The Reality of Socialized Medicine

[oggbashan]

I cannot think of any country that has been a genuine socialist state, not even Venezuela or Cuba.

They might say they are socialist, like the former East Germany as the DDR, but in reality they are run for the benefit of a resource grabbing elite as dictators and fuck the peasants.

Can you quote a genuine socialist state that you say has failed?

 

[BotanyBoy]

They might say they are socialist,

Because they are. LOL

If they have implemented a policy/system that puts the means of production and distribution of goods and services under collective or state control, they are socialist. Definitively so.

like the former East Germany as the DDR, but in reality they are run for the benefit of a resource grabbing elite as dictators and fuck the peasants.

Just because you're not getting the utopian results lefties theorized, doesn't make it not socialism.

The verifiable fact their government owns the means of production and controls the distribution of goods and services is what makes them socialist.

The fact that for a 150ish years now the every single one of the few dozen states that have implemented a socialist government/economy has wound up a state that is run for the benefit of a resource grabbing elite as dictators and fuck the peasants instead of the egalitarian utopia predicted but never once realized??

Means that policy/system doesn't work.

Can you quote a genuine socialist state that you say has failed?

Venezuela and Cuba are perfect examples.

I cannot think of any country that has been a genuine socialist state, not even Venezuela or Cuba.

Then you are truly in denial of reality, have a great day.

 

[dan_c00000]

Proof for your unjustified assertion?

He never has any. He's got plenty of links for weird rapey websites though.

 

[gunthernehmen]

They might say they are socialist, like the former East Germany as the DDR, but in reality they are run for the benefit of a resource grabbing elite as dictators and fuck the peasants.

How does that differ from any government anywhere?

 

[oggbashan]

How does that differ from any government anywhere?

BotanyBoy says it does.

The fact that no country has ever tried to be a true socialist state is lost on him.

For BotanyBoy, 'socialist' = bad and unAmerican but he has no idea what it is except that those who don't agree with him must be socialist.

 

[BotanyBoy]

BotanyBoy says it does.

The fact that no country has ever tried to be a true socialist state is lost on him.

Ogg doesn't know what socialism is.

He thinks because collective ownership of the means of production didn't result in the utopia he has FAITH will surely result from such a system, that collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services somehow no longer socialism.

A demonstrable falsehood.

For BotanyBoy, 'socialist' = bad and unAmerican but he has no idea what it is except that those who don't agree with him must be socialist.

Now Ogg resorts to flat out lying to save face, or preserve his faith in the silly religion of socialism, either way it's very sad.

The only people I think are socialist are those who advocate collective/government ownership and administration over the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

I just understand that because government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services 100% always results in a total shit hole of a society/economy it's not because it's not REAL socialism, it's because it's a failed ideology and system.

Keep the faith in ideals of your hammer and sickle waving comrades ogg!! Maybe one day REAL socialism will get tried, it's bound to work eventually right?

 

[gunthernehmen]

BotanyBoy says it does.

The fact that no country has ever tried to be a true socialist state is lost on him.

Apparently, a newly popular technique for "refuting" a statement is to redefine terms to be so narrow as to no longer apply.

Greece and Venezuela are good examples of failed socialist states. Saying they aren't socialist because they aren't compliant to your definition to five nines is intellectually lazy. Saying they aren't failed is simply absurd.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Apparently, a newly popular technique for "refuting" a statement is to redefine terms to be so narrow as to no longer apply.

Greece and Venezuela are good examples of failed socialist states. Saying they aren't socialist because they aren't compliant to your definition to five nines is intellectually lazy. Saying they aren't failed is simply absurd.

No he's saying that because there was no lefty utopia as a result, suddenly government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services is no longer socialism.

The goofiest fucking shit posted in the pol forum so far....

IDK it might be tied with YDB95's idea that taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't wealth redistribution but "not being selfish".

These leftist are flat out disconnected from reality.

 

[dan_c00000]

BotanyBoy says it does.

The fact that no country has ever tried to be a true socialist state is lost on him.

For BotanyBoy, 'socialist' = bad and unAmerican but he has no idea what it is except that those who don't agree with him must be socialist.

I've pointed that very fact out to him numerous times and that his vilification of dissent or differing opinions makes him a fascist. He didn't know what fascist meant either.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've pointed that very fact out to him numerous times and that his vilification of dissent or differing opinions makes him a fascist. He didn't know what fascist meant either.

No it doesn't, you only demonstrate that it is you who doesn't know what fascist means.

