When will we figure out that the word 'socialism' without clear qualification is virtually meaningless?   It is one thing for people to see 'socialism' at every turn, but now we have a Senate proposal to deem anything that falls under the overloaded word 'socialism' to be a threat to the nation?

When will we figure out that the word 'socialism' without clear qualification is virtually meaningless? 

But that is the entire reason the right wing uses it so much.  If people knew the definition, the right wing's fear mongering about it would end since people would realize how false their claims are.

Currently the right wing is full of supporters, to whom the word "socialism" defines all that is evil about the Democrats, while at the same time walking around with signs telling the government to not touch their Medicare.

But that is the entire reason the right wing uses it so much.  If people knew the definition, the right wing's fear mongering about it would end since people would realize how false their claims are.

His point is that people use wildly differing, usually nonsensical, definitions.

... and that now the Senate of the USA has put forth a resolution on a meme based on an overloaded word ('socialism').

Medicare is not socialized medicine, neither is Medicaid.

Medicare is not socialized medicine, neither is Medicaid.

Never said they were, so not sure where you are coming from.

Medicare and Medicaid are socialized insurance.  The VA is socialized medicine.

I assume you are implying that the sign in your picture is a ridiculous statement, no?

There is an importance difference between socialized medicine and social insurance programs such as Medicare.

And since Vets can see their own private doctor now, it is not completely socialized medicine.

There is also an important difference between 'socialized ____' and socialism.  I make this point because it correlates with why I wrote this article. 

Socialized medicine, for example, typically means state-run healthcare.   The fact that the state is controlling an important service does not mean socialism is in effect, it only means that statism is in effect (or, if one prefers, social democracy).   Indeed, the nations which provide socialized medicine are technically social democracies (economic system of capitalism, not socialism).   If the USA adopted a single-payer, state run system that would likely be labeled 'socialized healthcare or medicine' but it would certainly not mean that the USA now has a socialist economy.

Socialism, at its core, is about the demos having democratic control over the productive resources of the economy.   

( Updated the list in the article to include this too since it is a common item that people think is 'socialism'. )

There is an importance difference between socialized medicine and social insurance programs such as Medicare.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.....

And since Vets can see their own private doctor now, it is not completely socialized medicine.

They can see their own doctors OUTSIDE THE VA.  That detail does not say anything about the VA not being socialized medicine, your argument is convoluted.  It just means they have options outside the socialized VA doctors.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation...

Then why did you bring it up in your comment?

They can see their own doctors OUTSIDE THE VA.

Yes, that is what private means as I said in my comment.  Do you not know what private means?

That detail does not say anything about the VA not being socialized medicine, your argument is convoluted.

There is no argument, I said "completely socialized medicine".  Do you also not know what completely means?

Here is a useful Google site for you..

dictionary.com

Then why did you bring it up in your comment?

I didn't, that was your deflection.

Yes, that is what private means as I said in my comment.  Do you not know what private means?

Your claim that the VA is not entirely socialized has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that doctors exist outside the VA.  You seem to imply that since there are private doctors, and VA members are allowed to see those private doctors, that the VA is not entirely socialized.  This convoluted argument is utterly false, and makes very little sense.

There is no argument, I said "completely socialized medicine".

Yes but your argument to that point is that doctors, outside the VA, are not socialized medicine, therefor the VA is not completely socialized.  Your argument makes no sense.

It's like saying that since there are students, outside of Harvard, that are not Harvard students, Harvard is not a school.

Socialized medicine is owned, the doctors are state or federal employees, and managed by a government or centralized entity, private doctors are not.  VA pays the private doctor for their services but have no involvement in ownership or management.  The VA is no longer completely socialized medicine.

It is that simple, if you can't understand it then do some more reading on the subject.

Socialized medicine is owned, the doctors are state or federal employees, and managed by a government or centralized entity, private doctors are not.

Correct, hence the VA is socialized medicine.

VA pays the private doctor for their services but have no involvement in ownership or management.

Meaningless.  All the doctors that work for the VA are state or federal employees, hence the VA is socialized medicine.

The VA is no longer completely socialized medicine.

So once again you are trying to claim that since there are doctors, outside the VA, the VA is not completely socialized.  Ridiculous!

It is that simple, if you can't understand it then do some more reading on the subject.

Strongly suggest you do the reading, your argument is completely nonsensical.

What I stated..

VA pays the private doctor for their services but have no involvement in ownership or management.

What you said...

Meaningless.  All the doctors that work for the VA are state or federal employees, hence the VA is socialized medicine.

Was someone stating different? 

I said it wasn't completely socialized medicine.  For some reason you don't understand the word completely.

dictionary.com for your use.

Not all Veterans go to a VA doctor, they are now allowed to go to private doctors...

hvetsfirst private-doctors/ The Choice program will continue to allow veterans to see private doctors if they are experiencing long wait-times in getting their health care needs addressed at the VA. Veterans that live outside 40 miles of a VA facility or who cannot see a VA doctor within 30 days are currently allowed to use the VA Choice program to see a private doctor close to their home

The VA pays the private doctor (who does not work for the VA) no different than Medicare (a social program not socialized medicine as you stated yourself) pays a private doctor.

Hence, the VA is no longer completely socialized medicine, they have moved towards acting as an insurance provider.

Makes sense to anyone who can understand the difference between complete socialized medicine and government administered insurance programs.  

The "THREAT OF SOCIALISM" is a "red herring"! 

It is nothing more than a torn, tattered, overused red flag waved in the faces of ignorant folks, snorting like bulls scrapping their hoves in the dirt of the ever-changing "Arena of Reality".

Fearful folks, lost in the past, are easily riled up by corrupt politicians like Trump, Joe McCarthy, George Wallace, and mega killers like Stalin, Hitler, Putin, and "Moscow Mitch", "the hillbilly's bitch".

A lot of working folks, coal miners, rural farmers, and the elderly are looking at the world through their 1930's dusty, cracked bifocals. All they see is their fears!

Con Artists, disingenuous politicians, and fake preachers "gin up" the huddled "masses of unwashed asses" giving license to their nagging night-terrors, and, a name to their enemy:  "Socialism"; that tired, old "bug-a-boo" of Tin Horn Dictators the world over.



The real issue is TRUMP!

He must be removed from office, impeached, indicted and impounded in a darkened prison cell with no release date in sight.

Everything else is a distraction.

I said it wasn't completely socialized medicine.  For some reason you don't understand the word completely.

No, you are unable to prove your claim.  VA medicine is socialized since all the VA doctors, nurses, MA's, etc. are government employees.  It's not that difficult to understand.  Veterans can go outside the VA for medical support, but that does not reflect on the fact that the VA is socialized medicine.

The VA pays the private doctor (who does not work for the VA) no different than Medicare (a social program not socialized medicine as you stated yourself) pays a private doctor.

So in your opinion, the VA cannot hire "contract" employees?  The VA cannot pay any bills for anything outside itself?  If the VA pays for a UPS delivery, does that automatically void its socialized medicine status since UPS is a private company? 

Your argument, now, that if the VA pays any bills outside itself, therefore is not a socialized department is ludicrous.

Denmark is a socialist country, by your argument, if Denmark pays a bill for a company that is not part of Denmark, then Denmark is no longer a socialist country.  Are you starting to see how silly your claim is?

VA medicine is socialized since all the VA doctors, nurses, MA's, etc. are government employees. 

Only problem with your gambit here is the VA doesn't represent all the people of the system.   So how can it be Socialism if it doesn't cover all the people?

UPS delivery

You do realize that UPS is not a health provider?

You do realize that UPS is not a health provider?

You do realize I was using the UPS as an example?

Only problem with your gambit here is the VA doesn't represent all the people of the system.

Doesn't matter.  All employees of the VA are government employees, that is the only requirement for it be be deemed "socialized".  You do understand that, right?

The VA has contracted consultants, but they are not VA employees so they do not affect that the VA is "socialized".  You do understand that, right?

The VA can contract with outside companies, but since those outside company employees are not VA employees, it does not affect the VA being "socialized".  You do understand that, right?

Nah, your point went over your own head.

I didn't say the VA wasn't socialized medicine.

