Whitewashing US history with 'patriotic education' -Trump

[Sarcelle]

No.

It is the conservatives who are happy with the status quo of sky high medical costs.

Something has to be done with astronomical medical costs and non-transparent pricing, the labyrinth like set-up of insurance companies that make it difficult for the consumer.

I am not advocating for government run healthcare but we can start with non-transparent pricing. You can say the free market can take care of costs, but let’s not kid ourselves. It’s anything but a free market.

 

[MikeInVA]

You have failed to connect the republican party to medical costs.

 

[Sarcelle]

Actually I did.

It is the conservative Republican Party who will fight hard to preserve the status quo of medical care only available for those who are able to afford it.

Still think I’m wrong?

So educate me.

Who is responsible for the sky high medical prices that make it unaffordable for the rest of us?

Who?

 

[JonNC]

Of course they are, for the elected government to own critical infrastructure & resources in common for the even distribution among society. Socialism aims to distribute these resources evenly through out all of society & as such is owned by society as a whole.

Socialism aims to control the means of production through authoritarian rule. It is the only way socialism can happen.

Socialism , social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Exactly what I’ve been saying. Government ownership or strict control of the means of production. A large social safety net is not this. When government has nationalized oil and gas, agriculture, manufacturing, etc., confiscating the means of production From their rightful owners, that is socialism.

Governments can stifle capitalism, no doubt, but it can also facilitate a more balanced approach to the distribution of resources.

There are ways government can act in a positive way to advance free markets and the prosperity they bring. Some of those ways include not doing some things, but there are positive interventions such as anti-trust, defending the right of employees to collectively bargain in the private sector, consumer product safety.

 

[EssentialBeing]

Socialism aims to control the means of production through authoritarian rule. It is the only way socialism can happen.

No, it actually aims to controls the means of critical production through the process of Democracy in the form of Representative Government.

Government ownership or strict control of the means of production. A large social safety net is not.

When an elected representative government owns critical infrastructure such as health care, education etc, it is a Socialistic measure, as the means of production is owned by all citizens, not just the private few. Confiscation is one thing but legitimate ownership by elected governments is totally another.

Socialism has nothing to do with confiscation, it has everything to do with society owning critical infrastructure for the benefit of all citizens, ownership by legal means not confiscation. You seem to be trying to draw a comparison between Socialism & Communism, they are not the same.

I still don’t understand the confusion as it is quite simple.

(1) When legitimate democratic governments own infrastructure it belongs to all citizens
(2) When capitalism owns infrastructure it doesn’t belong to all citizens

 

[JonNC]

No, it actually aims to controls the means of critical production through the process of Democracy in the form of Representative Government.

No, that’s a social safety net, which is not socialism. Socialism is government ownership or strict control of the means of production.

When an elected representative government owns critical infrastructure such as health care, education etc, it is a Socialistic measure

While it is terrible policy for the central government to operate healthcare or education, these are not socialism, unless it confiscates the pharmaceutical industry, all local doctor’s offices and hospitals, etc.
Yes, that would be socialism. And authoritarian.

Socialism has nothing to do with confiscation, it has everything to do with society owning critical infrastructure for the benefit of all citizens, ownership by legal means not confiscation.

If Someone owns a pharmacy, and they are told by government that the government now owns it, that is confiscation, even if they pay for it. It doesn’t matter if an election approves it, it is tyranny. Majoritarianism is authoritarianism.

You seem to be trying to draw a comparison between Socialism & Communism, they are not the same.

No. As I’ve said before, communism is a system of government. Socialism is an economic system. Communism, like fascism, employs socialism because that’s what authoritarian do.

When legitimate democratic governments own infrastructure it belongs to all citizens

Democracy is still majoritarianism. If the means of production is confiscated from its rightful owners, that’s tyranny Property rights are violated.

When capitalism owns infrastructure it doesn’t belong to all citizens

When the means of production belong to individuals, that is freedom.

 

[EssentialBeing]

A social safety net is SOCIALISM, hence the word social. Confiscation by democratic government simply doesn’t happen. Financial take overs through fair & just compensation is not confiscation.

