Politics Can Sanders beat Trump? (1 Viewer)

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Government will always have a hand in anything you want regulated - and without regulation you will get scammers selling you miracle drugs, unaccredited people posing as health professionals etc...

The very idea that the government is trying to gain from the system is absurd - the US government health services are not run as a profit center.

The issue we have, quite frankly, is that there is not enough regulation - and that's why there are so many private insurance companies with very complicated schemes that make it so complicated and require the administrative overhead, the runaways pharma costs etc...

The very fact that the system in countries like Canada, UK, Japan and the Nordic countries with more regulation are so much more efficient go directly against your claim that the issue is government inefficiency.

The fact is, you need regulation because of the obvious risks that non-regulated large scale systems poses for critical services. What you want is to find some kind of a trade-off between regulation and innovation that brings to maximum efficiency. The problem in the US (and the numbers prove that it is an inefficient mess) is not because of over-regulation - we have more healthcare providers, insurers and schemes than any other modern country - yet we are the most inefficient of the lot. This shows that we err on the side of 'innovation' to a detriment of the system.

Frankly, if we look at healthcare as a closed system and think of it as a very big company - we would all decry it as an inefficient mess where management (the government) does an awful job of regulating how all it's departments operate - and because of that it provides awful service at an exorbitant price. Better management would certainly improve this system - and suggesting that removing regulation from a failing system with less regulation than elsewhere would make it better is not likely to be effective.

Frankly, I didn't say a word about government inefficiency or regulations. You did.

 

[andalusian]

Frankly, I didn't say a word about government inefficiency or regulations. You did.

You said "Government is one of those hands though. But what it has created is an artificial price gauging..." - so, it seems to me that you do equate it is with inefficiency. If you did not, it was certainly not clear from that sentence.

Basically, if you are saying "cut the middlemen" - they options are:

1. Single payer insurance (Government)

or

2. Wild wild west, no regulation, everyone can charge whatever they want for whatever service they want with no oversight.

It seems that you are either a Bernie supporter despite your objection or believe in complete anarchy and pine for the middle ages when the barber surgeon would prescribe you a pinch of St. John's wort for anything from cramps to fever or a loss of a limb. I assumed that your "government is one of those hands" sentence put you in the #2 category - which is why I went on about regulation etc...

 

[Hoopguru]

We spend more because too many people want their hands in making money off of it. There are too many middle-men in the US version of Health care. Government is one of those hands though. But what it has created is an artificial price gauging from the hospitals and Doctors offices to try to make money. In a system where there is actually a free market, no Insurance companies, no middlemen there would actually be posted prices, and fewer "mouths" to feed off of you and I going to the doctor. Right now our "spending per capita" is out of control because prices are out of control, and the reason for that IMO boils down everyone is trying to gain from it. Pharma, the Government, Insurance, Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals, etc. If the medical industry was more direct and had less write-offs and doctors not getting paid for their actual services the bills would be a lot less.

Doctors would prefer a more government free system, at least according to my two different doctors.

 

[andalusian]

Doctors would prefer a more government free system, at least according to my two different doctors.

People in power want less regulation. News at 10?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

You said "Government is one of those hands though. But what it has created is an artificial price gauging..." - so, it seems to me that you do equate it is with inefficiency. If you did not, it was certainly not clear from that sentence.

Basically, if you are saying "cut the middlemen" - they options are:

1. Single payer insurance (Government)

or

2. Wild wild west, no regulation, everyone can charge whatever they want for whatever service they want with no oversight.

It seems that you are either a Bernie supporter despite your objection or believe in complete anarchy and pine for the middle ages when the barber surgeon would prescribe you a pinch of St. John's wort for anything from cramps to fever or a loss of a limb. I assumed that your "government is one of those hands" sentence put you in the #2 category - which is why I went on about regulation etc...

