see you whining about fraud, surely it's all kinds of fraud.

Originally posted by Kurk
Measuring Wealth, Equality, and Prosperity (taken from my Comparative Politics textbook which takes it from the United Nations. Published 2015)

Lower score = better

UN Human Development Ranking:
United States: 5
Germany: 6
Canada: 8
Sweden: 12
UK: 14
S. Korea: 15
Japan: 17
France: 20
...
China: 91
South Africa: 118
India: 135
Nigeria: 152

UN Education Ranking:

USA: 5
Germany: 7
Canada: 16
Sweden: 19
UK: 27
S. Korea: 33
Japan: 24
France: 25
...
China: 107
S. Africa: 68
India: 145
Nigeria: 157

UN Income Ranking:

USA: 10
Germany: 14
Canada: 19
Sweden: 13
UK: 27
S. Korea: 33
Japan: 24
France: 25
...
China: 88
S. Africa: 85
India: 130
Nigeria: 126 ur book sucks.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
ur book sucks.

This a book not allowed by your nice soci gumming Benny?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
ur book sucks. It's an AP textbook with a legit source.

Originally posted by Kurk
Measuring Wealth, Equality, and Prosperity (taken from my Comparative Politics textbook which takes it from the United Nations. Published 2015)

Lower score = better

UN Human Development Ranking:
United States: 5
Germany: 6
Canada: 8
Sweden: 12
UK: 14
S. Korea: 15
Japan: 17
France: 20
...
China: 91
South Africa: 118
India: 135
Nigeria: 152

UN Education Ranking:

USA: 5
Germany: 7
Canada: 16
Sweden: 19
UK: 27
S. Korea: 33
Japan: 24
France: 25
...
China: 107
S. Africa: 68
India: 145
Nigeria: 157

UN Income Ranking:

USA: 10
Germany: 14
Canada: 19
Sweden: 13
UK: 27
S. Korea: 33
Japan: 24
France: 25
...
China: 88
S. Africa: 85
India: 130
Nigeria: 126

2016 OECD study had the US with highest average income yet still had it only 9th in its quality of life index behind Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand.

The 2016 social progress index had the US just in the top 20 behind all the countries previously mentioned plus Japan, France, Germany and Spain.

The human development index has the US 10th behind
many of the countries already mentioned as well as Singapore.

Originally posted by jaden101
Countries with the highest standard of living in the world

Finland
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Iceland

I wonder if there's a correlation
One shouldn't forget that all of these countries are ultimately free market and capitalist.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
One shouldn't forget that all of these countries are ultimately free market and capitalist.

You're conflating economic doctrine with social and political doctrines. No one denies that the US capitalist model creates the most wealth. It has the biggest economic output of any country on earth and as such has the highest "average" income.

But it doesn't equate to an automatic higher standard of living as evident.


As for the example in the video, Brazil. It's ironic that it mentions something happening that caused Brazil's economy to go south in 2008. I wonder what it could have been? A banking crisis brought on by unfettered and unregulated capitalism is the largest and most free market economy on the planet, perhaps?

That fact that the country was being run by a bunch of Leftist Marxist Shitheads probably had something to do with it...or did Jaden happen to gleam over that little fact?

Originally posted by jaden101
You're conflating economic doctrine with social and political doctrines. No one denies that the US capitalist model creates the most wealth. It has the biggest economic output of any country on earth and as such has the highest "average" income.

But it doesn't equate to an automatic higher standard of living as evident.


As for the example in the video, Brazil. It's ironic that it mentions something happening that caused Brazil's economy to go south in 2008. I wonder what it could have been? A banking crisis brought on by unfettered and unregulated capitalism is the largest and most free market economy on the planet, perhaps?

"The US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold." -Economics101

Originally posted by Flyattractor
That fact that the country was being run by a bunch of Leftist Marxist Shitheads probably had something to do with it...or did Jaden happen to gleam over that little fact?

True. Useless government and rampant corruption helped **** them after 2008. On the other hand you've got socialist Iceland who let their 3 biggest banks collapse, their economy tank, their currency drop in value by 95%, interest rates to soar to curb inflation and halved their GDP. Their solution was to let the banks fail and instead bailout the people rather than the banks. What happened to them? They had the quickest economic recovery in the world through a well managed government. They also now have one of the most well regulated and equity flush banking systems in the world and are paying off their IMF and other bailout loans early. They've halved their debt to GDP ratio where as the US has increased theirs by over 30% over the same time frame. And they did it all while maintaining their universal education and healthcare policies.

Useless ****ing liberals.

Gee. Why didn't Obama do that in the U.S instead then?
I don't recall Him or the Democrats every opting for that when the Banks started to fail during his Regime?

Why is that Jaden?

Oh because if the People aint Poor and Stupid they don't vote Democrat.

Duhh I fugotz!

I blame my Leftist Education.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Gee. Why didn't Obama do that in the U.S instead then?
I don't recall Him or the Democrats every opting for that when the Banks started to fail during his Regime?

Why is that Jaden?

