I pay $15k a year health insurance for my family, it only kicks in after I spend $5k, and a doctor can say I require one thing and the insurance can reject it
Oh my God, we've finally yelled at Americans on the internet enough that after A H U N D R E D F U C K I N G Y E A R S conservatives are vaguely aware that there's some linguistic difference!
They get confused because they're so used to conflating capitalism with fascism, because that's what they want fascism but call it capitalism to make it more palatable. Fortunately they're utterly shit at selling the idea.
Last year there was the national conservatives conference, attended by right wing nut cases the world over, and it was like attending in 1920s Nazi rally. That's not hyperbole, it was literally like that, the same fat idiots vaguely wondering around without a clue what they were espousing, interspersed with the occasional bright spark who was actually pushing it all.
I thought "tankie" was the new "commie" but maybe that's just for DNC true believers because calling people with even the slightest leftwing ideas or who are skeptical of the political propaganda from the US a "Communist", is too obvious Red Scare-style Propaganda and unlike the fans of the outright Fascist party, the fans of the Fascism-adjacent party actually care about keeping up appearances.
They serve one function extremely useful to you and to the country, so useful that, if there were no Communists, we would almost be forced to create some. They are a reliable litmus paper for detecting real sources of danger to the Republic.
Communism is so repugnant to almost all Americans, when they are getting along even tolerably well, that one may predict with certainty that any social field or group in which the Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines, any such spot is in such bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills that the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble.
Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops.
Americans see China and think: "Oh no, very bad because of socialism/communism"
But as someone who was born in mainland China (I'm Chinese-American), PRC is nothing "socialist"/"communist" at all, its a horrible State-Capitalist Authroitarian Regime under the guise of Communist aesthetics. I don't fear socialism/communism because they never truely existed, in fact, I'd say that Norway or Finland (based on what info I could gather anyways, never personally been to Norway or Finland so I can't speak from experience) would be more closer to "socialism" than PRC, at least they actually have a social safety net, PRC doesn't.
As for why Americans fear these terms, I think it's because, for some people anyways, you can get labeled as an enemy of the state to even uttering "socialism"/"communism".
(Legal disclaimer to the FBI Agent reading this, just in case I have to make this clear: No, I am not a "communist", as in, I do not support the CCP or similar authoritarian parties, I just support a more egalitarain and democratic society however you want to call that, and my views are 100% compatible with the US Constitution, now fuck off FBI, stop trying to denaturalize me, maybe actualy investigate the traitor in the white house, for fuck sake)
Am Norwegian.
We argue a lot of whether we live under socialism or capitalism, we have a pretty good mix of both I think.
Also, I dont think they're really mutually exclusive, it's more like some parts of society like healthcare, trains and police make sense to do as socialism and other things like TV channels, grocery stores and construction make sense to do as regulated capitalism.
I would argue that the next step forward is to formally design an economic system that uses the principles of both. America's Constitution was based on the Magna Carta and other concepts, but went a step further and made dedicated rules for how political power interacts. While badly dated now, those rules lasted 250 years for a nation that exploded beyond a mere 13 colonies into a continental superpower.
I think making a clean ruleset that incorporates socialism and capitalism would allow them to excel at the things they do, while keeping their worst aspects at bay.
My favorite lefty take to hit a capitalism/libertarian shill with is that I don't really think a communist/socialist project like the Soviet Union is the future. And honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who does want that.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
The way I get downvoted when proposing UBI for free necessities (shelter, basic car, basic food, utilities, healthcare, ect) and using capitalism for luxuries (boats, bigger house, gambling, vacations, ect), it often feels like that neither side of the aisle are happy about conceptualizing a hybrid.
Much like Newton, I feel that Adam Smith's writings on Capitalism had limits, because there is only so much that he could observe and measure in his time. Ditto for Marx. Both seem valid, but the question is in what way, and how we can use them to put together a theory of economics that is actually helpful.
Smith's main goal with capitalism was to create a system to distribute the wealth of the nation to the people of the nation to the betterment of all.
In his time feudal lords sat in their huge estates, hoarding wealth and waged pointless war to the detriment of everyone else.
Capitalism was a radically left wing ideology for its time.
I don't disagree with that. He, like other great minds, had to work with the knowledge and methods available to him in his time. It is our task to stand upon his shoulders and see further, otherwise his efforts would have been wasted.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
That's not 'capitalism'. Those issues are handled exclusively by socialist policies. At no point does a capitalist economy worry about human or environmental needs. There is no place for them in the formula for profit. Even the countries balanced the closest to the middle between capitalism and socialism only invest into the environment when it's profitable, or otherwise beneficial for the state (e.g., one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy being independence, and not environmental impact). And the main reason for that is so many people are aware of the ongoing climate catastrophe that governments can no longer easily ignore them.
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to say that some capitalist policies make sense, or to say that some socialist policies don't work well. But this is the first time I encounter someone saying capitalism is fine if social needs are satisfied first. So basically, capitalism is fine if it coexists with socialism? I can agree, but that's definitely not capitalism anymore. That's the same thing as a mix of capitalism ans socialism suggested by other people here.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
It's an easier sell to the hordes of people who grew up in a capitalist society who feel "It didn't used to be this bad", myself being one of them.
I know that workers rights are written in blood, and often earned by it too. But it still at least feels like there was a period where companies understood at least a little bit that their workers were people, and well cared for workers were better workers. That building a reputation for quality was better than planned obsolecence. That short term profits and growth at all costs was not the right path. That the resources they required to operate were not infinite.
Maybe I'm completely delusional and it's all rose tinted glasses from not being as aware of things when I was younger. I'm sure that nostalgia for childhood days is a big component.
But my point is that "Capitalism could be better if human and environmental needs are met first" is a very intuitive idea for a lot of US people.
Honestly why would people be talking like it's mutual exclusive, social-capitalism kinda balance both because the extreme end of one or another never bear good result
McCarthyism is probably the most succinct answer. The Cold War directly aligned us against the Soviet Union, and a key means of villainizing the USSR and its citizenry was to paint their core governing beliefs as heretical to the American way.
There is also no doubt in my mind that Socialism's strong connection to Union activity in the US also incentivized Corporate Barons to lobby against Social Politics hard. I have not seen any specifics about that myself, though. Modern lobbying efforts are well-known, though.
Considering what weekend this is, you should check out the history of Labor Day and why the US celebrates it in September while almost the entirety of the rest of the world celebrates it on May 1st.
In short:
Canada's Labour Day is also celebrated on the first Monday of September. More than 150 other countries celebrate International Workers' Day on May 1, the European holiday of May Day. May Day was chosen by the Second International of socialist and communist parties to commemorate the general labor strike in the United States and events leading to the Haymarket affair, which occurred in Chicago, Illinois, from May 1 – May 4, 1886.
Despite Labor Day in the rest of the world being celebrated in recognition of an American union worker, socialist, and anarchist movement that limited working hours to just 8 hours a day (which was also a stopgap on the planned road for even shorter workdays, fun fact), in the US it's a completely unknown history.
The date of May 1 (an ancient European folk holiday known as May Day) emerged in 1886 as an alternative holiday for the celebration of labor, later becoming known as International Workers' Day. The date had its origins at the 1885 convention of the American Federation of Labor, which passed a resolution calling for adoption of the eight-hour day effective May 1, 1886. While negotiation was envisioned for achievement of the shortened work day, use of the strike to enforce this demand was recognized, with May 1 advocated as a date for coordinated strike action. The proximity of the date to the bloody Haymarket affair of May 4, 1886, further accentuated May First's radical reputation.
There was disagreement among labor unions at this time about when a holiday celebrating workers should be, with some advocating for continued emphasis of the September march-and-picnic date while others sought the designation of the more politically charged date of May 1. Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe. In 1887, he publicly supported the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative, formally adopting the date as a United States federal holiday through a law that he signed in 1894.
And of course, the picture wouldn't be complete without some good old American fascism:
Since the mid-1950s, the United States has celebrated Loyalty Day and Law Day on May 1. Unlike Labor Day, neither are legal public holidays (in that government agencies and most businesses do not shut down to celebrate them) and therefore have remained relatively obscure. Loyalty Day is formally celebrated in a few cities, while some bar associations hold Law Day events to celebrate the rule of law.
I'll just refer you to the above graph. That fear is greater among the elders who grew up in the McCarthy era, and the unfortunates who listen to them.
Umm. Ok. Normally when ppl talk about socialisism they're usually more talking about state provision of the means to live for those who would otherwise be unprovided for; ownership and control of means of production is generally more associated w/ the word communism. Obvs both big tents, but still, odd defn IMO
Supporting the food supply and keeping jobs during COVID are both great examples where the government should step in. The problem is the hypocrisy, when people agree only when it benefits them, only when they can be “takers”.
Even the lack of safety features on the Payback Protection Program were good things - the money got out where it was needed much quicker.
The emergency is past so now we have the opportunity to go back and look for fraudulent use. We have time for the legal system to work. This is the money we need to “claw back”. This is the fraud we need to hunt down. And it’s not enough to just return the money for a free five year loan
As far as I remember a key feature of that program was to say what is was for but then to intentionally not implement bureaucracy to ensure that. If it was always fraud but getting the money out fast was a priority, then yes it’s very much a good thing to go back and rain justice down on cheaters
The elites own the media. We're conditioned from birth to hate SoCiAlIsm/CoMmUnIsm/TaXes/ThEft/Etc. Repeat those terms 100 times a day over a lifespan and it becomes religion for 30% of the population.
If the government spends money on the little people, there's less money to bail out the Too Big to Fails.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The United States isn't a country, it's a corporation with a military.
Probably stems from the Red Scare when people were rounded up and jailed/fired/blacklisted/exiled. It became the boogeyman. Through the last couple generations the fear around the word is still there, mostly because we haven't heard positive things (let alone the truth) about socialist policies in the better part of a century.
Americans would rather spend $20k a year on useless health insurance, just to make sure their taxes don't accidentally pay for black and brown peoples healthcare...
Even the majority of republican voters want health care reform. It's a cross-party issue, for sure. Trump even lied and said he had some beautiful, magical healthcare plan that'll fix everything. People who believed him are clearly still idiots of course.
I am sick of this bullshit argument. The 'majority' of Republican voters can say whatever they want, but they vote for a party whose core values are against healthcare reform and will even take it away if another party tries to implement it.
For 20 years or more voting republican has meant supporting racism and corporate interests above all else.
Republican voters are getting exactly what they voted for. Stop trying to make them sound like victims.
