Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Hey kids: Don't be a sucker for socialism

Page 31 of 49 [ 777 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 49  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

31 Aug 2018, 8:44 pm

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

31 Aug 2018, 9:18 pm

sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
8.4% of income would be a fair exchange for something that is presently unaffordable.

For me it’s be $59 , that’s half of my months food budget. You want me to starve?

$59 is less than 1/10th of $600/month which is the cost of a good basic health plan sans exchange subsidy, for somebody of your age. with the subsidies at present you should be paying only a tiny fraction of that. it should be similar under a universal plan.


How’s that going helps me eat?

you definitely wouldn't have any left over for food if you were forced to shell out another $600 every month.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

31 Aug 2018, 9:32 pm

auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
8.4% of income would be a fair exchange for something that is presently unaffordable.

For me it’s be $59 , that’s half of my months food budget. You want me to starve?

$59 is less than 1/10th of $600/month which is the cost of a good basic health plan sans exchange subsidy, for somebody of your age. with the subsidies at present you should be paying only a tiny fraction of that. it should be similar under a universal plan.


How’s that going helps me eat?

you definitely wouldn't have any left over for food if you were forced to shell out another $600 every month.


But I’m not forced to shell out $600 nor was anyone until Obama made it mandated.
So again you’d take my money and starve me to death to get your socialism. What use is health care if people starve to death?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

31 Aug 2018, 9:44 pm

sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
8.4% of income would be a fair exchange for something that is presently unaffordable.

For me it’s be $59 , that’s half of my months food budget. You want me to starve?

$59 is less than 1/10th of $600/month which is the cost of a good basic health plan sans exchange subsidy, for somebody of your age. with the subsidies at present you should be paying only a tiny fraction of that. it should be similar under a universal plan.


How’s that going helps me eat?

you definitely wouldn't have any left over for food if you were forced to shell out another $600 every month.


But I’m not forced to shell out $600 nor was anyone until Obama made it mandated.
So again you’d take my money and starve me to death to get your socialism. What use is health care if people starve to death?

were it not for Obamacare you WOULD be forced either to shell out the bucks OR risk bankruptcy and lifelong financial deterioration should a medical disaster happen to you.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

31 Aug 2018, 11:41 pm

auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
8.4% of income would be a fair exchange for something that is presently unaffordable.

For me it’s be $59 , that’s half of my months food budget. You want me to starve?

$59 is less than 1/10th of $600/month which is the cost of a good basic health plan sans exchange subsidy, for somebody of your age. with the subsidies at present you should be paying only a tiny fraction of that. it should be similar under a universal plan.


How’s that going helps me eat?

you definitely wouldn't have any left over for food if you were forced to shell out another $600 every month.


But I’m not forced to shell out $600 nor was anyone until Obama made it mandated.
So again you’d take my money and starve me to death to get your socialism. What use is health care if people starve to death?

were it not for Obamacare you WOULD be forced either to shell out the bucks OR risk bankruptcy and lifelong financial deterioration should a medical disaster happen to you.


So starv now or possibly face medical fees later. One way has you alive later other won’t matter as you starved to death.
I don’t think taxing the poor to give them medical insurance will help us.

Do you also support income tax and sales tax at the same time as well as grocery tax? Your party just wants to tax people to death and all those hurt the poor like me a lot.
If they ad a sales twx and grocery tax I’m dead. I hardly afford food as is. I don’t qualify for food stamps.
Left isn’t any friend to poor then right is. Neither likes or cares about the poor.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

31 Aug 2018, 11:53 pm

AspE wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Whale_Tuune wrote:
"Socialism" is a poorly defined term that means different things to different people and in different contexts.

Not really. Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production (not the means of healthcare of the means of education, plenty of capitalist countries have government run schools and hospitals). Typically socialism entails a fully government controlled economy, where even getting your toaster fixed is a government matter. This is a system that has failed time and time again.

The right, who are far more skilled at propaganda then the left have managed to conflate socialism with anything left of centre. The term is only poorly defined because they made it so. It was clearly defined before.]Rule 1 of propaganda, conflate something you don’t like with something almost nobody likes.

I accept the term willingly, government should be working for society. Socialism without authoritarianism is obviously less effective, so it requires a voluntary shift in ownership of collective enterprises. Even now there are employee-owned businesses.

Socialism with authoritarianism doesn't fit the definition of the people own the means of production because in that case, the government owns the means of production.

I get that some people don't like capitalism. It exploits people. Communism usually ends up doing the same thing with the government in place of the corporation. It is any better to be overworked and underpaid by the government than it is to be over worked and underpaid by a corporation?