Oh because if the People aint Poor and Stupid they don't vote Democrat.

Duhh I fugotz!

I blame my Leftist Education.

Probably because, and I know this might be difficult for you, the democrats aren't really liberals.

Originally posted by jaden101
Probably because, and I know this might be difficult for you, the democrats aren't really liberals.

Yes. You are right. They are really Leftist Progressive Socialist Marxist Nazis. Way Way Worse then a mere LIBERAL.

And of course you have to remember. The Left STOLE the term LIBERAL from the Libertarians.

Just proving that the Left is totally worthless shitballs.

Originally posted by jaden101
the democrats aren't really liberals.

Indeed they aren't, liberals are supposed to be tolerant people.

And you know....be actual SUPPORTERS of LIBERTY!

Lefties hate that Liberty nonsense.

As we approach the implosion of Spain and Greece and the like, I thought I will bring that thread back.


BTW the problem is that socialism still alive and well, even if in a somewhat covered form, among many politicians in Europe and in the West at large.

Huh. An older video but interesting.

1hhJ_49leBw


What do you guys think? I must admit I was never in Detroit, but it is shocking how the city deteriorated.

Solutions?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
bKhR9i5CGkA


To bad The BURN MAN didn't win here in MURICA!

I'd argue that they didn't actually implement socialism. They, instead, implemented a corrupt system and tried to pass it off as socialism.

And America is already socialist. We are just less socialist than others and more socialist than others.


If any American says the socialism is evil, tell them that you'll be more than happen to take all of their police protection, fire department services, social security retirement, medicare benefits, and infrastructure from them. And, instead, they have to provide all those things for themselves. They are most certainly not allowed to use the USPS or public roads. And if their city pays for the sewage trash and water, they can't use those, either.


The USA: A Republican, Democratic, Socialist, State.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd argue that they didn't actually implement socialism. They, instead, implemented a corrupt system and tried to pass it off as socialism.

And America is already socialist. We are just less socialist than others and more socialist than others.


If any American says the socialism is evil, tell them that you'll be more than happen to take all of their police protection, fire department services, social security retirement, medicare benefits, and infrastructure from them. And, instead, they have to provide all those things for themselves. They are most certainly not allowed to use the USPS or public roads. And if their city pays for the sewage trash and water, they can't use those, either.


The USA: A Republican, Democratic, Socialist, State.


To bad it WASN'T and ISN"T SOCIALISM that Built and Maintains those Roads.

Which kinds of makes what Obama said kind of true..

No. YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!

Just another LIE of the LEFT!!!!!

And the USPS is pretty much a FAILED Entity at this point so....I can agree with that one being an example of Socialism.

Every developed country, America included, has both socialist and capitalist aspects of governing.

So "is it socialist or capitalist?" shouldn't be what decides policy, what should decide policy is what is the most beneficial and whether the positives outweigh the negatives.

The old "If Everybody is doing it" argument.

Nice.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
The old "If Everybody is doing it" argument.

Nice.
I'm not sure what you think I was arguing, but my post was simply asserting that calling a country socialist or capitalist was an oversimplification.

If you want an overly simplistic argument for why we should adopt more socialist policies, here ya go:
Originally posted by jaden101
Countries with the highest standard of living in the world

Finland
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Iceland

Most socialist countries in the world

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

I wonder if there's a correlation

Originally posted by Flyattractor
To bad it WASN'T and ISN"T SOCIALISM that Built and Maintains those Roads.

Which kinds of makes what Obama said kind of true..

No. YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!

Just another LIE of the LEFT!!!!!

And the USPS is pretty much a FAILED Entity at this point so....I can agree with that one being an example of Socialism. Okay, if you're saying something is above what is expected, it's "too," as in, "too bad." If you're wanting to go somewhere like, the shop to buy some beer, it's "to," as in, "I'm going to the shop to buy beer." If you want to use the number, it's two.

If I lived in a TRULY Socialist Country I would have to get PERMISSION from my Elitist Overlords before I could do it.l

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'm not sure what you think I was arguing, but my post was simply asserting that calling a country socialist or capitalist was an oversimplification.

If you want an overly simplistic argument for why we should adopt more socialist policies, here ya go:

Yeah. That List is Utter BULLSHIT! Of course those "Studies" will say that stuff. It was done with the exact intention of saying that.

Originally posted by Flyattractor




Yeah. That List is Utter BULLSHIT! Of course those "Studies" will say that stuff. It was done with the exact intention of saying that.


Untill you substantiate either claim, that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Its Socialism. ITS NEVER WORKED!

Well, tbf, Russia, China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina were not real socialism.

Real socialism is Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden.

^ Sorry to chime in, but that's a strange argument to make. I'm pretty sure roads/police/military etc =/= socialism, gven that they have existed in staunch capitalist countries etc.

Socialism is basically focused on the notion of centralization.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Its Socialism. ITS NEVER WORKED!

The US clearly isn't working based on your words.

