It's not socialism. Again...refer to the definiti

Quote:

---

It's not socialism. Again...refer to the definition. Individuals continually attempt to adjust the meaning to fit their argument.

---

I say that you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. Any definition of socialism that limits itself to gov. control of the means of production is.............................incomplete.

And none of Sanders positions talk about the 'means of production', other than in the context of regulations and taxes.

Gov. ownership? I haven't heard that. You?

You absolutely know that there is a social/welfare component to socialism. Almost all of the opponents to SS, Medicare, Medicare and the ACA has labeled them as socialistic.

GOP efforts to privatize those programs always condemn the socialist aspect of them the way they are.

I don't often take Republicans at their word, or for their accurate understanding of matters, But here I defer to them!

You know we've been talking about social programs, SS and Medicare. Maybe you should take the word of Republicans going back 8O years at least.

Quote:

---

There has been a lot of misinformation promulgated concerning the possibility of the enactment of national health care on television, newspapers, and especially the internet.

For a change of pace, let us review a few facts that we should all know.

When the FDR administration proposed a national Social Security system, the Republican Party vehemently opposed it. When the Johnson administration proposed a national Medicare system, the Republican Party vehemently opposed it. Both programs were labeled as Socialism and strongly denounced but, which now, very few people would want eliminated.

Now, the Obama Administration is trying to improve the ever increasingly expensive health care system, which is uniquely in place in the U.S., and the Socialism label is again being used.

I say "uniquely" because every other industrialized nation in the world, even those who are far less well off than we are here, have national health care systems. If they can afford it, then we certainly can.

There's a reason why 47 million working Americans don't have medical insurance, and it's because it costs way too much for them or their employers to pay for it, and it is the fastest growing expenditure in our economy.

The new system is specifically intended for the middle class. Remember, the Medicaid program provides free health care for the unemployed and underemployed poor in our country.

The time has come for health care in our nation to get off the backs of all of our citizens."

---

http://www.nj.com/cranford/index.ssf/2009/08/...again.html


Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."

The German system provided contributory retirement benefits and disability benefits as well. Participation was mandatory and contributions were taken from the employee, the employer and the government. Coupled with the workers' compensation program established in 1884 and the "sickness" insurance enacted the year before, this gave the Germans a comprehensive system of income security based on social insurance principles.

(They would add unemployment insurance in 1927, making their system complete.)

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

“The debate over Senator Sanders’ socialism is rich with paradoxes. Senator Sanders is not a proponent of socialism, and that is a good thing, for true socialism, whenever and wherever it has been tried, ended in disaster. Nor is America the bastion of capitalism that some make it out to be. In fact, U.S. taxes, spending, and regulation are quite high when compared to truly economically free countries. America’s is a mixed economy and so are Scandinavian countries’. It is the mixture that differs.

As someone who grew up under socialism and is still, barely, in his 30s, I hope to relate a few ideas to the young people who are “feeling the Bern.” First, Sanders is not a socialist, but a social democrat. Second, the United States does not have a strictly capitalist economy, but a mixed one.

As such, it combines a high level of private ownership of capital and the means of production with relatively onerous regulation and taxation. Third, to the extent that what anti-capitalist Sanders supporters really want is a Scandinavian-style social democracy, with its high level of wealth redistribution and income equality, they should consider that even some of the most socially democratic countries on earth are, in one crucial way, more capitalist than the United States.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/arch...sm/471630/ [/quote]

Quote:

---

Include hospitals and overall facilities. This seems to be ignored by many. I believe in having a two-tier system....similar to France and Spain. France despises socialized medicine et al...as they should.

---

Avoids answering the question. why despite the 2nd highest outlays for healthcare why is the U.S. not in the top 10? and what are out 'outcomes', are prevention and our life expectancies also not in the top tier? Telling me that an entire nation despise something tells me you've taken some anecdotes and extrapolated them as representative.