Socialism, the God That Failed - Again and Again and Again

[rexdutchman]

That's why the Liberal are trying to erase history , don't look here did work again and again

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I agree. I have no problem with Medicare for all and free college tuition as an ideal. But show me how it is going to be paid for before I sign up.

SR Point 1: If you think I am in favor of socialized medicine:

1. You don't know what socialized medicine is.
2. I have never said I favor socialized medicine.



looks like SR is OK with Medicare for All - in his own Post- Yet denies it moments later.
Remind One of the Garden of Gethsemane??
SR - You don't know what socialized medicine IS!!

I do - I have seen it in action. It removes the choice of Private Insurers - which most Americans oppose. There is never enough Government Money - and care quality and availability for All is slashed.

It is the Usual - DPST- "Elect me and I will give you Free Stuff mantra used to seduce the vote of the Unwary and Foolish, and the Marxist religious dreamers.

False promises that will not be Kept,
Obama re ACA -" It will be Cheaper and you can keep your Doctor" - Both demonstrably False Statements. In defense - the ACA did ensure care for those with pre-existing conditions - needed to be done
Could have been accomplished much cheaper and simpler in mandating to the insurance companies and Government programs.

[FriscoKiddo]

I like how Socialists point to Scandinavian countries as some kind of "it works there so well, so it will work here" kind of example. What they fail at (miserably) is pointing out the differences between the US and the Scandinavian countries...and the differences are HUGE...A few examples: Los Angeles COUNTY has a higher population than any one of these COUNTRIES...these populations are largely HOMOGENOUS...with VERY FEW ILLEGALS...and none of them are the worlds sole superpower. Talk about comparing apples to freight trains...sheesh!

[dilbert firestorm]

the thing with socialism, in order for it to work, there needs to be certain type of sharing mindset. the leftists haven't figured out that we are a very selfish people.

socialism isn't new. its very ancient. it just been rediscovered time again.


I find it interesting that the one place socialism worked was the israeli kibbutz and they weren't very happy there.



socialism is a place of misery. it only works when you have nothing.

[FriscoKiddo]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the thing with socialism, in order for it to work, there needs to be certain type of sharing mindset.

If you look at the examples of failed systems of the past...you compare the population to those running the country. It's a very "do as I say, not as I do" behavior. For example AOC decries pollution....wants us all to give up every luxury that creates pollution....while being driven around NYC in an Escalade and flying personal jets around the country. The faux socialists who advocate socialism for the masses are nothing but hypocrites who live in Ivory Towers where the rules "don't apply" to them.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

I like how Socialists point to Scandinavian countries as some kind of "it works there so well, so it will work here" kind of example. What they fail at (miserably) is pointing out the differences between the US and the Scandinavian countries...and the differences are HUGE...A few examples: Los Angeles COUNTY has a higher population than any one of these COUNTRIES...these populations are largely HOMOGENOUS...with VERY FEW ILLEGALS...and none of them are the worlds sole superpower. Talk about comparing apples to freight trains...sheesh!

Even with those advantages, the USA comes out on top. Here's GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power, using World Bank estimates,

Norway $60,978 per person
USA $59,532 per person
Sweden $50,070 per person
Denmark $50,541 per person
Finland $45,192 per person

The USA is about 20% ahead of Scandinavian countries except for Norway.

And Norway is ahead of the USA, for the same reason Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are -- it has huge oil wealth. Take that away and it would be in the same league as other Scandinavian countries.

You can attribute the outperformance of the U.S. economy to smaller government.

To be fair I should mention that IMF and CIA estimates put Norway farther ahead of the U.S. than the World Bank. I'd argue the World Bank's purchasing power adjustments are better. But in any event, so what. Again, oil is the reason Norway is rich.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the thing with socialism, in order for it to work, there needs to be certain type of sharing mindset. the leftists haven't figured out that we are a very selfish people.

socialism isn't new. its very ancient. it just been rediscovered time again.


I find it interesting that the one place socialism worked was the israeli kibbutz and they weren't very happy there.



socialism is a place of misery. it only works when you have nothing.

I would say the Kibbutz is a good example. America could be a Great Socialist Country if it was transformed into a massive Kibbutz. That would mean one race, one Religion, everyone following the same lock and step.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

I like how Socialists point to Scandinavian countries as some kind of "it works there so well, so it will work here" kind of example...

Here is a good refutation of that fallacy:


How Sweden Overcame Socialism

It’s a model for the U.S., but the lesson isn’t what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks it is.