Socialism aims to put ownership of critical resources & infrastructure in the hands of all citizens, so again when governments own anything it is for all society which is SOCIALISM

When the means of production belong to individuals, that is freedom.

Freedom for who? only those with the resources to acquire it, again not for all.

 

[JonNC]

A social safety net is SOCIALISM, hence the word social.

No, it isn’t, and attempting to conflate the two is just an attempt to make socialism more palatable.

Financial take overs through fair & just compensation is not confiscation.

No it isn’t, if my property is not for sale. It is not “fair and just” if it is against my wishes. It is authoritarian tyranny.

Socialism aims to put ownership of critical resources & infrastructure in the hands of all citizens,

No, it doesn’t. It aims to put these in the hands of government. It is imposed by force, even if an election approves it. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. It takes ownership away from citizens.

so again when governments own anything it is for all society which is SOCIALISM

Here you are arguing against yourself. You said socialism is not authoritarian, but you’ve spent this entire post arguing for tyrannically imposed socialism.

 

[EssentialBeing]

EssentialBeing:

A social safety net is SOCIALISM, hence the word social.

No, it isn’t, and attempting to conflate the two is just an attempt to make socialism more palatable.

No one is conflating anything, I never accused you over some of the ambiguous views you have regarding these issues. I can see you are passionate about Capitalism & we should not be afraid to explore something different that might have merit.

It is simple fact that SOCIALISM aims to own on the behalf of the many, as I have said, when governments own anything it is for all society which is SOCIALISM

You said socialism is not authoritarian, but you’ve spent this entire post arguing for tyrannically imposed socialism.

Do you consider any government elected by majority to be authoritarian? Is that what we call a Political Party in power, tyrannical?

No it isn’t, if my property is not for sale. It is not “fair and just” if it is against my wishes. It is authoritarian tyranny.

So when an oil well needs to be dug or a new hospital needs to be built, in your backyard by private industry & you refuse to sell, what happens? Time & money seems to resolve these issues quite easily.

 

[JonNC]

No one is conflating anything, I never accused you over some of the ambiguous views you have regarding these issues. I can see you are passionate about Capitalism & we should not be afraid of something different that might have merit.

I’m passionate about Individual rights. When property is confiscated, it violates individual rights. There is no merit in violating The right to property

It is simple fact that SOCIALISM aims to own on the behalf of the many, as I have said, when governments own anything it is for all society which is SOCIALISM

It is a simple fact that socialism is a tool of authoritarianism that advances government power at the expense of individual rights. Typing it in all caps (yelling it) doesn’t change that fact.

Do you consider any government elected by majority to be authoritarian?

There is a reason why the framers were opposed to democracy and insisted on a constitutional representative republic. There is a reason why there is an article 1 section 8 and a Bill of Rights to limit government power.
If an elected government violates those rights, yes, it is authoritarian.

Is that what we call a Political Party in power, tyrannical?

If it acts to violate individual rights, including property rights, yes.

So when an oil well needs to be dug or a new hospital needs to be built, in your backyard by private industry & you refuse to sell, what happens?

There is a difference between private industry as government power. If an oil company wants to drill in my yard, they have to negotiate with me.

 

[Petra202]

Yes you are free to buy or move on to another source. Should every person be guaranteed a custom window because they exist ( in a society who doesn’t even guarantee that existence if mother doesn’t want it?)

 

[Sarcelle]

Free to move from one high priced source to another high priced source?

There is a reason why laws against price fixing exist.

It’s funny that you mention abortion. Being against abortion but also for sky high medical costs for procedures including childbirth makes one pro-birth but not pro-life.

I am not speaking for or against government provided healthcare. As I said before I would settle for honesty to the customer and to be upfront about prices.

The Trump administration is actually doing something about it. It’s about time.

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/patients/trump-administration-unveils-new-price-transparency-rules

 

[RidgeSprinter]

The Trump administration is actually doing something about it. It’s about time.

Do you really think, Hospitals will lower the cost of the nightly stay in one of it’s rooms?

