Do all you conservative name callers actually understand what a socialist is?

Question

The stock response to any suggestion that the people are entitled to do business as a collective action seems to be that such a thing would be socialism. When even such a committed capitalist as Hillary Clinton suggests it, the word is used. Do any of you red baiters know the difference between liberalism, social democracy, socialism and communism, or are you so far to the right you can't tell the difference from there?

For example, public health care is denounced as socialism, yet every other industrialized democracy in the world practices it. Are they all socialists, or are American conservatives so politically ignorant they can't understand the difference?

Before you condemn such collective action by the public, bear in mind that we already operate the armed forces, post office and education systems this way. It cannot be wrong by definition. Conservatives are not anarchists.

Answer 1

seems any idea that is for the common good, is deemed a socialist agenda by the right if the idea originates from the left....regardless of what it is.

A righties wet dream would look something like this...

no use of public defenders...pay for your own defense
everyone pays for their own education...no public schools, no public libraries.
no medicade
no medicare
no social security
no welfare
no FEMA aid for disasters
fire departments become private companies

Answer 2

Lets just use the word "national" rather than "socialized."

Socialists believe in control of the means of production by the society. They oppose private ownership. Socialized medicine means public control of the hospitals and doctors.

There is a big difference between a socialist and a person who advocates social programs such as social security. In fact, the main similarity is the word "social."

We have unemployment insurance, old-age and disability pensions, medicare, and medicaid. Employers subtract the cost of health insurance from wages (whether they show it or not) and increase the price of everything you buy, so we are paying for national health insurance every time we go to the store. When you buy a car in the U.S., $2000 goes to pay the health insurance of the union workers (which is why the same car costs less if it is manufactured in Canada), and one reason that the U.S. is losing all its manufacturing jobs

With skyrocketing medical costs and rising expectations, even the middle-class and business has to recognize the need for a better health insurance system. Insurance companies are the main opponents. But just like we needed old-age pensions in the 1930s, and Medicare in the 1950s, its time has come and it is inevitable.

Answer 3

Have you experienced the state of our Postal System and School systems? I can condemn collective action based on the results.

Taxing the populous disproportionately for services the individual may or may not need, while not in itself socialist is a characteristic of a socialist economy.

Its the slippery slope argument, how many "socialist" style policies does it take to make the country socialist.

Those European Democracies you speak of are only democracies in so much as they hold free elections, every thing else, in most cases I can't generalize anymore than you should, is socialized.

This country is not England, or Germany, or Canada all really nice places I'm sure. This country was built on freedom and liberty. We are the first example of Liberal government and that should be sustained. You're trying to turn us into one of those European automaton countries and that just isn't our character. We're the wild west where a man can make anything of himself and can also fall victim to consequence, but that is human. Government control of the individual is inhuman.

Answer 4

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a Federal Government with the sweeping powers it has today.

As a word of caution, Thomas Jefferson warned that a government big enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take it all away.

I know all about Socialized medicine. I'm living the nightmare here in Europe. I am a transplanted American, and the problem too many Americans have is that we always think that, somehow, we can do something right that no one else has managed to do well.

Be careful what you wish for. If Socialized medicine ever is accepted, let me tell you what you are in for:

1) The quality of care will substantially decline. A lot of good doctors will simply continue their private practice while the dregs work on us poor schmucks.

2) You will have ridiculous waits. I see this all around Europe. People sit passively, like they have no right to complain. They seem like some poor old hound dog that has been beaten with a stick one too many times, and has just learned to suffer in silence.

3) Both political parties will use Socialized medicine to grub for votes. It will be a perpetual bouncing ball, each side claiming that the miserable state of the "universal health care" is the fault of the other.

Don't dismiss what I'm telling you so quickly. I know exactly how that debacle will play out.

I understand that your Liberal political affiliation means you probably have a good heart and really want to help people, but trust me, you'll be hurting a lot more people than you help if Socialized medicine ever passes.