By Jesús Fernández-Villaverde and Lee E. Ohanian
Jan. 9, 2019 7:06 p.m. ET

Nearly half of millennials say they prefer socialism to capitalism, but what do they mean? “My policies most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told “60 Minutes.” Yet Sweden’s experiment with socialist policies was disastrous, and its economic success in recent decades is a result of market-based reforms.

Until the mid-20th century, Sweden pursued highly competitive market-based policies. By 1970 Sweden achieved the world’s fourth-highest per capita income. Then increasingly radical Social Democratic governments raised taxes, spending and regulation much more than any other Western European country. Economic performance sputtered. By the early 1990s, Sweden’s per capita income ranking had dropped to 14th. Economic growth from 1970 to the early 1990s was roughly 1 percentage point lower than in Europe and 2 points lower than in the U.S.

Before its socialist experiment, Sweden had a smaller government sector than the U.S. By the early 1990s, government spending and transfer payments ballooned to 70% of gross domestic product, and debt had increased to 80% of GDP. Between 1966 and 1974, Sweden lost some 400,000 private jobs—proportionate to 16.7 million in today’s U.S.

In 1991 a market-oriented government came to power and undertook far-reaching reforms. Policy makers have privatized parts of the health-care system, introduced for-profit schools along with school vouchers, and reduced welfare benefits. Since 1997, government ministries that propose new spending plans have been required to find offsetting cuts in their budgets. As a result, public debt has declined from 80% of GDP in the early 1990s to 41%.

To increase incentives to work, Sweden reduced unemployment benefits and introduced an earned-income tax credit in 2007. The electricity and transportation industries were deregulated in the 1990s, and even the Swedish postal system was opened up to competition in 1993. The corporate tax rate was cut from its 2009 level of 28% to 22% today, and is scheduled to decline to 20.4% in 2021.

This policy mix has earned Sweden a Heritage Foundation ranking as the 15th freest economy in the world. The U.S. is 18th. And it’s paid off. Since 1995, Swedish economic growth has exceeded that of its European Union peers by about 1 point a year. Sweden is now richer than all of the major EU countries and is within 15% of U.S. per capita GDP. While Sweden still has a larger government than the U.S., its tax code is flatter. The progressivity of the U.S. tax code distorts incentives. These distortions would become even larger under the tax-increase proposals of democratic socialists like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

There is an example for the U.S. here, but the lesson isn’t what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez thinks. Command-and-control economic policies undermined Sweden’s prosperity, and they would do the same to America’s.

Mr. Fernández-Villaverde is a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of economics at UCLA.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by bb1961

We'll see if his plan for socialized medicine is good...nothing socialized in medicine is good...please show me some "unvarnished" facts to support this. I can list story after story about the nightmares involved in this Utopian garbage...in a Gumment controlled system where there is no competition the PEOPLE ARE THE ONE THAT SUFFER...PERIOD!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi.../#3bdab1f43f2f

Probably not a good one to argue bb. The USA health care system fits eccielover's description:

Originally Posted by eccielover

Most of the failures that get cited with our "system" is from government overreach and control, not true capitalist actions. The government rigs the system and people are surprised, than call capitalism a failure and ask for more government control.

It's not capitalism failing, it government manipulation failing as it almost always does.

Britain spends less than half of what we do per person on health care, but the population lives two years longer. Not that we should be looking to the Brits as a model. Some other countries do better still, and for the same cost or less.

We don't have a free market in health care. Drug companies charge whatever they want. People don't shop around for cost effective medical care. We don't even know how much things cost.

As to Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Democrats basically doubled down on a failed system. And they paid for it with a tax on investment and savings, which are what drive economic and employment growth. Universal health care makes sense in other countries, but it needs to be delivered efficiently, and politicians at the federal level apparently are incapable of making that happen. Democrats just want to throw more money at something that already accounts for 17% of GDP. Actually we spend 6.6% of GDP just on Medicare and Medicaid, and that doesn't count Obamacare subsidies. Singapore spends 4.5% of GDP total, for everyone in the country, and they live four years longer than we do. And the Singapore government's expenditure on health care is only 1.6% of GDP. Maybe we should be taking lessons from them.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Probably not a good one to argue bb. The USA health care system fits eccielover's description:



Britain spends less than half of what we do per person on health care, but the population lives two years longer. Not that we should be looking to the Brits as a model. Some other countries do better still, and for the same cost or less.