It isn't bullshit per se. It is by and large what they want when polled, but they're too fucking stupid, too hung up on single issue voting, or too easily misled and naive and think the awful people they keep voting for will somehow not fuck them over some day
I'm not referring to votes, but basically every poll or survey that asks people about these ideas. Most Americans generally agree with and want universal healthcare.
Also, a lot of voters are single- or few-issue voters. With limited choices, some will just vote anyways closest to their beliefs. That doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the full package.
Mostly missing the point here. Yes some minorities also voted against health care, but the overwhelming majority of votes comes from white conservatives and the victims are proportionally higher minorities. Most of these voters claim they’re not racists but the results are a great example of systemic racism.
I'm pretty sure even the white population are in favor of socialized healthcare. It's just that the insurance companies spend a crap on of money lobbying our politicians to make sure it remains private so they can squeeze out every single penny from us. Oh. And other companies in general to make sure you don't switch job easily
The point is that "Americans" is a net that encompasses a lot of people, so generalizing like you're doing is a hot garbage shortcut that smacks of the exact kind of xenophobic behavior you're railing against.
Aint no way a third of gen z has favorable views of communism. Maybe this is just my experience living in a red state but I know like 5 people irl who I would say have a favorable view of communism and I either convinced them of it or made an effort to find them through orgs. This is fox trying to scare republicans more than it is truth. I can't even mention communism to the average person I know without them vomiting American propaganda and thought terminating cliches
I'm not familiar with the first but Allende's socialist policies hit some big issues even before the US took it down and Guatemala wasn't even socialist much less communist. So they're good examples of US stopping leftist governments and social policies but imo not good examples of specifically communism working well.
I'm certain this is one. A democratically elected president wanted to redistribute land to the people. The US decides that it's their business and installs a dictator, who then goes on to commit a genocide, which the US was perfectly happy with.
Does that count as communism working well when the president's weren't communists and weren't implementing communism, rather just general leftist policies?
I'd say they are though. Any theorist would be foolish not to acknowledge emeprical tests of their theory across multiple different conditions imo and readjust their model, but one can argue about this for days.
Except they aren't tests in a vacuum. They're tests with the capitalist nations doing everything in their power to ensure they fail.
If you test chemical reactions in the atmosphere you're likely to get totally different results than if they're isolated from outside interference.
The only communist countries that had a moderate amount of success were authoritarian dictatorships. That isn't because it's required for communism, it's because that's what was required to maintain control while the CIA was trying to turn launch a coup. If you didn't have strict control then you would be couped and it's over. The same would happen with any for of government with that much pressure trying to collapse them.
If you can't test in a vacuum you can't make a ruling on if it can work. In this case, you need to test in as many conditions as possible to get as representative a sample as possible.
I'm not claiming it should be tested in a vacuum. I'm saying the times it's been tried were while the US would do everything possible to kill any communist or socialist experiment. We should try more times, and also try to influence the US to not intervene.
It would be pretty stupid to just go off on a theory that wouldn't consider the rest of the world. Unless this communist society was supposed to exist in a vacuum.
You can't argue it's always bad if you only look at it in one situation. You can argue it was bad while the US was ensuring it wouldn't succeed. That's a different claim though. Make that claim and you're fine. Make the claim that it proved communism can't work and then you're plainly wrong.
If I had billionaire money, I would buy EVE Online and spin off a project: a set of isolated but mirrored galaxies (shards), each with an enforced economic system. After two or so years, I would then allow players to leave their home servers and interact with the other galaxies, doing trade, politics, and war with each other. After another two years, tally up the player QOL and count for each of the servers to determine which economy was most successful.
That would let us simulate the economies by themselves, then see how they interact on even footing.
I wasn't the one making the original claim. I'm just saying that if the theory expects a vacuum or zero opposition then it's a pretty poor theory to follow in real world. More like a hypothetical.
It has nothing to do with communism though. Nothing would survive it. It doesn't require zero opposition, but any functioning government can't survive well with most of the world trying to collapse it. With that said, Cuba is doing fairly well despite that.
You should look into leninism, which explicitly does not do that at all. Understanding how global material conditions and economic interests affect the local application of Marxist theory is like the whole point of large portion of what Lenin wrote
What empirical tests? Just because a politician uses a label doesn’t make it true, usually the opposite in fact. Remember, the Nazi party (the original German one) rose to power by calling themselves socialists.
Cato institute is not a very reliable source imo. Admittedly did not look up this study but this is TV news and they are in the business first and foremost of trying to frighten their viewers (never watch TV news BTW). Fox viewers would be petrified by these numbers. I'm guessing that perhaps a disproportionate portion of the sample was college students, city dwellers or even just people that know how to read. Ie. Not a representative sample most likely. Also, this is not the demographic politicians pay the most attention to.
Nothing wrong with the concept of communism. In practice it always leads to authoritarianism, fascism and the loss of personal freedoms. But look at the U.S. as it suffers late stage capitalism with a populist dictatorship growing - it's exactly the same.
Saying that communism leads to fascism is a silly concept that I don't feel the need to expand on. All states are authoritarian so I'll give you that one atleast but I don't think we can get to a stateless society without a proletarian state in transition. We are never truly free under any state society so yes personal freedoms are restricted but this isn't unique to socialist societies. The question should be what freedoms are restricted, how are they restricted, and why are they restricted. Personally I believe the freedoms restricted under a socialist state are preferable to the freedoms restricted under a capitalist state. I don't think people should be free to own private property (property that exist to produce private capital) for instance. I do think everyone should have the freedoms that proper medical care, education, and employment; freedoms which are up for debate under a capitalist state.
I don't trust the Cato Institute, but Pew Research has some likely more accurate figures, at least for the socialism front, (with what I believe is a larger sample size) showing about 36% overall positive viewings of socialism, with 6% being very positive, and 30% being somewhat positive.
I do like the idea that they went around and asked people their age and if they said over 29 they went nope your opinion is invalid and walked away.
I'm assuming the reason that it's broken down like this is so they can show generational differences but I have to say I'm in my mid 30s and I'd like some socialism I'm not sure why the cutoff date had to be 29. Are there other slides where this information is provided?
It still baffles me how some Americans will fight against universal healthcare, like ??? Do you WANT to be put in debt cuz you had an easily-treatable illness??? I don't get it, honestly
My mom had a spinal fusion in the 90s which she got in debt for.
About 15 years ago my lung spontaneously collapsed. Several surgeries later, the bill was $315,000. I was on Obamacare because of the mandate, thank god. I paid $19.
My mom found out and told me I "deserved to go bankrupt" because people like her had struggled for so long with their medical bills.
I rlly don't get ppl like ur mum.... shouldn't she be angry about being forced to pay extortionate amounts of money in the first place ???? Not at the poor person who got lucky ???? Jesus
Americans are willing to give up everything they own if it means some hypothetical strawman isn't "mooching" off of their propaganda headcanon.
Success is suffering and hard work and if everyone isn't suffering then life isn't fair. Fuck this entire viewpoint, but it's one of the main American traits ruining socialist ideals.
If you don't own a million dollar yacht that you use as a tender for your billion dollar yacht you are the hypothetical straw man mooching off the tax dollars of those who do.
They are under the impression that what'll happen is that their paycheck will go down by the cost of universal healthcare per person because the costs are taken out via taxes. Then they hear that some people will get it who don't pay taxes and they get indignant that they're paying and someone else is getting. Then they think about the difficulties they have with our current system, and picture putting something like the DMV in front of it, since that's what a lot of people have as their biggest reference for what the government does.
That's all because someone has a vested interest in making sure they understand it wrong, and no one is going to make a lot of money off universal healthcare so there isn't the same degree of motivation to teach people a more accurate understanding.
"Against" has billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and "for" has "human decency", "efficiency" and "why are we doing this to ourselves".
People hear that your paycheck gets a bit bigger, you go to the doctor when you feel sick, bills are mainly to keep you from going to the doctor for free aspirin and are lower than your copay, and you just ... don't deal with the billing anymore and think that sounds unrealistic. Entirely missing that other countries have done it, that the government already has a medical billing system, and dealing with paperwork is something the government does even better than "moving stuff from one place to another".
And then there's other countries whose doctors still receive high wages... America just has a very selfish society in general, I've noticed. And, that paycheck argument they make is stupid, because if they have to pay off the debt then their wages will be a lot lower anyways?? Especially for more expensive operations (like transplants).
I honestly don't have a lot to add, all of you replying to my comment have explained it perfectly. America's run by idiots, for idiots www
I'd push back against idiots. It's a little more complicated. It's meticulously cultivated ignorance amongst many people, since that's useful. People with money can help people with power maintain power if they help them make more money. So people with power have an incentive to keep people ignorant about things that threaten the bottom line (often. Some have principles and some see the electorate as a better way to maintain power. Obviously nuance exists)
So it's not that the people who don't support universal healthcare are always unintelligent, or that the leadership is. You're not stupid for not understanding something you've never experienced, and only been told falsehoods about. It's why intelligent people sometimes end up against it, and can jump through pretty significant mental hoops to justify that position: every experience says the belief is correct, and it agrees with what they were taught.
There's a special experience that Americans sometimes get where they'll travel to another country and get sick or injured. Depending on the country, they might be apologetically informed that because they don't pay into the system they'll need to pay full price for the procedure, only to be presented with a bill significantly lower than the fully insured price in the US. Or they just don't get a bill, depending on the country. I've had this happen to two coworkers. One was given a bill for about $200 for a night in the hospital, antivirals, and several units of fluids and electrolytes. The person who presented the bill was adament that there should be a way to bring this down to something more reasonable. In the US that might be a $1000 bill with insurance.
Another had their kid break their arm on vacation, and when they tried to figure out how to pay the doctor just looked confused and asked why he thought they would charge to help a child in medical need. Said it made him realize how backwards our system has made everything, even though he already wanted universal healthcare. Seeing a system that actually put patient care first just felt weird.
Obviously, transsexuals are a bigger concern. They are educated from birth the US has a superior healthcare system (by every measure, it does not). They are told that a lifetime of debt means they are good Americans .Also, most voters just assume one day they will be billionaires and never get sick.
I have had arguments on social media with Americans. They are A) deluded, believing that paying a monthly premium and still having a deductible, that can be denied, is awesome because its tge best plan avaipable. B) are I got mine types, who have stated they got private insurance because they don't want to pay for other peoples health care (they clearly don't understand how insurance works)
C) don't want their taxes to go up one smidge, even though putting every american into a universal system would save so much money and would barely be blip in their taxes.