 

[Sarcelle]

Who knows?

I am not suggesting that price transparency is the silver bullet but it’s a very good start.

Do other industries do this? That is hide the cost from the consumer? This practice is all too prevalent in healthcare.

Do restaurants tell you the cost of a meal after you have eaten it?

Do car makers tell you the cost of a vehicle after you buy it?

Contrast this to a surprise medical bill after you have undergone a procedure. It’s all too common.

Not to mention navigating the labyrinth like legalese that healthcare insurance likes to do.

Doctors themselves spend too much time doing paperwork for insurance rather than spend their time focusing on their patients.

Anyway, this is off topic.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

 

[JonNC]

Being against abortion but also for sky high medical costs for procedures including childbirth makes one pro-birth but not pro-life.

Let’s be clear that the reason for high priced health insurance is government. It isn’t that long ago that the ACA legislation pushed premiums, deductibles and copays dramatically higher, by well more than 100% in some cases.

If government pushed prices higher, it doesn’t seem to be the best choice to lower them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A doctor friend of mine who is the head of his department in a large medical complex once opined to me that one of the primary reasons medical costs are so high is the cost of the efforts everybody puts in to insure that someone ELSE will pay for it.

I have been in a waiting room when Amish people paid at the window…in greenbacks. They ask for a discount and get one. All the cashier needs to do is write out a receipt and put the cash in a drawer. Cuts out a lot of labor, and they only have to process it once.

 

[EssentialBeing]

I’m passionate about Individual rights. When property is confiscated, it violates individual rights. There is no merit in violating The right to property

I agree with you on this one, as this is within the realm of all Government no matter the ideology.

It is a simple fact that socialism is a tool of authoritarianism that advances government power at the expense of individual rights.

It is not restricted to Socialism, it is within the realm of all Governments to do this. What you are describing is an extreme form & anything to its extreme is never good.

There is a difference between private industry as government power. If an oil company wants to drill in my yard, they have to negotiate with me.

So do elected Governments, they negotiate for fair & just compensation. As I have said, most people understand that they both have merits & they both have failures. As with any form of Government ideology the balance should always be there to prevent an extreme form of it.

I don’t think people would agree to extreme Democracy, nor extreme Oligarchy, nor extreme Socialism. In all cases, they can easily become extreme which includes Capitalism.

 

[JonNC]

I agree with you on this one, as this is within the realm of all Government no matter the ideology.

Which is why a constitution that protects individual rights and limits the size of government is critical to freedom.

It is not restricted to Socialism, it is within the realm of all Governments to do this. What you are describing is an extreme form & anything to its extreme is never good.

Typically, socialism is the tool of government to do this. It is a tool used to control the people and enrich the ruling class.

So do elected Governments, they negotiate for fair & just compensation.

The difference is I can walk away from negotiations with the oil company. Government, on the other hand, can just take.

As with any form of Government ideology the balance should always be there to prevent an extreme form of it.

Agreed. And one can’t depend on majoritarian democracy in the regard. The rights of those in the minority cannot be subject to majoritarian democracy.

I don’t think people would agree to extreme Democracy, nor extreme Oligarchy, nor extreme Socialism. In all cases, they can easily become extreme which includes Capitalism.

Agreed.

 

[EssentialBeing]

Which is why a constitution that protects individual rights and limits the size of government is critical to freedom.

Yes & would still provide protection regardless of Ideology.

It is a tool used to control the people and enrich the ruling class.

It is what we already have under Democracy, Representative Republic. We use the stick & carrot strategy, you are free to do as you please, but these are the consequences if you do or don’t.

Government, on the other hand, can just take.

Extremely rare & possibly only ever enacted over matters of national security

The rights of those in the minority cannot be subject to majoritarian democracy.

A very good point & I like the idea, however this approach seems to border on Totalitarianism, besides I don’t think political systems anywhere on the planet have evolved enough to tackle this question. How does humanity move forward to a fairer more balanced system?

 

[Sarcelle]

There are medical practitioners that have cut out the middleman, the insurance companies, and opt to do business face to face with the patient.

I am in favor of this.