 

[oggbashan]

I do not recognise Greece as a 'failed socialist state'. It had and has a mixed economy but criminal mismangement of the economy.

Greece's government lied to the EU when it joined the Euro. It provided too many benefits for state employees (just like US federal employees) and too generous pensions to most older people who weren't that old.

Its tax system has been a joke for many decades. Any Greek paying the correct full assesment of taxes cannot be a Greek because they all falsify their tax returns without any sanction against them. Government revenues are consistently well below their estimates but expenditure exceeds that revenue. If they hadn't joined the Euro they could and should have devalued their currency but being in the Euro means they can't.

That is not socialism but incompetence.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I do not recognise Greece as a 'failed socialist state'. It had and has a mixed economy but criminal mismangement of the economy.

Greece's government lied to the EU when it joined the Euro. It provided too many benefits for state employees (just like US federal employees) and too generous pensions to most older people who weren't that old.

Its tax system has been a joke for many decades. Any Greek paying the correct full assesment of taxes cannot be a Greek because they all falsify their tax returns without any sanction against them. Government revenues are consistently well below their estimates but expenditure exceeds that revenue. If they hadn't joined the Euro they could and should have devalued their currency but being in the Euro means they can't.

That is not socialism but incompetence.

So what is it that you think socialism is???

 

[oggbashan]

No he's saying that because there was no lefty utopia as a result, suddenly government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services is no longer socialism.

...

So what is it that you think socialism is???

The state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services - as you said.

Greece did and does not have that to any marked degree.

If it does, it is comparable with the US that state subsidies many large corporations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-the-biggest-corporate-winners-in-each-state/

 

[Cuppers]

socialism

eve here of the former soviet union. Venazuala .. who can spell that.. was the richest county in latin America.. till socialism. now that they are socialist, they can't even find rats to eat.

 

[oggbashan]

eve here of the former soviet union. Venazuala .. who can spell that.. was the richest county in latin America.. till socialism. now that they are socialist, they can't even find rats to eat.

Venezuela is run by a corrupt dictatorship that enriches the elite while depriving the poor.

They got elected to power by promising 'free shit' that they couldn't deliver without depriving themselves.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

Venezuela is run by a corrupt dictatorship that enriches the elite while depriving the poor.

They got elected to power by promising 'free shit' that they couldn't deliver without depriving themselves.

I think that goes back to your point of asking for countries that tried to be Socialist. I agree with you, every one of the countries we could mention; the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela are/were all dictatorships or oligarchies. The problem with calling them not socialist because of this shows a conflation of what makes socialism. There is a political aspect to socialism, since it’s very definition is the relationship of the state to the economy. The problem is that the apparatus of the state doesn’t have to be of any particular type to make it a socialist administration. Hence the development of the term democratic socialism. As far as whether or not they “tried” socialism they surely did because, as stated socialism doesn’t require a particular form of government, only that said government control the means of production.

 

[oggbashan]

I think that goes back to your point of asking for countries that tried to be Socialist. I agree with you, every one of the countries we could mention; the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela are/were all dictatorships or oligarchies. The problem with calling them not socialist because of this shows a conflation of what makes socialism. There is a political aspect to socialism, since it’s very definition is the relationship of the state to the economy. The problem is that the apparatus of the state doesn’t have to be of any particular type to make it a socialist administration. Hence the development of the term democratic socialism. As far as whether or not they “tried” socialism they surely did because, as stated socialism doesn’t require a particular form of government, only that said government control the means of production.

That is a problem with defining 'socialism' as the state ownership of means of production. 'True socialism' assumes that the government own it on behalf of the people but it doesn't happen. Except for the USSR during WW2 there has always been some capitalist industries as well. There are now in Russia and China. North Korea owns everything but not on behalf of the people - it is run by a family dictatorship and the people own nothing.

In countries that some people might see as socialist the control is with a privileged elite who amass massive fortunes from the state and let the people starve. A socialist state should look after its people, possibly at the expense of liberty and enterprise, but none appears to. They just exploit the people and the countries' resources to benefit a few. That is oligarchy not socialism. They might say that they will 'help' the people but the reality is that they just exploit and rob them. Condemning them is good but condemning them for 'failed socialism' is a misunderstanding. They might have promised socialism but they never intended to deliver it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services - as you said.

Excellent.

So then you understand that Venezuela and Cuba are in fact socialist states yes??

Venezuela is run by a corrupt dictatorship that enriches the elite while depriving the poor.

They got elected to power by promising 'free shit' that they couldn't deliver without depriving themselves.