A report a few years ago by John Stossel highlighted why Socialized medicine is not feasible in the U.S. We are a unique nation. We go to the doctor much more often than any other country, and we take way, way, way more medicine too. We're also the fattest country on earth. Imagine all the people demanding free care to cure their "obesity disease" (oh yeah, people are going to start making ludicrous demands because it's all "free").

In countries that have Socialized medicine, (like the Czech Republic) a substantial number of people are actually sent to mountain resorts because they have asthma, or for a week to a lakeside massage therapy clinic once a year to treat their bad backs. You really think Americans won't go way overboard in demanding these "freebies"?

So, you'll have every fat person demanding quick cures, (maybe a quarter of a million stomach staples every year... imagine the cost!) and everyone with any imagined or exaggerated problem demanding expensive treatment and lots of "free" medication.

Whatever the government estimates the costs to be, it will cost 4-6 times that amount, just like road construction.

Americans simply cannot control their desire to consume things. It would be a black hole of tax dollars, and it would get worse every year. You think we have an illegal alien problem now? Imagine when they can get free health care!

Answer 5

Excellent question. But we should call it what it is. Socialized medical care is a form of socialism. What else should we call it? But when we complain about it we are asking the question should it be. Just as we have socialized institutions, like the armed forces, should they be? National security seems to work best that way. But it doesn't mean everything works best that way.

So going to your example, should healthcare be socialized? I actually see both sides of the arguement. But what if we opened up healthcare and insurance to more of the free market. One of the problems with healthcare is it is already predetermined where you go,what you pay, etc. What if more people had more choices in where they go for healthcare and how they pay. I have a major medical plan. If I go to the doctor for the flu, I pay out of my pocket, and keep the insurance company out of it. I actually pay less than what the doctor bills the insurance company, and without the co-pay. And I spend less on insurance premiums. Yes, I have high decuctible, but it covers 100% after the deductible. Is this the answer for everyone, no. If you are chorinically sick, then it isn't a good plan. But I bet if more people thought that way who are realtively healthy, insurance premiums would not go up like they have been. And if you open up competition for general practice doctors, would that even lower costs more? I don't know.

My point is if we socialize healthcare, then ok it is a bit of socialism. But what else should we call it.

Answer 6

I am a conservative but not completely loyal to the republican party or any party for that matter. The feeling I have on this issue is that any person claiming to be for democracy yet their policies clearly have other goals in mind is someone to be leary of. Clinton although I am very proud of her for running since she is a female, is a person I would be worried about in office running our country. The policies that she feels are important are so close to the socialist system of governement in their prescedence that it would I feel put our democratic role in the world in jepardy. Public health care is a wonderful idea but to equalize the health care system in the way she wants to do it would inherently lead to less qualified doctors and an below standard level of care.

Answer 7

It doesn't help that we socialists can't agree what socialism is...

There are many anti-socialist forms of collective action, such as wars, blacklists, corporate welfare, etc. There are many pro-socialist forms of individual action, such as teaching onself, and pro-socialist forms of non-cooperation with the bosses, such as building unions.

Remember that anarchists are socialists, not conservatives.

Answer 8

A socialist is a useful idiot. Someone who believes that we are all helping out for a better society .The problem is after a while the system fails, high unemployment, super high taxes and long lines for any of the "free" government services provided. In some countries socialism has worked at some levels but for most it fails miserably look at France for a ex. they do not want to work and want everything handed to them.

Answer 9

your theory is the problem...you cannot take just a little socializm it comes in package know as human rights which under socialize is done away with.....i owe you nothing insurance, education even friendship and most of all none of my money. now if i choose to support some of the above i can and maybe i have a moral obligation but under socializm i give up that choice and it becomes oncome redistribution....

Answer 10

I understand it would be financially and socially devastating to a country that attained wealth and power through free markets and not global collectivism.