- 26,817
- 38,434
I have no idea how we're #15 on that list
Last edited:
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 8,715
- 5,390
I'm not your "average free market toting American right winger"
And universal healthcare is more complex than "free" at the point of service.
For example, Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany do not have free health care at the point of service. The general population must purchase insurance from several sanctioned insurance companies. Those who can afford more insurance can purchase. Free at the point of service health care is only available to the most destitute of the population.
Singapore requires HSAs as part of their health plan and absolutely NOBODY has free health care at the point of service. There is always a fee explicitly to discourage abuse of the system. They also tier their level of service to people by how much people are willing to pay.
Japan requires people to pay a percentage of the cost upfront.
France also requires purchasing an insurance plan but all of them are government run and act as a reimbursement system. You pay upfront and 80% of the money is paid back to you.
We can get more in depth on more countries and systems of health care management if you want. I may troll and goof around but I know my stuff. You also picked the worst topic to have a gotcha moment because health care systems is my favorite issue to investigate.
When I talk about socialism. I don't mean welfare, I don't mean social democracy. I mean full blown end socialism/communism.
Last edited:
- 64,966
- 196,172
Social democracy is a form/variety of socialism though
You are like "I am not defending the bad forms of capitalism, only the good forms and I'm not attacking the good forms of socialism, only the bad forms"
How convenient for your argument
You are like "I am not defending the bad forms of capitalism, only the good forms and I'm not attacking the good forms of socialism, only the bad forms"
How convenient for your argument
Last edited:
- 10,580
- 7,874
I'm convinced Trump has a keyboard with actual words instead of letters...but that wouldn't explain the typos
- 26,817
- 38,434
Universal healthcare systems, whether multi-payer or single-payer, are a net positive to society. The US' healthcare spending per capita goes far beyond every other nation, while arguably having the worst healthcare system in that class of top nations. Sure we pay high taxes for that kind of system but we keep medical costs as low as possible and offer affordable and good insurance, public or private, to as many people as possible.
Even the far-right accepts our healthcare principles as being basic human rights that are of great benefit to the population. Our hospitals also receive a large supply of foreign patients who come here for affordable and high quality care. It's not uncommon for certain specialists' patients to consist of 20% or upwards foreign citizens from all across the world.
In order to have a great healthcare system though, the population and more importantly the political leadership has to view universal healthcare as a basic and necessary human right. Not some for-profit business where costs run rampant and people are expected to magically pull themselves up by da bootstraps out of tens of thousands in medical debt, not ever getting a pre-existing condition, ...
Even the far-right accepts our healthcare principles as being basic human rights that are of great benefit to the population. Our hospitals also receive a large supply of foreign patients who come here for affordable and high quality care. It's not uncommon for certain specialists' patients to consist of 20% or upwards foreign citizens from all across the world.
In order to have a great healthcare system though, the population and more importantly the political leadership has to view universal healthcare as a basic and necessary human right. Not some for-profit business where costs run rampant and people are expected to magically pull themselves up by da bootstraps out of tens of thousands in medical debt, not ever getting a pre-existing condition, ...
Last edited:
- 8,715
- 5,390
I have issues with social democracy but not vehemently so as I do for end stage communism. Classical liberals support publicly funded education for example before Marx showed up on the scene. We're not antigovernment we don't believe taxation is theft.
I think you're so used to dealing with libertarians and ancaps that you think I'm trying to cop out when these positions have been true of classical liberalism for hundreds of years.
Like I said before I'm not your average free market toting right winger.
Even Adam Smith spoke of the dangers of letting capitalism run amok. Thomas Paine advocated for welfare like ideas before Marx was twinkle in his father's eye.
If you want to paint me as a screw the poors viva laissez faire capitalism you'll have a hard time of it.
Last edited:
- 64,966
- 196,172
Dude, settle down. I said nothing about you being a righter winger, so please miss me with that ****.
And maybe if your jumping off point we're not some corny memes, other dudes won't mistake you for something you claim not to be, ever thought about that?