My friend got cancer and she lost her job. Luckily her parents pay for her insurance out of pocket. Even the treatments are covered, she still needs to pay for copay and deductibles. This is America. When you are down, we kick you further down. No developed country does that except us
but you're forgetting that the other countries tax you more when you are doing exceptionally. Policies like that lead to meritocracy and reduce everyone's chances of getting a yacht.
You think it's easy for people who are poor or in debt to uproot their lives and move to another country they have no connection to? People have families and other social ties they don't want to leave behind as well.
Currently waiting to begin taking a medication my doctor prescribed because the pharmacy wouldn’t fill it without prior authorization from the insurance company, but to do that, they had to go back to the doctor to request the doctor fill out paperwork to send to the insurer.
During the appointment with the doctor, we already discussed that my insurer likely will not cover the medication, but looked up the retail price, which is not beyond my means or out of scale with the benefit I expect it to bring me. I’m okay paying out of pocket, but my pharmacy is locked into this process that has stretched out over a holiday weekend, so it’s likely I’ll get the medicine a week later than I otherwise would have.
This is more mental health related, and I’m okay physically, but if the blood tests and years of failed approaches from other methods are any indication, then this could show immediate and significant impact.
But I have to wait for the wheels of capitalism to grind on, so they can ensure maximum value extraction from a very expensive insurance policy.
Your pharmacy lied. There is no legal requirement to try to bill insurance first they presumably stand in many cases to bill them more especially if you cash paid only after coupons or patient assistance programs which are essentially coupons.
Thus they choose to follow this process and lie to you.
Oh, yeah. They didn’t even give me an option. Not even really a matter of them saying it was legal or anything. It was a quick awkward convo in which they were too rushed to really listen and I was too flustered to really make them.
I’m not all that annoyed at the pharmacy. They are trying to save me money. My comment is really more about how the insurer adds confusion and delays, because of their second guesses, insisting on verifications, etc.
Guess what. I visit my doctor, for free, (or dentist for $$$) they give me a prescription, I go to a pharmacy and give them the slip, they take some time to fill it, explain how to take it, and then I pay a small fee (80% covered by employer health plan at no direct cost to me) and walk away. Canadian healthcare system at work.
Sure, I have to wait sometimes for major surgery based on the triage approach (most serious cases seen first) but it is painlessly easy to get the care I need when I need it. This is how most of the developed world works. Your country is cheating you.
Well, it's not socialism but universal healthcare is a socialist policy and it has been won by various reformist socialist parties in most western countries.
Ireland, Poland, Malta, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Andorra, Luxembourg and Norway don't have colonies. And the first three used to be colonies.
I know. I came from a post-colonial/neocolonial country. But to treat all Western countries as monolith is utterly ridiculous. It is ironically being racist to dismiss white former colonies as neocolonialist like Poland, Ireland and Malta just because they arw white, isn't?
Frankly, the MLs patronise the global south as if they have no agency in the same way as neoliberal imperialists do. Ask Filipinos and Indians on what they think of CPP-NPA and Naxalites, respectively. MLs would actually get more respect and taken seriously if they aren't being hypocritical like the neoliberals. ML is just another form of tyranny with a different mask.
You must be new to dealing with MLs. Nothing "uncalled for" for calling out MLs that keep harping about social democratic countries having neocolonies, when literally these countries have none and some of these countries even used to be colonies.
My insurance premiums are closer to $12,000 a year (basically a hop, skip, and a jump from $1,000 a month).
It certainly isn't the most expensive plan I found, but it was up there. I knew about all the shitty practices by insurance companies, but I tried to do my research to ensure that my prescriptions and doctors were covered, and I hoped that with a plan this expensive, I might be a bit insulated from the worst of it.
Then I had an emergency. Three things that my insurance did not cover really stood out to me.
The ambulance was considered out of network, so I am on the hook for 100% of the cost. You don't have any choice about which service picks you up.
The doctor was out of network, so I have to pay 100% of his charges. I know he probably approved my treatment or reviewed my test results, whatever, but I never saw him and the only treatment I received came from the nurses.
I was given 2 ibuprofen. They cost me $45. I was given several different and conflicting reasons why, but ultimately, I'm on the hook for that.
The three nationwide credit reporting agencies will generally not report medical debt on your credit report until the debt has been unpaid for at least 180 days (about six months).
It was a law from Biden that went into effect in January but trump had vacated in July, all this year. There's a lot of confusion on this because of the flip flop.
I have some good news for the Gen Zers. America is capitalism with a socialism backbone. Things like social securit, fire departments, national parks, roads, schools, electricity, water, police, jails, courts, unemployment, banking(FDIC), CDC, military, space programs, and so much more are paid by your taxes and redistributed wealth just like socialism.
The problem is when money mixes with politics from things like Citizens United, you start seeing policies shifting away from socialism to capitalism.
This can all be reversed once we remove all money from politics.
You would first have to convince party insider democrats to turn their back on the biggest source of funds in their entire history. From your lips to god's ears and all, but let's be real. It's not bloody likely
Before we can do anything about it, people need to know what Citizens United even is. All of us needs to let everyone know what this thing is doing to all of us. We start with knowledge and then vote for those who oppose it.
But not all schools (university) and notably missing healthcare, apart from VA, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Electricity market is commercial but regulated by government, water at least where I am is government administered but must pay for itself out of its own revenue.
Folks are terrified there's no fair opportunity to be secure in health, food, and housing. If they have confidence in those three things being securely in reach, then folks would be far less anxious.
Back in my day, state university was heavily subsidized by the state. Greed happened and we fucked ourselves. Community college was also stupid cheap as well.
Some places electricity was ran by the government before greed and money got into politics.
My point is about letting people know a lot of this shit is greed and money in politics. Let's all start telling people what Citizens United is and we can all move forward with how we vote.
Some of those things could be considered socialized, but they do not make our government socialist. Socialized welfare exists under socialism but that's not what socialism is. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. You could even nationalize industries, but without unions, syndicates, or cooperatives collectively making the decisions it's really only state capitalism.
Yes, absolutely. I'm trying to explain it in layman's terms without going through what exactly is socialism.
My point is that we need to actually inform people what Citizens United has done to our society. Corporations are NOT people and does not deserve the protections that people get.
I think they are learning about how much stuff costs and just went: "You know what, screw the stuff they teach at school, lets try X political system"
Like I doubt they even understand different political systems such as socialism, its just they are so fed up with the current system, they just don't care anywmore and are willing to try any alternatives.
But they don't actually know what alternative is good, so that's why you also see some of them go towards the alt-right pipeline, as you can see with Gen Z Men voting for trump
They also don't have good, compelling reasons to stay with the current system. They're not getting much out of it, and the "oh, but the computer you're making this on was created under capitalism" isn't that compelling of an argument, especially when the alternative is choosing between eating, and buying the medication that stops your blood turning into acid.
The whole "system of true opportunity, where the best and brightest can shine" rings hollow when you're working multiple jobs to survive, no matter how smart you are, and it feels like you're extorted at every opportunity.
Yes indeed. For a lot of people it's as easy as "current system bad, let's try this other thing" and then they rationalize it somehow.
Personally I don't think we have figured the right system out yet. And due to technological, economical and cultural development what worked best previously will most likely not be the best system moving forward anyway.
I'm all for trying out new things and see what works. A lot of what we do now obviously isn't working and there's so much counterintuitive stuff that happens that I say we, the people of earth, just try a lot of things, we have enough countries and subcountries that there's room to test even things that seems like nonsense to most people.
100%. I think what comes next won't necessarily be a super fair utopia, just whatever can survive the CIA trying to shut it down... and hopefully it's better for humans. We're breeding the "antibiotic resistant bacteria" of economic systems.
I bet you get tons of free bonuses too: roads, public education, pensions...
Damn, seems like this whole government thing is quite efficient, with the no shareholders taking profits and stuff.
European healthcare is something like 6k€ per year and person, the USA is around 14k€ (because leechers and parasites in the system).
Source: some graph on the internet.
We also obviously do mutualise the efforts so even the bum living under the bridge gets the same treatments. We all put in an effort according to what we can, as we are living in a society. What a way to control the masses in the USA. Horrifying.
FREE HEALTHCARE is SOCIALISM! FREE SCHOOLING is SOCIALISM! NOT being Gunned Down in School is SOCIALISM! NOT letting Elon Musk fire Hundreds of Thousands of Workers is SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM SUCKS!
Don't forget that ever since the other side has been trying to tear down that watered down version too, so what little people are given is always under threat of being removed
And the side that passed it doesn't seem to give much of a shit about protecting it. But lord will they act like it's the "everything is perfect forever act" if someone expects them to do anything.
Single payer was never on the table, (and if centrists have their way it never will be) and the public option was a bill of goods designed to be jettisoned from the outset.
They had a supermajority. Like always, they find enough no votes.
The country gave them a supermajority and then the bar became "Well you didn't give us every seat in congress so womp womp."
Just more bullshit. In no universe does either major party want to lose out on the health insurance confidence scheme bribe money.
The county met them on their nearly impossible terms which a supermajority is, we met our end. they're just bullshit artists running a con just like the Republican fascists.
The original plan for ACA had a single-payer option.
The compromised ACA itself passed the house only by a couple votes. The party is not a monolith and had a number of moderates that opposed single-payer.
It's Manchin, straight up. And then Ted Kennedy died and they lost the supermajority and had to pass what the Senate had already voted on because anything different would be filibustered.
The public option was not single payer. It also was never meant to be in the final bill. It was the bargaining chip they were dangling to negotiate with the republicans. When the republicans showed themselves to be unmoveable, they had to get Lieberman to play the part to get rid of it.
At 18 a guy in our group started dating a 19 year old. Another guy gave her shit about robbing the cradle to annoy her, which worked. To get him to stop driving the joke into the ground, I said, "Dude stop it. She's not robbing the cradle." She relaxed. "He's robbing the grave."
They should get rid of the single largest socialist government expenditure on the planet (the US military) and then tell everyone they need to get Defence insurance.
Please stop saying the military is socialist. Please understand that socialism is about the relationship to the means of production and not just 'exists because tax'
You sign up for a high deductible plan where you pay for your own medical expenses, but document them, up until you hit your out of pocket maximum ($8300 for individuals or $16600 for families), at which point your insurance kicks in to cover the catastrophic bills you typically won't have in a typical year.
Meanwhile, you are eligible to contribute $4300 per year for individuals or $8750 for families into an HSA, which has very favorable tax treatment (pretax money deposited, not taxed when taken out for health expenses, even after growing a lot), and allows you to invest everything above the minimum cash balance (varies by provider, usually something like $1000 or $2000).