So feel free to GTFO of the US, then. We spent trillions of dollars on socialist programs.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
To bad it WASN'T and ISN"T SOCIALISM that Built and Maintains those Roads.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong!

Those roads are paid for and maintained with money taken from the citizens. Collective control of goods and services. Socialism.

Dude, Fly doesn't even know what time it is, let alone know how to deal with any form of complex reasoning. It's pointless arguing with him about anything, he's either a committed hardcore troll or just a bonafide mouth breather.

I miss Time.

Originally posted by Stigma
^ Sorry to chime in, but that's a strange argument to make. I'm pretty sure roads/police/military etc =/= socialism, gven that they have existed in staunch capitalist countries etc.

Socialism is basically focused on the notion of centralization.
Capitalism and certain forms of socialism can coexist. Like DDM pointed out, the government collecting taxes to fund various social projects like roads, law enforcement, healthcare, military, etc. is a form of socialism and there's not a single country in the world that's not socialist to some extent or another.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Capitalism and certain forms of socialism can coexist. Like DDM pointed out, the government collecting taxes to fund various social projects like roads, law enforcement, healthcare, military, etc. is a form of socialism and there's not a single country in the world that's not socialist to some extent or another. They are not classed as "socialist" though, are they?

Originally posted by Stigma
^ Sorry to chime in, but that's a strange argument to make. I'm pretty sure roads/police/military etc =/= socialism, gven that they have existed in staunch capitalist countries etc.

Socialism is basically focused on the notion of centralization.

There's two major "groupings" of socialism and the one people confuse for everything is the Marxist Socialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm



I am for sure not talking about Marxist Socialism, but talking about the more common "Socialism." Idiots in the US combine the two definitions into one label and think all of it is "socialism." It's not.

But more about Marxist Socialism, Marx dressed up his words with pretty ideas and structures but at the essence of it, it was anti-theistic, antagonistic towards the reformation movement and the enlightenment period (where the idea of extreme individualistic liberty and freedom were seen as paramount to happiness) but not necessarily diametrically opposed to those concepts. He saw his brand of Communism in phases with the eventual outcome of man weaning themselves off the teet of religion and forming a happy utopia of communal industry (he believed it was the inevitable outcome of a society that grew through his idea of communistic maturity: religion was no longer necessary as an emotional crutch).

I'm just gonna post this quote here because I do not know where else to put it. It was a quote on one of Sargons videos, the comment was about the difference between fascists and communists lol. But I liked it.

"The fascists shot their victims so that they fell into the hole. And the communists had to drag the bodies of their victims to the hole."

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just gonna post this quote here because I do not know where else to put it. It was a quote on one of Sargons videos, the comment was about the difference between fascists and communists lol. But I liked it.

"The fascists shot their victims so that they fell into the hole. And the communists had to drag the bodies of their victims to the hole."

As an alternative:


"The fascists killed each other. And the communists buried each other."



Meaning, the communists starved to death.


But in reality, it was a little of column A and B.

So what would you say the difference is between socialism and communism? Just curious.

Originally posted by Surtur
So what would you say the difference is between socialism and communism? Just curious.

Socialism is government control of money, goods, and services.

Communism is communal control of goods and services (money has no point in this type of system).


As fact, there has never been a communist state in all of human history. It's always been socialistic states who called themselves communists.

That really shits on the Americans crusade against the 'commies', eh? lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's two major "groupings" of socialism and the one people confuse for everything is the Marxist Socialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm



I am for sure not talking about Marxist Socialism, but talking about the more common "Socialism." Idiots in the US combine the two definitions into one label and think all of it is "socialism." It's not.

But more about Marxist Socialism, Marx dressed up his words with pretty ideas and structures but at the essence of it, it was anti-theistic, antagonistic towards the reformation movement and the enlightenment period (where the idea of extreme individualistic liberty and freedom were seen as paramount to happiness) but not necessarily diametrically opposed to those concepts. He saw his brand of Communism in phases with the eventual outcome of man weaning themselves off the teet of religion and forming a happy utopia of communal industry (he believed it was the inevitable outcome of a society that grew through his idea of communistic maturity: religion was no longer necessary as an emotional crutch).
Absolutely.

Perhaps you know this, but Marx actually believed Socialism is a necessary first step towards Communism. Both are linked. That's why I always keep my fingers crossed for Socialists to trip on their journey

Originally posted by Stigma
Absolutely.

Perhaps you know this, but Marx actually believed Socialism is a necessary first step towards Communism. Both are linked. That's why I always keep my fingers crossed for Socialists to trip on their journey

Yes, definitely. I think there are three phases to Marx' idea of "pure communism." And, actually, I'm rusty on my political science and I do not recall the middle step between 1 and 3.


I think Surtur remembers because I believe he reminded me of this a few months ago but I forgot...


Seizing the means of production...socializing....transitioning to communism? Nah, doesn't sound right. 1 and 2 are pretty much the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Socialism is government control of money, goods, and services.

Communism is communal control of goods and services (money has no point in this type of system).