You are arguing with yourself.  But, keep on keep on.

Doesn't matter.  All employees of the VA are government employees, that is the only requirement for it be be deemed "socialized".  You do understand that, right?

Maybe in your mind but from a macroscopic "countrywide" view the VA doesn't represent even 10% of the US population.   Not exactly the best example when discussing Socialism for the USA.

Trying to somehow equate the VA with the entire country is disingenuous at best.   It's a non sequitur.   Absolutely.

The real issue is TRUMP!

And there are plenty of other articles in which to discuss Trump.   This article is about the utter confusion regarding the term 'socialism' and actions by the US Senate which would perpetuate the confusion.

Maybe in your mind but from a macroscopic "countrywide" view the VA doesn't represent even 10% of the US population.

So you're saying that in order to be considered a socialized department there is a minimum membership requirement???

Trying to somehow equate the VA with the entire country is disingenuous at best.

Never claimed anything of the sort.

I said it wasn't completely socialized medicine.  For some reason you don't understand the word completely.

This may be the crux of the misunderstanding. Some here believe something or some program can be "a little bit socialist" even though its actual functioning uses many private vendors for equipment, labor, pharmaceuticals, etc. which by definition means they aren't controlling all aspects of the production, distribution, and exchange which would mean they don't meet the definition of "socialist".

But regardless of meeting the actual definition, some like to claim if it sounds even a little bit "social" meaning groups of people benefit while other groups of people pay for it, then in their minds that's enough to proclaim it "Marxism, statism, socialism, communism, fascism!" or whatever combination of random evil sounding ism's seem to generate enough foaming at the mouth from like-minded morons who haven't a clue what any of the ism's actually mean and have no real ideas on how to fix it other than to "get the government out of our lives!".

So you're saying that in order to be considered a socialized department there is a minimum membership requirement???

You words not mine but nice try.   Deflection is as deflection does .....

The VA is such a piss poor example of a "Socialist by definition" organization it's hard to imagine how one can even go there.

This may be the crux of the misunderstanding.

There is no misunderstanding...

Why do some take the most simple concepts and turn them into the most complicated to try and prove a point?

Socialized medicine is when the services or products provided, management, and administration are controlled by the governing agent.  Actual services provided are for the treatment of medical conditions. All services and or products provided are determined by the governing agent and all fees are determined by the governing agent.  All administration duties, salaries, wages, etc are set by the governing agent.  Expenses for UPS shipping, utilities, etc are operating expenses not services or products provided.  Patients can only get treatment through the agents doctors and facilities, if they want the agent paying for their healthcare. Patients do not have the option of getting healthcare elsewhere, unless they want to pay for treatment themselves. Funding socialized medicine is provided by either public funding only or combination of private and public dollars. An example in the US would be the VA or some HMO's.

Social medical programs are just that....programs.  They do not provided treatment for medical conditions.  What they provide are payments for services for patients from private doctors and facilities.  Patient does have more choice in the doctors and facilities they can receive treatments from depending on the social program they want to pay for their treatment.  Examples in the US would be Medicare and Medicaid and the VA.

VA is a combination of both.  They provide treatment by their own staff and in their own facilities or they have a program which their patients can use if qualified.

As my point earlier, there is a significant difference between the two.  So anyone who is receiving Medicare benefits and doesn't want those tax dollars going towards socialized medicine healthcare instead is understandable.  A legitimate complaint.  

Doctors and hospitals can not operate at the same quality of care they currently are at Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates and fees only.  It is difficult to find a doctor or dentist that will even take Medicaid.  Most hospitals will, but they make up the loss difference with private insurance patients.

Should the agents making the decisions regarding our healthcare be doctors and patients of insurance companies? 

Doctors and patients won't be making your healthcare decisions with government ran healthcare. Bureaucrats will be.

Shhhh. You are going to shatter their dream of Medicare for All and how wonderful it will be!

Socialized medicine is when the services or products provided, management, and administration are controlled by the governing agent.

A more essential definition is:

Socialized medicine = state control of the funding for national healthcare

A system wherein government is used to collect and distribute funds, set regulations, etc. but where all services are provided by private sector organizations would qualify as socialized medicine.

That is, the government could have ZERO say in medical decisions (those left up to doctor, patient and medical oversite groups) and still be running a socialized medical system.

Don't you believe that if government is in charge of payments to doctors and other healthcare providers, then govt. will be heavily involved in what happens regarding your care? That govt. will regulate what IT deems to be most cost-effective?

Isn't THAT why we already have a plethora of doctors unwilling or financially unable to take on new Medicaid patients?

Shhhh. You are going to shatter their dream of Medicare for All and how wonderful it will be!

lol...you see right through me.  

Don't you believe that if government is in charge of payments to doctors and other healthcare providers, then govt. will be heavily involved in what happens regarding your care? That govt. will regulate what IT deems to be most cost-effective?

There are all sorts of ways in which the USA could establish a socialized system of healthcare.    I certainly recognize that most socialized systems do indeed have far more government intrusion than they should (in my opinion).   I also recognize that this control is the default and that the system needs to be designed to prevent that.

But that does not change the fact that the defining characteristics for socialized healthcare is the funding.   All sorts of potential systems arise from that including the kind of system I described (government regulated, administered but executed (including medical decisions) in the private sector).

A system wherein government is used to collect and distribute funds, set regulations, etc. but where all services are provided by private sector organizations would qualify as socialized medicine.

That would be the single-payer system or the Medicare for all proposal.

You can do that but the reimbursement fees will have to raised to the same level as private insurance carriers.

So then you have bureaucrats deciding what patient care is affordable at those fees and what isn't.  That is only going to be what the private doctors or hospital will provide unless you pay cash.

If you are going to tax the citizens higher to accomplish your social program, then why should they move to your program instead of keeping their private insurance?

I think it is a little unrealistic to think that our govt. wouldn't be heavily involved, especially where costs are concerned. That WILL effect medical decisions. 

I think if govt. wants to be involved deeply in healthcare, then it should get out of the healthcare insurance business and focus solely on providing medical services.

Like send everyone on some form of govt. "insurance" or program to govt.-run facilities and let doctors who work for the govt. perform the work. No middle man that way, and greatly diminishes the chances for fraud. No unnecessary tests because the doctor won't be profiting from them, and won't have to worry about medical malpractice.

That would be the single-payer system or the Medicare for all proposal.

There are plenty of ways to accomplish socialized healthcare.  The point is that the critical defining characteristic of socialized medicine / healthcare is the funding is public (which means the funding would be administered by government).   There is no requirement that the government execute the services.   What I added is that government would regulate the healthcare because that is already what our government is supposed to do in general so one would normally expect it to be applied here as well.

You can do that but the reimbursement fees will have to raised to the same level as private insurance carriers.  So then you have bureaucrats deciding what patient care is affordable at those fees and what isn't.  That is only going to be what the private doctors or hospital will provide unless you pay cash.

You are talking about a specific proposal which (see above) I did not make.

If you are going to tax the citizens higher to accomplish your social program, then why should they move to your program instead of keeping their private insurance?

And you are still talking about a specific program that you have imagined and now have attributed to me:  'your program'.

Just so this is clear, this is what I wrote:

TiG @1.1.29 - Socialized medicine = state control of the funding for national healthcare

Here I provided a common essential definition for what would constitute socialized medicine.   You can look this up, not my invention.

TiG @1.1.29 - A system wherein government is used to collect and distribute funds, set regulations, etc. but where all services are provided by private sector organizations would qualify as socialized medicine.

So here I put the definition in English pointing out that control of the funding pretty much means collecting and distributing the funds and I added that government would of course regulate this.   Then I noted that this definition allows for all services to be provided by the private sector.

TiG @1.1.29 - That is, the government could have ZERO say in medical decisions (those left up to doctor, patient and medical oversite groups) and still be running a socialized medical system.

Finally, I emphasize that even under the definition of socialized medicine there is no requirement that the government have any say in medical decisions.

So that is what I actually wrote.    To close I will now note that socialized medicine has nothing to do with having in place an economic system of socialism.   It could be a part of any socio-economic/political system and everywhere it exists we find a capitalist engine funding it.