That way in a year you happen to hit a $1 million illness or injury you're still covered against catastrophic financial loss, but you generally pay your own way with tax-deductible funds that you're allowed to invest for growth.
At a certain point, you can invest it like a 401k. That's a giveaway to the stock market. Eventually, you can withdraw it for anything in retirement.
Where a 401k is invested with tax-free money now but gets taxed later, and an IRA is invested with taxed money that doesn't get taxed later, an HSA is invested tax-free AND doesn't get taxed later.
What I'm saying is that it's a giant tax dodge masquerading as a band-aid for a broken healthcare system.
Do what you need to for taking care of you and your family. Maxing out an HSA is generally your best option right now. But just keep in mind that this is a system that shouldn't exist.
There is also no time limit on bills that are eligible to be paid from HSA. So if you are able to, you can pay out of pocket now, keep a copy of the bill, and cash it in 15 years later.
some employers contribute to your HSA, such as matching the amount you contribute each paycheck.
when you contribute to your HSA from each paycheck, that amount is not taxed.
it's possible to withdraw cash at an ATM from your HSA account if you really need it. no one really stops you from doing this. I saw someone buy weed using cash they withdrew this way.
Until you get some kind of chronic illness and run out of money after about three appointments, then I guess set up a go fund me? You are required to be stabilized but not treated.
Not a meaningful number. Accelerationists are just a spook libs on lemmy use so they can avoid engaging with the left by just accusing them of secretly wanting republicans to win.
Fox News viewer choosing a foreign company name accidentaly having two S as initial. Then because of the first 1417 peoples having the same idea put the numbers meaning ADolf and Adolf Hitler in every fucking nazi band since the 70's
Totally not another right wing militant farming engagement on socials networks
That's borderline numerology. He's obviously a right-wing dipshit, but you're just looking for dogwhistles instead of calling him out for what he's actually saying.
Socialism and communism always sound nice in theory, but in practice they’ve been disasters everywhere they’ve been tried. Full-blown socialist or communist states end up collapsing into corruption, shortages, or authoritarianism, it’s a pattern, not an accident.
Now, that doesn’t mean America’s corporatocracy is working. Far from it, corporate greed, sky-high healthcare costs, and predatory loans are strangling people. But swapping one broken system for another that’s already failed time and time again isn’t the answer.
And let’s be honest, when people say “socialism” here, what they usually mean is social democracy, like in Scandinavia. That’s not communism, it’s just capitalism with tighter guardrails. Big difference.
So if someone really wants the pure socialism/communism model, there are countries still running it. Nobody’s stopping them from moving there and living the reality instead of just dreaming about the theory.
Mate I could say the same thing about capitalism. It's never worked in it's pure form. It never provides for welfare and naturally leads to wealth concentration and revolution. It always collapses. When people say they want capitalism what they mean is they want socialism with some carve outs for markets.
It turns out people generally want some things to be socialized and some things to be market based. Stop saying 'socialism doesn't work'. It's like saying 'carrots are bad for you cause if you just eat carrots you'll die'. Arguments like this are what got us here. Nuance exists, eating more vegetables isn't going to kill us.
I don't like capitalism either... And I've had this argument over and over. Pick one socialist country you'd move it right now... Any even the ones that collapsed.
And once you do why haven't you moved yet from the aweful capitalism you hate so much.
imagine a pure model of democracy: every decision of the state, down to "should I send this email asking if the meeting has been moved to 2pm from 1pm?" "should this snowplough fill up with gas this morning?" had to be decided by a majority vote from every citizen. Impossible.
Imagine a pure model of meritocracy: only the best barista in the country could make your coffee, only the person best suited for garbage collection could pick up your trash...
I think you’re just moving the goalposts by following strict definitions. Most people, probably even here on Lemmy, when they say they want “socialist” policies probably mean “higher guardrails”.
The problem is that “normal” guardrails and safety nets that most other capitalist countries have are demonized as “socialism”. We haven’t been successful saying “no, it’s not”, so maybe reclaiming the word as not evil is the way to go
While I agree the the words have been co-opted in American politics to mean something other than what they're supposed to, that doesn't take away from the dismal track record they have at succes6sful running a country.
We don't need classical socialism in America as a replacement for capitalism we need something else entirely.
A program run by the government that offers assistance or relief to people isn't socialism.
Seriously. I could take or leave government owning the means of production. You know what I want? I want universal healthcare and for no one to want for food or shelter. It doesn't have to be extravagant. But in a country as rich as ours, if you can't afford a studio apartment, we should just give one to you. It won't be fancy. It won't be where you want to live your entire life. But you will never want for a roof over your head. Everyone should have access to the bare necessities of life. Beyond that? Learn some skills, work, and build whatever lifestyle you want. But no one should want for the bare essentials.
Will a few just sit in their government-issued studio apartment and play video games til they die of old age? Sure. But the vast majority won't. And really, the people with so little work ethic are the type most companies really don't want working for them anyway. You can force people like that to get a job, but they'll ultimately be a drag on any organization that manages to hire them. Best to just make sure everyone has the essentials and that anyone working is working because they want to work, not because the alternative is homelessness.
I’m definitely capitalist in that I think private wownership of the means of production usually works out best but there are many variations and we seem to pick the worst.
One of the fundamental purposes of government is to establish a market. Establish a foundation of legal and contractual processes, a currency, some level of transparency and fairness. We mostly have those, although the transparency and fairness has been heavily eroded.
But government is established “by the people, for the people”. Its governments role to configure that marketplace to serve the people, the society. Capitalism will always exploit negative externalities, imbalances of power, lack of transparency, but its governments role to structure those to not harm people or society, and we’re failing at that. Modern capitalism is structured for very short term profit-seeking even at the expense of the long term, but its governments role to consider that and structure the market to serve longer term goals. Some services for society are NOT handled well bely capitalism: that’s where government needs to step in more. It’s government that is failing , government captured by the oligarchs, government corrupted for profit and power seeking, government that’s lost its way. And by government I obviously mean those in charge, those who make the decisions, not those who get things done.
I found this article classifying types of capitalism and apparently its “ State-guided Capitalism”, but my preference gets fascinating from there - it classifies China as an extreme example whereas we tend to call it communism or socialism or something
In many countries, critical infrastructure, such as airlines or railways, are operated by companies in which the state owns all or most of the stock. These may also simply be directly controlled government entities in which case they function more like the police or fire service.
…
State-guided capitalism is different to socialism….
…
Examples of countries which have state-guided capitalism are everywhere. In fact, it could be argued that all countries are to some extent examples of it, as the modern economy always requires some form of regulation. Without such rules as health or safety regulations, societies end up with far more problems than without.
…
China – A great example of a heavily interventionist state is China. The Chinese government owns firms that together account for 40% of the economy,
There's a ton stopping people from moving! Moving to another country is a big deal. I want my people and my country to be better - running won't save us from climate change.
If it naturally didn't work then why did the USA have to intervene so many times to stop it from working? Most of the "failed" communist regimes failed at least in part because of USA intervention. The USSR, Cuba, Chile, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos have all had some intervention from the USA.
Socialism is also not an economic or political system but a broad category of systems. Saying socialism has always failed would be like saying that fungi have always failed.
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard... At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. In every single self proclaimed "Socialist" country the means of production is controlled by the government not the workers.
Does the fact that I don't support capitalism either make any damn bit of difference to you people or do I have to blindly support socialism to fit in.
How do you even support a system of governance that doesn't work! Or do you think that anything a government does to help its people is "socialism".
I don't know what to do with any of you anymore.
I ask you make one successful socialist country. I ask what socialist country would you want to live in. I ask why haven't you moved there yet! No one ever answers because these are the country's you have to choose from:
People’s Republic of China
Republic of Cuba
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
German Democratic Republic
People’s Republic of Poland
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Hungarian People’s Republic
Socialist Republic of Romania
People’s Republic of Bulgaria
People’s Socialist Republic of Albania
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Mongolian People’s Republic
People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
People’s Republic of Kampuchea
People’s Republic of Angola
People’s Republic of Mozambique
People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
People’s Republic of the Congo
People’s Republic of Benin
Somali Democratic Republic
People’s Revolutionary Government of Grenada
Republic of Nicaragua (Sandinista period)
at least faux news took the effort of separating communism and socialism, as they often use those terms as they mean the same
takes arthritis pills covered by medicare
for now
"They don't want to work! They just want to be lazy!" Proceeds to watch 14 hours of fox news while occasionally napping on the couch.
Oh my God, we've finally yelled at Americans on the internet enough that after A H U N D R E D F U C K I N G Y E A R S conservatives are vaguely aware that there's some linguistic difference!
It does work, guys!
They get confused because they're so used to conflating capitalism with fascism, because that's what they want fascism but call it capitalism to make it more palatable. Fortunately they're utterly shit at selling the idea.
Last year there was the national conservatives conference, attended by right wing nut cases the world over, and it was like attending in 1920s Nazi rally. That's not hyperbole, it was literally like that, the same fat idiots vaguely wondering around without a clue what they were espousing, interspersed with the occasional bright spark who was actually pushing it all.
I thought "tankie" was the new "commie" but maybe that's just for DNC true believers because calling people with even the slightest leftwing ideas or who are skeptical of the political propaganda from the US a "Communist", is too obvious Red Scare-style Propaganda and unlike the fans of the outright Fascist party, the fans of the Fascism-adjacent party actually care about keeping up appearances.
Plus, this is simply a poll of "what's your favorability of the word we use to say something is when we don't we don't like the thing?"
--Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
What is it with Americans and this fear of socialism? Yes let's have some socialism, what the hell is the problem with that?
Americans see China and think: "Oh no, very bad because of socialism/communism"
But as someone who was born in mainland China (I'm Chinese-American), PRC is nothing "socialist"/"communist" at all, its a horrible State-Capitalist Authroitarian Regime under the guise of Communist aesthetics. I don't fear socialism/communism because they never truely existed, in fact, I'd say that Norway or Finland (based on what info I could gather anyways, never personally been to Norway or Finland so I can't speak from experience) would be more closer to "socialism" than PRC, at least they actually have a social safety net, PRC doesn't.
As for why Americans fear these terms, I think it's because, for some people anyways, you can get labeled as an enemy of the state to even uttering "socialism"/"communism".
(Legal disclaimer to the FBI Agent reading this, just in case I have to make this clear: No, I am not a "communist", as in, I do not support the CCP or similar authoritarian parties, I just support a more egalitarain and democratic society however you want to call that, and my views are 100% compatible with the US Constitution, now fuck off FBI, stop trying to denaturalize me, maybe actualy investigate the traitor in the white house, for fuck sake)
Am Norwegian. We argue a lot of whether we live under socialism or capitalism, we have a pretty good mix of both I think. Also, I dont think they're really mutually exclusive, it's more like some parts of society like healthcare, trains and police make sense to do as socialism and other things like TV channels, grocery stores and construction make sense to do as regulated capitalism.