Last edited:
- 64,966
- 196,172
And since you been on NT you been with the labels for yourself. From progressive to this to that . I understand your a young dude finding your political ideology but I remember telling you years ago just learn the issues and don't worry about labels
So you that end, I don't care what you call yourself
So you that end, I don't care what you call yourself
- 8,715
- 5,390
Guess I have to take that. I just enjoy a good meme.
That's fair. I think I know the issues well. I just think my perspective on how to handle them has changed.
- 6,914
- 16,910
My main problem with the discourse of over socialism and capitalism is the fact that the capitalists have framed the issue in such a way that capitalist authoritarianism, violence and use of force is erased and ignored and thus socialism gets defined as requiring the use of force and capitalism is defined as being the peaceful alternative.
The problem with that view is that capitalism requires violence. In order to have property rights, you have to limit other people freedoms to use that property and that requires force or the threat of force to put into effect.
Whatever the merits or demerits possessed by socialism or capitalism, both systems require the us of force and coercion. The question becomes, what is a just use of force. Weighing and considering that question is much more time consuming and challenging then simply saying that the other side employs violence and my side does not.
Edit: when I am talking with my students and they happen to be libertarian, I do tell them that I used to be a libertarian and then, after a number years, transitioned fairly quickly into a socialist. I tell them that while I may disagree with some libertarian views, libertarians are asking good questions, libertarians are examining the philosophical and foundation aspects of property, society, markets and the state itself and in that respect socialists and libertarians have something in common that the more mainstream ideologies do not.
The problem with that view is that capitalism requires violence. In order to have property rights, you have to limit other people freedoms to use that property and that requires force or the threat of force to put into effect.
Whatever the merits or demerits possessed by socialism or capitalism, both systems require the us of force and coercion. The question becomes, what is a just use of force. Weighing and considering that question is much more time consuming and challenging then simply saying that the other side employs violence and my side does not.
Edit: when I am talking with my students and they happen to be libertarian, I do tell them that I used to be a libertarian and then, after a number years, transitioned fairly quickly into a socialist. I tell them that while I may disagree with some libertarian views, libertarians are asking good questions, libertarians are examining the philosophical and foundation aspects of property, society, markets and the state itself and in that respect socialists and libertarians have something in common that the more mainstream ideologies do not.
Last edited:
- 32,869
- 81,591
Read this a few days ago it was quite a good readI found this slightly interesting
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...ng_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html
Great article on this subject.
I found it interesting that conservatives want to reduce women's role in voting but unlike with students, people of color and poor folk, it is much harder to create rules that would target women's ability to vote by way of proxies like new ID requirements and reductions in the number of voting locations.
- 6,914
- 16,910
That is one of the major flaws I found with libertarianism. It is incompatible with democracy.
Libertarians can tell you their ideal society in terms of what laws it would have but libertarians rarely talk about how its politics would look. Some will say that their libertarian society would no longer need politics since the market and voluntary exchange would decide all questions of how resources are allocated. That view is as unrealistic as the orthodox Marxist belief that communism would produce a post political, dictatorship of the proletariat.
More pragmatic libertarians sometimes say that there would be politics but it would be constrained by a constitution that limits the state's ability to do anything beyond using force to protect property rights. But they cannot account for a situation where a super majority wants to change that constitution. Does that mean that that minarchist constitution would have no provisions for amendments nor any lawful path to dissolve this constitution? The people would rebel and what does the libertarian state do then, it would either have to accept the people's will and dissolve itself or it would have to use force to defeat the rebellion. If the state wins, it would then need a standing army, regular police force and, in all likelihood, a secret police force to prevent conspiracies to over throw the "libertarian" constitution and government.