I think it is a little unrealistic to think that our govt. wouldn't be heavily involved, especially where costs are concerned. That WILL effect medical decisions. 

So what do you think I meant when I wrote this?:

TiG @1.1.32 - I certainly recognize that most socialized systems do indeed have far more government intrusion than they should (in my opinion).   I also recognize that this control is the default and that the system needs to be designed to prevent that.

What about my language was unclear?

That WILL effect medical decisions. 

I think you meant it will affect medical decisions.   And that is what I mentioned above ⇧ as the default.   It is natural that the purse-string holder will influence medical decisions.   That is why we would need to design against that (again see above ⇧).

I think if govt. wants to be involved deeply in healthcare, then it should get out of the healthcare insurance business and focus solely on providing medical services.

I greatly dislike the idea of government running healthcare.   My preference is that government do what it supposed to do (administer and regulate) and leave the hard healthcare to professionals (and medical oversight boards in the private sector).

Personally, I have always envisioned a hybrid system wherein the most common ailments (e.g. setting broken arms, dealing with viruses, etc.) are handled in a more mechanical, high-efficient, cost-effective, solid quality manner.   We already have the basics for that with our urgent care centers.   The hospitals then deal with the more complex issues and we could even have a third tier for advanced medicine (and this is also a funding source for advanced research).

I think government run healthcare (proper) would suck.  I am surprised you have suggested that.

A system wherein government is used to collect and distribute funds, set regulations, etc. but where all services are provided by private sector organizations would qualify as socialized medicine.

That is what you said.  That is a single payer system.  

You are talking about a specific proposal which (see above) I did not make.

Well yes you did....see above.

Finally, I emphasize that even under the definition of socialized medicine there is no requirement that the government have any say in medical decisions.

They have to. How do you propose to keep cost in line with funds collected?

So that is what I actually wrote.

Well no it isn't.

I think government run healthcare (proper) would suck. I am surprised you have suggested that.

I thought I had made it abundantly clear that IF (key word) govt. wants to be involved in healthcare, then I feel it should get out of the healthcare insurance business.

I can guarantee you that bureaucrats do not make health care decisions. 

I can guarantee they do.  They decide what benefits to offer and cover....not any different than a private insurance provider.

(PS The military medical system is a socialist medical system. It also has one of the best outcomes.)

That statement shows you didn't read all my post.

That is what you said.  That is a single payer system.  

And you immediately presume "a system wherein government is used to collect and distribute funds, set regulations, etc. but where all services are provided by private sector organizations would qualify as socialized medicine" can only mean single-payer.

First, let's establish the fact that even 'single-payer' is a category; not a specific proposal.   There are many ways to implement single-payer.   

Second, and more important, there is no stipulation in the definition I offered that all the funding must come from public funds.   A predominantly funded system from public funds would still qualify as 'socialized healthcare'.  Now take that concept and consider tiers of service, copays, etc.   Voilà, you have socialized healthcare which is predominantly single-payer but with the patients keeping skin in the game.   (When I do make proposals, by the way, I always have skin in the game for the patients.   One critical reason for this is to mitigate abuse of 'free' services.)

What I wrote to Texan @1.1.37 starts to approach a specific proposal (at least more specific than a definition):

TiG @1.1.37 - I greatly dislike the idea of government running healthcare.   My preference is that government do what it supposed to do (administer and regulate) and leave the hard healthcare to professionals (and medical oversight boards in the private sector).  Personally, I have always envisioned a hybrid system wherein the most common ailments (e.g. setting broken arms, dealing with viruses, etc.) are handled in a more mechanical, high-efficient, cost-effective, solid quality manner.   We already have the basics for that with our urgent care centers.   The hospitals then deal with the more complex issues and we could even have a third tier for advanced medicine (and this is also a funding source for advanced research).

In short, no I most certainly did not make a specific proposal to you:  I stated funding administration (as per the definition of 'socialized medicine') and added normal government regulation.   

They have to. How do you propose to keep cost in line with funds collected?

I disagree that it is impossible to have the government manage the funding without having them also make medical decisions.    The funding of a national healthcare system can be based on aggregate (vs. patient by patient) need just like the military, intelligence services, etc.   There would be regulations (as I noted) to establish basic parameters but the specific medical decisions are made by the doctor and patient ... with medical review board oversight (for medical integrity).   

If a patient needs surgery followed by chemo and the doctor (who, again, is subject to oversight) deems it medically correct, then the patient should not have to fight with government bureaucrats to get the treatment.   On the flip-side, if the patient seeks leading edge treatment (always more expensive) then that option will require the patient to cover the difference.  Same applies if the patient wants to get vanity surgery (and equivalent).   These are just common sense examples to get the point across.

The key to controlling costs is not to have bureaucrats (as we have with the insurance carriers) making medical decisions by denying treatments called by the physicians.   Rather it is to have systemic factors to keep physician integrity in check (I mentioned medical boards as one factor) and to mitigate patients from abusing the system (I mentioned skin in the game as one factor here).    

'Impossible' is premature.

Well no it isn't.

Presume less.

I thought I had made it abundantly clear that IF (key word) govt. wants to be involved in healthcare, then I feel it should get out of the healthcare insurance business.

And I am surprised that you would suggest it even as conditional.  I would have expected you to say something different like the government should not be involved in healthcare or healthcare insurance.

You introduced and then said nothing bad about government run healthcare.   That surprises me.

Oh my goodness,  when you understand the basics of medical benefits coverage (government or private), containing cost, by limiting care, to match funds/receipts...get back with me.

Now I understand why many are naïve about healthcare.

Socialized medicine is, by definition, a health care system in which the government owns ... 

Unfortunately, people define these terms differently.   

This sidebar on healthcare started by me making the distinction between socialized healthcare and socialism.    I noted that socialized healthcare does not require an economic system of socialism.   Indeed it exists almost entirely in systems that are without debate running capitalist economies.

I am okay to use a label such as:  'healthcare as a public service' in my comments.   If you substitute that in my comments, my point remains untouched.

Think outside of the box Sunshine.   If you restrict your thoughts to extant parameters you will indeed not be able to imagine anything different.

Think outside of the box Sunshine.

I suggest you do the same and understand how medical benefits, regardless of government or private, are paid for and who decides what those benefits are.  A board of bureaucrats or a board of directors, it isn't unlimited either way regardless of medical need.  You can not intelligently advocate for either one until you understand the basics.  

And I am surprised that you would suggest it even as conditional. I would have expected you to say something different like the government should not be involved in healthcare or healthcare insurance.
You introduced and then said nothing bad about government run healthcare. That surprises me.

Then maybe you shouldn't rely on your instincts so much and instead rely on what you see me write.
I look at it as inevitable that govt. will run all healthcare one day. Too many want the govt. to supply too much to them. I don't think it will be any better---govt.'s track record sucks, so I will be VERY pleasantly surprised if it is even decent care.

It isn't something I look forward to, but I am not blind nor stupid enough to think it won't happen one day. Hopefully, after I am gone.

Repeating your allegation that I am ignorant of the basics of how our system works pretty much tells me that you have no rebuttal to my comments.

Note, you are here publicly trying to convince readers that I do not understand, for example, why extant systems of socialized healthcare (e.g. that of the U.K.) have bureaucrats considering factors such as the age of patient and denying treatment accordingly, or why insurance companies impose limits of coverage and deny services.   

And this is in response to me suggesting that I am not at all convinced that it is impossible to produce a system wherein medical decisions are made by patient and physician and costs are effectively managed in the aggregate (vs. individual by individual).    

The fact that you cannot or will not break free of our existing infrastructure and even consider the possibility of alternate ways to design a system does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of how our system works (or is stupid).   Best to cease with the gratuitous insults and focus more on content.   

It is amazing what human beings have been able to accomplish when we break past what others deem as 'impossible'.   We might just be able to devise a healthcare system that is both cost effective and does not deny patients the care they need.   

Then maybe you shouldn't rely on your instincts so much and instead rely on what you see me write.

Did you not read this?:  

TiG @1.1.45 - And I am surprised that you would suggest it even as conditional.  I would have expected you to say something different like the government should not be involved in healthcare or healthcare insurance. You introduced and then said nothing bad about government run healthcare.   That surprises me.