I would argue that the next step forward is to formally design an economic system that uses the principles of both. America's Constitution was based on the Magna Carta and other concepts, but went a step further and made dedicated rules for how political power interacts. While badly dated now, those rules lasted 250 years for a nation that exploded beyond a mere 13 colonies into a continental superpower.
I think making a clean ruleset that incorporates socialism and capitalism would allow them to excel at the things they do, while keeping their worst aspects at bay.
My favorite lefty take to hit a capitalism/libertarian shill with is that I don't really think a communist/socialist project like the Soviet Union is the future. And honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who does want that.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
The way I get downvoted when proposing UBI for free necessities (shelter, basic car, basic food, utilities, healthcare, ect) and using capitalism for luxuries (boats, bigger house, gambling, vacations, ect), it often feels like that neither side of the aisle are happy about conceptualizing a hybrid.
Much like Newton, I feel that Adam Smith's writings on Capitalism had limits, because there is only so much that he could observe and measure in his time. Ditto for Marx. Both seem valid, but the question is in what way, and how we can use them to put together a theory of economics that is actually helpful.
Smith's main goal with capitalism was to create a system to distribute the wealth of the nation to the people of the nation to the betterment of all. In his time feudal lords sat in their huge estates, hoarding wealth and waged pointless war to the detriment of everyone else. Capitalism was a radically left wing ideology for its time.
I don't disagree with that. He, like other great minds, had to work with the knowledge and methods available to him in his time. It is our task to stand upon his shoulders and see further, otherwise his efforts would have been wasted.
The trick is to talk to real actual human beings and not people terminally online enough to know about Lemmy.
Find a lefty book club and you'll find reasonable people.
That's not 'capitalism'. Those issues are handled exclusively by socialist policies. At no point does a capitalist economy worry about human or environmental needs. There is no place for them in the formula for profit. Even the countries balanced the closest to the middle between capitalism and socialism only invest into the environment when it's profitable, or otherwise beneficial for the state (e.g., one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy being independence, and not environmental impact). And the main reason for that is so many people are aware of the ongoing climate catastrophe that governments can no longer easily ignore them.
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to say that some capitalist policies make sense, or to say that some socialist policies don't work well. But this is the first time I encounter someone saying capitalism is fine if social needs are satisfied first. So basically, capitalism is fine if it coexists with socialism? I can agree, but that's definitely not capitalism anymore. That's the same thing as a mix of capitalism ans socialism suggested by other people here.
It's an easier sell to the hordes of people who grew up in a capitalist society who feel "It didn't used to be this bad", myself being one of them.
I know that workers rights are written in blood, and often earned by it too. But it still at least feels like there was a period where companies understood at least a little bit that their workers were people, and well cared for workers were better workers. That building a reputation for quality was better than planned obsolecence. That short term profits and growth at all costs was not the right path. That the resources they required to operate were not infinite.
Maybe I'm completely delusional and it's all rose tinted glasses from not being as aware of things when I was younger. I'm sure that nostalgia for childhood days is a big component.
But my point is that "Capitalism could be better if human and environmental needs are met first" is a very intuitive idea for a lot of US people.
Honestly why would people be talking like it's mutual exclusive, social-capitalism kinda balance both because the extreme end of one or another never bear good result
Hear that boys? They mentioned egalitarianism. Round this user up, off to Uganda.
😭
Can we just invite the Trisolarians to get this over with? /j
McCarthyism is probably the most succinct answer. The Cold War directly aligned us against the Soviet Union, and a key means of villainizing the USSR and its citizenry was to paint their core governing beliefs as heretical to the American way.
There is also no doubt in my mind that Socialism's strong connection to Union activity in the US also incentivized Corporate Barons to lobby against Social Politics hard. I have not seen any specifics about that myself, though. Modern lobbying efforts are well-known, though.
Considering what weekend this is, you should check out the history of Labor Day and why the US celebrates it in September while almost the entirety of the rest of the world celebrates it on May 1st.
In short:
Despite Labor Day in the rest of the world being celebrated in recognition of an American union worker, socialist, and anarchist movement that limited working hours to just 8 hours a day (which was also a stopgap on the planned road for even shorter workdays, fun fact), in the US it's a completely unknown history.
And of course, the picture wouldn't be complete without some good old American fascism:
cold war and the red scare once performed never went away
I'll just refer you to the above graph. That fear is greater among the elders who grew up in the McCarthy era, and the unfortunates who listen to them.
It depends on how the socialism is used. US corporations, farmers and the fucking MAGAts that abused Payback Protection Program like it a lot.
Socialism is democratic control of the factors of production. Crony capitalists paying each other isn't socialism.
Umm. Ok. Normally when ppl talk about socialisism they're usually more talking about state provision of the means to live for those who would otherwise be unprovided for; ownership and control of means of production is generally more associated w/ the word communism. Obvs both big tents, but still, odd defn IMO
Americans are pretty confused but that's not what socialism means.
Sure, that's why my phrasing was so specific about 'usually when people say...'. I acknowledge your point and accept it as correct however.
Supporting the food supply and keeping jobs during COVID are both great examples where the government should step in. The problem is the hypocrisy, when people agree only when it benefits them, only when they can be “takers”.
Even the lack of safety features on the Payback Protection Program were good things - the money got out where it was needed much quicker.
The emergency is past so now we have the opportunity to go back and look for fraudulent use. We have time for the legal system to work. This is the money we need to “claw back”. This is the fraud we need to hunt down. And it’s not enough to just return the money for a free five year loan
fuck that, the government already requires taxes without consent. It should not be allowed to retroactively declare uses of money fraudulent.
As far as I remember a key feature of that program was to say what is was for but then to intentionally not implement bureaucracy to ensure that. If it was always fraud but getting the money out fast was a priority, then yes it’s very much a good thing to go back and rain justice down on cheaters
Did the government just make it rain money on people unprompted or did people fill in forms saying they needed it?
The elites own the media. We're conditioned from birth to hate SoCiAlIsm/CoMmUnIsm/TaXes/ThEft/Etc. Repeat those terms 100 times a day over a lifespan and it becomes religion for 30% of the population.
If the government spends money on the little people, there's less money to bail out the Too Big to Fails.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The United States isn't a country, it's a corporation with a military.
Probably stems from the Red Scare when people were rounded up and jailed/fired/blacklisted/exiled. It became the boogeyman. Through the last couple generations the fear around the word is still there, mostly because we haven't heard positive things (let alone the truth) about socialist policies in the better part of a century.
What Your saying is socialism, You commie!
Americans would rather spend $20k a year on useless health insurance, just to make sure their taxes don't accidentally pay for black and brown peoples healthcare...
American Elites and conservative morons.
Not all Americans. The majority have wanted socialized Healthcare for a long time, but actual political results rarely match the popular opinion here.
At least 50% voted racism. There is no hiding behind the "Elites".
Even the majority of republican voters want health care reform. It's a cross-party issue, for sure. Trump even lied and said he had some beautiful, magical healthcare plan that'll fix everything. People who believed him are clearly still idiots of course.
I am sick of this bullshit argument. The 'majority' of Republican voters can say whatever they want, but they vote for a party whose core values are against healthcare reform and will even take it away if another party tries to implement it. For 20 years or more voting republican has meant supporting racism and corporate interests above all else. Republican voters are getting exactly what they voted for. Stop trying to make them sound like victims.
It isn't bullshit per se. It is by and large what they want when polled, but they're too fucking stupid, too hung up on single issue voting, or too easily misled and naive and think the awful people they keep voting for will somehow not fuck them over some day
Follow the money. Find out which politicians resist healthcare and you'll find who's getting paid to resist it.
50% of what? Wasn't his tally closer to 30% of gen pop?
The nonvoting assholes add up to more than 50%.
You are ignorant on this issue. Please do better before making generalized prejudice statements.
I'm not referring to votes, but basically every poll or survey that asks people about these ideas. Most Americans generally agree with and want universal healthcare.
Also, a lot of voters are single- or few-issue voters. With limited choices, some will just vote anyways closest to their beliefs. That doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the full package.
And yet sweet racism/homophobia keeps them from demanding universal healthcare.
...and then piss and moan about fuel prices for their pick up trucks and SUVs with V8 motors.
Uh, plenty of Americans are black and brown
Mostly missing the point here. Yes some minorities also voted against health care, but the overwhelming majority of votes comes from white conservatives and the victims are proportionally higher minorities. Most of these voters claim they’re not racists but the results are a great example of systemic racism.
I'm pretty sure even the white population are in favor of socialized healthcare. It's just that the insurance companies spend a crap on of money lobbying our politicians to make sure it remains private so they can squeeze out every single penny from us. Oh. And other companies in general to make sure you don't switch job easily
No they aren't especially if you combine 40+ or men with that statement.
The point is that "Americans" is a net that encompasses a lot of people, so generalizing like you're doing is a hot garbage shortcut that smacks of the exact kind of xenophobic behavior you're railing against.
It's just bigots being bigots.
Aint no way a third of gen z has favorable views of communism. Maybe this is just my experience living in a red state but I know like 5 people irl who I would say have a favorable view of communism and I either convinced them of it or made an effort to find them through orgs. This is fox trying to scare republicans more than it is truth. I can't even mention communism to the average person I know without them vomiting American propaganda and thought terminating cliches
It is
Well thats nice to hear atleast
Communism as a concept, or what the world actually got?
Because those are not the same thing.
No
plansociety ever survives contact with theenemypopulationWell. There are basically 3 times when communism worked pretty well.
They all ended rather violently due to a ___-backed ____. (You know the words that go in the blanks.)
What are those three times?
“Basically” three. Cuz a reasonable person could disagree that all three are good examples.
I'm not familiar with the first but Allende's socialist policies hit some big issues even before the US took it down and Guatemala wasn't even socialist much less communist. So they're good examples of US stopping leftist governments and social policies but imo not good examples of specifically communism working well.
CIA-backed coup is what I'm assuming the blanks are. Maybe that'll help you research it.
I got that part but I wanted to hear what they consider the three times communism worked pretty well.
I'm certain this is one. A democratically elected president wanted to redistribute land to the people. The US decides that it's their business and installs a dictator, who then goes on to commit a genocide, which the US was perfectly happy with.
Does that count as communism working well when the president's weren't communists and weren't implementing communism, rather just general leftist policies?
