Democratic Socialist Takeover

[Sour Masher]

oh - yuck

Adams has long been a leading figure in the Men's Rights Movement, so this isn't that surprising.

[B-Fly]

I'm surprised you guys are dancing around the ethical questions involved with a system like this.

Yes, there is the economic argument--overall, on average, a single payer system is more cost effective and efficient. That won't be the case for everyone, but it is the case on average. Of course, that means it makes economic sense for the majority of people to want such a system, but not for everyone, as some people do currently have more cost effective or better, for them, insurance. So, an economic argument will only work for 1. those it benefits economically and 2. utilitarians, who believe actions and policies are good ones if they benefit the majority, even if it does not benefit themselves.

I think most folks are not utilitarian when it comes to most economics, just like I think most Americans are not true socialists, and probably never will be. However, health care is different for ethical reasons, which is why, I think, many on here that are not for socialization of everything get on board for a single payer health care system. In fact, until this conversation, I thought it was something a lot of us agreed with, liberal and conservatives. That is the case in many other countries, where liberals and conservatives have come to agree that while they disagree about socializing other things, socializing health care makes sense.

We aren't talking about socializing all production. We are talking about relatively marginal increases in taxation for many in exchange for a more efficient, humane, system of medical care for all. We are talking, yes, about taxes going up for some (although the total economic impact on people is complicated and difficult to fully predict, because of the long term impact increased preventive care may have on overall costs, among other things). But in exchange for those higher taxes, many in the new system will actually be paying LESS for their healthcare. Again, to be clear, not all. Some will pay the same or more. But the majority will pay less.

The ethical question for the some who will pay more is this--are you willing to pay more so that millions of your fellow Americans can have healthier, happier, more productive lives? It seems to be the most patriotic/nationalistic thing one can advocate for and support--the quality and longevity of life for your fellow Americans. It strikes me as odd that the party who, on the whole, is most eager to spend trillions in money and thousands in lives to fight wars to ensure our "freedom" or dominance on the world stage, won't spend that money to save the lives of fellow Americans, and give them the freedom to live their lives that proper medical care provides.

To those who will respond by pointing out how ineffective the government has been in so many ways with taxpayer dollars, I have to agree with that. Our government is incredibly wasteful--there is no denying that. However, one thing they have historically done pretty well is health care. And as someone who worked in a hospital for years, I can tell you it is not possible for the government to be MORE wasteful and MORE corrupt than the current health insurance systems we have. They are a complete mess, and royally screw over cash payers, as hospitals and doctors obscenely inflate prices in a game with insurances that negotiation deep discounts. It is such a stupid system, and it reminds me of how JC Penny's attempt to drop the bullshit discounts and just mark their clothes honestly failed miserably. Consumers wanted sky high prices and 70% off tags so they'd feel they were getting great values paying the same damn price. Except in health care, those getting screwed by the system are cash payers and the uninsured that don't know the scam and end up paying the sky high prices. I know some of you will say I am underestimating the corruption and waste of the federal government. With almost anything else, I'd say you are right, but believe me--I've seen how medicare and medicaid payments work in a hospital setting and the absurd variety, inconsistency, and waste that happens in the health insurance free market. In this area, for whatever reason, at least 20 years ago when I saw these things, the government system was better.

Good post.

What's silly to me is the idea that the Democratic Socialism promoted by Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and others is either revolutionary, anti-democratic, or anti-American. I view it as the promotion of a relatively small adjustment in the "social compact", which would itself remain at all times limited by the US Constitution, the checks and balances inherent therein, and the limits of political action within a multi-party and federalist democratic system.

I see conservatives and even some centrists and mainstream Democrats (like myself) shriek at the idea of 2-4 years of free public college as if that's somehow revolutionary with regard to the tax and spend impact. My response is, "Next thing you know they'll be demanding 13-15 years of free public elementary and secondary education!" Obviously the tax and spend impact of public elementary and secondary education, which has already been expanding at the early childhood end through Head Start and publicly funded Pre-k and 3-k programs, make the idea of publicly funding an associate's degree or even a bachelor's degree a drop in the bucket. It's a small adjustment in priorities to reflect a changing job market and economic realities.

I feel similarly with regard to single-payer insurance. Between Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VHA, and lots of other state-based programs the American taxpayers have been funding health insurance and care for an immense number of people at an immense and growing cost for a long time. Going to a single-payer system would have cost impacts, obviously, but could also lead to savings/efficiencies in the overall national spend on health care, while embracing the moral/ethical issues outlined by Sour Masher. I don't think it's revolutionary or anti-American given how heavily the US, including the government and taxpayers, are already invested.

So yes, these ideas are big ideas that would have big impacts, but they're not revolutionary and they wouldn't convert the US into Venezuela or Cuba or the USSR. And of course all of it would be subject to constitutional and democratic checks and balances.

