Democratic socialism... Finally some answers

[jhotsauce7]

Interesting to see that a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and law professor had the clout to write something like this.. Unbiased and uncovering the facts.

A a smart single payor system can be so profitable to the point where it would generate revenues equal to 99% of current income tax levels.

i think those that stand to benefit the most from change are the ones that know the least about the facts.

Educate yourselves - you don't have to agree or disagree, but I think the actual facts are getting lost in behind the connotations and impressions we get when we hear the term socialism or get caught up in media hate mongering, and ignorance spreading.

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/david-cay-johnston-agree-bernie-sanders-article-1.2521997

 

[graniteman]

My take. WHY would anyone want a bunch of corrupt, inept and useless politicians and bureaucrats put in absolute control of 20% of our economy, actually more when you factor in the entire system?
This govt does not run one program efficiently and to put them in total control of our healthcare is the last nail in our free society as well as bankrupting America. They control the healthcare system they control virtually every aspect of your life.

Single Payer = Socialism. Socialism has failed in EVERY country that tried it . Look at Venezuela as the most recent example

 

[jhotsauce7]

All of this is posted with great trepidation. I don't support any one candidate and am just in the realm of exploring ideas, and how they might affect us....socialist principles have successful in places like Sweden and other countries of the region that have a very high measure of well-being (often described as how happy a country is). The difference between socialism and social democracy is that social democracy is for a free economy with rules to protect abuses, such as naked shorting, and stock price manipulation. We have a dozen government run programs that are socialist in concept already.. Look at the roads you drive on. Look at all the subsidized markets. 22% of the GDP is government spending and programs. It's nothing new, and certainly not any different from what we have been doing. It could seriously regulate big pharm too, which would be long overdue. Even if you are completely opposed to the idea this article is extremely informational and well written. I am not very political but I consider myself a highly educated personal and I took some good knowledge away from it. While we don't all have to agree, as long as we are formulating ideas and opinions based on facts we are all for the better.

 

[MorganKane]

My take. WHY would anyone want a bunch of corrupt, inept and useless politicians and bureaucrats put in absolute control of 20% of our economy, actually more when you factor in the entire system?
This govt does not run one program efficiently and to put them in total control of our healthcare is the last nail in our free society as well as bankrupting America. They control the healthcare system they control virtually every aspect of your life.

Single Payer = Socialism. Socialism has failed in EVERY country that tried it . Look at Venezuela as the most recent example

Educate yourself before you post.
The most prosperous and happy countries in the world is democratic socialists.

 

[Halo]

Educate yourself before you post.
The most prosperous and happy countries in the world is democratic socialists.

im not laughing at your joke.

Happy and and prosperous in reference to a small or multiple small countries tucked in to non threatening geography (at this time)are not not analogous to America. Having traveled through over 38 countries including your references I completely disagree with your assertions and highly encourage you to move to one of these wonderous countries so you can participate in the Socialism you are advocating for. I have and my friends their don't share your outlook.

As for having it here, only in small spurts while some liberal tool is in office only to be reversed promptly under competent constitutional leadership.

 

[DieYoungStrong]

Two of my wife's good friends are commies, but I actually like them. Instead of hanging around and bitching about America and all of its "problems and unfairness", one moved to Sweden and the other to London. They didn't like America, so they left. I respect that. They both even ended up marrying euro dudes and aren't US Citizens anymore.

The USA is a Constitutional Republic and needs to return to that form of governance. It was not founded as a Democracy, it is not Communist, Socialist, or the new go-to word in this years campaign - Democratic Socialist.

 

[FlyingDragon]

So u would rather trust inept, useless, money greedy CEO's instead?????

I have friends in Sweden where it works perfectly well.....

My take. WHY would anyone want a bunch of corrupt, inept and useless politicians and bureaucrats put in absolute control of 20% of our economy, actually more when you factor in the entire system?
This govt does not run one program efficiently and to put them in total control of our healthcare is the last nail in our free society as well as bankrupting America. They control the healthcare system they control virtually every aspect of your life.

Single Payer = Socialism. Socialism has failed in EVERY country that tried it . Look at Venezuela as the most recent example

 

[UncleAl]

Unfortunately, our other options -- a liar, at least one neofascist, a theocrat, and a robot -- aren't exactly thrilling alternatives to the democratic socialist. I almost envy those of you who are pegged to the right or left, because we centrists are screwed...unless one of the governors can pull off a miracle.

 

[RAIDEN]

For so many of our young people to support the socialist Sanders says a lot about the direction of our country. I wonder how many of them really understand what they're voting for? The same mindset sent the former Soviet Union into a 100 year era of darkness and death; a quagmire of discontent that continues to this day. Poor dreamers that actually think Big Brother will solve their problems. Fools that actually think The State will turn around their lowly state. Big government is not the answer. Big government is the problem. It's unbelievable, unreal to think how we as a country have come so far to even think that socialism might work, let alone contemplate it.

 

[RAIDEN]

This man gets it.

 

[Bullmuscle7]

For so many of our young people to support the socialist Sanders says a lot about the direction of our country. I wonder how many of them really understand what they're voting for? The same mindset sent the former Soviet Union into a 100 year era of darkness and death; a quagmire of discontent that continues to this day. Poor dreamers that actually think Big Brother will solve their problems. Fools that actually think The State will turn around their lowly state. Big government is not the answer. Big government is the problem. It's unbelievable, unreal to think how we as a country have come so far to even think that socialism might work, let alone contemplate it.

They contemplate it because they failed to study history.

Many people who live here take the greatness and freedoms of this nation for granted.



Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

 

[tommyguns2]

I think single payer health care can work, but it requires rationing of services. I'm not adamantly opposed to rationing, I'm just uncomfortable with someone rationing care for someone else rather than for just themselves.

We ration all the time. I go to the restaurant, and want the prime rib, but it costs $35, so I order the salmon instead, since it costs only $17. I rationed myself and made a conscious consumer choice, since I was paying for it. The next time may be my birthday and I may choose to treat myself with the prime rib.

When you have single payer health care, you go to the doctor, and he says you need tests #1 , #2 , and #3 . I have no incentive to ask whether I need them, what they cost, or anything else. The doc has no incentive not to give you all three. You're not paying, he's not paying, some mysterious entity out there (the gov't is paying).

some guy with the green shades in a cubicle in Wash. DC is looking at a spreadsheet, and decides the gov't can save money by only give tests #1 and #3 under these circumstances. I don't know any better, because I don't ask, and it won't matter anyways because it won't be available. The doc might care, but he's on salary and quite frankly doesn't give a shit, because there's line of 500 people behind me. So some guy in Wash DC will be deciding the standard of care, and nobody in the delivery system or receipt of health care will have much of a say.

When consumers don't have a say, quality and service go down, and costs go up. That's economics....