Newbie comment on rant

[Bob B]

The problem is that corruption and inefficiency are the inevitable byproduct of the system you so blindly praise. There is no way for straight capitalism, especially as bastardized by our private insurance system, to produce a thriving healthcare system. Consumers have no real choice here. We have no great opportunity to shop for our hospital, doctor or insurance. And, the Supreme Court has said it is just fine for all the money produced to go back into influencing the only people that could provide any control. Of course, it does not work but people like you will scream SOCIALISM when any realistic alternative is discussed.

So .... do you think Marxism is the solution?

 

[Cdkipp]

So .... do you think Marxism is the solution?

Did you graduate high school? Is your IQ over 80? I have never chatted with someone like you except BMcl.

If your solar system did not work, what would you do? If your neighbors had a working system but yours was inefficient and overheating, would you look at their system and see why it works or would you insist on keeping your own plan as theirs was a different brand?

You do not know the difference between marxism and socialism which is obvious. Regardless, the changes I was discussing do not require outright government ownership as has been demonstrated in many other countries.

 

[upnorthandpersonal]

You guys know the Nordics aren't 'socialist', yes? We're capitalist, just with a strong safety net. A politically social democratic* country with capitalist market, with multiple political parties that need to work together to for a government despite their idealistic differences, but where certain standards when it comes to education, healthcare and so on are upheld (and wildly supported across the entire political spectrum) for all.

*"the meaning of social democracy in this context refers to a variant of capitalism based on the predominance of private property and market allocation mechanisms alongside a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to a political ideology that aims to replace capitalism."

Check out the Nordic Model.

 

[Cdkipp]

So .... do you think Marxism is the solution?

even the father of capitalism Adam Smith recognized it could lead to unfair and absurd results if not regulated. The problem is that the current 'Republican' (or whatever they are) party is so bound to blind ideology they will destroy everything rather than stopping to think.

 

[Cdkipp]

You guys know the Nordics aren't 'socialist', yes? We're capitalist, just with a strong safety net. A politically social democratic* country with capitalist market, with multiple political parties that need to work together to for a government despite their idealistic differences, but where certain standards when it comes to education, healthcare and so on are upheld (and wildly supported across the entire political spectrum) for all.

*"the meaning of social democracy in this context refers to a variant of capitalism based on the predominance of private property and market allocation mechanisms alongside a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to a political ideology that aims to replace capitalism."

I know that. Yes. Bob could not give you a coherent definition of capitalism, social democracy, socialism or marxism if his very life depended upon it. He is a product of Fox and youtube knowing only trigger words.

 

[Bob B]

I know that. Yes. Bob could not give you a coherent definition of capitalism, social democracy, socialism or marxism if his very life depended upon it. He is a product of Fox and youtube knowing only trigger words.

You didn't answer my question .... You just got angry and incoherent.

 

[Bob B]

You guys know the Nordics aren't 'socialist', yes? We're capitalist, just with a strong safety net. A politically social democratic* country with capitalist market, with multiple political parties that need to work together to for a government despite their idealistic differences, but where certain standards when it comes to education, healthcare and so on are upheld (and wildly supported across the entire political spectrum) for all.

*"the meaning of social democracy in this context refers to a variant of capitalism based on the predominance of private property and market allocation mechanisms alongside a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to a political ideology that aims to replace capitalism."

Check out the Nordic Model.

Sorry if my question of dhasper seemed to indicate I thought that .... I am just asking him based on the totality of his responses.
I will read that Nordic Model .... I find it very interesting to know how other countries systems work.

 

[Cdkipp]

What was your question Bob? Was my proposed solution Marxist? I did answer just not in a way that you could understand.

No. Bob. Marxism has never worked and though Marx's criticism of capitalism was dead on, his solution was unrealistic.

As I said above, I believe capitalism works well, especially in young economies, but it also needs to be regulated. We need a level playing field that we should not be afraid to reset. There are some industries such as education, health care, and utilities, where I think while capitalism can play a role, we should look to other alternatives.

There is no easy label for what I am saying above which is entirely my point. Capitalism is a tool, a mechanism, and we should not worship that tool. We should not use it everywhere simply because it works well in some situations. God did not ordain capitalism. It is not required. We should use what works in each given situation. Marxism does not allow for that any more than capitalism.

 

[Bob B]

What was your question Bob? Was my proposed solution Marxist? I did answer just not in a way that you could understand.

