What is socialism in the US, is extreme government regulation. Outlaw competition is socialism. Medicare is a form of health insurance that is provided to those that have paid into the service over the years. There are plenty of private health insurance options out there.
Hi
@Greg Sacramento, I've been meaning to respond to one of your posts in the previous page. There are certain things I wanted to discuss.
First, I think we should define what socialism is. The way I've always defined it—Socialism is a system in which the state redistributes wealth from what it would be under a pure capitalist system. The means of productions are typically controlled by the state and the goal to provide a more fairer distribution of wealth among society—. There's also democratic socialism which shares similar economic principles to socialism but there's a strong commitment to democracy in the political system of government. Democratic socialists reject most self-proclaimed socialist states along with Marxism-Leninism. Feel free to object to this definition if you have any.
For some reason, Americans are scared of the word socialism. Most Americans often look to the unsuccessful ones like Venezuela or Cuba. But you have social democracies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Germany. These countries have robust economies (market) and high levels of socialization. Their governments see healthcare, education and even the internet as a fundamental right. They provide a good quality of life for their citizens. You don't have this gigantic gap between the working class and upper class. There is a commitment of the state to the well-being of their citizens and I wish we could adopt this kind of political philosophy in the United States.
I think the argument of socialism being wrong both morally and economically is absurd. If someone thinks it's wrong, then they have to believe government funding of police is wrong, or government funding of healthcare or schools are wrong, anything the government does is wrong. You're always going to have some state that's going to socialize certain things and so the question is not do we have socialization, it's
how much.
These are not social programs. Social Security is a mandatory contribution to a program designed to assist people when they retire due to age or disability. It doesn't contribute to the national debt and would not have funding problems if the government had not stolen from it to fund social programs. Medicare has premiums which are paid by the subscribers and are based on income. Social Security recipients are taxed - a double tax from their working days. Welfare is not taxed.
I would say Social Security and Medicare are forms of democratic socialism, albeit loosely. You've already alluded to that by saying it's MANDATORY participation. Let's use Social Security (SS). The government plays a prominent role in the rules, collection, and distribution of SS funds. Government decides how much employees and employers pay into the system and what age people can start to collect (as early as 62). They also decide how much money people will receive in benefits. They prevent almost everyone from opting out of SS. 6.2% of your income is taxed along with another 6.2% that your employer is also required to pay up. I'm almost certain there are many people who would rather use the 6.2% to invest in equity than be compelled to contribute to a government program. Same thing would apply to Medicare although the tax rate is much smaller than SS.
So it seems fair to say there are some aspects of socialism in SS and Medicare at the very least. But I could also see why one would classify them as social insurance programs or social safety nets too. It's your money after all and if SS was truly a socialist program, the government would be distributing the same amount of compensation for each SS check.
Free, universal healthcare is certainly compatible with socialism. The more extreme the system, the more extreme the opposite. Thus, extreme capitalism is what leads to extreme socialist opposition.
I agree with this, that's why we need to be practical and reasonable if any meaningful change were to happen to our profit driven healthcare system. Universal healthcare would be too extreme for the US. I've always been in favor of a public option. Not only would a public option offer an optional healthcare plan to anyone who qualifies and want to opt in, but it would also increase competition, lower medical costs, and give people (especially business owners) the freedom to choose a health insurance plan that's more affordable and dependable. Private health insurances will still exist. I just want to see reductions in medical costs. It's gotten way out of hand. I think it's a complete travesty to see people go in debt because of healthcare. My healthcare plan sucks big time and I worry that I could be one medical emergency away from financial ruin at any moment.
Politicians bring up the subject that Social Security will soon go bankrupt if we don't make some changes. But somehow welfare programs, food stamps, and other sorts of taxpayer funded programs never seem to be in danger of going bankrupt.
Well, changes to SS will have to be made whether people like it or not. It's facing a depletion crisis. About a decade ago, the money flowing in stopped being more than the money being paid out. Annual payroll taxes are falling short of the annual payouts and eventually the interest payments from the Trust Fund (for social security) won't be enough to cover the payout difference. We're going to have to draw money from the Trust Fund (2.9 trillion) and by 2033 approximately, the money will run out.
The massive baby boomer generation who have been paying into these surpluses are starting to retire. Baby boomers are also living a lot longer because life expectancy has increased overtime. We haven't adjusted our policies accordingly. People over 55 will still be able to enjoy the lofty benefits of social security. But the benefits are going to be a lot less sweet for people under 55. I'm expecting a lesser amount of the promised benefits, a continual increase of the full retirement age, and SS costing me more as the income caps keep going up. I believe we'll also be subjected to income tax as well.
I've never heard them say that the food stamp or the welfare program is going bankrupt. But the one that actually has real investment money coming from our paychecks, suddenly that one's in danger of going bankrupt
People do cheat the system and we need better measures in order to prevent/limit these fraudulent practices from happening on a wide scale. The goal should be to help these people (excluding disabled bodies) as they work towards financial stability if they are able to. It shouldn't have to be permanent for most people.
But here's the thing about welfare, a lot of people genuinely depend on it. The majority of recipients especially for food stamps are children, the elderly, and people with disability. These programs need to exist for the sake of their well being.
Member