Your assertion on number two is mostly just you trying to phrase things a way that it's like ohh look how dumb you are if you don't think they way I do, I'm not falling for it. Everyone can charge what they want, but prices would be driven down by competition that is how competition works. A "really good" doctor can maybe charge more than an average one, but competition drives prices down. So no they can't charge whatever they want. I am saying that right now the Government plays a huge role in how high our prices are because so many government ran health systems don't pay a large chunk of their bills. So the price gets driven up to account for the people who are essentially not bringing in any money for the Doctor / Hospital / Etc. Ask literally just about anyone who does medical billing or works in finances in the health industry.
You also seem to be saying there is no middle ground whatsoever which is almost never the case. You can have regulated industries that aren't beholden to making large profits for the few. Just because America is Crony capitalist doesn't mean it has to be.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news...-physicians-hospitals-far-more-than-m/445949/

 

[andalusian]

Your assertion on number two is mostly just you trying to phrase things a way that it's like ohh look how dumb you are if you don't think they way I do, I'm not falling for it. Everyone can charge what they want, but prices would be driven down by competition that is how competition works. A "really good" doctor can maybe charge more than an average one, but competition drives prices down. So no they can't charge whatever they want. I am saying that right now the Government plays a huge role in how high our prices are because so many government ran health systems don't pay a large chunk of their bills. So the price gets driven up to account for the people who are essentially not bringing in any money for the Doctor / Hospital / Etc. Ask literally just about anyone who does medical billing or works in finances in the health industry.
You also seem to be saying there is no middle ground whatsoever which is almost never the case. You can have regulated industries that aren't beholden to making large profits for the few. Just because America is Crony capitalist doesn't mean it has to be.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news...-physicians-hospitals-far-more-than-m/445949/

My entire premise was about the middle ground - I will quote myself:

"What you want is to find some kind of a trade-off between regulation and innovation that brings to maximum efficiency."

I am not sure where you are reading it otherwise, but I stated it clearly.

I am also saying that the problem of the US health care is not because of over-regulation, it is because of under-regulation and the free-for-all cumbersome system that is out there. The everyone can charge whatever they want is exactly what we have now for pharma prices - and it is a mess - so your idea that free for all is always better is just plain wrong.

History has shown again and again that large systems with no regulation fail or become inefficient once they become large enough. It happened in the financial industry, in happened in all kinds of industries and our low regulation, everyone can charge whatever they want for healthcare system is proven to be very inefficient.

 

[Road Ratt]

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

My entire premise was about the middle ground - I will quote myself:

"What you want is to find some kind of a trade-off between regulation and innovation that brings to maximum efficiency."

I am not sure where you are reading it otherwise, but I stated it clearly.

I am also saying that the problem of the US health care is not because of over-regulation, it is because of under-regulation and the free-for-all cumbersome system that is out there. The everyone can charge whatever they want is exactly what we have now for pharma prices - and it is a mess - so your idea that free for all is always better is just plain wrong.

History has shown again and again that large systems with no regulation fail or become inefficient once they become large enough. It happened in the financial industry, in happened in all kinds of industries and our low regulation, everyone can charge whatever they want for healthcare system is proven to be very inefficient.

There is no free for all now because all the prices are hidden behind a substantial amount of red tape (both government and business). You have no idea what your services cost until they bill you. Your forced to go to certain doctors based on health insurances. Not even close to a free market in healthcare.

 

[andalusian]

There is no free for all now because all the prices are hidden behind a substantial amount of red tape (both government and business). You have no idea what your services cost until they bill you. Your forced to go to certain doctors based on health insurances. Not even close to a free market in healthcare.

It is free for all - because there is no limits on what the pharma companies can bill you, same goes for Doctors, Insurance companies etc...

This is the point I am making. More regulation - where you slash the power of private insurance, doctors, pharma companies etc... will simplify the system. Simple as that.

Because there is so little regulation - it becomes so complicated to figure out what is what - and that's why administrative costs in the US are so high.

Basically, you are calling for more regulation in transparency (so you know what everything costs) - but I think that's not enough, because healthcare is so complicated - I have had the pleasure of a colonoscopy recently (sucks to be old enough to have to do that stuff) - and there are 3 different providers before you even get to the insurance copays etc... (facility, doctors, lab) - and that's a routine precautionary procedure - just imagine a more complicated procedure...

That issue is not lack of cost disclosure. Frankly, even tho I had these costs very clear to me, it's not like I can pick and choose, I can not choose a specific doctor, specific lab, specific facility - so getting this and doing comparison shopping is a time suck of epic proportions - that's not going to make it more efficient.

