"The land of the free, and the home of the brave." Doesnt look that way to me. Now with yet another bill passed limiting our healthcare choices to what Big Brother has to offer us, arent we slowly but surely being forced into a system where the government is a heirarchy, and we are divided into social levels limiting our influence on the government depending on which we are put into? I believe thats called.... Socialism?
No one is limiting where you can buy insurance. In fact, the bill opens up new choices. What is this nonsense about "social levels" which limit your influence on government?
Yes they are. And another fact is that people who do not buy government health care will be charged a fine. Low class, Middle class, High class are just examples. Its not nonsense, its the way our society is run nowadays. Power is given to the rich and the charesmatic.
People who do not buy private insurance will be charged a fine, so what? Socialism, which I am in favor of, would be a public system, which does not exist except for the military and members of congress. If you are talking about economic stratification, that is true. Our system now does not prevent the influence of money.
How are our choices being limited? People aren't being forced to change healthcare insurances if they don't want to, right? Isn't like car insurance? I never hear people complaining about not having the freedom to legally drive uninsured.
That is not going to work in America. We live in a country where we have the right to choose. Where we have freedoms and rights. Our founding fathers created a country in whch the people control the government, Socialism is the government controlling the people.
No it isn't. Socialism is the creation of public institutions (with consent of the governed), that serve the public good. These include things like public schools, national parks, the national highway system, the military, welfare, and health care. Many of these already work in America.
Socialism does work for about 3-5 years, economically. However Socialism gives birth to Communism which is the government controlling the people. For proof look at Karl Marx, a strong believer in Socialism. He ended up making Russia Communist by presenting Socialist ideals to the people.
Yeah, but we've always had that freedom. And apparently we like it for some reason. :shrug: Americans are weird.
I think we've had national highways, national parks, public schools and other social programs for a just bit longer than 5 years.
Economically, it works as long as the economy is good. In fact, it helps the economy, just look at how Europe has weathered the recent recession. Just look at how car companies are moving to Canada because the workers up there have health care. The socialism I'm talking about is the same as in Denmark, Germany, the UK, and France. I don't see any of them turning communist. In Germany, for instance, they enjoy greater social mobility, since anyone that passes their exams can get a college education. Their equivalent of high school is more like our college level classes. I know a German who never went to college who can speak three languages fluently! And they love their autobahn. And they never have to worry about health care.
The difference is you don't have to buy from the insurance companies. I don't understand when people speak like this, like the "freedom to fail". It's not so much a freedom to fail as it is no safety net against it, and that's okay. You should be held responsible and you should support yourself. The companies offer a service; if you don't like it, you don't have to buy. That's the beauty of choice. I don't have a "freedom to be ripped off by McDonald's" because I don't have to buy a sandwich there. Or anywhere. And I am always free to provide myself with a sandwich if I don't like any of the others. Spidergoat, socialism is insidious because it completely ignores choice. I don't see where Marx thought about choice when he said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
National parks can be provided privately anyway Public schools are monstrously inefficient, and they create conflict when the taxpayers argue over the curriculum. If we must have government involvement, then we should just have the private provision of education with vouchers for the poor.
Half of Germany was Communist once. But even Vladimir Lenin defined "Socialism" as the transition between Capitalism and Communism.
No, they don't. Liberty requires independence, which means you need economic and personal liberties. As far as I know, Germany is less economically free than the United States; they have more of a welfare state than we do.