As fact, there has never been a communist state in all of human history. It's always been socialistic states who called themselves communists.

That really shits on the Americans crusade against the 'commies', eh? lol

Indeed, it can be weird because you do see some people use "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, it can be weird because you do see some people use "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably.

As they say, "when in Rome..." because language changes. I've pointed out before that it is necessary to clarify, like you just did, what people are referring to because, as I just pointed out, all of these "commies" are actually socialists.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As they say, "when in Rome..." because language changes. I've pointed out before that it is necessary to clarify, like you just did, what people are referring to because, as I just pointed out, all of these "commies" are actually socialists.

I think people just like the word "commies" better when it comes to referring to them lol. Otherwise they'd be borrowing from The Outsiders with the Socs.

It is true, Marxist Socialism (Communism) never actually happened, but the practice to make it happen was genocide. So..... just going to end that there.

Socialist practices in capitalist economies are good and necessary, like a safety net, so to speak, but the level of the safety net is adjustable. America has this problem that any social services is red terror cos they're morons.

Apparently, Putin is hacking dere facebook to make them like Trump who is ebull. America is dumb.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Socialist practices in capitalist economies are good and necessary, like a safety net, so to speak, but the level of the safety net is adjustable. America has this problem that any social services is red terror cos they're morons.

Right, despite our differences when it comes to politics, this is one thing you and I agree on quite vehemently.

I just don't understand the idiocy whenever we talk about implementing more proper socialistic systems like healthcare.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, despite our differences when it comes to politics, this is one thing you and I agree on quite vehemently.

I just don't understand the idiocy whenever we talk about implementing more proper socialistic systems like healthcare. Well, if we were to discuss healthcare like the sensible intelligent members of KMC we are, I'd tell you that I have problems with socialised medicine such as the NHS.

Idiots get put in power, immigrants from different cultures swarm in (simply a cultural difference, here not LOL DEY BLACK) and power given to politically changing governments when medicine should be a scientific business.

I like Sicko as entertainment, but Michael Moore is a ****ing hack.

We'll do it for Johnny!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, despite our differences when it comes to politics, this is one thing you and I agree on quite vehemently.

I just don't understand the idiocy whenever we talk about implementing more proper socialistic systems like healthcare. I don't care what anybody says, I'd take the NHS over letting poor people die from a fully privatised healthcare system any day of the week
Originally posted by Foxsteak
immigrants from different cultures swarm in (simply a cultural difference, here not LOL DEY BLACK) Barely ever happens. 95% scapegoat

Originally posted by Scribble
I don't care what anybody says, I'd take the NHS over letting poor people die from a fully privatised healthcare system any day of the week
Barely ever happens. 95% scapegoat You ignore my talk about Sicko, but whatever, I'll address the post you made.

I've been to an NHS hospital regarding mental illness and there were complaints about Indian doctors and patients. It wasn't a big deal, but it was upsetting for people. When an Indian doctor thinks they're doing a good job and the patient can't ****ing understand what she's saying, it becomes an issue. When a patient from another country, two examples, one was from Poland and one was from India, there were tensions and issues for the patients and nurses. I believe greater restriction is needed.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
You ignore my talk about Sicko, but whatever, I'll address the post you made.

I've been to an NHS hospital regarding mental illness and there were complaints about Indian doctors and patients. It wasn't a big deal, but it was upsetting for people. When an Indian doctor thinks they're doing a good job and the patient can't ****ing understand what she's saying, it becomes an issue. When a patient from another country, two examples, one was from Poland and one was from India, there were tensions and issues for the patients and nurses. I believe greater restriction is needed. I haven't seen Sicko.

Anyway, reducing immigration and stuff like that would solve that issue, without having to get rid of the NHS. The NHS isn't perfect by any means, particularly with mental health, I'm not saying it is. But at the end of the day, I come from a fairly poor family, and the NHS saved my dad's life twice (without putting our entire family into crushing debt that we probably wouldn't have recovered from!), so if I did anything else but support the existence of the NHS I'd be pretty stupid.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
power given to politically changing governments when medicine should be a scientific business. A solution to this is to have healthcare industry professionals participate in government. Lawyers and businessmen are good at organizing bureaucracy but the actual doctors should be running government healthcare agencies.

And btw, America is pretty much already socialist, we're a social democracy so...

You're a constitutional republic.

Lawyers and businessmen have a place in healthcare, but healthcare should be free for children under 25.

Not for long. Eventually "People" like Firefly will kill the Constitution. Fascist HATE Freedom.

We will need to have another REVOLUTION again sometime soon.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
You're a constitutional republic.

Lawyers and businessmen have a place in healthcare, but healthcare should be free for children under 25. I think most people agree that everyone should have healthcare, not just children under 25. And we've tried the free market for the last 70 years and millions are uninsured and the sick fall under crushing debt. It's long past time to try single-payer at this point.

And thanks for telling me what my country is? I disagree with you, that term does not encompass everything this this country is. Whether y'all like to admit it or not, we are a Social Democracy.

Within the framework of capitalism, we engender socialistic policies.

Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.

At our best, that is exactly who we are ^^^

Yes. Everyone Agrees that EVERYONE should have Some form of Healthcare. Too bad for FF's narrative not nearly enough AGREE with HIS Fascist Views on it.

OH and Yes. Putting it full under a SOCIALIST Style is a GREAT MONEY SAVER! I mean just look at how The V-A is being run. That is a True Socialist System.

And I like how FF keeps bringing up how Certain People should Run things. Which is true....but ONLY IF they have the RIGHT KIND OF POLITICS!

Sad to see so many have been Brainwashed by the Totalitarian Propaganda of the Fascist Left in the U.S Educational System.

So sad.

You didn't understand my point.

I'm all for a safety net with regards to health care, but it ultimately should be a private thing.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
I miss Time.

Honestly, Time, Raisen, Surtur, dadudemon, Stigma and FlyAttractor are the best members here.

Truer words were never spoken

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Honestly, Time, Raisen, Surtur, Stigma and FlyAttractor are the best members here.

uh oh. some names missing. trouble in paradise? :')

I added him in.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
You didn't understand my point.

I'm all for a safety net with regards to health care, but it ultimately should be a private thing. Why should it be a private thing? You don't think Government is capable of handling it?

People trust the government to make bombs and invade countries, but they don't trust the government to handle healthcare???

Originally posted by Firefly218
Why should it be a private thing? You don't think Government is capable of handling it?

People trust the government to make bombs and invade countries, but they don't trust the government to handle healthcare??? Government is not capable of handling it.

Government invading countries is different. The point of a country and a government is to fight and destroy other countries. Sure, healthcare of it's citizens is kinda a good thing, but if country A has awesome healthcare, then country B will have people trying to get into country A if country B can't into healthcare.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Government is not capable of handling it.

Government invading countries is different. The point of a country and a government is to fight and destroy other countries. Sure, healthcare of it's citizens is kinda a good thing, but if country A has awesome healthcare, then country B will have people trying to get into country A if country B can't into healthcare. Why do you not trust the government, but you do trust Big Business? That seems like a really stupid position to take.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Well, if we were to discuss healthcare like the sensible intelligent members of KMC we are, I'd tell you that I have problems with socialised medicine such as the NHS.

As Scribbity Scrib McScribbles pointed out, the UK's healthcare system, NHS, despite the funding and inefficiency sicknesses (which are supposed to be on the mend), they still outperform the US healthcare system in almost every single category: sometimes, absurdly so.

Despite NHS' problems, it would be a massive upgrade for the average US resident.

Which, if NHS is as in poor of health (damn, 2 puns in the some point) as you imply, how much more poorly does that speak to the USA's healthcare system?

Originally posted by dadudemon
As Scribbity Scrib McScribbles pointed out, the UK's healthcare system, NHS, despite the funding and inefficiency sicknesses (which are supposed to be on the mend), they still outperform the US healthcare system in almost every single category: sometimes, absurdly so.

Despite NHS' problems, it would be a massive upgrade for the average US resident.

Which, if NHS is as in poor of health (damn, 2 puns in the some point) as you imply, how much more poorly does that speak to the USA's healthcare system?

I don't see why the USA can't have both systems in place, if you want more buy more.

I'll bet if some right wing study groups came out and showed a boost in producitivity levels for US workers and increased profitability for businesses then a national healthcase system would be put in place tomorrow.

Even if it didn't increase profitability for businesses it could still be a HUGE benefit to them since they would no longer have lost man hours managing group health plans with renewals etc etc not having to worry about COBRA which is monitored by the IRS etc etc

Originally posted by Scribble
Why do you not trust the government, but you do trust Big Business? That seems like a really stupid position to take. I trust big business over government funded health because if big business fails, the consequences are enormously damaging to that name, company, corp, everyone involved, whereas a government would just vote in the opposition and continue with the system.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As Scribbity Scrib McScribbles pointed out, the UK's healthcare system, NHS, despite the funding and inefficiency sicknesses (which are supposed to be on the mend), they still outperform the US healthcare system in almost every single category: sometimes, absurdly so.

Despite NHS' problems, it would be a massive upgrade for the average US resident.

Which, if NHS is as in poor of health (damn, 2 puns in the some point) as you imply, how much more poorly does that speak to the USA's healthcare system? It may be an upgrade, it may not. The problem with the US is you guys have states that don't want a federal healthcare system. ..................... None of the states want a federal system.................

The US situation is so complex, I don't even know where to begin.