There is also the issue of unlimited "freedom of contract." If the state will always use its power to enforce a contract but it has no role whatsoever in regulating the terms of that contract, we will inevitably have indentured servitude contracts. Will this minarchist state use its monopoly of force to protect slavery or will it abandon its principles and bar certain contracts from being legally binding? We have to remember that in across much of History, slaves were debtors and not people who were captured in war or bought from far away places. In our experience in the Western Hemisphere, the transatlantic slave trade is so profoundly important to our history that we sometimes think of that as being the default experience of slavery. The far flung and radicalized trans Atlantic slave trade was atypical and the most typical institutions of slavery involved people who were deeply in debt or people who were landless and starving to become "bond servants" in exchange for food or remission of debt.
Minarchist states will inevitably be overthrown by a popular revolution (which usually results in an authoritarian left wing government its place), they will be voted out (if they permit free and fair elections) or they will stay in power and rule as a hostile minority and do so through the use of massive and invasive state power.
You can have a peaceful, human rights respecting civil society or you can have a society with very low taxes and absolutely no social services but in the long run you cannot have both.
Libertarians can tell you their ideal society in terms of what laws it would have but libertarians rarely talk about how its politics would look. Some will say that their libertarian society would no longer need politics since the market and voluntary exchange would decide all questions of how resources are allocated. That view is as unrealistic as the orthodox Marxist belief that communism would produce a post political, dictatorship of the proletariat.
More pragmatic libertarians sometimes say that there would be politics but it would be constrained by a constitution that limits the state's ability to do anything beyond using force to protect property rights. But they cannot account for a situation where a super majority wants to change that constitution. Does that mean that that minarchist constitution would have no provisions for amendments nor any lawful path to dissolve this constitution? The people would rebel and what does the libertarian state do then, it would either have to accept the people's will and dissolve itself or it would have to use force to defeat the rebellion. If the state wins, it would then need a standing army, regular police force and, in all likelihood, a secret police force to prevent conspiracies to over throw the "libertarian" constitution and government.
There is also the issue of unlimited "freedom of contract." If the state will always use its power to enforce a contract but it has no role whatsoever in regulating the terms of that contract, we will inevitably have indentured servitude contracts. Will this minarchist state use its monopoly of force to protect slavery or will it abandon its principles and bar certain contracts from being legally binding? We have to remember that in across much of History, slaves were debtors and not people who were captured in war or bought from far away places. In our experience in the Western Hemisphere, the transatlantic slave trade is so profoundly important to our history that we sometimes think of that as being the default experience of slavery. The far flung and radicalized trans Atlantic slave trade was atypical and the most typical institutions of slavery involved people who were deeply in debt or people who were landless and starving to become "bond servants" in exchange for food or remission of debt.
Minarchist states will inevitably be overthrown by a popular revolution (which usually results in an authoritarian left wing government its place), they will be voted out (if they permit free and fair elections) or they will stay in power and rule as a hostile minority and do so through the use of massive and invasive state power.
You can have a peaceful, human rights respecting civil society or you can have a society with very low taxes and absolutely no social services but in the long run you cannot have both.
- 64,966
- 196,172
I was a libertarian at one time as well 
. When my economic and political knowledge was rather limited. It was not the more nuance holes in ideology that pushed me away though.
Went to actual local libertarians meet ups and talked with actual libertarians, and once I found out their beef with the Civil rights Act, I was half way out the door. Then in my youthful ignorance I made the mistake of asking the classic "who gonna build the roads" question. The angry and exasperated responses I got let me know that some of these dudes were not playing with a full deck.
Then I found out the Dems had the big booty female vote so I went to some local meet ups, I started to learn economics and took a African American history class and Lefty Rusty was born.
Also I once lived in Takoma Park MD, straight leftyville, I had legit communist for neighbors. And I remember one time I saw my Cuban still communist neighbor shoot a fair one with some Ron Paul supporters outside a food co-op. Fidel beat the breaks off ole boy, but Frederick called the cops. I lost all respect for libertarians after that. You gotta be ideologically consistent, even when you getting that work.