I acknowledged your conditional and noted that conditional or not that I am surprised that you brought up government run healthcare and did not say anything bad about it.

You did introduce it, right (with your conditional)?   You did not say anything bad about it, right?   

Do you have something to say about the content or are you going to keep trying to pick petty fights?   I wrote a rather detailed response to your post @1.1.37 and the only response you had was on my sidebar comment about my surprise.   And this alone is now what we are discussing.

Find something else (somewhere near the topic) to discuss.   In other words, let's end this pointless meta.

I am truly sorry I didn't respond as you think a conservative should.

I'll work on it just for you.

But if govt. becomes more involved, you can bet your last dollar that quality of care will go down, we will face a larger shortage of doctors, and decisions WILL be made about healthcare based on what is cost-effective.

The fact that you cannot or will not break free of our existing infrastructure and even consider the possibility of alternate ways to design a system

Please provide evidence of your assumption.

does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of how our system works (or is stupid).

I didn't say anyone is stupid.  I see it is ok for you to put words in others mouths.  I said you don't have an understanding of the basics and your comments reflect it.

   Best to cease with the gratuitous insults and focus more on content.   

I have given more than sufficient content with facts.  You don't understand the content and refuse to accept facts.

It is amazing what human beings have been able to accomplish when we break past what others deem as 'impossible'.  

I didn't say anything was impossible.  In fact I said you can do what you propose, and you did propose it, but you would have to increase reimbursement fees and cut care to cover cost.

We might just be able to devise a healthcare system that is both cost effective and does not deny patients the care they need.

That was the Obamacare promise.  And it failed on that promise.

Again, unless one has an understanding how healthcare systems actually work, it is hard to make a compelling logical argument based on facts and real world applications.

I don't see where you have made a compelling argument based on facts and real world applications.

You don't even understand that doctors become bureaucrats when they sit on governing boards and make medical decisions with restrictions based on cost.  

Me having to point these basics out to you, shows that you don't have an understanding of how limited resources are distributed regardless of need.  

It is not an insult it is an observation of your comments.

Have a good night!

But if govt. becomes more involved, you can bet your last dollar that quality of care will go down, ...

If government is involved in the typical manner, quality of care will go down and costs will go up.

... we will face a larger shortage of doctors, and decisions WILL be made about healthcare based on what is cost-effective.

So, yes, a straight-line extrapolation based on where our system is today (and the incompetence of our politicians) suggests that any system they sponsor will be more political than thoughtful and thus almost guaranteed to fail.

There are many ways to approach this that could yield very positive results (reduced costs, better coverage, etc.) but the likelihood that this will actually take place in the USA in present times is indeed slim.

That was the Obamacare promise.  And it failed on that promise.

There are many ways to architect a national healthcare system.   The fact that Obamacare is less than spectacular is not a very good argument that ALL approaches are therefore doomed.   Also, Obamacare is not a national healthcare system; we are talking about healthcare writ large, not health insurance. 

You don't even understand that doctors become bureaucrats when they sit on governing boards and make medical decisions with restrictions based on cost.

I mentioned a medical board for medical integrity (oversight on doctors making proper medical decisions); I made no comment about a medical board for imposing restrictions based on cost.   Another presumption from you that makes no sense based on what I wrote.   

Me having to point these basics out to you, shows that you don't have an understanding of how limited resources are distributed regardless of need.  

If you had pointed out basic items that rebutted what I wrote you might have a point.   That is not what you did and that is not what has taken place.    You simply declare from thin air that I do not understand select dynamics of a bureaucratic cost center.   That, 'Sunshine' is a strawman tactic.   Given it is used to simply be insulting, it is also trolling.

Comment on the content and cease making this personal.

It is amazing what human beings have been able to accomplish when we break past what others deem as 'impossible'.

Yes.

   We might just be able to devise a healthcare system that is both cost effective and does not deny patients the care they need.

Sorry, but I don't think so.

I agree it is probably, in theory, possible to design such a system.  I disagree that "we" would ever be able to do it.

Much the way that while I agree it is possible for a human being to throw a baseball 100mph, I disagree that Warren Buffett 'might just be able' to do that.

I disagree that "we" would ever be able to do it.

If 'we' considers current Congress then I agree.   I think it is possible for human beings in civil society to devise a healthcare system that is both cost effective (as in has little waste and the funds go to their intended purpose) and does not deny patients the care they need (as in medical decisions not being made by bureaucrats).

Nothing of value would get done if we always looked at our current systems and presumed that this is the best we can ever do.   Progress stems from people who push the envelope and break free of dogmatic thinking.    For example, where would we be without disruptive technologies where entrepreneurs realize ideas that change the way people think (and behave)?    The most obvious present example is the iPhone.

In my experience, 'impossible' is usually a failure of imagination.

You words not mine but nice try.

Your words:

Maybe in your mind but from a macroscopic "countrywide" view the VA doesn't represent even 10% of the US population

Are you going to claim my summary wasn't a fair representation?  Then perhaps you can better explain what membership in the VA being 10% (your number), has to do with it be a socialist program.

The VA is such a piss poor example of a "Socialist by definition" organization it's hard to imagine how one can even go there.

In your opinion.

Unfortunately, people define these terms differently.

Just because Republicans invent their own definitions, doesn't make it a fact.

I agree, but it is not just Rs who redefine terms.

You really  don't know  how good the VA really is unless you've been there, especially for months

I went back and reread 1.1.27.  There was no mention of the military.

I said all my post.  The thread nor my comments started there.

It does make a difference.

It does indeed.

Not true.    One can experience the VA negatively through family and friends that have gotten or are getting boned by it regularly.

Military hospitals are not public healthcare.    The days of staying as long as you want are long gone in that regard.    

It started with DRG’s and has just accelerated from there.

I was in public healthcare pre DRG's and post DRG's.   Before DRG's it was not abnormal for a patient to decide on a longer than required stay if they so desired.   DRG's more or less stopped that.

There was a reason for that.   Costs were out of control.   With the current condition of run-away healthcare costs can you imagine how much worse it would be without DRG's?   Costs would be much much higher.    No doubt about it.

The costs to operate in that manner, in all Public Healthcare, are beyond enormous.   Between the VA and Military healthcare we spend over 100 million for about 30 million active/inactive duty personnel and Vets.   Thats over 3 million per person.   Extend that to the other 300 million people in the US ...... over one trillion dollars.   Sanders number of 1.4 trillion a year is in the ballpark and he is being honest about EVERYONES taxes going up if we go that route.

 Big time!

It's an old bookmark but it still applies as the 100 million total i mentioned has most definitely increased significantly over time.

forbes

The 30 million estimate on personnel is high as well.   That's closer to 22-23 million.   20 million Vets and less than 3 million active/reserve/Nat Guard personnel.

So my estimates are very conservative in all cases.

I have family members that are retired military.    One on 80% disability (only after years of fighting for it) and one with 34 years service.    Tricare covers almost everything for him.

The VA may be a poorly run bloated bureaucracy but they are taking great care of them.    Even if it was a ridiculous fight to get there.

You have written a good article here, but you have too much faith in Senator Daines

If you are going to put forth serious content, senator, 

I see that my seed about Daines wonderful and wise resolution that every member of Congress should support has triggered some. “The United States 🇺🇸 of America will never become a socialist nation”. President Trump. 

Make a comment on the content HA if you wish to participate.

I see that my seed about Daines wonderful and wise resolution that every member of Congress should support has triggered some. “The United States 🇺🇸 of America will never become a socialist nation”. President Trump. 

It's a bit moronic, IMO.

It's kinda like one of those anti Sharia law resolutions.  It's a "solution" looking for a problem.

It is a Republican "rube", an attempt to institute the word "Socialism" as a pejorative term.

Republicans in the Senate have taken no action on the "Mass Killings" of our children, or, our fellow citizens, as they go about their business.

Republican submitted no reasonable legislation concerning the heedless slaughter of our citizens. Instead, they blocked any DISCUSSION on Gun Violence in the Senate.

These deplorable criminal acts are immensely more important than demonizing a word.

Republicans in the Senate have taken no action on the "Mass Killings" of our children, or, our fellow citizens

What is needed then ?