I think the best bet for the US right now would be a public option. Best of both worlds right there. People who want government run healthcare can buy into it and those who don't can continue buying private insurance. This would also have the added benefit of forcing the private insurance companies to compete against the prices of the government run healthcare which would lower prices for everyone because the government doesn't have to worry about making profits for their shareholders or anything, just breaking even, or getting as close to that as they can. Also would act as a bit of a test to see if large scale government run healthcare could work in the US.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think the best bet for the US right now would be a public option. Best of both worlds right there. People who want government run healthcare can buy into it and those who don't can continue buying private insurance. This would also have the added benefit of forcing the private insurance companies to compete against the prices of the government run healthcare which would lower prices for everyone because the government doesn't have to worry about making profits for their shareholders or anything, just breaking even, or getting as close to that as they can. Also would act as a bit of a test to see if large scale government run healthcare could work in the US. That sounds a lot like ObamaCare but the issue with it is the insurance companies are simply too powerful and ObamaCare pulled money from the users which resulted in more problems.

It'll be a long day before the USA gets socialised medicine, and no state would even dare be the first to have it.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think the best bet for the US right now would be a public option. Best of both worlds right there. People who want government run healthcare can buy into it and those who don't can continue buying private insurance. This would also have the added benefit of forcing the private insurance companies to compete against the prices of the government run healthcare which would lower prices for everyone because the government doesn't have to worry about making profits for their shareholders or anything, just breaking even, or getting as close to that as they can. Also would act as a bit of a test to see if large scale government run healthcare could work in the US.

This would have a much larger affect then you think. Since most health insurance is provided from employers, I could easily see how a majority of business owners would scrap their plans and tell everyone to join the pool.

In essence it would crush private insurance and the state would pick up most of the employed individuals for coverage.

I'm not sure how much competition would come into play........hmm streamline my business or continue to throw hundreds of hours at a business that has nothing to do with my day to day operations.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
That sounds a lot like ObamaCare but the issue with it is the insurance companies are simply too powerful and ObamaCare pulled money from the users which resulted in more problems.

It'll be a long day before the USA gets socialised medicine, and no state would even dare be the first to have it.

No that's nothing like Ocare really. There's no public option in Ocare. There was going to be but they didn't have the votes. You aren't wrong, though, insurance companies are too powerful and they were afraid of the public option because it would probably render their product obsolete by offering a cheaper alternative with little to no drawbacks for the customer.

Originally posted by snowdragon
This would have a much larger affect then you think. Since most health insurance is provided from employers, I could easily see how a majority of business owners would scrap their plans and tell everyone to join the pool.

In essence it would crush private insurance and the state would pick up most of the employed individuals for coverage.

I'm not sure how much competition would come into play........hmm streamline my business or continue to throw hundreds of hours at a business that has nothing to do with my day to day operations.

That's fine, if government run insurance is better and more effective then so be it. If the private insurance companies can't compete then they would simply shut down and cease to exist, which would be fine.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's fine, if government run insurance is better and more effective then so be it. If the private insurance companies can't compete then they would simply shut down and cease to exist, which would be fine.

I think it would be better for everyone if people weren't tied to their jobs because of health insurance and as I said I'm sure business owners would GLADLY pass off health benefits to the govt.

It would be a win/win just need someone to close that deal and make it happen, I'll go read Trumps art of the deal now ............

maybe we could limit a lot of the wasted money we drop into other countries, decriminalize drugs, stop spending money on adult illegal immigrants, tighten up welfare, and stop spending countless dollars irritating other sovereign nations then we would have more than enough money to give every American a stellar education and keep them healthy.

then. maybe then. we would have enough residual money to help out our poorer brethren in other countries.

isn't this common sense?

Originally posted by Firefly218
Why should it be a private thing? You don't think Government is capable of handling it?

People trust the government to make bombs and invade countries, but they don't trust the government to handle healthcare???

I've seen that argument before. The very poignant response to your question is:

"The US Government is great at killing people but not so great at saving people."

Originally posted by snowdragon
I don't see why the USA can't have both systems in place, if you want more buy more.

I'll bet if some right wing study groups came out and showed a boost in producitivity levels for US workers and increased profitability for businesses then a national healthcase system would be put in place tomorrow.

Even if it didn't increase profitability for businesses it could still be a HUGE benefit to them since they would no longer have lost man hours managing group health plans with renewals etc etc not having to worry about COBRA which is monitored by the IRS etc etc

Yes, that is how it works with NHS: you can buy more insurance so you can get access to private care (to skip waiting and get elective surgeries and medicines).

Here is what I thought was an entertaining write-up on how this works with NHS:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=16406212


However, you may not mean this...you may mean something else?


The idea that is being tossed around as the way forward for the US is to expand Medicare to cover all and still allow insurance companies to function as "medicare supplement" companies to reduce the out of pocket costs.

The estimates on how much that would cost are not accurate because, imo, they lack one key element to demonstrate a true cost: the cost spent on healthcare increases dramatically when an American is 40 or older simply because they use it more often.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
It may be an upgrade, it may not. The problem with the US is you guys have states that don't want a federal healthcare system. ..................... None of the states want a federal system.................

The US situation is so complex, I don't even know where to begin.

This is why the US Constitution has the "Necessary and Proper Clause": if we need to create legislation that forces the states to participate in a universal healthcare option, we can do it.