[baldgriff]

Yeah, your "there is nothing Democratic about Socialism...If your democracy fails and the citizens cede their rights to a Socialist form of government..." comment makes no sense to me, baldgriff. Please see my post from this morning in the other thread, since that debate belongs in that thread more than this one.

Just so we are all clear - there is nothing Democratic about Socialism.

If your Democracy fails and the citizens cede their rights to a Socialist form of government that may be considered the democratic process. Everything after that is Socialist and the government gets to decide for you what you do or dont get. Welcome to Russia....... and communism.

B-fly
I will try and get you a response to this at some point today. I just know Im a bit behind on my daily work stuff.

[baldgriff]

Fly –
First I want to be really clear I am no Poli-Sci expert or for that matter a college graduate. I have formed my opinions based upon the world I see around me and how it and I interact. I was raised in a very middle class, Midwestern, Protestant home in what was then a smallish town where in High School you could be from the “wrong side” of the river.

I was raised to respect and honor the country that I live in and never take for granted the rights that our founding documents provide the people, and in so doing limit the government’s ability to rule over “We the People”.

What makes our Democratic Republic so different than everywhere else is that all of us are held to be responsible for how our government interacts with us, rather than how we interact with our government. The government is meant to serve the people, rather than the people serve the government. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people – rather than this new “we all belong to the government” – something ideal we started hearing more and more frequently about 7 years or so ago from those on the Left.

You may want to frame some of the things that Bernie et al, are proposing as small adjustments to the “social compact” or as others call it “social contract”. I agree with you that tax payers have been funding health insurance and care for an immense number of years and the cost has grown. Isn’t it weird that the cost has increased as the primary generation these programs serve continue to age and now are generally retired and don’t have the income to pay. More expense for older people with less money available to pay for their treatments and they stay around for 25 years longer than anyone thought was possible in the 30’s and 40’s when the start of the whole idea Social Security was started. Socialist governing does nothing to actually advance anything remotely related to the “social contract”. It merely places the people at it’s teat… and the people only get what the government will provide.

I dont think the solution to any of our ills is more government. I believe that taking government out of things and letting the people figure out how to do it ultimately is a better solution and makes us responsible for our own personal choices.

Now you want the government to pay for everyone to go to school and get all of the free health care. The government will take care of the people that belong to it. The spewing of the mindset that we all belong to the government changes who is responsible for whom and ultimately is a Socialist ideal. The idea that government should make everyone equal and then everyone will be happy. Socialism doesn’t create more wealth – it takes it from anyone that has anything and redistributes it to those it believes should have it. Weird how the people at the top of the Socialist structure seem to have way more than those stuck within it.

What I said earlier in a not so eloquent way is this - that if our Democracy fails and we cede our rights to a Socialist government, it will be done in a manner that uses the “Democratic Process". However, everything people get after that from the government will be what the government decides you are allowed to have.

Hopefully, those who will be in charge of whatever Socialist regime is put in place, should that ever happen, don’t determine that people with glasses need to be killed. The documented outcomes of execution, starvation and disease caused by Socialism should be feared and is a real thing.

True socialism is the antithesis of our Democratic Republic. One makes people responsible for their government, one makes people slaves to it.

[B-Fly]

Baldgriff, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I guess from my perspective democratic republican government means that we elect people to represent us and those elected representatives earn our votes by running on a platform of ideas and principles that we democratically support. Therefore, if the democratic process results in voters choosing candidates running on a platform of higher taxes in exchange for broader and deeper government programs, then there's nothing remotely undemocratic about it. You mention a new "we all belong to the government" ideal that has been heavily promoted by the left over the last seven years, and I honestly don't understand where that perception of what the left is promoting is coming from. I have never heard anyone say that or promote that. What I have heard from many is the idea that a government of the people, by the people and for the people should reflect the needs and interests of the broadest number of people rather than protecting a status quo that protects, supports, expands and/or reinforces extreme inequality of societal power and wealth favoring the top 1% or 10%. In a Democratic Republic, I feel that the majority of voters, in a country with universal suffrage, should be in a position to elect leaders who promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and/or who pursue policies and programs that align with our morals, ethics and empathy for our brothers and sisters. I don't find anything about that to be a frightening abdication of Democratic Republicanism.

The issue, of course, is whether the policies promoted by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, which aren't remotely "Socialism" in the Venezuelan/Cuban/USSR autocratic mode, but rather are more akin to an exchange of higher taxes for broader and deeper collectively-funded government services, as is seen in Scandanavia, is something that appeals enough to American voters to earn their endorsement. If it earns their endorsement through democratic elections, then it should be implemented per the will of the voters, subject to the US Constitution and it's framework of checks and balances. As always, if elected representatives overreach, they can be checked by the voters in the next election, and if they overreach the constitution, they can be checked by the courts.

