| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:17 Sermokala wrote: Yeah what difference does it make that she lost an ambassador and his staff and failed to prevent their bodeis from being dragged in the street. Is this the point where "Thanks, Obama" becomes "Thanks, Hillary"? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:19 Atreides wrote: Hmm? If you mean that the ACA has broken the system so much that even it admits I can't afford insurance so I guess I don't have to pay penalty. I'm still uninsured and get no benefits from it at all. I think that there is literally not one single person in this thread who buys their own insurance. Lol. Everyone is so clueless. Pre ACA I could choose from a host of providers and get good insurance for ~118$ a month. Now there is literally one provider period who will sell insurance to anyone from my entire state and it is over 3x as expensive. I know MANY people who bought their own insurance pre ACA who are now in religious medi-share programs because they can't afford insurance. Great stuff. Btw I'm pretty far right on a lot of issues obviously but this healthcare shit is ridiculous. Just go to a single payer "socialist" equal for all with reasonably high deductible. At least then the people funding the whole system actually get insured by it. I buy my own health insurance. If the prices went up that much; it was either because those policies were worthless trash; or because the costs are now covering people who didn't have insurance before. Single payer would indeed make more sense than the ACA. I'd be fine with just putting that in. And aca hasn't broken the system that much, the system was already working poorly, it just shuffled a few things around about where it works poorly. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:14 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So what does USSR stand for "The goal of socialism is communism" - V.Lenin I'm a socialist in Europe. Everyone in my country (Switzerland) agrees that my positions define me clearly as a socialist. The people I vote for, in the socialist party, represent my position accurately, and advocate to vote on issues in the same way I do a large majority of the time. I don't want communism, and neither do they. The communist party of my country was created by people who were expelled from the socialist party because their views were too left wing. Need I add more? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:43 Sermokala wrote: Whats a desernable difference between socialists and communists in your opinion? Socialism is a less "radical" option than communism. That doesn't mean that they don't share many similarities. http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:32 Nebuchad wrote: I'm a socialist in Europe. Everyone in my country (Switzerland) agrees that my positions define me clearly as a socialist. The people I vote for, in the socialist party, represent my position accurately, and advocate to vote on issues in the same way I do a large majority of the time. I don't want communism, and neither do they. The communist party of my country was created by people who were expelled from the socialist party because their views were too left wing. Need I add more? Well that explains a lot about your opinions. What might be a viable political/ policy position in Europe is off the scale in the US.  | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:28 zlefin wrote: I buy my own health insurance. If the prices went up that much; it was either because those policies were worthless trash; or because the costs are now covering people who didn't have insurance before. Single payer would indeed make more sense than the ACA. I'd be fine with just putting that in. And aca hasn't broken the system that much, the system was already working poorly, it just shuffled a few things around about where it works poorly. So this is basically the first good post I've seen on health insurance in this thread. The reason for the huge price hike is because of the ability to segregate and discriminate against a population by states line. There is a reason that is in most platforms on reforming the ACA. It is also true that the ACA mostly just moved problems around. I agree with that assessment. The funny thing is the issue everyone talks about. The nominal "poor people dieing in the streets" demagoguery, is something that the ACA didn't even change. People who qualify for Medicare now, did before also. About the only purpose I can see of it is to attempt to create a 100% insured population. Which regardless of whether you thing this is the federal governments job or not, there are arguments both for and against it, the ACA kind of fails to do. The world I live in has a lot of self-employed people who would need to buy their own insurance. I am not unique in the slightest. Many of my friends/family are in same spot. I know of almost no cases where people previously were uninsured and they are insured now. A few, but I don't think the ACA really gets credit for it. Either they are uninsured and get royally pissed about the penalty, uninsured but don't get penalized, or joined a religious medi-share group to exempt themselves from penalty. That's why I say the ACA is broken. There is an explosion in popularity of these religious medi share programs and I am not really convinced it's a good thing. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:43 Sermokala wrote: Whats a desernable difference between socialists and communists in your opinion? Simply put, radicalism. I don't want the system overthrown to institute a communist system instead of what we have, and I would fight against that happening. I'm "working" (I'm not super active, I vote and sometimes I debate on the web like I'm doing now but I'm not super engaged) within the system as a voice on the left, but I think it's more important to be moderate than it is to be left or right wing. I think being moderate and being balanced is what's best for a society, more than being left or right wing. I think the US society is imbalanced (and I think it's just a fact as opposed to my opinion), which is why I would advocate for someone like Sanders. If people like Sanders were in power for so long that the perceived center was then between Sanders and a communist, then I would think it's time for a moderate right wing person to become president. On March 18 2016 08:49 ticklishmusic wrote: Well that explains a lot about your opinions. What might be a viable political/ policy position in Europe is off the scale in the US. You say this as if we hadn't talked about this before. The US scale could be normalized, and my argument would be that it should be. I don't like the fact that every four years I have to worry about an extremist getting power in the biggest country in the world because your center is so far off that you consider democratic socialism to be extreme as opposed to republicans. You spoke against that change, which tells me that you're a moderate right wing person (on the world scale). All right. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 18 2016 09:00 Atreides wrote: So this is basically the first good post I've seen on health insurance in this thread. The reason for the huge price hike is because of the ability to segregate and discriminate against a population by states line. There is a reason that is in most platforms on reforming the ACA. It is also true that the ACA mostly just moved problems around. I agree with that assessment. The funny thing is the issue everyone talks about. The nominal "poor people dieing in the streets" demagoguery, is something that the ACA didn't even change. People who qualify for Medicare now, did before also. About the only purpose I can see of it is to attempt to create a 100% insured population. Which regardless of whether you thing this is the federal governments job or not, there are arguments both for and against it, the ACA kind of fails to do. The world I live in has a lot of self-employed people who would need to buy their own insurance. I am not unique in the slightest. Many of my friends/family are in same spot. I know of almost no cases where people previously were uninsured and they are insured now. A few, but I don't think the ACA really gets credit for it. Either they are uninsured and get royally pissed about the penalty, uninsured but don't get penalized, or joined a religious medi-share group to exempt themselves from penalty. That's why I say the ACA is broken. There is an explosion in popularity of these religious medi share programs and I am not really convinced it's a good thing. from the stats I hear, there is an increase in people who have insurance by some 15 million or so. It has increased the % of people insured; still not the best way of going about it. You may not be in a region that has the people who have benefitted from it. I'd be curious to know your state/area; as with some other people I've had such discussion with online, they screwed up their looking at insurance, and did in fact have affordable options available. And if you did it all right, I'd be interested to read about what's happening there and why. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the complications of these plans always indicate deference to current market structure. more ambitious plans that reorganize the system may not be politically tractable, however. this emphasis on preexisting conditions and at risk groups is noble and all but you can at least have some sort of cost controlled public option for these people to reduce overall burden on the system. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 18 2016 09:04 Nebuchad wrote: Simply put, radicalism. I don't want the system overthrown to institute a communist system instead of what we have, and I would fight against that happening. I'm "working" (I'm not super active, I vote and sometimes I debate on the web like I'm doing now but I'm not super engaged) within the system as a voice on the left, but I think it's more important to be moderate than it is to be left or right wing. I think being moderate and being balanced is what's best for a society, more than being left or right wing. I think the US society is imbalanced (and I think it's just a fact as opposed to my opinion), which is why I would advocate for someone like Sanders. If people like Sanders were in power for so long that the perceived center was then between Sanders and a communist, then I would think it's time for a moderate right wing person to become president. You say this as if we hadn't talked about this before. The US scale could be normalized, and my argument would be that it should be. I don't like the fact that every four years I have to worry about an extremist getting power in the biggest country in the world because your center is so far off that you consider democratic socialism to be extreme as opposed to republicans. You spoke against that change, which tells me that you're a moderate right wing person (on the world scale). All right. Well, I didn't know you straight-up identified as a socialist. I'm unsure of what that means precisely, but I'm guessing it's somewhere on the left on the European scale. This is how I think of it: US: .....................|--------me--------middle---------------------| ...............................| Wherever you are:....| |--------you--------middle---------------------| And my argument is that the normalization thing isn't meaningful, because it ignores too many things. But we can agree to disagree. I do believe in a lot of things that you see implemented one way or another in many European nations, I just think the way to achieve those goals may need a different or incremental tack in the US of A. Would I be incorrect to say we are both leftists in our respective nations? | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote: Is this the point where "Thanks, Obama" becomes "Thanks, Hillary"? I have to learn a new meme now? Thanks Hilary  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45089 Posts
On March 18 2016 08:43 Sermokala wrote: Whats a desernable difference between socialists and communists in your opinion? I thought socialism is an economic policy, whereas communism is a political one? | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On March 18 2016 09:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I thought socialism is an economic policy, whereas communism is a political one? ...wat. Neither communism nor socialism (nebulous terms that they are) can be solely described as a political or an economic theory: Marx is the father of political economy after all, and was insistent that you cannot separate politics from economics, because economic systems have inherently political outcomes and impacts and promote different ideologies; the ideologies that followed him share in this structural theory of the deep inter-connection of the economy and politics. It should be noted by all theoretical terms, Bernie Sanders is assuredly not a socialist. A social democrat perhaps, but not a socialist. I'm about to go to sleep, but I'll elaborate in my next post as to a more proper definition of the two. Might finish it tonight. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45089 Posts