Just like EVERY single other state that's tried socialism.

Just two more in a long line of failed socialist states that prove socialism doesn't work. The fact they wound up a despotic shit hole with people starving to death by the truck load has NOTHING to do with their being socialist or not.

 

[BotanyBoy]

North Korea owns everything but not on behalf of the people - it is run by a family dictatorship

That is the head representative of the people.

Just like Castro and Maduro....the state = the people.

and the people own nothing.

That's the whole point of socialism.

That's the only way to eliminate social and wealth inequity.

 

[oggbashan]

That is the head representative of the people.

Just like Castro and Maduro....the state = the people.



That's the whole point of socialism.

That's the only way to eliminate social and wealth inequity.

North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela are/were run by oligarchs, not FOR and on behalf of the people as should have happened if they were socialist.

The oligarchs increased social and wealth inequality. The few became very rich and the majority who should have benefited from socialism were robbed.

 

[oggbashan]

To summarise:

There has NEVER been a socialist state. IF some country were to try it, it wouldn't work. Those representing 'the people' grab benefits for themselves. That is human nature.

To quote Lord Acton in 1887: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Possibly the closest was the USSR during WW2 when all production was run by the state but NOT for the people but for the Communist Party elite who saw themselves as better than the mob and entitled to have benefits that the people couldn't have.

Socialism assumes that the government acts in the peoples' best interests and those running the government are peasants like everyone else. That never happens. Those in charge enrich themselves at the expense of the people and become oligarchs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela are/were run by oligarchs, not FOR and on behalf of the people as should have happened if they were socialist.

For and on behalf of the people doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whether or not they are socialist. That's the outcome socialist hope for by having the state take private property/enterprise away from private individuals.

Just because the theory doesn't work out when put into practice doesn't mean government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services stops being socialism. It means the theory was wrong...it means the system fails.

The oligarchs increased social and wealth inequality. The few became very rich

That doesn't make it not socialism.

and the majority who should have benefited from socialism were robbed.

Amazing how that happens EVERY time the government takes the means of production away from private individuals isn't it??

Without fail.

To summarise:

There has NEVER been a socialist state.

This is just not true.

There have been dozens of socialist states. Just because the communist utopia was never realized by a single one of them doesn't mean they weren't socialist.

Socialism assumes that the government acts in the peoples' best interests and those running the government are peasants like everyone else. .

Socialist expect/believe/have faith that's what will happen with the implementation of socialist policy.

Socialism itself is still government/collective ownership of the means....it doesn't assume shit.

Reality is the only way to force the kinds of social and economic equity the way socialist want is to become highly authoritarian. This is why no matter how noble or well intentioned even the best of them started, like Venezuela they all eventually wind up single party/dictatorial/despotic shit holes.

Some of them even had dictators/single parties that for a while were great......but it was just a matter of time before some lunatic got in power and things went horribly wrong. Back to absolute power corrupting absolutely.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Well what have I missed? Not much it seems. While I am not on here daily, like so many others, my absence the past few days was health related. Go figure eh?

The wife fell on Monday around lunch, in a parking lot, shattering her knee cap into three large pieces, and several small one.

Tuesday morning they operate and wire it back together.

Thursday home, from the hospital. My total medical bill for this is $28.00 for parking,
$75.00 for the brace, $38.00 for the two wheel with skis walker rental, $35.00 for the pain medicine (narcotics).

Now my work insurance will cover 100% of the cost of the brace, the walker rental, and the drugs.

Kind of curious what this would cost monetarily in the US?

 

[gunthernehmen]

There has NEVER been a socialist state.

Sure, to the extent that there has never been an absolutely pure form of any variety of government anywhere on Earth in all history and beyond and never will be. Convenient definition for waffling.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Well what have I missed? Not much it seems. While I am not on here daily, like so many others, my absence the past few days was health related. Go figure eh?

The wife fell on Monday around lunch, in a parking lot, shattering her knee cap into three large pieces, and several small one.

Tuesday morning they operate and wire it back together.

Thursday home, from the hospital. My total medical bill for this is $28.00 for parking,
$75.00 for the brace, $38.00 for the two wheel with skis walker rental, $35.00 for the pain medicine (narcotics).

Now my work insurance will cover 100% of the cost of the brace, the walker rental, and the drugs.

Kind of curious what this would cost monetarily in the US?

Speaking for myself, about $15 to $20 for the prescription.

Please extend to her, a stranger's kind wishes for your wife's speedy recovery.