We don't have a free market in health care. Drug companies charge whatever they want. People don't shop around for cost effective medical care. We don't even know how much things cost.

As to Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Democrats basically doubled down on a failed system. And they paid for it with a tax on investment and savings, which are what drive economic and employment growth. Universal health care makes sense in other countries, but it needs to be delivered efficiently, and politicians at the federal level apparently are incapable of making that happen. Democrats just want to throw more money at something that already accounts for 17% of GDP. Actually we spend 6.6% of GDP just on Medicare and Medicaid, and that doesn't count Obamacare subsidies. Singapore spends 4.5% of GDP total, for everyone in the country, and they live four years longer than we do. And the Singapore government's expenditure on health care is only 1.6% of GDP. Maybe we should be taking lessons from them.

Some of the statistic of longevity in other countries isn't due to their Health care system it's more attributed to their diet and life style. Americans have the worst diet which attributes to sickness over time such as Obesity, Heart Disease, cancer ect. Indonesia for instance will see a huge spike in Tobacco related Health problems very soon since 95% of the population smokes in contrast to America which is about 35%.

[Tiny]

Levianon, You're right. Diet in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore is better than ours. However people in many European countries, Australia and Israel live longer than we do, and pay a lot less for health care. Can you explain all of that on us eating worse and sitting on our asses more? Unlikely I think, but possible. I don't think the argument that we need to pay twice as much as other people for worse outcomes because of our lifestyles is a good one.

It's not just longevity. We're 44th in the world for maternal death rates, behind Libya and Bosnia. In infant mortality we're number 56, behind Bosnia, and Cuba. Admittedly though, if you've got cancer or need open heart surgery, the USA is a very good place to live.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Levianon, You're right. Diet in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore is better than ours. However people in many European countries, Australia and Israel live longer than we do, and pay a lot less for health care. Can you explain all of that on us eating worse and sitting on our asses more? Unlikely I think, but possible. I don't think the argument that we need to pay twice as much as other people for worse outcomes because of our lifestyles is a good one.

It's not just longevity. We're 44th in the world for maternal death rates, behind Libya and Bosnia. In infant mortality we're number 56, behind Bosnia, and Cuba. Admittedly though, if you've got cancer or need open heart surgery, the USA is a very good place to live.

The cost of Healthcare is not a definitive factor in how long someone will live. The main factor as far as Healthcare is concerned is the quality and what procedures the Government will pay for, in terms of the persons overall health, age and their present medical issue. Your last sentence sums that up. When a person pays a Healthcare premium in America that Policy for the most part will cover a wide range of treatments, Drugs and Procedures. In Countries that have Socialized medicine they may not cover what a Doctor may specify as the Optimum treatment.

[Jackie S]

Sooner or later any pure Socialist State will morph into a Thugocracy.

It usually happens when people get fed up working so that lazy asses can sit around and sponge off of everybody else. The hard working creative people attempt to change the leadership, who like being on top of the food chain.

The results are predictable. The latest case in point is Madura in Venezuela. He is just a few steps away from lining people against the wall.

But as I say. I am all for Socialism as long as I am in charge. I will be sitting in my “Dacha on the Volga” while everybody else, (Bernie and AOC would be my first picks), are hoeing potatoes in Siberia.

That way the can enjoy the full benefits of the Socialist Utopia.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The cost of Healthcare is not a definitive factor in how long someone will live. The main factor as far as Healthcare is concerned is the quality and what procedures the Government will pay for, in terms of the persons overall health, age and their present medical issue. Your last sentence sums that up. When a person pays a Healthcare premium in America that Policy for the most part will cover a wide range of treatments, Drugs and Procedures. In Countries that have Socialized medicine they may not cover what a Doctor may specify as the Optimum treatment.

Levianon, All true. I'd add we should get quality commensurate with what we pay for, and prices shouldn't be jacked up to ridiculous levels because there's no price competition, and failing that, no regulation of prices.

You do want the optimum treatment to be available to people who will pay for it or buy insurance to cover it. I don't, however, believe we can afford to pay, for example, for a super expensive optimum treatment that would prolong someone's life for a few months through something like Medicare. And I think the USA is the only country in the world that does that.

[themystic]

I have good news and bad news for your right wing loons

Good news first. The United States wont be going Socialist anytime soon

Bad News. The Democrats are going to take the Presidency with Biden / Harris

Hope you loons feel better