Here's a question for you Damo, which modern US president cannot be fairly characterized as a Socialist?
Who belives President Obama is a Socialist?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Here's a question for you Damo, which modern US president cannot be fairly characterized as a Socialist?
Any decent debater can take any side of a position and argue it well. So far I have three people trying to say, "It isn't perfect USSR/Cuba style socialism so nobody can ever call anything Socialism unless it is there!"
I simply work to point out a different POV to you, as to why a reasonable person coming from a different perspective can see "socialism" in somebody who seems to believe that the government is the only solution to every problem.
IMO, all of them.
In the view of others, not many. In almost every modern President there was something offered which some people could see as "socialism".
And I'm simply pointing out to you that it isn't "reasonable" to believe that every president since at least FDR is a socialist and that every person serving in Congress today, with the exception of a handful, is socialist. That's what you're advocating. It's stupid.
Every President since Roosevelt did not promote a government-owned and run Single Payer system for 6% of our GDP. I think pretending that they did because you want to dismiss their concerns is stupid. It isn't reasonable to pretend that there is no such thing as incrementalism.
Although I think such dismissals have actually served to draw attention to these concerns. There is a reason that 67% of the US wants this program repealed and replaced. It isn't because everybody agrees with you.
Now, we're back to square one. So let's try again. Is Medicare socialist? Is the VA socialist? If so, then anyone that supports those programs can be fairly characterized as a socialist, according to what you've said.
Edit: And, by the by, the latest poll I have seen shows that only 37% want healthcare reform repealed.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well Damo, considering our present pay or suffer system runs at 16% of GDP you've just made an excellent argument for a single payer system if it only cost 6% of GDP.
If medicare was the only option, and the service was run by the government only, it was illegal to have any private care (like in Canada)... Then it might be considered "socialism". Since we know that the President has stated numerous times that he wants just such a system it can be understood that some people might think he works towards "socialism"...
The latest poll you've seen? Linky? I'm betting you are conveniently "forgetting" the 'replaced' portion of my post...
Hey. I've been trying to be kind and make it seem like less... To ensure somebody didn't say, "You're exaggerating! It's only 10% blah!" or some such inanity.
Damo, you're "USSR" position is so hyperbolic; I don't know how you can think it's an "honest" argument.
America is a capitalist nation. Period. My argument isn't that we have to be "perfect USSR socialism", because we're not even close to that. Not even by thousands of miles.
We're a capitalist nation. Nothing Obama is doing will change that one iota.
Now, I'm weary of your dodges & dishonesty on this. You are wrong. The end.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Well, now that this debate is finally over, everyone stay tuned after the credits for an exciting epilogue!!
And a person who seeks to take 16% of that economy and put it wholly into the hands of government (as Obama repeatedly said he wants to do, saying that he had to do it 'incrementally') may have to face a few people calling them a socialist as they believe that taking huge chunks of the economy and placing them into total government control is a bit socialistic.
Saying it is inconceivable that anybody might think that is a bit disingenuous. You are right that it is "the end"... But you are just lying to yourself, and I can't even understand why. It isn't even that far of a reach.
Is Canada's medicine socialistic? Considering that they have made it illegal to have a private practice I'd say it could reasonably be taken that way.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well most of the wealthy industrialized nations with universal single payer plans spend around 8% of GDP on health care. The US with it's pay or suffer system is currently spending about 16% of GDP on Health care. With out reform it was projected to reach 18 to 20% of GDP by 2015.
I think, realistically, comprehensive health care reform (Which Obama's reform fall well short of) that implement a single payer system, universal coverage and price controls, such as the other industrialized wealthy nations use, we can realistically expect to reduce health care cost from 8 to 10% of GDP. The other side of that question is can we also improve outcomes?
To be honest our health care system, compared to other modern nations is a joke. It's not even really a health care system in the US so much as it is a disease/truama therapy system (and in terms of disease/trauma therapy we are the best in the world but that's not the same as improving health care outcomes). That change though will require substantial cultural change to improve outcomes. Political changes won't do it alone if we as a people don't buy into those changes required to improve health care out comes in this nation..
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Certainly Canada's health care system is socialised. Does that mean Canada is a socialist nation?
This demonization of socialism is a canard. Granted, I'd rather live in a chosen purgatory then an obligatory paradise so there's no way in hell do I want to live in a nation governed completely by socialism (i.e. communism). But there is a time and a place in our nation for socialized institutions and the US has shown that when it is cost affective and in the best interest of the general public to adopt these systems, we have done so. Our nations educational system comes to mind as an example and keep in mind, much of our health care system, particularly our hospitals, are all ready socialized. Does that make the US a socialist nation? Hardly.
Does that mean I want to see the US Health care system socialized like Canada's? No, but I do want to see our system modernized to reduce cost and improve outcomes by adopting universal coverage, a single payer system and price controls as the other wealthy modern industrialized nations have done. These are the three elements all these wealthy industrial nations have in common with each others health care systems, except for the US, have adopted to reduce cost and help improve outcomes.
apple0154
MEOW
Question: So how free/democratic/capitalist is Cuba? China?
Answer: I'm just guessing at all of these, but Cuba close to 100%, China about 75%.
Had I been conversing with Dixie you might have had a point.
My point is if everything a government does can be considered some form of socialism, by virtue of it taxing people and doing what's best for all, then the opposite should apply. It's just as absurd to say Obama is a Socialist as it is to say Castro of Cuba and Hu Jintao of China are Democrats/Capitalists.
If you were conversing with Dixie, you would have been pwned and hopefully quit the thread by now.
apple0154
MEOW
There's nothing thick about it. The government is there for the people.
When one talks about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution there was no "medical" in those days. If they knew the citizens would live 20 or 30 years longer and be healthier by taking a pill or having a viable operation it's absurd to think they wouldn't have considered it.
If a drug or vitamin or concentrated food nutrient is discovered that greatly increases a person's ability to learn and retain information and is found safe what responsible government would not make it available to all citizens? Whether resulting in new innovations or being able to have an edge competing on the world stage would any responsible government watch other countries surpass them because they wouldn't want to be classified as Socialist if they offered it to their citizens?
It's really a simple question. Is having a healthy population beneficial to a country? If so, then it's the government's responsibility and obligation to do what's best for the citizens/country.