As I have gotten older I have gained more respect for the ideology (somewhat, maybe for the pragmatist not the true believers) but I still see it as a path for white supremacy to go into overdrive
. When my economic and political knowledge was rather limited. It was not the more nuance holes in ideology that pushed me away though. Went to actual local libertarians meet ups and talked with actual libertarians, and once I found out their beef with the Civil rights Act, I was half way out the door. Then in my youthful ignorance I made the mistake of asking the classic "who gonna build the roads" question. The angry and exasperated responses I got let me know that some of these dudes were not playing with a full deck.
Then I found out the Dems had the big booty female vote so I went to some local meet ups, I started to learn economics and took a African American history class and Lefty Rusty was born.
Also I once lived in Takoma Park MD, straight leftyville, I had legit communist for neighbors. And I remember one time I saw my Cuban still communist neighbor shoot a fair one with some Ron Paul supporters outside a food co-op. Fidel beat the breaks off ole boy, but Frederick called the cops
. I lost all respect for libertarians after that. You gotta be ideologically consistent, even when you getting that work. As I have gotten older I have gained more respect for the ideology (somewhat, maybe for the pragmatist not the true believers) but I still see it as a path for white supremacy to go into overdrive
Last edited:
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,901
- 81,062
Everyone thinks they're a libertarian until they meet an actual libertarian.
- 64,966
- 196,172
Brah even libertarians bicker endlessly about what makes you a libertarian
Gary Johnson gets so much slander from his party too. To tie back to my story, they are pissed off because he said would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.
But yeah, is was all the way in before I realized I goofed.
Gary Johnson gets so much slander from his party too. To tie back to my story, they are pissed off because he said would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.
But yeah, is was all the way in before I realized I goofed.
Last edited:
aepps20
Supporter
- 42,507
- 90,674
I was a libertarian at one time as well
Went to actual local libertarians meet ups and talked with actual libertarians, once I found out their beef with the Civil rights Act I was half way out the door. Then in my youthful ignorance I made the mistake of asking the classic "who gonna build the roads" question. The angry and exasperated response I got let me know that some of these dudes were not playing with a full deck.
Then I found out the Dems had the big booty female vote so I went to some local meet ups, I started to learn economics and too a African American history class and Lefty Rusty was born.
Also I once lived in Takoma Park MD, straight leftyville, I had legit communist for neighbors. And I remember one time I saw my Cuban still communist neighbor shoot a fair one with some Ron Paul supporters outside a food co-op. Fidel beat the breaks off ole boy, but Frederick called the cops
As I have gotten older I have gained more respect for the ideology (somewhat, maybe for the pragmatist not the true believers) but I still see it as a path for white supremacy to go into overdrive.
I share a similar story except I used to be A LIBBIE but when the Honker Burger left town and my hometown of Bluffington was decimated I turned to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN CARSON and the Republican Party and I haven't looked back.
- 3,133
- 507
What are you trying to accomplish with these type of posts? Sad!
- 64,966
- 196,172
Says the dude complains about his expensive health insurance so he votes for the party that is planning on making it even worst instead of the party that wanted to give him a cheap public option.
If you wanna see sad famb, take a selfie
- 64,966
- 196,172
BTW, you guys should look into what the NC GOP are doing. They are trying to set up a hostile rule by any means necessary.
If you think the national GOP can't get any worst, think again. State parties are giving a preview
If you think the national GOP can't get any worst, think again. State parties are giving a preview
- 3,133
- 507
Still waiting to hear from you what a better option was for me besides becoming unemployed and having my healthcare covered for free
- 20,235
- 4,226
Bruh
- 12,114
- 12,759
sometimes i feel like i need to leave cali for a state where my vote could matter
- 64,966
- 196,172
Voting Dem and getting an affordable public option based on income? How about that
- 17,313
- 9,015
Had my oath ceremony and became as US citizen today.
I also registered as a democrat immediately after the ceremony.
Finally an American
I also registered as a democrat immediately after the ceremony.
Finally an American
- 3,133
- 507
Had my oath ceremony and became as US citizen today.
I also registered as a democrat immediately after the ceremony.
Finally an American
Congrats!
Similar threads