It is a Republican "rube", an attempt to institute the word "Socialism" as a pejorative term.

Agreed.

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy,with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralized planned socialist economy"

That is the "Socialism" being thrown about as a good thing in this country, and that type of "Socialism" is what folks "DON'T want !

And don't tell me this isn't what is being constantly proposed by the left.

Folks can't even Manage their own friggin selves (reference the ones that want More Big Gov. to run their lives), and the likes of the ones running to be President on the Liberal side, wanting what I show above ….. as a good thing ?

Who wants a "STUPIDASS" running things over the already "dumb" that run it now !

And don't tell me this isn't what is being constantly proposed by the left.

You think people who are talking about socialism are focused on workplace democracy?

Who wants a "dumber" running things over the already "dumb" that run it now !

Could you be more vague please?

If anything, people think socialism = getting free stuff from the government.    They are thinking redistribution of wealth, social democracy, etc.

But the point of this article is that now we have a senator putting forth a resolution on a vague meme.   

You think people who are talking about socialism are focused on workplace democracy?

Nope …. But I am. But I actually read things.  

Socialism comes in many forms … wouldn't you say ?

A bit of socialism does work. Much socialism doesn't.

"Could you be more vague please?"

Your smart. You knew what I was speaking of.

You knew what I was speaking of.

I have no idea what you meant.

Socialism comes in many forms … wouldn't you say ?

Pretty much the point of the article.   The word 'socialism' means so many contradictory things that it is virtually meaningless.   Deeming anything that people label as 'socialism' a threat is ridiculous.   The fact that this is now in a proposed Senate resolution takes these meme fear to a new level of ridiculous.

I have no idea what you meant.

"Folks" that can't run their own finances, are going to do better than the one they work for ?

REALLY ?

Get it now ?

"Deeming anything that people label as 'socialism' a threat is ridiculous."

No it's not.

Listen and comprehend what those running on the Democrat side are saying....and then get back to me.

"The fact that this is now in a proposed Senate resolution takes these meme fear to a new level of ridiculous."

Gotta start somewhere, when those running for President on the left propose what they are proposing. 

Gotta start somewhere, when those running for President on the left propose what they are proposing. 

The point of this article is to not just cry 'socialism! socialism! .... bad, bad' but instead to point out the specific issue of concern and make a pointed argument as to why it is bad.

For example, if one disagrees with providing ways for more qualified students to get a college education on the basis that it is too much statism then make the specific argument rather than merely cry 'socialism ... bad!'.   (Especially since statism and socialism are very different concepts and public education —even if funded by the state— is not socialism any more than it is capitalism.)

bad, bad' but instead to point out the specific issue of concern and make a pointed argument as to why it is bad.

I already did.

OMG, TiG....you want people to use their heads! What is wrong with you?

And don't tell me this isn't what is being constantly proposed by the left.

What is being proposed by "the left" is generally limited to "getting other people to pay your bills" socialism....which is why it has appeal.

What is being proposed by "the left" is generally limited to "getting other people to pay your bills" socialism

Not limited.... but it is some of what is being proposed by the Candidates on the Left. A "Little" bit more each time they speak.

They even want the extra frosting on top too. 

I think they call that "Bribing" for votes.

I hear that "Bribes" are against the "LAW" !

What is being proposed by "the left" is generally limited to "getting other people to pay your bills" socialism....which is why it has appeal.

I thought Trump was paying the soy farmers' bills.

I thought Trump was paying the soy farmers' bills.

Farm subsidies predate Trump by several decades.

They still don't equate to actual socialism.

Farm subsidies predate Trump by several decades.

I specifically said soy bean, are you refusing to read that part?  Does responding to my specific comment undermine your ability to justify Trump making soy bean farmers part of a government socialist program?

I specifically said soy bean, are you refusing to read that part?  

Why would soybean subsidies be different from corn subsidies?  Or wheat?  Or cotton?  Or any of the other things we pay farmers not to grow?

Does responding to my specific comment undermine your ability to justify Trump making soy bean farmers part of a government socialist program?

I'm refusing to play your infantile game of "but Trump".  I don't like Trump.  I didn't vote for Trump.  But the bullshit hysteria around everything he does like he's Satan incarnate is the ridiculous nonsense of the intellectually feeble.

Farm subsidies are not socialist.  They weren't socialist when Jimmy Carter was signing the checks, and they're not socialist now.  That's not a difficult concept to grasp for those who are able to put hysteria aside.

Why would soybean subsidies be different from corn subsidies?  Or wheat?  Or cotton?  Or any of the other things we pay farmers not to grow?

Because we're talking about soy bean, anything else is off topic.

I'm refusing to play your infantile game of "but Trump".  I don't like Trump.  I didn't vote for Trump.

It's not a game, you are complaining about 1 thing, but allowing it as long  as your BFF Trump also does it.  The correct term is hypocritical, and that is why you are squirming around trying to deflect.

(This is starting to become unnecessarily personal.)

Because we're talking about soy bean, anything else is off topic.

That's ridiculous.

It's not a game, you are complaining about 1 thing, but allowing it as long  as your BFF Trump also does it.  The correct term is hypocritical, and that is why you are squirming around trying to deflect.

That's even more ridiculous.  And a bit sad, actually.

It's nonsense.  We don't want anyone to pay our bills.  We do that on our own.  

It's nonsense.  We don't want anyone to pay our bills.  We do that on our own. 

Outstanding. 

So if single payer healthcare includes a provision that we're all going to pay our own share...which amounts to about $10,000 per person per year...you're still in support when your taxes go up by $10k for every member of your family?

And this would mean you oppose the student loan forgiveness programs proposed by several Democratic candidates.  Those bills belong to those people, and we're all paying our own bills, after all.

Out of curiosity, if we're all going to pay our own bills, why do we need to increase taxes on the wealthy?

Stop putting words in my mouth.  And twisting them.  And talking down to me.  You're quite the pompous . . . 

Stop putting words in my mouth.  And twisting them.  And talking down to me.  You're quite the pompous . . . 

Just asking questions.  Sorry if they're inconvenient.

Look, no one knows exactly how much per person a single payer would costs. 

It's not that hard to estimate.

However, let's look at your 10K example.  How much do you pay in premiums and co-pays each year?  (For the record, I have Tricare -- no premiums and I am capped at 3000/year in copays.)

My situation is atypical, but I'm happy to talk about it.  My premiums for a family of four run $1408/mo (we have a grandfathered, non-employer plan).  Our out of pocket is capped at $6k for the family.  

The average annual premium for employer plans, which is probably a better number for this discussion, is $18,687 for a family.  The employee pays $5218 of that.  

So in my case, I'd be looking at expenses going from $22k at worst to $40k automatic.  The average family of four would be looking at a $35k increase...  IF we're all paying our own way.

But the real attraction of single payer is getting somebody ELSE to pay it.

But the real attraction of single payer is getting somebody ELSE to pay it.

For lower income people I am sure that is all they are thinking.

For others looking at this more in terms of the nation as a whole, the attraction would be more of having a means to get necessary medical care when needed and not denied due to personal wealth.   Healthy people will pay and not get much out of the system.   Unhealthy people will pay and get more than they could afford on their own.   

The challenge is to devise a system that is systemically cost effective with good quality.   That, to me, means medical decisions are made by the doctor and patient subject to medical board oversight (medical professionals, not bureaucrats).  It also means that patients using the service are paying into the system as they use it (in addition to the base operational tax revenue).   In addition, higher tiers of service should be available for those who are willing to pay more.   We need to maintain a market for medical and technological advancement.

On the more promising side, if we were to ever seriously attempt to make this happen in the USA, we would have the opportunity to create a federated system of standardization which could enable economies of scale in information management, use of equipment, research, drugs, etc.   Our system has plenty of waste that (at least in theory) could be re-purposed into effective healthcare.

For others looking at this more in terms of the nation as a whole, the attraction would be more of having a means to get necessary medical care when needed and not denied due to personal wealth. 

Which is still transferring costs away from certain people on to other people.  So still pretty much "getting somebody else to pay for it".

Healthy people will pay and not get much out of the system.   Unhealthy people will pay and get more than they could afford on their own. 