 

[Road Ratt]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The problem with that theory is it might be right.

The American system doesn't easily enable a revolution, so we'll wind up with people looking for more and more extreme candidates to change the system.

Not looking forward to Trump Jr. or the Infowars guy getting elected in 2024.

barfo

You think Trump HASN'T changed the system? Seriously? (All right, maybe not as much as Mitch McConnell, but)

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It is free for all - because there is no limits on what the pharma companies can bill you, same goes for Doctors, Insurance companies etc...

This is the point I am making. More regulation - where you slash the power of private insurance, doctors, pharma companies etc... will simplify the system. Simple as that.

Because there is so little regulation - it becomes so complicated to figure out what is what - and that's why administrative costs in the US are so high.

Basically, you are calling for more regulation in transparency (so you know what everything costs) - but I think that's not enough, because healthcare is so complicated - I have had the pleasure of a colonoscopy recently (sucks to be old enough to have to do that stuff) - and there are 3 different providers before you even get to the insurance copays etc... (facility, doctors, lab) - and that's a routine precautionary procedure - just imagine a more complicated procedure...

That issue is not lack of cost disclosure. Frankly, even tho I had these costs very clear to me, it's not like I can pick and choose, I can not choose a specific doctor, specific lab, specific facility - so getting this and doing comparison shopping is a time suck of epic proportions - that's not going to make it more efficient.

Right it doesn't matter if the costs are laid out if you are forced to pay those prices one way or another. A free market would say I can get this MRI done here for $400 dollars why would I pay you $1200.
Also saying researching doctors, prices, whatever is a massive waste of time? Maybe like 50 years ago... There is this thing called the internet it's not that hard to do a tiny bit of research...

I'm fairly ok with well-regulated health industries, and I've said before I'm even sort of open to bernie's plan to some extent if it's done well, which it won't be. If it ever even somewhat makes it through it'll be done in a way that is done badly because both the Democrats and Republicans have Pharma and Insurance companies lining their wallets.

My biggest fear of Bernie isn't his ideas, but the US Implementation of his ideas are going to be disastrous. It'll be like Free College for all - With the heaviest price tag possible so the people getting rich off of it now can continue too. Medicare for All - But don't worry we won't screw big pharma or private insurance companies in the process. - The Green new deal but don't worry Exxon and the like will still be making bank it'll just either be on the government's tab or they'll make rules to ensure that they stay on top.

 

[Hoopguru]

A doctor libertarian/politician states " If we chose more capitalism in the distribution of prescription drugs, we would legalize discount prices for wholesale buyers. Currently the courts prevent transparent discounts fro larger purchasers of prescription drugs. A complicated rebate system arose to get around the government impediment, but the rebate system allows middlemen to carve out part of the profit without really letting the consumer in on the transaction. Less socialism in legal drug distribution would mean less government protection of big Pharma's legal patent monopoly. Drugs would still have patent protection, but it would expire at a certain date and generic competition would seamlessly follow without millions of dollars in legal impediments that Big Pharma places in the way. Less socialism in pharmaceuticals would mean no banning of international drug sales."

 

[Minstrel]

A doctor libertarian/politician states " If we chose more capitalism in the distribution of prescription drugs, we would legalize discount prices for wholesale buyers. Currently the courts prevent transparent discounts fro larger purchasers of prescription drugs. A complicated rebate system arose to get around the government impediment, but the rebate system allows middlemen to carve out part of the profit without really letting the consumer in on the transaction. Less socialism in legal drug distribution would mean less government protection of big Pharma's legal patent monopoly. Drugs would still have patent protection, but it would expire at a certain date and generic competition would seamlessly follow without millions of dollars in legal impediments that Big Pharma places in the way. Less socialism in pharmaceuticals would mean no banning of international drug sales."

This "doctor libertarian/politician" doesn't appear to know what "socialism" means and seems to be using the word to mean any governmental action.

It's akin to saying, "Less socialism in foreign affairs would mean no wars."

 

[Hoopguru]

This "doctor libertarian/politician" doesn't appear to know what "socialism" means and seems to be using the word to mean any governmental action.