Originally posted by Raisen
maybe we could limit a lot of the wasted money we drop into other countries, decriminalize drugs, stop spending money on adult illegal immigrants, tighten up welfare, and stop spending countless dollars irritating other sovereign nations then we would have more than enough money to give every American a stellar education and keep them healthy.

then. maybe then. we would have enough residual money to help out our poorer brethren in other countries.

isn't this common sense? Sure is, but good luck getting the world to listen. I'm right behind you on every step of that but people are too caught up in tribal mentality and semantics to bother.

Originally posted by Scribble
Sure is, but good luck getting the world to listen. I'm right behind you on every step of that but people are too caught up in tribal mentality and semantics to bother.

true.

Originally posted by Scribble
I haven't seen Sicko.

Anyway, reducing immigration and stuff like that would solve that issue, without having to get rid of the NHS. The NHS isn't perfect by any means, particularly with mental health, I'm not saying it is. But at the end of the day, I come from a fairly poor family, and the NHS saved my dad's life twice (without putting our entire family into crushing debt that we probably wouldn't have recovered from!), so if I did anything else but support the existence of the NHS I'd be pretty stupid. I understand your stance, but philosophically, I think such a circumstance can still exist in a more capitalist health care system in the UK.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is what I thought was an entertaining write-up on how this works with NHS:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=16406212


However, you may not mean this...you may mean something else?


The idea that is being tossed around as the way forward for the US is to expand Medicare to cover all and still allow insurance companies to function as "medicare supplement" companies to reduce the out of pocket costs.

The estimates on how much that would cost are not accurate because, imo, they lack one key element to demonstrate a true cost: the cost spent on healthcare increases dramatically when an American is 40 or older simply because they use it more often.

I just think when its being discussed its not being presented as a win for capitalism as well as for everyday folks. Instead folks stay focused on the GOVT part of healthcare.

Talk about the real benefits to people aside from the obvious healthcare aspect. Such as businesses no longer having the cost of healthcare so they can be more competitive in the international workplace, less administrative costs and man hours, fewer regulations and rules, less tax hassle, more productive workforce not worrying about illness, not stuck with a job you dislike just for benefits etc.

Instead the talks stays very static......taxes......govt.....healthcare.......etc. The reality is anyone that has health benefits through an employer doesn't even have to pay full market value for the insurance itself just the services so there is a disconnect with the masses.

I don't know what the costs would be however there is also the fact that it could (depending on taxes etc) could allow more money to flow in our cheap consumer economy so more toys bought etc........so many benefits!

my shoulder surgery only cost me 200 dollars out of pocket. that was cool

Originally posted by Raisen
my shoulder surgery only cost me 200 dollars out of pocket. that was cool

What health plan are you on?

Originally posted by Robtard
What health plan are you on?

Kaiser northern California.

I pay a little over 50 dollars bi weekly. it's the standard self option

Originally posted by BackFire
No that's nothing like Ocare really. There's no public option in Ocare. There was going to be but they didn't have the votes. You aren't wrong, though, insurance companies are too powerful and they were afraid of the public option because it would probably render their product obsolete by offering a cheaper alternative with little to no drawbacks for the customer.



That's fine, if government run insurance is better and more effective then so be it. If the private insurance companies can't compete then they would simply shut down and cease to exist, which would be fine. Some states may lose monies if socialised medicine becomes a US thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is why the US Constitution has the "Necessary and Proper Clause": if we need to create legislation that forces the states to participate in a universal healthcare option, we can do it. But some states will lose monies cos socialised medicine.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Some states may lose monies if socialised medicine becomes a US thing.

But some states will lose monies cos socialised medicine.


How is that, are you talking about the federal money granted for medicaid/medicare/aca grants etc?

Socialism will not happen in the US because no state will have socialised medicine.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
I understand your stance, but philosophically, I think such a circumstance can still exist in a more capitalist health care system in the UK. I just don't think that poor people should be forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money if they want to literally not die. We have private healthcare in this country too that people can choose to go to if they have the money; what's the issue?

Originally posted by Scribble
I just don't think that poor people should be forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money if they want to literally not die. We have private healthcare in this country too that people can choose to go to if they have the money; what's the issue? The issue is the health care may not be sufficient. In cases like euthanasia and mental health the retarded systematic nurses and doctors will just follow the system with no option for the patient to go somewhere else because "**** you, you're wrong, I disagree."


I feel uncomfortable knowing that one institution has complete control over every countryman's health.

Originally posted by Raisen
maybe we could limit a lot of the wasted money we drop into other countries, decriminalize drugs, stop spending money on adult illegal immigrants, tighten up welfare, and stop spending countless dollars irritating other sovereign nations then we would have more than enough money to give every American a stellar education and keep them healthy.

then. maybe then. we would have enough residual money to help out our poorer brethren in other countries.

isn't this common sense?