True, but proponents are not talking about this in terms of risk management.

On the more promising side, if we were to ever seriously attempt to make this happen in the USA, we would have the opportunity to create a federated system of standardization which could enable economies of scale in information management, use of equipment, research, drugs, etc.

We can do that for free with very simple legislation.  But that's not on the table because it doesn't address the core value of "getting somebody else to pay" for healthcare.

Which is still transferring costs away from certain people on to other people.  So still pretty much "getting somebody else to pay for it".

Every socio-economic/political system transfers costs from some to benefit others.    Even if taxation were fixed:  everyone pays $5,000 per year regardless of income (ridiculous, but stated to make a point) we would still see a transfer of costs from some to benefit others because of the way the aggregate tax revenue is spent.   When tax dollars go to build infrastructure that benefits those who use the infrastructure and those who do not use it did not get much for their money.

Explain to me how any civil society can ensure that we do not have the situation where nobody ever pays for something that benefits someone else.   I say it is impossible (and not desirable either).

True, but proponents are not talking about this in terms of risk management.

I know, it is more about getting benefits and class envy.   I tend to focus on what I think is good for the nation and tune out the politics and associated nonsense.

We can do that for free with very simple legislation. 

It is far more complex than that, but I agree it is quite doable.   That said, I do not think our current crop of politicians can manage their way out of a paper bag so I have very little expectation that anything of value will come in the near future.

Another area where we could save money is on billing.  Right now it takes a lot of people and a lot of time to know who to bill and whether a specific insurance is primary or secondary.

Economies of scale in the category of information and administration of same implemented in a federated system:  federal standards with distributed administration by the states (and regions even) following said standards.    Beyond that, simplification alone (fewer moving parts; fewer sets of inconsistent rules) opens up tons of opportunities for improving effectiveness with no loss of quality (and, frankly, a realistic expectation of improving quality).

And, then, there is the fact that we pay twice as much as other countries on prescription drugs.  Certainly we could cut back on prescription prices!

Part of the problem there is that we are funding the research.   If we get better prices then other nation will have to pay more (or some other clever mechanism so that the pharmaceutical industry cam deal with the revenue differential;  not leaving a little less profit off the table either - but we need the advanced research to remain a good business pursuit).

That is not quite accurate.

Except....it is..... and you're talking about a different thing.

  In Canada. there are no co-pays, etc.  You simply go the doctor when you need to and they bill the government.  So, your costs would go from 22K to 10K, a savings of 12K.  (On the other hand, my would go from a max of 3K to 10K.  Yes, it will cost me more but it is worth it.  No one should ever have to choose between the physical well-being and their fiscal well-being.)

In this conversation, we're talking about a program where everybody "pays their own way".  

You're talking about the main driver behind single-payer healthcare, which is the attempt to get somebody else to pay your bills.  The second main driver is appallingly terrible math.

Where do you imagine "the government" would get the $4+ trillion/yr it would need to pay those doctor bills?

If everybody kicks in their "fair share", that currently amounts to $10k for every man, woman and child in this country.  (It would rise substantially under a single payer program.)  Are you prepared to pay your "fair share"?

There would be a lot of savings right there.

How much?  Quantify "a lot" for us.

Yes, your taxes will go up but it would be more offset by the savings in health care costs (for most.)

Well first....they won't be offset because we'll lose the $1trillion plus employers currently pay into the system.  They pay four times as much into healthcare as they do into income tax, and that's based on pre-Trump-tax-cut figures.

Secondly, "more than offset" means that we're back to "other people paying their bills"...which is really what most "socialism" proponents care about exclusively.

Billing does not go away with single payer.

Unless you intend to conscript all the doctors, seize all the hospitals and make them all government employees, you're going to have a billing department.

If you want to reduce billing costs, simply legislate a national billing standard so that all claims are billed on the same system using the same methods.

Indeed.

Standardization typically reduces complexity and enables higher economies of scale.   It is one of the major (and typically easiest) methods for improving cost-effectiveness.

In this case, it seems that we could substantially reduce complexity.   Nothing like trimming wasted effort.

But the standardization, done properly, could also improve the quality of operations.   Better quality at a lower cost.   That is the only advantage that I see of our current system ... plenty of low-hanging fruit opportunities for improvement.

As I stated, with only one "insurance", billing departments could be a lot smaller.  This, in itself, will result in savings.

Are you familiar with how Medicare claims are filed, and how they coordinate with Medicare Supplement policies...which about 95% of senior citizens own?  

All we need to do is legislate a standardized claims process, much like that one, but with audit features so we don't lose 12% of claims to fraud or other improper payments like we do now.

plenty of low-hanging fruit opportunities for improvement.

Yes.  There are.

Many of which don't actually require a dime of additional government expenditure.

Many of which don't actually require a dime of additional government expenditure.

But offer (apparently) no political advantage and thus are never pursued.

But offer (apparently) no political advantage and thus are never pursued.

Exactly.

I think we may be talking about apples and oranges.  It seems you are talking government spending (please correct me if I am wrong) and I am talking about personal expenditures.  Government can save by efficiency of size (many of which I have already discussed) but individuals would have their health care dollars decrease.

So this particular part of the conversation started with me saying that most of the current crop of people calling themselves "socialists" are really only interested in "the type of socialism where somebody else pays their bills". (Which of course is not socialism, it's simply wealth redistribution.)

A liberal person took exception to this statement.  So I posed the question...OK then...are you willing to actually pay your own way on the government health insurance you all want us to have?  Currently in the US, we spend $10k for every person.  Therefore, her "fair share", would be $10k for every person in her family.

That's about where you came in.

Without question, the primary and almost exclusive attraction to single payer health care is that it transfers the cost to somebody ELSE.

This is even more obviously true of other "socialist" ideas like student loan forgiveness or free internet service or minimum basic income (none of which are actually socialist, either).

"The Government" is going to collect that money from somewhere, and those of us who already pay most of the taxes know all too well where that somewhere is.  In fact, single payer healthcare by itself will require the US Govt to double the tax revenue it currently collects.  

The new generation of entitled white "socialists" doesn't mind that...as long as somebody ELSE is paying.

The increased efficiencies you talk about can be accomplished with a simple law standardizing procedures.  You don't need to take away everybody's insurance to achieve that.

Without question, the primary and almost exclusive attraction to single payer health care is that it transfers the cost to somebody ELSE.

To me the positive benefits include:

• Pooled risk
• Opportunities for effectiveness through standardization and minimal redundancy
• Basic coverage for everyone

But I am no fan of government run healthcare so I advocate for a system of government regulation and administration and private sector execution.

I know you two are on a slightly different track, so I am just chiming in.

To me the positive benefits include:

• Pooled risk

Risk pools reach a critical mass where there isn't any appreciable benefit to making them larger.  Risk does not become substantially more predictable when the pool goes from 150 million to 300 million.  In theory we could use the increased leverage to negotiate hospital or physician costs down, but we show less than zero willingness to do that.  

• Opportunities for effectiveness through standardization and minimal redundancy

This actually requires exceedingly little government spend.  Currently, Medicare claims are all submitted to a central database.  Medicare supplement companies access that database every night to collect claims on their policyholders.  If we extrapolated that nationwide, we could achieve standardization for the cost of server expansion.

We had a chance with the ACA to actually standardize coverage, but we left clueless people in charge of drafting it so we lost that opportunity.  No two "Silver" plans are ever alike.  But ALL Medicare Supplement "G" plans must be identical.  It was the easiest piece of low hanging fruit, and we just missed it.

• Basic coverage for everyone

In real life, this is going to be unpopular with traditional liberals "Great White Hope" types, because it's going to actually require poor people to change behavior.  

The Census Bureau estimates that about 35-40% of people currently eligible for Medicaid are not signed up.  That's right....free health insurance...and they won't sign up.  About 6 million of those are children.  

The easiest, quickest way to solve that problem is to require people to enroll before they can obtain any other govt benefits.   The easier way still is to give them an income based voucher to use to buy private insurance....and then allow them to pick any of three or four standardized plans that would exist once we took care of the low hanging fruit problem we discussed earlier.

But I am no fan of government run healthcare so I advocate for a system of government regulation and administration and private sector execution.