It's akin to saying, "Less socialism in foreign affairs would mean no wars."

Our government has allowed Big Pharma / Lobbist to monopolize, profit from, elect politicians, impeded competition, control distribution, screw the consumer.

 

[Lanny]

If you want Bernie to win the Presidency he's going to need some support from the south, regardless how red it is. The ONLY reason Kennedy selected Johnson as his running mate was Bobby & John knew just how important it was to win over support in the region. Bobby couldnt stand Johnson but he didn't let that get in their way.

This South is very different from the old South. No amount of cajoling from a Democratic Southerner will sway them. The South will only count toward the nomination and not the general election.

 

[Minstrel]

Our government has allowed Big Pharma / Lobbist to monopolize, profit from, elect politicians, impeded competition, control distribution, screw the consumer.

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with "socialism." Socialism would be something like government paying all or a portion of drug costs for people or, at an extreme level, simply taking over the industry altogether.

In fact, what you just described is a pretty perfect description of unfettered capitalism. Right down to the "government has allowed" part. Government not preventing things is the epitome of free markets. Preventing monopolies, price gouging, bribery, etc (i.e. the things you mentioned in your post) are the kinds of regulations that put limits on free markets or "capitalism."

Sounds like you're ripe for the Bernie Revolution, comrade!

 

[Hoopguru]

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with "socialism." Socialism would be something like government paying all or a portion of drug costs for people or, at an extreme level, simply taking over the industry altogether.

In fact, what you just described is a pretty perfect description of unfettered capitalism. Right down to the "government has allowed" part. Government not preventing things is the epitome of free markets. Preventing monopolies, price gouging, bribery, etc (i.e. the things you mentioned in your post) are the kinds of regulations that put limits on free markets or "capitalism."

Sounds like you're ripe for the Bernie Revolution, comrade!

no way..!

 

[Hoopguru]

This South is very different from the old South. No amount of cajoling from a Democratic Southerner will sway them. The South will only count toward the nomination and not the general election.

I was referring to the general when Bernie represents a party he's not even a member of.

 

[MARIS61]

Bernie Sanders' likely won't withstand 'barrage' from Trump: Republican pollster
By Matt London | Fox News
Get Fox Nation

A top Republican pollster predicted that Sen. Bernie Sanders' strong showing against President Trump in head-to-head polling will likely not hold up.

"If you sent the senior officials of the Trump campaign off for a weekend retreat with the goal of conjuring up the ideal opponent for Donald Trump, they'd come out on Monday morning with Bernie Sanders," Whit Ayres, founder and president of North Star Opinion Research, said on Fox Nation's "What Are The Odds?"

The RealClearPolitics average of polls that show a hypothetical Sanders Trump general election matchup have Sanders ahead 50 percent to Trump's 45 percent.

"The Trump campaign has not yet leveled its guns on Bernie Sanders," Ayres observed, adding he believes the self-described democratic socialist's number will decline.

Fox Nation host and Fox News contributor Kristen Soltis Anderson raised another poll that may be a warning sign for the Sanders' campaign.

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, conducted Feb. 14-17, showed that 67 percent of voters said they would be uncomfortable with a socialist candidate for president, 57 percent said the same of a candidate who suffered a heart attack, and 53 percent would be uncomfortable with someone age 75 or older. (Sanders is 78.)

"The guy is all of those things you said," said Ayres, "Plus, a guy who has repeatedly praised communist dictators, be they Fidel Castro in Cuba, [Daniel Ortega] in Nicaragua -- or the Soviet Union where he spent his honeymoon. A lot of people don't know all those things."

"It's hard for me to believe that Bernie Sanders can withstand the kind of barrage that's going to come at him," he concluded.

 

[MARIS61]

Cuba attracts about 20,000 paying health tourists, generating revenues of around $40 million a year for the Cuban economy. Cuba has been serving health tourists from around the world for more than 20 years. The country operates a special division of hospitals specifically for the treatment of foreigners and diplomats. Foreign patients travel to Cuba for a wide range of treatments including eye-surgery, neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease, cosmetic surgery, addictions treatment, retinitis pigmentosa and orthopaedics.

barfo

Sadly, actual Cuban citizens get no such special treatment, or treatment at all often.