No. Bob. Marxism has never worked and though Marx's criticism of capitalism was dead on, his solution was unrealistic.

As I said above, I believe capitalism works well, especially in young economies, but it also needs to be regulated. We need a level playing field that we should not be afraid to reset. There are some industries such as education, health care, and utilities, where I think while capitalism can play a role, we should look to other alternatives.

There is no easy label for what I am saying above which is entirely my point. Capitalism is a tool, a mechanism, and we should not worship that tool. We should not use it everywhere simply because it works well in some situations. God did not ordain capitalism. It is not required. We should use what works in each given situation. Marxism does not allow for that any more than capitalism.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[upnorthandpersonal]

Sorry if my question of dhasper seemed to indicate I thought that .... I am just asking him based on the totality of his responses.
I will read that Nordic Model .... I find it very interesting to know how other countries systems work.

It's just that so many times when it comes to the Nordics, people on all sides of the political spectrum represent it as something that it is not. I wasn't singling out anyone in particular with my comment; it was just a general comment.

When you read about the Nordic model, do understand that - as I said before - it's not perfect. There are valid criticisms, as there are for every political and economic model. It's also not a set of rules set in stone - it adapts, changes over time. I do believe we are doing some things right here, and I also believe that, as is Finland, it's not for everyone. However, having lived in the States for a while in the past, I think there are some aspects that could really be of benefit, just as Finland benefits from embracing capitalism. But as I mentioned, discussions on these quickly get drowned out by the amazing polarization I see in the States where political discussion among parties for the benefit of the people always seems to divulge into shouting competitions and extreme positions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand on all sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Daddy Tanuki]

I remember getting great health care in the 70's and early 80's Then I joined the military and got reasonable care...if you count Motrin as a life saving drug like the corpsmen did.... I came back less than a decade later and health care in the US had fallen apart....all of the small doctor offices disappeared, they could not afford the insurance to stay open due to all of the scammers and their lawyers gutting them in court constantly on technicalities. hence they all had to get more expensive insurance, and then they formed together into managed health care systems , grew their own internal bureaucracies and the prices went through the roof.... that and allowing big pharma to go batshit crazy.

 

[Cdkipp]

I remember getting great health care in the 70's and early 80's Then I joined the military and got reasonable care...if you count Motrin as a life saving drug like the corpsmen did.... I came back less than a decade later and health care in the US had fallen apart....all of the small doctor offices disappeared, they could not afford the insurance to stay open due to all of the scammers and their lawyers gutting them in court constantly on technicalities. hence they all had to get more expensive insurance, and then they formed together into managed health care systems , grew their own internal bureaucracies and the prices went through the roof.... that and allowing big pharma to go batshit crazy.

I remember that. I think the problem was there but under the surface to middle-class America. Harry Truman already saw the need for reform and proposed universal health care and Nixon also wanted health care reform. Ironically the much-hated Clinton plan was less ambitious and Obamacare really is a very small effort.

We had a system where people paid for their services and then there was some non-profit insurance and also charity available. We also did not have the extremely expensive tech and drug research looming in the background during those simpler times.

The huge misstep, IMO, was that during WWII the Congress passed a tax credit so employers could deduct money spent on healthcare for employees. This created a new industry and even after only two years they could not kill it.

Employer/insurer paid healthcare did several horrible things;

1. It disconnected the ultimate consumer and their satisfaction, from the healthcare provider. Now the employer made the decision.

2. Especially with our puritan background in the US it stigmatized those without health insurance by tying it to their employment even though being unemployed was often directly tied to an individual's health problems and, in one-earner homes, this rendered the entire family without healthcare due to no fault of their own. So instead of concern and empathy for the suffering, we were able to dismiss them as "lazy"

3. The system developed focused on payment for the insured only when they were sick and the service provided. Because of this, the US circumvented the most important part of healthcare and that is preventative care. It is a direct cause of why we suck so bad in responding to this pandemic. Yes the US still has the CDC and state and local health departments but the overwhelming portion of the money invested in healthcare is simply directed at treating the ill rather than preventing illness. So, the US got extremely good a treating the insured and privileged population with investments in incredible and expensive drugs and technology designed to treat a segment of our population.

 

[Sanwizard]

I mean just look at the health care systems and how much the US pays in exchange for the poor quality. The idea that our system outperforms Europe is ludicrous. It is reflective of the underlying idiocy that drags this country down every day.