I'd say they are though. Any theorist would be foolish not to acknowledge emeprical tests of their theory across multiple different conditions imo and readjust their model, but one can argue about this for days.
Except they aren't tests in a vacuum. They're tests with the capitalist nations doing everything in their power to ensure they fail.
If you test chemical reactions in the atmosphere you're likely to get totally different results than if they're isolated from outside interference.
The only communist countries that had a moderate amount of success were authoritarian dictatorships. That isn't because it's required for communism, it's because that's what was required to maintain control while the CIA was trying to turn launch a coup. If you didn't have strict control then you would be couped and it's over. The same would happen with any for of government with that much pressure trying to collapse them.
Where's the vacuum you'd like to test it in?
If you can't test in a vacuum you can't make a ruling on if it can work. In this case, you need to test in as many conditions as possible to get as representative a sample as possible.
I'm not claiming it should be tested in a vacuum. I'm saying the times it's been tried were while the US would do everything possible to kill any communist or socialist experiment. We should try more times, and also try to influence the US to not intervene.
It would be pretty stupid to just go off on a theory that wouldn't consider the rest of the world. Unless this communist society was supposed to exist in a vacuum.
You can't argue it's always bad if you only look at it in one situation. You can argue it was bad while the US was ensuring it wouldn't succeed. That's a different claim though. Make that claim and you're fine. Make the claim that it proved communism can't work and then you're plainly wrong.
If I had billionaire money, I would buy EVE Online and spin off a project: a set of isolated but mirrored galaxies (shards), each with an enforced economic system. After two or so years, I would then allow players to leave their home servers and interact with the other galaxies, doing trade, politics, and war with each other. After another two years, tally up the player QOL and count for each of the servers to determine which economy was most successful.
That would let us simulate the economies by themselves, then see how they interact on even footing.
I wasn't the one making the original claim. I'm just saying that if the theory expects a vacuum or zero opposition then it's a pretty poor theory to follow in real world. More like a hypothetical.
It has nothing to do with communism though. Nothing would survive it. It doesn't require zero opposition, but any functioning government can't survive well with most of the world trying to collapse it. With that said, Cuba is doing fairly well despite that.
You should look into leninism, which explicitly does not do that at all. Understanding how global material conditions and economic interests affect the local application of Marxist theory is like the whole point of large portion of what Lenin wrote
Did the bourgeoisie of countries like France and America not do this when they dispensed themselves of the feudal order?
I don't know what sort of theoretical playbook they were following but seems like that was more succesful
What empirical tests? Just because a politician uses a label doesn’t make it true, usually the opposite in fact. Remember, the Nazi party (the original German one) rose to power by calling themselves socialists.
So you think when they say it now though they mean it?
Either
Cato institute is not a very reliable source imo. Admittedly did not look up this study but this is TV news and they are in the business first and foremost of trying to frighten their viewers (never watch TV news BTW). Fox viewers would be petrified by these numbers. I'm guessing that perhaps a disproportionate portion of the sample was college students, city dwellers or even just people that know how to read. Ie. Not a representative sample most likely. Also, this is not the demographic politicians pay the most attention to.
From the Cato Institute:
"Young Americans Like Socialism Too Much—That’s a Problem Libertarians Must Fix"
Not biased at all! /s
Nothing wrong with the concept of communism. In practice it always leads to authoritarianism, fascism and the loss of personal freedoms. But look at the U.S. as it suffers late stage capitalism with a populist dictatorship growing - it's exactly the same.
Saying that communism leads to fascism is a silly concept that I don't feel the need to expand on. All states are authoritarian so I'll give you that one atleast but I don't think we can get to a stateless society without a proletarian state in transition. We are never truly free under any state society so yes personal freedoms are restricted but this isn't unique to socialist societies. The question should be what freedoms are restricted, how are they restricted, and why are they restricted. Personally I believe the freedoms restricted under a socialist state are preferable to the freedoms restricted under a capitalist state. I don't think people should be free to own private property (property that exist to produce private capital) for instance. I do think everyone should have the freedoms that proper medical care, education, and employment; freedoms which are up for debate under a capitalist state.
I don't trust the Cato Institute, but Pew Research has some likely more accurate figures, at least for the socialism front, (with what I believe is a larger sample size) showing about 36% overall positive viewings of socialism, with 6% being very positive, and 30% being somewhat positive.
Also, the graphic clearly shows 18 - 29 but Mr. Sauer says "18 - 39." Let's socialize the education up in here.
I do like the idea that they went around and asked people their age and if they said over 29 they went nope your opinion is invalid and walked away.
I'm assuming the reason that it's broken down like this is so they can show generational differences but I have to say I'm in my mid 30s and I'd like some socialism I'm not sure why the cutoff date had to be 29. Are there other slides where this information is provided?
Pretty sure the cutoff age is 29 cause gen z is defined as ~1997-~2012
It still baffles me how some Americans will fight against universal healthcare, like ??? Do you WANT to be put in debt cuz you had an easily-treatable illness??? I don't get it, honestly
My mom had a spinal fusion in the 90s which she got in debt for.
About 15 years ago my lung spontaneously collapsed. Several surgeries later, the bill was $315,000. I was on Obamacare because of the mandate, thank god. I paid $19.
My mom found out and told me I "deserved to go bankrupt" because people like her had struggled for so long with their medical bills.
I don't speak to her anymore
It's a cult.
I rlly don't get ppl like ur mum.... shouldn't she be angry about being forced to pay extortionate amounts of money in the first place ???? Not at the poor person who got lucky ???? Jesus
Americans are willing to give up everything they own if it means some hypothetical strawman isn't "mooching" off of their propaganda headcanon.
Success is suffering and hard work and if everyone isn't suffering then life isn't fair. Fuck this entire viewpoint, but it's one of the main American traits ruining socialist ideals.
If you don't own a million dollar yacht that you use as a tender for your billion dollar yacht you are the hypothetical straw man mooching off the tax dollars of those who do.
They are under the impression that what'll happen is that their paycheck will go down by the cost of universal healthcare per person because the costs are taken out via taxes. Then they hear that some people will get it who don't pay taxes and they get indignant that they're paying and someone else is getting. Then they think about the difficulties they have with our current system, and picture putting something like the DMV in front of it, since that's what a lot of people have as their biggest reference for what the government does.
That's all because someone has a vested interest in making sure they understand it wrong, and no one is going to make a lot of money off universal healthcare so there isn't the same degree of motivation to teach people a more accurate understanding.
"Against" has billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and "for" has "human decency", "efficiency" and "why are we doing this to ourselves".
People hear that your paycheck gets a bit bigger, you go to the doctor when you feel sick, bills are mainly to keep you from going to the doctor for free aspirin and are lower than your copay, and you just ... don't deal with the billing anymore and think that sounds unrealistic. Entirely missing that other countries have done it, that the government already has a medical billing system, and dealing with paperwork is something the government does even better than "moving stuff from one place to another".
And then there's other countries whose doctors still receive high wages... America just has a very selfish society in general, I've noticed. And, that paycheck argument they make is stupid, because if they have to pay off the debt then their wages will be a lot lower anyways?? Especially for more expensive operations (like transplants).
I honestly don't have a lot to add, all of you replying to my comment have explained it perfectly. America's run by idiots, for idiots www
I'd push back against idiots. It's a little more complicated. It's meticulously cultivated ignorance amongst many people, since that's useful. People with money can help people with power maintain power if they help them make more money. So people with power have an incentive to keep people ignorant about things that threaten the bottom line (often. Some have principles and some see the electorate as a better way to maintain power. Obviously nuance exists)
So it's not that the people who don't support universal healthcare are always unintelligent, or that the leadership is. You're not stupid for not understanding something you've never experienced, and only been told falsehoods about. It's why intelligent people sometimes end up against it, and can jump through pretty significant mental hoops to justify that position: every experience says the belief is correct, and it agrees with what they were taught.
There's a special experience that Americans sometimes get where they'll travel to another country and get sick or injured. Depending on the country, they might be apologetically informed that because they don't pay into the system they'll need to pay full price for the procedure, only to be presented with a bill significantly lower than the fully insured price in the US. Or they just don't get a bill, depending on the country. I've had this happen to two coworkers. One was given a bill for about $200 for a night in the hospital, antivirals, and several units of fluids and electrolytes. The person who presented the bill was adament that there should be a way to bring this down to something more reasonable. In the US that might be a $1000 bill with insurance.
Another had their kid break their arm on vacation, and when they tried to figure out how to pay the doctor just looked confused and asked why he thought they would charge to help a child in medical need. Said it made him realize how backwards our system has made everything, even though he already wanted universal healthcare. Seeing a system that actually put patient care first just felt weird.
Obviously, transsexuals are a bigger concern. They are educated from birth the US has a superior healthcare system (by every measure, it does not). They are told that a lifetime of debt means they are good Americans .Also, most voters just assume one day they will be billionaires and never get sick.
Yeah.. it's fucking stupid
Propaganda sold to us at an early age.
I have had arguments on social media with Americans. They are A) deluded, believing that paying a monthly premium and still having a deductible, that can be denied, is awesome because its tge best plan avaipable. B) are I got mine types, who have stated they got private insurance because they don't want to pay for other peoples health care (they clearly don't understand how insurance works) C) don't want their taxes to go up one smidge, even though putting every american into a universal system would save so much money and would barely be blip in their taxes.
The US healthcare system is proof that more Mario brothers are required.
My friend got cancer and she lost her job. Luckily her parents pay for her insurance out of pocket. Even the treatments are covered, she still needs to pay for copay and deductibles. This is America. When you are down, we kick you further down. No developed country does that except us
but you're forgetting that the other countries tax you more when you are doing exceptionally. Policies like that lead to meritocracy and reduce everyone's chances of getting a yacht.
Everyone's chances of getting a yacht? You mean a small nu.ber of people?
yes, a chance to get a yacht. Similar to how everyone that buys a lottery ticket has a chance to win.
And yet the same people won't consider living in a better place for some reason.
You think it's easy for people who are poor or in debt to uproot their lives and move to another country they have no connection to? People have families and other social ties they don't want to leave behind as well.
Guess its not so bad then for most.
How can we move? Or roots are here. It is not that easy to move to another country.
Perhaps it will be easily to change people's mind such as yours
Country depends on immigrant labor, citizens can't imagine being an immigrant. Checks out.
Currently waiting to begin taking a medication my doctor prescribed because the pharmacy wouldn’t fill it without prior authorization from the insurance company, but to do that, they had to go back to the doctor to request the doctor fill out paperwork to send to the insurer.