Same story in Canada, where my clients went for lasic surgery, but my Canadian cousin has 4 month waits to see his doctor for diabetes treatment.

In Costa Rica heart attacks get immediate care and treatment but a 2 year wait list for something as prevalent as cataracts surgery. They come to America for that.

 

[MARIS61]

Sorry If You’re Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution
David Harsanyi / @davidharsanyi / July 27, 2018 / 723 Comments

A commuter walks through the Petare neighborhood of Caracas, Venezuela, a district hard-hit by shortages of food, medicine, and water. (Photo: Claudia Guadarrama/Polaris/Newscom)

Commentary By
David Harsanyi @davidharsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of "First Freedom: A Ride through America's Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today."

On the same day that Venezuela’s “democratically” elected socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, whose once-wealthy nation now has citizens foraging for food, announced he was lopping five zeros off the country’s currency to create a “stable financial and monetary system,” Meghan McCain of “The View” was the target of internet-wide condemnation for having stated some obvious truths about collectivism.

During the same week we learned that the democratic socialist president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, is accused of massacring hundreds of protesters whose economic futures have been decimated by his economic policies, Soledad O’Brien and writers at outlets ranging from GQ, to BuzzFeed, to the Daily Beast were telling McCain to cool her jets.

In truth, McCain was being far too calm. After all, socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence. Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity, and a destroyer of individual rights.

It’s true that not all socialism ends in the tyranny of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism or Ba’athism or Chavezism or the Khmer Rouge—only most of it does. And no, New York primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t intend to set up gulags in Alaska. Most so-called democratic socialists—the qualifier affixed to denote that they live in a democratic system and have no choice but to ask for votes—aren’t consciously or explicitly endorsing violence or tyranny.

But when they adopt the term “socialism” and the ideas associated with it, they deserve to be treated with the kind of contempt and derision that all those adopting authoritarian philosophies deserve.

But look: Norway!

Socialism is perhaps the only ideology that Americans are asked to judge solely based on its piddling “successes.” Don’t you dare mention Albania or Algeria or Angola or Burma or Congo or Cuba or Ethiopia or Laos or Somalia or Vietnam or Yemen or, well, any other of the dozens of other inconvenient places socialism has been tried. Not when there are a handful of Scandinavian countries operating generous welfare state programs propped up by underlying vibrant capitalism and natural resources.

Of course, socialism exists on a spectrum, and even if we accept that the Nordic social program experiments are the most benign iteration of collectivism, they are certainly not the only version. Pretending otherwise would be like saying, “The police state of Singapore is more successful than Denmark. Let’s give it a spin.”

It turns out, though, that the “Denmark is awesome!” talking point is only the second-most preposterous one used by socialists. It goes something like this: If you’re a fan of “roads, schools, libraries, and such,” although you may not even be aware of it, you are also a supporter of socialism.

This might come as a surprise to some, but every penny of the $21,206 spent in Ocasio-Cortez’s district each year on each student, rich or poor, is provided with the profits derived from capitalism. There is no welfare system, no library that subsists on your good intentions. Having the state take over the entire health care system could rightly be called a socialistic endeavor, but pooling local tax dollars to put books in a building is called local government.

It should also be noted that today’s socialists get their yucks by pretending collectivist policies only lead to innocuous outcomes like local libraries. But for many years they were also praising the dictators of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the nation’s most successful socialist, isn’t merely impressed with the goings-on in Denmark. Not very long ago, he lauded Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as an embodiment of the “American dream,” even more so than the United States.

Socialists like to blame every inequity, the actions of every greedy criminal, every downturn, and every social ill on the injustice of capitalism. But none of them admit that capitalism has been the most effective way to eliminate poverty in history.

Today, in former socialist states like India, there have been big reductions in poverty thanks to increased capitalism. In China, where communism sadly still deprives more than a billion people of their basic rights, hundreds of millions benefit from a system that is slowly shedding socialism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty rate in the world has been cut in half. And it didn’t happen because Southeast Asians were raising the minimum wage.