I have to disagree. I visited a hospital in Rome when I was there. It reminded me of the NYC subway system. No thanks.

 

[houseofancients]

You guys know the Nordics aren't 'socialist', yes? We're capitalist, just with a strong safety net. A politically social democratic* country with capitalist market, with multiple political parties that need to work together to for a government despite their idealistic differences, but where certain standards when it comes to education, healthcare and so on are upheld (and wildly supported across the entire political spectrum) for all.

*"the meaning of social democracy in this context refers to a variant of capitalism based on the predominance of private property and market allocation mechanisms alongside a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to a political ideology that aims to replace capitalism."

Check out the Nordic Model.

please remember social democraty and anything social had been demonized and fear mongered so much in the US ,next to a failing school system that people just dont know tge difference between communism, marxism and social democracy...

 

[houseofancients]

I have to disagree. I visited a hospital in Rome when I was there. It reminded me of the NYC subway system. No thanks.

italy and more specificly southern europe is not the same as northern europe.
it is like comparing mexico to the us

 

[Batvette]

please remember social democraty and anything social had been demonized and fear mongered so much in the US ,next to a failing school system that people just dont know tge difference between communism, marxism and social democracy...

The problem is the most outspoken on the left DO espouse marxist philosophies, and democrat party centrists rarely do anything to temper them.
Bernie Sanders was a strong runner in the last two elections and his platform was far left of socialist democracy.
When Salvadore Allende was installed by Moscow in Chile and seized American investments and assets in copper and telecommunications, Nixon placed an embargo on Chile but there were plenty in America who opposed that and spoke in support of Allende's communist policies. And lets not forget John Kerrys meetings in Paris with the communist Vietnam govt.

Of course this brush doesnt paint anyone commenting here but neither should the other side be painted as only watching fox news.
Then there is the adadge, "socialists are just communists without power yet".
If there is any ignorance going on its not that of the right for condemning communism its by the left for not.

 

[Cdkipp]

The problem is the most outspoken on the left DO espouse marxist philosophies, and democrat party centrists rarely do anything to temper them.
Bernie Sanders was a strong runner in the last two elections and his platform was far left of socialist democracy.
When Salvadore Allende was installed by Moscow in Chile and seized American investments and assets in copper and telecommunications, Nixon placed an embargo on Chile but there were plenty in America who opposed that and spoke in support of Allende's communist policies. And lets not forget John Kerrys meetings in Paris with the communist Vietnam govt.

Of course this brush doesnt paint anyone commenting here but neither should the other side be painted as only watching fox news.
Then there is the adadge, "socialists are just communists without power yet".
If there is any ignorance going on its not that of the right for condemning communism its by the left for not.

This sees to me nothing but indefensible babbling.

What specifically about Bernie Sanders, granted very left of most Democrats, a communist? What specific Marxist philosophy does he espouse. ?

 

[houseofancients]

This sees to me nothing but indefensible babbling.

What specifically about Bernie Sanders, granted very left of most Democrats, a communist? What specific Marxist philosophy does he espouse. ?

agreed, and just underwrites exactly what i said

 

[Sanwizard]

This sees to me nothing but indefensible babbling.

What specifically about Bernie Sanders, granted very left of most Democrats, a communist? What specific Marxist philosophy does he espouse. ?

He espouses wealth re-distribution, government/corporate collusion, Anti US Constitutional rights, like free speech, wnd amendment, individual freedoms. He is all about the collective, while living in/owning mansions, and never having a real job. He supports the marxist green new deal, free everything (paid by the suckers who work), and he becomes the head honcho, like Castro i guess( he does not like the current American system he has leached off for decades).

Here, let him tell you: https://berniesanders.com/issues/

 

[Sanwizard]

As this is a Global forum, all ideas are welcome. But lets please try to keep politics and philosophy to ourselves. The world is divided enough. Ideas in threads where politics may affect what this forum is about though should be ok, as long as everyone is civil.

 

[Daddy Tanuki]

This sees to me nothing but indefensible babbling.

What specifically about Bernie Sanders, granted very left of most Democrats, a communist? What specific Marxist philosophy does he espouse. ?

everything.. dude had his honeymoon in the soviet union prior to its dissolving. he has repeatedly advocated for stronger government... Just what is that you ask? I dunno... socialism maybe?

please save your "indefensible Babbling" for others.

To: a certain person... this is an exact quote of his words.. if it pisses you off too bad.