There is almost no problem in healthcare we can't regulate away relatively simply, with minimal government involvement and comparatively little expense.  But most people understand so little about it, they don't see that.

I know you two are on a slightly different track, so I am just chiming in.

*thumbsup*

Risk pools reach a critical mass where there isn't any appreciable benefit to making them larger.  Risk does not become substantially more predictable when the pool goes from 150 million to 300 million.  In theory we could use the increased leverage to negotiate hospital or physician costs down, but we show less than zero willingness to do that.  

That is a good thing.   It appears you are saying that with a typical variability in health care expenses, the optimal distribution is hit at 150 million (risk delta goes to zero).   That means we have upside for a more complex variability that would need a larger pool to hit zero risk delta.   

This actually requires exceedingly little government spend. 

Indeed, there is plenty of low-hanging fruit.

In real life, this is going to be unpopular with traditional liberals "Great White Hope" types, because it's going to actually require poor people to change behavior.  

Leading healthier lives is net good.   Using a system per its intent is a good thing.

There is almost no problem in healthcare we can't regulate away relatively simply, with minimal government involvement and comparatively little expense.

I think you are too optimistic here, but I agree in principle.   So much can be saved by simplification and standardization alone.   But remember that even when standardizing, there are technology factors at play.  Most systems are (still) not properly designed to scale (or adapt).   So even with a conceptually simpler, cleaner set of requirements, there is a ton of cost in getting the systems operational.

Leading healthier lives is net good.   Using a system per its intent is a good thing.

Well yeah.  But I was referring to incentives (both positive and negative) to get people to sign up for the existing programs for which they are already eligible.

So much can be saved by simplification and standardization alone.

Yes.  Which we can regulate with very little expense.

   But remember that even when standardizing, there are technology factors at play.  Most systems are (still) not properly designed to scale (or adapt).   So even with a conceptually simpler, cleaner set of requirements, there is a ton of cost in getting the systems operational.

"Ton" of cost is relative.  Getting the systems operational is absolutely not going to cost trillions of dollars, much less trillions of dollars annually.

Even if it was a $20billion project, that's less than what Medicare pays in fraudulent/improper payments every 90 days.

I should have written a ton of complexity.   The cost in dollars, per se, is not my concern but rather the complexity and risk of failure in the implementation.   The point is that even unifying standards and streamlining operations (net simplification) involves substantial complexity in implementation thus risk, time (and cost).   It is well worth doing, but it comes at a 'cost'.

I should have written a ton of complexity.

It's something all the providers and insurers are using already.  So basically we would be telling them "you know this system you use sometimes...use that all the time."

Remember my hypothetical employee owned shoe factory? Would this law ban that type of business?

Socialism comes in many forms … wouldn't you say ?

It is just a resolution, but it seems this resolution would deem your business a threat.    

But it stupidly would deem existing factors in our system to be a threat.   The resolution is so ill-conceived it is essentially meaningless.

Medicare and Social Security would be deemed a threat. Our interstate highway system would be a threat. Fire and police protection would be a threat. Public education would a threat.

I think this guy wants to turn this country into a total libertarian "paradise"

Spot on Ms. Giggles.

[deleted]

thank-you

The resolution is so ill-conceived it is essentially meaningless.

This.

Sadly, there is a lot of this kind of nonsense going around.

Medicare and Social Security would be deemed a threat. Our interstate highway system would be a threat. Fire and police protection would be a threat. Public education would a threat.

None of those things are actually socialist, despite what wild-eyed leftists would like you to believe.

wild-eyed leftists

Wild eyed leftists or wild-eyed rightists?

Have you seen some of the crap posted by extreme conservatives here?

If they're not social programs then what are they?

Are they not funded by taxes? Granted, the taxes are payroll taxes, but taxes just the same.

They would be deemed a threat by the broad, vague concept of 'socialism' outlined in this resolution.    I wonder if the senator realizes that.

But, of course, social programs are not socialism.   If they were, then every nation on the planet with a capitalist economy would be considered 'socialist' because they all have public services / social programs. 

Wild eyed leftists or wild-eyed rightists?

Well...my personal experience is with leftists trying to convince everybody socialism is great with "public schools are good...and they're socialist"... or some other bullshit.

Have you seen some of the crap posted by extreme conservatives here?

Oh goodness yes.  There are not enough facepalms.  

Thanks for the discussion, Jack. TiG and you gave me a pretty good explanation of why social programs are not socialism

If they're not social programs then what are they? Are they not funded by taxes? Granted, the taxes are payroll taxes, but taxes just the same.

Social programs are not social"ism", any more than providing for the common defense is socialism.

Socialism is the "collective" ownership of the means of production.  In real life, that almost always devolves to "government" ownership of the means of production.  

So in concrete terms...food stamps are not socialist.  If food stamps can only be used at government owned grocery stores which only buy food from government owned farms, while private grocery stores and farms are outlawed, THAT is socialism.

Yet, for the overwhelming majority of us when using the common vernacular, "Socialism" generally means tax policies, laws and government programs meant to advance the interests of the poor, working classes and very small mom and pop businesses and "Capitalism" refers to programs and government policies which mostly favor the very wealthy and big corporations.

Which is why the battle politically is for the mushy middle who either cannot figure out where their best interests lay or who can be manipulated into voting against their own best interests. Greed and fear can be weaponized by professional propagandists to accomplish what should be impossible. Political messaging is a science which explains why the gop has gone all out to demonize the word "Socialism" by equating it with all of the excesses of Stalin and Mao...

Totalitarianism can spring from the left or the right. Today our current pressing threat is of creeping fascism clearly posed by homegrown rightwing white nationalist domestic terrorists. So, of course, that is the exact opposite of the sirens calls of fear and dread going out from the far right...and Trump!

Some may argue semantics until the proverbial cows come home. People are finnally seeing the bigger picture now and are not going to fall for the gop's fear mongering, again...

"Socialism" BOO! Did that scare you? "Socialism" BOO! What about now?

Meanwhile white nationalists march in our streets shouting racist memes!

Rreality is that all modern nations have aspects of what you call socialism.

BTW, where and when did I ever advocate for the state to confiscate all of means of production in the people's name?

If by America never becoming a socialist state you mean though to say that Americans will never enjoy a single payer state sponsored healthcare system then you are just blowing gas. That is what they said about Social Security and Medicare! George W Bush, Republican as they get, was who gave us Medicare prescription drug coverage. Is he a Socialist? 

... there can't be socialism without a new constitution

Why, specifically?

Yet, for the overwhelming majority of us when using the common vernacular, "Socialism" generally means tax policies, laws and government programs meant to advance the interests of the poor, working classes and very small mom and pop businesses

Thus that group uses 'socialism' to stand for 'public services' designed to enable the lower 'classes' in society?

To me that is:

• statism
• redistribution of wealth
• social programs

Corresponds with the general structure and objectives of social democracy.

It is a mystery to me why the political movement nowadays is labeling itself 'socialism' (no doubt largely due to Bernie 2016) rather than 'social democracy'.   Social democracy exists in many nations where socialism (in its core form) does not exist anywhere.   Further the word 'socialism' carries all the baggage from failed nations who told the world that what they were implementing was 'socialism'.   Seems counter-productive to go with the 'socialism' label when social democracy a) is spot-on accurate and b) has a substantially better reputation and c) actually exists and can be scrutinized and possibly adapted.

Yet, for the overwhelming majority of us when using the common vernacular, "Socialism" generally means tax policies, laws and government programs meant to advance the interests of the poor, working classes and very small mom and pop businesses and "Capitalism" refers to programs and government policies which mostly favor the very wealthy and big corporations.

That may be true among leftists.  I disagree it's true of most Americans.

Which is why the battle politically is for the mushy middle who either cannot figure out where their best interests lay or who can be manipulated into voting against their own best interests.

Or...more accurately....who simply are too intelligent to agree with extremist horseshit.

Greed and fear can be weaponized by professional propagandists to accomplish what should be impossible.

Yes.  Look at the extremists on both edges.

Totalitarianism can spring from the left or the right.

Very true.