In the United States, only 5 percent of people are even aware that poverty has fallen in the world, according to the Gapminder Foundation, which is almost certainly in part due to the left’s obsession with “inequality” and normalization of “socialism.”

Nearly half of American millennials would rather live in a socialist society than in a capitalist one, according to a YouGov poll. That said, only 71 percent of those asked were able to properly identify either. We can now see the manifestation of this ignorance in our elections and “The View” co-host Joy Behar.

But if all you really champion are some higher taxes and more generous social welfare, stop associating yourself with a philosophy that usually brings destitution and death. Call it something else. If not, McCain has every right to associate you with the ideology you embrace.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07...vpoNLgdTsPNGv2kjllKkfIHHBVr5REsYmM4pJ2ddTh_lc

 

[MARIS61]

 

[Lanny]

Sorry If You’re Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution
David Harsanyi / @davidharsanyi / July 27, 2018 / 723 Comments

A commuter walks through the Petare neighborhood of Caracas, Venezuela, a district hard-hit by shortages of food, medicine, and water. (Photo: Claudia Guadarrama/Polaris/Newscom)

Commentary By
David Harsanyi @davidharsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of "First Freedom: A Ride through America's Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today."

On the same day that Venezuela’s “democratically” elected socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, whose once-wealthy nation now has citizens foraging for food, announced he was lopping five zeros off the country’s currency to create a “stable financial and monetary system,” Meghan McCain of “The View” was the target of internet-wide condemnation for having stated some obvious truths about collectivism.

During the same week we learned that the democratic socialist president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, is accused of massacring hundreds of protesters whose economic futures have been decimated by his economic policies, Soledad O’Brien and writers at outlets ranging from GQ, to BuzzFeed, to the Daily Beast were telling McCain to cool her jets.

In truth, McCain was being far too calm. After all, socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence. Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity, and a destroyer of individual rights.

It’s true that not all socialism ends in the tyranny of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism or Ba’athism or Chavezism or the Khmer Rouge—only most of it does. And no, New York primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t intend to set up gulags in Alaska. Most so-called democratic socialists—the qualifier affixed to denote that they live in a democratic system and have no choice but to ask for votes—aren’t consciously or explicitly endorsing violence or tyranny.

But when they adopt the term “socialism” and the ideas associated with it, they deserve to be treated with the kind of contempt and derision that all those adopting authoritarian philosophies deserve.

But look: Norway!

Socialism is perhaps the only ideology that Americans are asked to judge solely based on its piddling “successes.” Don’t you dare mention Albania or Algeria or Angola or Burma or Congo or Cuba or Ethiopia or Laos or Somalia or Vietnam or Yemen or, well, any other of the dozens of other inconvenient places socialism has been tried. Not when there are a handful of Scandinavian countries operating generous welfare state programs propped up by underlying vibrant capitalism and natural resources.

Of course, socialism exists on a spectrum, and even if we accept that the Nordic social program experiments are the most benign iteration of collectivism, they are certainly not the only version. Pretending otherwise would be like saying, “The police state of Singapore is more successful than Denmark. Let’s give it a spin.”

It turns out, though, that the “Denmark is awesome!” talking point is only the second-most preposterous one used by socialists. It goes something like this: If you’re a fan of “roads, schools, libraries, and such,” although you may not even be aware of it, you are also a supporter of socialism.

This might come as a surprise to some, but every penny of the $21,206 spent in Ocasio-Cortez’s district each year on each student, rich or poor, is provided with the profits derived from capitalism. There is no welfare system, no library that subsists on your good intentions. Having the state take over the entire health care system could rightly be called a socialistic endeavor, but pooling local tax dollars to put books in a building is called local government.

It should also be noted that today’s socialists get their yucks by pretending collectivist policies only lead to innocuous outcomes like local libraries. But for many years they were also praising the dictators of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the nation’s most successful socialist, isn’t merely impressed with the goings-on in Denmark. Not very long ago, he lauded Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as an embodiment of the “American dream,” even more so than the United States.

Socialists like to blame every inequity, the actions of every greedy criminal, every downturn, and every social ill on the injustice of capitalism. But none of them admit that capitalism has been the most effective way to eliminate poverty in history.