All attempts at building a utopian society are doomed from the start. Remember that utopia means No Place. All types of society end up building unequal power structures because it is human nature to do so. In that, we have changed little since our simian ancestors.

Image


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

31 Aug 2018, 11:54 pm

I think Obama care will work better and be more fair if everyone paid their fair share for health insurance. A third of their income. That's approximately what it costs me. I couldn't keep the plan I had before Obamacare because that company pulled out of my state. I couldn't keep the doc I had before because my new plan is a different "network".



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

31 Aug 2018, 11:58 pm

Magna wrote:
I think Obama care will work better and be more fair if everyone paid their fair share for health insurance. A third of their income. That's approximately what it costs me. I couldn't keep the plan I had before Obamacare because that company pulled out of my state. I couldn't keep the doc I had before because my new plan is a different "network".

A third? I only play 3% of my income for Medicare.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Sep 2018, 12:02 am

Magna wrote:
I think Obama care will work better and be more fair if everyone paid their fair share for health insurance. A third of their income. That's approximately what it costs me. I couldn't keep the plan I had before Obamacare because that company pulled out of my state. I couldn't keep the doc I had before because my new plan is a different "network".

when it costs 2/3rds on average to have a roof over one's head, there isn't gonna be a third left unless one forgoes eating.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Sep 2018, 12:03 am

sly279 wrote:
I don’t think taxing the poor to give them medical insurance will help us.


I am not in favor of taxing only the poor. what do you take me for, a republican? :scratch:



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

01 Sep 2018, 12:03 am

Instead of argument about whether the high cost of healthcare should be borne by the tax payers or the individual, perhaps they should focus their efforts towards figuring out a way to make healthcare cheaper in the first place.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Sep 2018, 12:07 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Instead of argument about whether the high cost of healthcare should be borne by the tax payers or the individual, perhaps they should focus their efforts towards figuring out a way to make healthcare cheaper in the first place.

for the past few decades, 2/3rds of our healthcare expenditures nationally, are demonstrably waste, fraud and abuse. you gotta get the sociopathic businessmen and their useful idiot supporters out of the way before any reform can take place.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

01 Sep 2018, 12:13 am

Darmok wrote:
Image


That's true. My country introduced universal healthcare about 30 years and now the people of Australia are starving and living off potoroo meat and wattle seeds. /sarcasm


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

01 Sep 2018, 2:35 am

auntblabby wrote:
sly279 wrote:
I don’t think taxing the poor to give them medical insurance will help us.


I am not in favor of taxing only the poor. what do you take me for, a republican? :scratch:


Democrats don’t tax the rich either. The rich pay the democrats so they won’t piss off their checkbook.
So yes your party will only tax the poor and middle class(which is shrinking)



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Sep 2018, 2:40 am

they tax the rich more than the GOP ever will.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

01 Sep 2018, 10:04 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
AspE wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Whale_Tuune wrote:
"Socialism" is a poorly defined term that means different things to different people and in different contexts.

Not really. Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production (not the means of healthcare of the means of education, plenty of capitalist countries have government run schools and hospitals). Typically socialism entails a fully government controlled economy, where even getting your toaster fixed is a government matter. This is a system that has failed time and time again.

The right, who are far more skilled at propaganda then the left have managed to conflate socialism with anything left of centre. The term is only poorly defined because they made it so. It was clearly defined before.]Rule 1 of propaganda, conflate something you don’t like with something almost nobody likes.

I accept the term willingly, government should be working for society. Socialism without authoritarianism is obviously less effective, so it requires a voluntary shift in ownership of collective enterprises. Even now there are employee-owned businesses.

Socialism with authoritarianism doesn't fit the definition of the people own the means of production because in that case, the government owns the means of production.

I get that some people don't like capitalism. It exploits people. Communism usually ends up doing the same thing with the government in place of the corporation. It is any better to be overworked and underpaid by the government than it is to be over worked and underpaid by a corporation?

All attempts at building a utopian society are doomed from the start. Remember that utopia means No Place. All types of society end up building unequal power structures because it is human nature to do so. In that, we have changed little since our simian ancestors.

Communism isn't a complete utopia. Complete equality is impossible (and I would argue undesirable).

What Communists are concerned with are class distinctions -as you mentioned, the social relations around production, having a separate class of people own and control our means of subsistence.

These inequalities aren't inevitabilities. Anarchism/Communism was the default way human beings organized themselves in prehistoric times.