[DMT]

It is has been thoroughly documented that our "representative Government" is anything but, as their voting records are nowhere near aligned with the views of their constituents. Corporate lobbyists write our laws. Income inequality is approaching all-time levels. Talking about our country being taken over by "Socialism" is honestly laughable. Scandinavian countries are much more "socialist" and they are consistently ranked as the best places to live/happiest constituents. We could never achieve what they have of course because of our fundamental racism which would never allow people of color to be granted such privileges.

Meanwhile, some around here defend Trump's actions when he is pretty much a fascist, openly racist, attacking the press, calling for imprisonment of his rivals, corrupt to the core, prioritizing the rich over everyone else, etc. Rather than worry about the tremendous damage this POS is inflicting on our country, they'd rather trot out the "socialist" boogeyman. It really is nauseating and gives me very little hope for the future of this country. Maybe I'll be proven wrong with the mid-terms, but I'm not holding my breath.

[baldgriff]

It is has been thoroughly documented that our "representative Government" is anything but, as their voting records are nowhere near aligned with the views of their constituents. Corporate lobbyists write our laws. Income inequality is approaching all-time levels.

I agree that many of our politicians have sold out. You advocate for more government, which could lead to more people selling out to an outside interest other than their constituency. Sad that the constituency hasn’t been responsible enough to figure out that their elected politician in fact sold them a bill of goods. I just advocate for a different solution that places people in control rather than the government entity, because I don’t trust the government entity. It has proved itself inefficient and unreliable.

[DMT]

I agree that many of our politicians have sold out. You advocate for more government, which could lead to more people selling out to an outside interest other than their constituency. Sad that the constituency hasn’t been responsible enough to figure out that their elected politician in fact sold them a bill of goods. I just advocate for a different solution that places people in control rather than the government entity, because I don’t trust the government entity. It has proved itself inefficient and unreliable.

Corporate America has proven itself even more unreliable.

[baldgriff]

Corporate America has proven itself even more unreliable.

I can sue a private business - I cant sue the government.

[Fresno Bob]

I find Trump and his followers to lean more in the "National Socialist" direction than anything else

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

Hopefully, those who will be in charge of whatever Socialist regime is put in place, should that ever happen, don’t determine that people with glasses need to be killed. The documented outcomes of execution, starvation and disease caused by Socialism should be feared and is a real thing.

That's why I wear contacts, I'm not taking any chances. Bernie seems like a nice guy, but I'm sure deep down he's out for blood !

[TranaGreg]

One of the things I'm constantly struck by is the positioning of issues as binary - this time it's: we're either democratic or socialist, there's no middle ground, and you're either with us or against us (regardless which side). To B-Fly's point about democracy meaning leadership listening to it's constituents, my country's leadership listened to its people a long time ago & implemented a state-managed health care system. Is that socialist (it's state-run)? or is it democratic in that it's what the people wanted?

It is possible to implement policies that have socialist elements - you have many in place today - while governing - making decisions - democratically. It doesn't mean that you're eroding your democracy.

[Teenwolf]

One of the things I'm constantly struck by is the positioning of issues as binary - this time it's: we're either democratic or socialist, there's no middle ground, and you're either with us or against us (regardless which side). To B-Fly's point about democracy meaning leadership listening to it's constituents, my country's leadership listened to its people a long time ago & implemented a state-managed health care system. Is that socialist (it's state-run)? or is it democratic in that it's what the people wanted?

It is possible to implement policies that have socialist elements - you have many in place today - while governing - making decisions - democratically. It doesn't mean that you're eroding your democracy.

Fantastic post.

[B-Fly]

One of the things I'm constantly struck by is the positioning of issues as binary - this time it's: we're either democratic or socialist, there's no middle ground, and you're either with us or against us (regardless which side). To B-Fly's point about democracy meaning leadership listening to it's constituents, my country's leadership listened to its people a long time ago & implemented a state-managed health care system. Is that socialist (it's state-run)? or is it democratic in that it's what the people wanted?

It is possible to implement policies that have socialist elements - you have many in place today - while governing - making decisions - democratically. It doesn't mean that you're eroding your democracy.

Exactly. Way too much black and white/polarized thinking and analysis of public policy matters. There's nothing Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez has promoted that's all that dissimilar from government programs that already exist or have existed, even in the United States.

[chancellor]

From @KanielaIng & @SaadforCongress to @AbdulElSayed & @CoriBush, it’s time to leave it all on the field.

Check your state primary date & VOTE August 7th + 11th.

I guess Ocasio-Cortez went 0-3 last night. Ing still to come.