During the appointment with the doctor, we already discussed that my insurer likely will not cover the medication, but looked up the retail price, which is not beyond my means or out of scale with the benefit I expect it to bring me. I’m okay paying out of pocket, but my pharmacy is locked into this process that has stretched out over a holiday weekend, so it’s likely I’ll get the medicine a week later than I otherwise would have.
This is more mental health related, and I’m okay physically, but if the blood tests and years of failed approaches from other methods are any indication, then this could show immediate and significant impact.
But I have to wait for the wheels of capitalism to grind on, so they can ensure maximum value extraction from a very expensive insurance policy.
Your pharmacy lied. There is no legal requirement to try to bill insurance first they presumably stand in many cases to bill them more especially if you cash paid only after coupons or patient assistance programs which are essentially coupons.
Thus they choose to follow this process and lie to you.
Oh, yeah. They didn’t even give me an option. Not even really a matter of them saying it was legal or anything. It was a quick awkward convo in which they were too rushed to really listen and I was too flustered to really make them.
I’m not all that annoyed at the pharmacy. They are trying to save me money. My comment is really more about how the insurer adds confusion and delays, because of their second guesses, insisting on verifications, etc.
Guess what. I visit my doctor, for free, (or dentist for $$$) they give me a prescription, I go to a pharmacy and give them the slip, they take some time to fill it, explain how to take it, and then I pay a small fee (80% covered by employer health plan at no direct cost to me) and walk away. Canadian healthcare system at work.
Sure, I have to wait sometimes for major surgery based on the triage approach (most serious cases seen first) but it is painlessly easy to get the care I need when I need it. This is how most of the developed world works. Your country is cheating you.
"Socialism is when government does stuff like laws and currency."
"Socialism is when they take some gold from the dragon"
Well, it's not socialism but universal healthcare is a socialist policy and it has been won by various reformist socialist parties in most western countries.
Ireland, Poland, Malta, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Andorra, Luxembourg and Norway don't have colonies. And the first three used to be colonies.
Of course someone from .ml would repeat the same buzzwords without thought.
Neocolonialism is an actual term, coined to describe a specific phenomenon
I know. I came from a post-colonial/neocolonial country. But to treat all Western countries as monolith is utterly ridiculous. It is ironically being racist to dismiss white former colonies as neocolonialist like Poland, Ireland and Malta just because they arw white, isn't? Frankly, the MLs patronise the global south as if they have no agency in the same way as neoliberal imperialists do. Ask Filipinos and Indians on what they think of CPP-NPA and Naxalites, respectively. MLs would actually get more respect and taken seriously if they aren't being hypocritical like the neoliberals. ML is just another form of tyranny with a different mask.
Uncalled for.
You must be new to dealing with MLs. Nothing "uncalled for" for calling out MLs that keep harping about social democratic countries having neocolonies, when literally these countries have none and some of these countries even used to be colonies.
Sure bud.
Can you not see them describing the government doing stuff?
My insurance premiums are closer to $12,000 a year (basically a hop, skip, and a jump from $1,000 a month).
It certainly isn't the most expensive plan I found, but it was up there. I knew about all the shitty practices by insurance companies, but I tried to do my research to ensure that my prescriptions and doctors were covered, and I hoped that with a plan this expensive, I might be a bit insulated from the worst of it.
Then I had an emergency. Three things that my insurance did not cover really stood out to me.
The ambulance was considered out of network, so I am on the hook for 100% of the cost. You don't have any choice about which service picks you up.
The doctor was out of network, so I have to pay 100% of his charges. I know he probably approved my treatment or reviewed my test results, whatever, but I never saw him and the only treatment I received came from the nurses.
I was given 2 ibuprofen. They cost me $45. I was given several different and conflicting reasons why, but ultimately, I'm on the hook for that.
Do you have any sources?
I tried to double check and all i found is that:
https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/article/Q-Can-medical-debt-impact-my-credit-score?language=en_US
I am preparing a pamphlet for getting and navigating US healthcare and that would be an amazing addition.
By chance do you have a source to this?
It was a law from Biden that went into effect in January but trump had vacated in July, all this year. There's a lot of confusion on this because of the flip flop.
Capitalism is the best marketing socialism has ever had.
I have some good news for the Gen Zers. America is capitalism with a socialism backbone. Things like social securit, fire departments, national parks, roads, schools, electricity, water, police, jails, courts, unemployment, banking(FDIC), CDC, military, space programs, and so much more are paid by your taxes and redistributed wealth just like socialism.
The problem is when money mixes with politics from things like Citizens United, you start seeing policies shifting away from socialism to capitalism.
This can all be reversed once we remove all money from politics.
You would first have to convince party insider democrats to turn their back on the biggest source of funds in their entire history. From your lips to god's ears and all, but let's be real. It's not bloody likely
Before we can do anything about it, people need to know what Citizens United even is. All of us needs to let everyone know what this thing is doing to all of us. We start with knowledge and then vote for those who oppose it.
That sounds way more actionable.
But not all schools (university) and notably missing healthcare, apart from VA, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Electricity market is commercial but regulated by government, water at least where I am is government administered but must pay for itself out of its own revenue.
Folks are terrified there's no fair opportunity to be secure in health, food, and housing. If they have confidence in those three things being securely in reach, then folks would be far less anxious.
Back in my day, state university was heavily subsidized by the state. Greed happened and we fucked ourselves. Community college was also stupid cheap as well.
Some places electricity was ran by the government before greed and money got into politics.
My point is about letting people know a lot of this shit is greed and money in politics. Let's all start telling people what Citizens United is and we can all move forward with how we vote.
Some of those things could be considered socialized, but they do not make our government socialist. Socialized welfare exists under socialism but that's not what socialism is. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. You could even nationalize industries, but without unions, syndicates, or cooperatives collectively making the decisions it's really only state capitalism.
Yes, absolutely. I'm trying to explain it in layman's terms without going through what exactly is socialism.
My point is that we need to actually inform people what Citizens United has done to our society. Corporations are NOT people and does not deserve the protections that people get.
This is why I want america to be screwed up completely. So Americans wake up and realize what theyve been enforcing on global south for decades.
Its tragic that the only way humans (as a whole) learn is when they themselves suffer.
I think they are learning about how much stuff costs and just went: "You know what, screw the stuff they teach at school, lets try X political system"
Like I doubt they even understand different political systems such as socialism, its just they are so fed up with the current system, they just don't care anywmore and are willing to try any alternatives.
But they don't actually know what alternative is good, so that's why you also see some of them go towards the alt-right pipeline, as you can see with Gen Z Men voting for trump
They also don't have good, compelling reasons to stay with the current system. They're not getting much out of it, and the "oh, but the computer you're making this on was created under capitalism" isn't that compelling of an argument, especially when the alternative is choosing between eating, and buying the medication that stops your blood turning into acid.
The whole "system of true opportunity, where the best and brightest can shine" rings hollow when you're working multiple jobs to survive, no matter how smart you are, and it feels like you're extorted at every opportunity.
Yes indeed. For a lot of people it's as easy as "current system bad, let's try this other thing" and then they rationalize it somehow.
Personally I don't think we have figured the right system out yet. And due to technological, economical and cultural development what worked best previously will most likely not be the best system moving forward anyway.
I'm all for trying out new things and see what works. A lot of what we do now obviously isn't working and there's so much counterintuitive stuff that happens that I say we, the people of earth, just try a lot of things, we have enough countries and subcountries that there's room to test even things that seems like nonsense to most people.
100%. I think what comes next won't necessarily be a super fair utopia, just whatever can survive the CIA trying to shut it down... and hopefully it's better for humans. We're breeding the "antibiotic resistant bacteria" of economic systems.
I'm Canadian. I highly doubt I pay more than $15k in taxes to get my free healthcare.
I bet you get tons of free bonuses too: roads, public education, pensions... Damn, seems like this whole government thing is quite efficient, with the no shareholders taking profits and stuff.
Italian here: 5,000€
European healthcare is something like 6k€ per year and person, the USA is around 14k€ (because leechers and parasites in the system).
Source: some graph on the internet.
We also obviously do mutualise the efforts so even the bum living under the bridge gets the same treatments. We all put in an effort according to what we can, as we are living in a society. What a way to control the masses in the USA. Horrifying.
FREE HEALTHCARE is SOCIALISM! FREE SCHOOLING is SOCIALISM! NOT being Gunned Down in School is SOCIALISM! NOT letting Elon Musk fire Hundreds of Thousands of Workers is SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM SUCKS!
But 16 years ago, democrats gave us watered-down heritage foundation health policy and haven't done shit since! Gen Z are clearly a bunch of ingrates.
Don't forget that ever since the other side has been trying to tear down that watered down version too, so what little people are given is always under threat of being removed
And the side that passed it doesn't seem to give much of a shit about protecting it. But lord will they act like it's the "everything is perfect forever act" if someone expects them to do anything.
Ratchet Effect baby, Ratchet Effect!
It's funny how so many of the policies of Eisenhower - a Republican - are too much to the Left for the present day Democrat Party.
If I recall correctly, they didn't have enough votes for single-payer and passed the compromise that they could get done .
Single payer was never on the table, (and if centrists have their way it never will be) and the public option was a bill of goods designed to be jettisoned from the outset.
They had a supermajority. Like always, they find enough no votes.
The country gave them a supermajority and then the bar became "Well you didn't give us every seat in congress so womp womp."
Just more bullshit. In no universe does either major party want to lose out on the health insurance confidence scheme bribe money.
The county met them on their nearly impossible terms which a supermajority is, we met our end. they're just bullshit artists running a con just like the Republican fascists.
The original plan for ACA had a single-payer option.
The compromised ACA itself passed the house only by a couple votes. The party is not a monolith and had a number of moderates that opposed single-payer.
Like hell it did.
The version they always intended to pass.
They expect the voters to vote as a bloc but won't do so themselves.
No matter how big a majority democrats have, they always find just enough no votes.
It's Manchin, straight up. And then Ted Kennedy died and they lost the supermajority and had to pass what the Senate had already voted on because anything different would be filibustered.
It was lieberman and nelson. manchin hadn't rotated in yet.
You're right, and let's not forget the Franken recount that lasted until June. So a very brief window to get stuff done.
You're arguing against well-known historical fact. You have a lot of emotional angst getting in the way of your judgment and understanding of nuance.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/obama-shying-away-public-option-or-not
Your article doesn't back up your ridiculous lie that single payer was the original plan for the ACA.
Also, gaslighting is abuse, and it's no surprise that the republican-adjacent wing of the party resorts to it so quickly.