Let's break down your list and put actual numbers to that list:




Welfare and other 'Means-Test' programs:
$1 Trillion

According to the Cato Institute, we spend about $1 Trillion on Welfare and means-test programs from local to federal levels:

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail




Foreign aid:
$49 Billion

"According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), which uses the broadest definition of aid , including military and security assistance, total spending was nearly $49 billion in 2015. This accounts for roughly 1.3 percent of the federal budget."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-us-spend-its-foreign-aid




War on Drugs:
$76 Billion

"Since Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs back in the 1970s the United States Government has spent nearly $1 Trillion towards eradicating the drug problem in this country. In 2015 alone $36 billion was spent on the war on drugs, but that number was just for law enforcement and some social services, and does not take into account the cost of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders once they are arrested and sentenced to jail.

Roughly $80 billion is spent each year on incarcerating American prisoners and since 50% of our prison population is serving time for drug-related crimes that means that an additional $40 billion needs to be added to $36 billion price tag for the war on drugs, bringing the grand total to $76 billion."




Cost of Illegal Immigrants:
$99 Billion

"The $113 billion is not a net cost. Taking into consideration federal, state and local tax payments made by the undocumented population, the net cost would be about $99 billion, according to the FAIR report."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-illegal-immigration-costs-113-bi/




Cost of Foreign Wars
$350 Billion

The above number is on average spent each year, since 9-11, on our foreign wars.

"As of late September 2017, the United States wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and the additional spending on Homeland Security, and the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs since the 9/11 attacks totaled more than $4.3 trillion in current dollars through FY2017. Adding likely costs for FY2018 and estimated future spending on veterans, the costs of war total more than $5.6 trillion."

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2017/Costs%20of%20U.S.%20Post-9_11%20NC%20Crawford%20FINAL%20.pdf




All numbers together:
$1 Trillion
$49 Billion
$76 Billion
$99 Billion
$350 Billion

Total: $1.574 Trillion per annum





What are you thoughts now that you have actual numbers, by category, for each are you mentioned?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's break down your list and put actual numbers to that list:




Welfare and other 'Means-Test' programs:
$1 Trillion

According to the Cato Institute, we spend about $1 Trillion on Welfare and means-test programs from local to federal levels:

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail




Foreign aid:
$49 Billion

"According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), which uses the broadest definition of aid , including military and security assistance, total spending was nearly $49 billion in 2015. This accounts for roughly 1.3 percent of the federal budget."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-us-spend-its-foreign-aid




War on Drugs:
$76 Billion

"Since Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs back in the 1970s the United States Government has spent nearly $1 Trillion towards eradicating the drug problem in this country. In 2015 alone $36 billion was spent on the war on drugs, but that number was just for law enforcement and some social services, and does not take into account the cost of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders once they are arrested and sentenced to jail.

Roughly $80 billion is spent each year on incarcerating American prisoners and since 50% of our prison population is serving time for drug-related crimes that means that an additional $40 billion needs to be added to $36 billion price tag for the war on drugs, bringing the grand total to $76 billion."




Cost of Illegal Immigrants:
$99 Billion

"The $113 billion is not a net cost. Taking into consideration federal, state and local tax payments made by the undocumented population, the net cost would be about $99 billion, according to the FAIR report."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-illegal-immigration-costs-113-bi/




Cost of Foreign Wars
$350 Billion

The above number is on average spent each year, since 9-11, on our foreign wars.

"As of late September 2017, the United States wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and the additional spending on Homeland Security, and the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs since the 9/11 attacks totaled more than $4.3 trillion in current dollars through FY2017. Adding likely costs for FY2018 and estimated future spending on veterans, the costs of war total more than $5.6 trillion."

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2017/Costs%20of%20U.S.%20Post-9_11%20NC%20Crawford%20FINAL%20.pdf




All numbers together:
$1 Trillion
$49 Billion
$76 Billion
$99 Billion
$350 Billion

Total: $1.574 Trillion per annum





What are you thoughts now that you have actual numbers, by category, for each are you mentioned?

my thoughts are i'm neither an accountant or a money guy but that's a shiit ton of money that could be used to properly educate americans and keep them healthy

if people want more socialism in this country then why not change this war on drugs and emulate something like they have in the Netherlands.

that foreign war number is just sad. the expense on top of all the phucked up lives and minds

Originally posted by Raisen
that foreign war number is just sad. the expense on top of all the phucked up lives and minds

Which is then added to the defense budget in costs for the VA.........of course we wouldn't need a VA anymore if we had a UHC option.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Which is then added to the defense budget in costs for the VA.........of course we wouldn't need a VA anymore if we had a UHC option.



Top tiddies point.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Top tiddies point.

Then of course you sell it to Republicans by stating that everyone needs their ID to utilize said services........zing, pow ID are now there for voting too..........so much goodness, so many problems solved, so many happy people winning YUGELY.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Then of course you sell it to Republicans by stating that everyone needs their ID to utilize said services........zing, pow ID are now there for voting too..........so much goodness, so many problems solved, so many happy people winning YUGELY.

So when can I vote for you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So when can I vote for you?

Never, I actually like to be a productive individual

Originally posted by snowdragon
Never, I actually like to be a productive individual

No.

You can't have good ideas/solutions and not do something for the rest of us. I'm not really joking...