On March 18 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote: ...wat. Neither communism nor socialism (nebulous terms that they are) can be solely described as a political or an economic theory: Marx is the father of political economy after all, and was insistent that you cannot separate politics from economics, because economic systems have inherently political outcomes and impacts; the ideologies that followed him share in this structural theory of the deep inter-connection of the economy and politics. It should be noted by all theoretical terms, Bernie Sanders is assuredly not a socialist. A social democrat perhaps, but not a socialist. I'm about to go to sleep, but I'll elaborate in my next post as to a more proper definition of the two Okay thanks  I was under the impression that socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, whereas communism is a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state... And I read those two definitions as nuanced and slightly different (albeit possibly related). | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Socialism is just the precursor. Small Scandinavian countries made it work for a while until they didn't incentivize their own population growth and now it's under great strain and burden by illiterate migrants. Their foolish altruism and naiveté has doomed them unless they all get sick of the cold and go home. Sneaky rat bolsheviks promise you the world and sneak in with "democratic-socialism". Not until we have Star Trek replicators you dirty commies. Stop cleaning up the image of what you want. That Trump rally @ Chicago. Death threats and rampant hooliganism. Dirty communists below. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aqZ67cc7-d4/hqdefault.jpg) | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On March 18 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote: ...wat. Neither communism nor socialism (nebulous terms that they are) can be solely described as a political or an economic theory: Marx is the father of political economy after all, and was insistent that you cannot separate politics from economics, because economic systems have inherently political outcomes and impacts; the ideologies that followed him share in this structural theory of the deep inter-connection of the economy and politics. It should be noted by all theoretical terms, Bernie Sanders is assuredly not a socialist. A social democrat perhaps, but not a socialist. I'm about to go to sleep, but I'll elaborate in my next post as to a more proper definition of the two A small correction, Marx wasn't the father of political economy, as at the time all economics was called political economics, and he certainly wasn't the first to talk about the state and the economy together, so it is more precise to give Adam Smith that title if anyone. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 18 2016 10:01 SK.Testie wrote: Know who else was a social-democrat? The Bolsheviks. Socialism is just the precursor. Small Scandinavian countries made it work for a while until they didn't incentivize their own population growth and now it's under great strain and burden by illiterate migrants. Their foolish altruism and naiveté has doomed them unless they all get sick of the cold and go home. Sneaky rat bolsheviks promise you the world and sneak in with "democratic-socialism". Not until we have Star Trek replicators you dirty commies. Stop cleaning up the image of what you want. That Trump rally @ Chicago. Death threats and rampant hooliganism. Dirty communists below. + Show Spoiler + I can't tell if posts like this are satire or not at this point. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On March 18 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote: ...wat. It should be noted by all theoretical terms, Bernie Sanders is assuredly not a socialist. A social democrat perhaps, but not a socialist. It's fairly rare that people use socialism to mean something else than social democracy. I'm not comfortable just stating that's the case everywhere else in Europe, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Switzerland The Social Democratic Party of Switzerland (also rendered as Swiss Socialist Party [...] French: Parti socialiste suisse (translates to French: Swiss Socialist Party) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France) The Socialist Party (French: Parti socialiste [paʁti sɔsjaˈlist], PS) is a social-democratic[4] political party in France, and the largest party of the French centre-left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(Portugal) The Socialist Party (Portuguese: Partido Socialista, pronounced: [pɐɾˈtiðu susiɐˈliʃtɐ]), PS) is a social-democratic[5][6] political party in Portugal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(Netherlands) The Socialist Party (Dutch: Socialistische Partij, Dutch pronunciation: [soːʃiaː'lɪstisə pɑr'tɛi]; abbreviated SP, Dutch pronunciation: [ɛs peː]) is a left-wing social-democratic[2][9][10] political party in the Netherlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Socialist_Party_(2007) The Italian Socialist Party (Italian: Partito Socialista Italiano, PSI) is a minor social-democratic[3] political party in Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Socialist_Workers'_Party The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Spanish: Partido Socialista Obrero Español [parˈtiðo soθjaˈlista oˈβɾeɾo espaˈɲol]; better known by its initials, PSOE [peˈsoe]), is a social-democratic[6] political party in Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Socialiste_(Belgium) The Socialist Party (French: Parti Socialiste, PS) is a social-democratic[4][5][6][7] French-speaking political party in Belgium. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