The public option was not single payer. It also was never meant to be in the final bill. It was the bargaining chip they were dangling to negotiate with the republicans. When the republicans showed themselves to be unmoveable, they had to get Lieberman to play the part to get rid of it.
Glad to see that people distinguish socialism and communism.
Captain Brainworm will protect you from those evil doctors.
18-39
As a millennial, I feel great not being called old.
Lucky you. My wife calls me old all the time. And she is older than me!
At 18 a guy in our group started dating a 19 year old. Another guy gave her shit about robbing the cradle to annoy her, which worked. To get him to stop driving the joke into the ground, I said, "Dude stop it. She's not robbing the cradle." She relaxed. "He's robbing the grave."
Damn, brutal.
They should get rid of the single largest socialist government expenditure on the planet (the US military) and then tell everyone they need to get Defence insurance.
Please stop saying the military is socialist. Please understand that socialism is about the relationship to the means of production and not just 'exists because tax'
The US healthcare system sucks shit, plain and simple.
At this point, just put 15k in a high interest account and only use it if you need to
That's basically what an HSA is.
You sign up for a high deductible plan where you pay for your own medical expenses, but document them, up until you hit your out of pocket maximum ($8300 for individuals or $16600 for families), at which point your insurance kicks in to cover the catastrophic bills you typically won't have in a typical year.
Meanwhile, you are eligible to contribute $4300 per year for individuals or $8750 for families into an HSA, which has very favorable tax treatment (pretax money deposited, not taxed when taken out for health expenses, even after growing a lot), and allows you to invest everything above the minimum cash balance (varies by provider, usually something like $1000 or $2000).
That way in a year you happen to hit a $1 million illness or injury you're still covered against catastrophic financial loss, but you generally pay your own way with tax-deductible funds that you're allowed to invest for growth.
Goes beyond even that.
At a certain point, you can invest it like a 401k. That's a giveaway to the stock market. Eventually, you can withdraw it for anything in retirement.
Where a 401k is invested with tax-free money now but gets taxed later, and an IRA is invested with taxed money that doesn't get taxed later, an HSA is invested tax-free AND doesn't get taxed later.
What I'm saying is that it's a giant tax dodge masquerading as a band-aid for a broken healthcare system.
Do what you need to for taking care of you and your family. Maxing out an HSA is generally your best option right now. But just keep in mind that this is a system that shouldn't exist.
There is also no time limit on bills that are eligible to be paid from HSA. So if you are able to, you can pay out of pocket now, keep a copy of the bill, and cash it in 15 years later.
some employers contribute to your HSA, such as matching the amount you contribute each paycheck.
when you contribute to your HSA from each paycheck, that amount is not taxed.
it's possible to withdraw cash at an ATM from your HSA account if you really need it. no one really stops you from doing this. I saw someone buy weed using cash they withdrew this way.
Until you get some kind of chronic illness and run out of money after about three appointments, then I guess set up a go fund me? You are required to be stabilized but not treated.
Uh, yes, but... Socialism!!!
Boomers be booming.
62% in favor of socialism, 34% in favor of communism, 4% in favor of liberalism/fascism?
It's asking for sentiment individually, not a zero-sum choice.
Another thing to keep in mind is that many in America earnestly view Donald Trump as their chosen leader/ticket to 'socialism' that helps them.
Not a meaningful number. Accelerationists are just a spook libs on lemmy use so they can avoid engaging with the left by just accusing them of secretly wanting republicans to win.
Does Medicare really work?
In before the usual suspects making posts about how everybody is a tankie for not believing America has the best system in the World...
Bro with nazi dogwhistles as username and a pp from a stock site posting Fox News screen
I miss goods olds psyops when their were at least pretending to target intelligence
How is a
SwedishSwiss gun company and a date 75 years before Hitler was born a Nazi dogwhistle?Fox News viewer choosing a foreign company name accidentaly having two S as initial. Then because of the first 1417 peoples having the same idea put the numbers meaning ADolf and Adolf Hitler in every fucking nazi band since the 70's
Totally not another right wing militant farming engagement on socials networks
That's borderline numerology. He's obviously a right-wing dipshit, but you're just looking for dogwhistles instead of calling him out for what he's actually saying.
Socialism and communism always sound nice in theory, but in practice they’ve been disasters everywhere they’ve been tried. Full-blown socialist or communist states end up collapsing into corruption, shortages, or authoritarianism, it’s a pattern, not an accident.
Now, that doesn’t mean America’s corporatocracy is working. Far from it, corporate greed, sky-high healthcare costs, and predatory loans are strangling people. But swapping one broken system for another that’s already failed time and time again isn’t the answer.
And let’s be honest, when people say “socialism” here, what they usually mean is social democracy, like in Scandinavia. That’s not communism, it’s just capitalism with tighter guardrails. Big difference.
So if someone really wants the pure socialism/communism model, there are countries still running it. Nobody’s stopping them from moving there and living the reality instead of just dreaming about the theory.
Mate I could say the same thing about capitalism. It's never worked in it's pure form. It never provides for welfare and naturally leads to wealth concentration and revolution. It always collapses. When people say they want capitalism what they mean is they want socialism with some carve outs for markets.
It turns out people generally want some things to be socialized and some things to be market based. Stop saying 'socialism doesn't work'. It's like saying 'carrots are bad for you cause if you just eat carrots you'll die'. Arguments like this are what got us here. Nuance exists, eating more vegetables isn't going to kill us.
😙👌
Did you even read my comment?
I don't like capitalism either... And I've had this argument over and over. Pick one socialist country you'd move it right now... Any even the ones that collapsed.
And once you do why haven't you moved yet from the aweful capitalism you hate so much.
nobody wants a pure model of anything
imagine a pure model of democracy: every decision of the state, down to "should I send this email asking if the meeting has been moved to 2pm from 1pm?" "should this snowplough fill up with gas this morning?" had to be decided by a majority vote from every citizen. Impossible.
Imagine a pure model of meritocracy: only the best barista in the country could make your coffee, only the person best suited for garbage collection could pick up your trash...
Liquid democracy can be heavily automated and handle that email question.
Mildly off topic, what does liquid communism look/taste like?
Commbucha
Delicious. I'm in!
Vodka. Or rum.
I refer you to the third paragraph of my comment.
I think you’re just moving the goalposts by following strict definitions. Most people, probably even here on Lemmy, when they say they want “socialist” policies probably mean “higher guardrails”.
The problem is that “normal” guardrails and safety nets that most other capitalist countries have are demonized as “socialism”. We haven’t been successful saying “no, it’s not”, so maybe reclaiming the word as not evil is the way to go
While I agree the the words have been co-opted in American politics to mean something other than what they're supposed to, that doesn't take away from the dismal track record they have at succes6sful running a country.
We don't need classical socialism in America as a replacement for capitalism we need something else entirely.
A program run by the government that offers assistance or relief to people isn't socialism.
Seriously. I could take or leave government owning the means of production. You know what I want? I want universal healthcare and for no one to want for food or shelter. It doesn't have to be extravagant. But in a country as rich as ours, if you can't afford a studio apartment, we should just give one to you. It won't be fancy. It won't be where you want to live your entire life. But you will never want for a roof over your head. Everyone should have access to the bare necessities of life. Beyond that? Learn some skills, work, and build whatever lifestyle you want. But no one should want for the bare essentials.
Will a few just sit in their government-issued studio apartment and play video games til they die of old age? Sure. But the vast majority won't. And really, the people with so little work ethic are the type most companies really don't want working for them anyway. You can force people like that to get a job, but they'll ultimately be a drag on any organization that manages to hire them. Best to just make sure everyone has the essentials and that anyone working is working because they want to work, not because the alternative is homelessness.
I’m definitely capitalist in that I think private wownership of the means of production usually works out best but there are many variations and we seem to pick the worst.
One of the fundamental purposes of government is to establish a market. Establish a foundation of legal and contractual processes, a currency, some level of transparency and fairness. We mostly have those, although the transparency and fairness has been heavily eroded.
But government is established “by the people, for the people”. Its governments role to configure that marketplace to serve the people, the society. Capitalism will always exploit negative externalities, imbalances of power, lack of transparency, but its governments role to structure those to not harm people or society, and we’re failing at that. Modern capitalism is structured for very short term profit-seeking even at the expense of the long term, but its governments role to consider that and structure the market to serve longer term goals. Some services for society are NOT handled well bely capitalism: that’s where government needs to step in more. It’s government that is failing , government captured by the oligarchs, government corrupted for profit and power seeking, government that’s lost its way. And by government I obviously mean those in charge, those who make the decisions, not those who get things done.
I found this article classifying types of capitalism and apparently its “ State-guided Capitalism”, but my preference gets fascinating from there - it classifies China as an extreme example whereas we tend to call it communism or socialism or something
The propaganda is strong with this one
👏👏👏
Congratulations on your use of the word of the day PROPAGANDA.
There's a ton stopping people from moving! Moving to another country is a big deal. I want my people and my country to be better - running won't save us from climate change.
Yes but people stive to be in better country's. If you were able to move to a better place why wouldn't you?
If someone believes that socialism/communism is so grand they should move to the better country. Like china. Or north Korea.
If it naturally didn't work then why did the USA have to intervene so many times to stop it from working? Most of the "failed" communist regimes failed at least in part because of USA intervention. The USSR, Cuba, Chile, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos have all had some intervention from the USA.
Socialism is also not an economic or political system but a broad category of systems. Saying socialism has always failed would be like saying that fungi have always failed.
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard... At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. In every single self proclaimed "Socialist" country the means of production is controlled by the government not the workers.
Does the fact that I don't support capitalism either make any damn bit of difference to you people or do I have to blindly support socialism to fit in.
How do you even support a system of governance that doesn't work! Or do you think that anything a government does to help its people is "socialism".
I don't know what to do with any of you anymore.
I ask you make one successful socialist country. I ask what socialist country would you want to live in. I ask why haven't you moved there yet! No one ever answers because these are the country's you have to choose from:
People’s Republic of China Republic of Cuba Lao People’s Democratic Republic Socialist Republic of Vietnam Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Union of Soviet Socialist Republics German Democratic Republic People’s Republic of Poland Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Hungarian People’s Republic Socialist Republic of Romania People’s Republic of Bulgaria People’s Socialist Republic of Albania Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Mongolian People’s Republic People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen Democratic Republic of Afghanistan People’s Republic of Kampuchea People’s Republic of Angola People’s Republic of Mozambique People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia People’s Republic of the Congo People’s Republic of Benin Somali Democratic Republic People’s Revolutionary Government of Grenada Republic of Nicaragua (Sandinista period)
Pick one go on. Pick any one of these.