Today, in former socialist states like India, there have been big reductions in poverty thanks to increased capitalism. In China, where communism sadly still deprives more than a billion people of their basic rights, hundreds of millions benefit from a system that is slowly shedding socialism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty rate in the world has been cut in half. And it didn’t happen because Southeast Asians were raising the minimum wage.

In the United States, only 5 percent of people are even aware that poverty has fallen in the world, according to the Gapminder Foundation, which is almost certainly in part due to the left’s obsession with “inequality” and normalization of “socialism.”

Nearly half of American millennials would rather live in a socialist society than in a capitalist one, according to a YouGov poll. That said, only 71 percent of those asked were able to properly identify either. We can now see the manifestation of this ignorance in our elections and “The View” co-host Joy Behar.

But if all you really champion are some higher taxes and more generous social welfare, stop associating yourself with a philosophy that usually brings destitution and death. Call it something else. If not, McCain has every right to associate you with the ideology you embrace.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07...vpoNLgdTsPNGv2kjllKkfIHHBVr5REsYmM4pJ2ddTh_lc

That's not socialism at work.

 

[Lanny]

How effective were their efforts in the 2016 general election?

 

[MARIS61]

Bernie Sanders Praises Slave Owners For Free Housing Program
February 27th, 2020

U.S.—In a televised interview, Bernie Sanders has praised slave owners for their free housing program offered to all slaves working the plantations.

"Of course, the slavery was bad, but the slaves were housed, for free I might add, for their entire employment," Sanders said in an interview with 60 Minutes. "So it's unfair to criticize the whole thing. Also, the slaveowners were pretty impressive guys. The plantations were very clean, very nice buildings. I actually honeymooned at one in Virginia back in 1845, and it was an eye-opener for me as to how much propaganda has been used to malign slaveowners and their healthcare, housing, and literacy programs."

At publishing time, sources had also confirmed that Bernie Sanders had defended hell itself, saying the place of eternal torment has "gotten a bad rap" and "isn't such a bad place."

https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-...-owners-for-providing-free-housing-for-slaves

 

[jlprk]

That's not socialism at work.

Yes, that's sanctions at work. Socialism was improving their lives just a few years ago.

 

[julius]

Bernie Sanders Praises Slave Owners For Free Housing Program
February 27th, 2020

U.S.—In a televised interview, Bernie Sanders has praised slave owners for their free housing program offered to all slaves working the plantations.

"Of course, the slavery was bad, but the slaves were housed, for free I might add, for their entire employment," Sanders said in an interview with 60 Minutes. "So it's unfair to criticize the whole thing. Also, the slaveowners were pretty impressive guys. The plantations were very clean, very nice buildings. I actually honeymooned at one in Virginia back in 1845, and it was an eye-opener for me as to how much propaganda has been used to malign slaveowners and their healthcare, housing, and literacy programs."

At publishing time, sources had also confirmed that Bernie Sanders had defended hell itself, saying the place of eternal torment has "gotten a bad rap" and "isn't such a bad place."

https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-...-owners-for-providing-free-housing-for-slaves

So how long before you say that you posted this well known satire website, on purpose?

Get a new act. You're neither funny or original.

 

[Lanny]

Bernie Sanders Praises Slave Owners For Free Housing Program
February 27th, 2020

U.S.—In a televised interview, Bernie Sanders has praised slave owners for their free housing program offered to all slaves working the plantations.

"Of course, the slavery was bad, but the slaves were housed, for free I might add, for their entire employment," Sanders said in an interview with 60 Minutes. "So it's unfair to criticize the whole thing. Also, the slaveowners were pretty impressive guys. The plantations were very clean, very nice buildings. I actually honeymooned at one in Virginia back in 1845, and it was an eye-opener for me as to how much propaganda has been used to malign slaveowners and their healthcare, housing, and literacy programs."

At publishing time, sources had also confirmed that Bernie Sanders had defended hell itself, saying the place of eternal torment has "gotten a bad rap" and "isn't such a bad place."

https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-...-owners-for-providing-free-housing-for-slaves

Yet another out of context post.

 

[Shaboid]