Today our current pressing threat is of creeping fascism clearly posed by homegrown rightwing white nationalist domestic terrorists. So, of course, that is the exact opposite of the sirens calls of fear and dread going out from the far right...and Trump!

Our current pressing threat is the galloping (not creeping) stupidity of the American people, who happily believe whatever their "side" says without ever understanding 5% of it.  That's true of horseshit like building a wall and it's true of horseshit like Medicare for all.  

Some may argue semantics until the proverbial cows come home. People are finnally seeing the bigger picture now and are not going to fall for the gop's fear mongering, again...

People are seeing many things.  "The bigger picture" is definitely not among them.

If by America never becoming a socialist state you mean though to say that Americans will never enjoy a single payer state sponsored healthcare system then you are just blowing gas. That is what they said about Social Security and Medicare! George W Bush, Republican as they get, was who gave us Medicare prescription drug coverage. Is he a Socialist? 

You do realize that Medicare is not a single payer state sponsored healthcare system, yes?  What exactly do you suppose Humana is selling on all those commercials every October?

You do realize that Medicare prescription drug coverage is purchased from private insurers, yes?

Or is this one of those "don't understand even 5%" times?

I do understand though that if all you have are insults to my intelligence then you already lost the debate. Thanks though for reminding me why trying to engage you in honest debate is futile...

Brings up the question is it voluntary (supported by those that choose it) or forced (by government dictat or fiat ) that one has no choice over.

I suspect the good senator is thinking of 'socialism' as primarily something that would be forced upon the people by an authoritarian state.   

I can see where someone could be opposed to that , just as I can see someone voluntarily participating in such a thing.

In my opinion, if the USA (if any nation for that matter) ever has a system that technically meets the criteria of socialism (distributed economic control through democratic means rather than economic control by a minority), it will be the result of evolution AND because the people want the system.

Banning supply side economics from the United States would be more useful.  That would ban Socialism along with crony capitalism.

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory arguing that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation, by which it is directly opposed to demand-side economics.

But that is lowering taxes and decreasing regulations on suppliers and not on consumers.  Supply-side economics focuses attention on the supply side of the marketplace while ignoring the consumer side of the marketplace.  The premise of supply-side economics is that enriching suppliers benefits consumers.

Crony capitalism is about a mutually advantageous relationship between business and government.  But business is always on the supply side of the marketplace.  So, crony capitalism is about a synergistic relationship between government (mostly politicians) and suppliers to promote governmental policy that enriches the supply side of the marketplace.

How can you say that supply side economics enables socialism?   Would you not have to first define what you mean by the term 'socialism' since the meaning of the term is all over the map?   Note that if one goes to the core of the meaning, socialism would be a society in which the people controlled their economy through democratic means.   

The tie between Supply-side and crony capitalism is obvious.   Eliminating SS would not eliminate socialism (core meaning) any more than it would eliminate capitalism (core meaning).

How can you say that supply side economics enables socialism?   Would you not have to first define what you mean by the term 'socialism' since the meaning of the term is all over the map?   Note that if one goes to the core of the meaning, socialism would be a society in which the people controlled their economy through democratic means. 

Socialism is about collectivizing the means of production.  The means of production are on the supply side of the marketplace.  Socialism doesn't address organizing the means of consumption on the demand side of the marketplace.

Production is on the supply side of the marketplace.  All economic theories and policies focused on the supply side compete with each other.  But the purpose of all the competing supply side theories and policies is to enrich suppliers.  The claim made by the competing supply side theories and policies is that enriching the supply side of the marketplace will provide a benefit that trickles down to consumers.

By that reasoning, SS ‘enables’ capitalism too.   So it has nothing to do with capitalism vs. socialism.

By that reasoning, SS ‘enables’ capitalism too.   So it has nothing to do with capitalism vs. socialism.

Capitalism is about a free marketplace regulating the economy by providing incentives for investment, innovation, and production.  But that free marketplace regulates the economy through demand not through supply.

Consumers provide the incentives for capitalism and regulates the types of available products and prices for those products.

Collectivizing the means of production won't accomplish anything when what is produced is not consumed.  The demand side of the marketplace regulates the economy; not the supply side of the marketplace.

In a capitalist economy consumers provide the benefit that trickles down to suppliers.  The competition in a capitalist marketplace is between suppliers to obtain benefit from consumers.

You are repeating yourself.

In a capitalist economy consumers provide the benefit that trickles down to suppliers.  The competition in a capitalist marketplace is between suppliers to obtain benefit from consumers.

Do you presume that a free market economy would not exist in a socialist economy?

Do you presume that a free market economy would not exist in a socialist economy?

I presume Socialists mean what they say about collectivizing the means of production.  Socialism is one theory of supply side economics that competes with other theories of supply side economics.  And all theories of supply side economics are about enriching suppliers; often by using government to artificially manipulate and control the marketplace.

IMO no form of supply side economics is compatible with the free marketplace.  It seems all forms of supply side economics depend upon a close relationship between business and government to manipulate and control the marketplace.

Then you do presume that a free market economy would not exist in a socialist economy.   A system in which businesses are predominantly owned by the workers and operate in a competitive free market is the most common theme of what socialists propose.

Then you do presume that a free market economy would not exist in a socialist economy.   A system in which businesses are predominantly owned by the workers and operate in a competitive free market is the most common theme of what socialists propose.

Trying to put words in my mouth won't alter that I believe any form of supply side economics is incompatible with a free marketplace.

It doesn't matter who or how the supply side of the marketplace is owned.  A marketplace cannot be free when artificial manipulation and control is necessary.  Supply side economics depends upon artificial manipulation and control of the marketplace to enrich suppliers because suppliers cannot provide their own incentives for investment, innovation, or production.

Trying to put words in my mouth won't alter that I believe any form of supply side economics is incompatible with a free marketplace.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth.  That is what I understood from what you wrote.

Nevermind, Nerm, I have lost interest.

Trying to put words in my mouth won't alter that I believe any form of supply side economics is incompatible with a free marketplace.

Anything would be better than trickle down economics, which every republican president since Reagan has been trying, and it never works. 

I am not trying to put words in your mouth.  That is what I understood from what you wrote.

All forms of supply side economics, including Socialism, is incompatible with a free marketplace.

Workers cannot provide their own incentives to invest labor, develop skills, or produce any specific product.  Demand provides guidance and regulates the incentives for workers.  Workers owning the means of production won't alter the demand side of the economy regulating incentives for production.

A subsistence lifestyle would remove the need for a marketplace.  But demand still regulates the investment of labor and development of skills to produce what is needed to subsist.

Anything would be better than trickle down economics, which every republican president since Reagan has been trying, and it never works. 

Trickle down economics could possibly be made to work.  Government redistribution or guaranteed basic income are trickle down ideas.  But trickle down economics is impossible with small government.  Any sort of supply side economics requires a large and intrusive government to be self sustaining.

Supply side economics coupled with small government is really nothing more than a pirate economy that cannot sustain itself.

All forms of supply side economics, including Socialism, is incompatible with a free marketplace.

You just accused me of putting words in your mouth and here you are again saying that a free marketplace is incompatible with socialism.   If socialism is incompatible with a free marketplace then a free marketplace cannot be part of socialism.   Right?  That is not putting words in your mouth, it is paraphrasing the point to ensure I understand what you mean.

This is why I tend to lose interest in our discussions.   If you are not even going to acknowledge basic points you just made then there is no point continuing.

You just accused me of putting words in your mouth and here you are again saying that a free marketplace is incompatible with socialism.   If socialism is incompatible with a free marketplace then a free marketplace cannot be part of socialism.   Right?  That is not putting words in your mouth, it is paraphrasing the point to ensure I understand what you mean.

Socialism =/= free marketplace

Socialism cannot work with a free marketplace.  Socialism requires the government to artificially manipulate and control the marketplace (as does any other form of supply side economics).  

If Socialism was compatible with a free marketplace then Socialism would arise naturally without need for revolution or government intervention.  A collective should have an obvious advantage competing in a free marketplace.  

Capitalism emerged naturally from a free marketplace.  Capitalism is not an abstract economic theory that requires artificially manipulating and controlling the marketplace.

Socialism =/= free marketplace

Yes, that is what I understood your opinion to be originally.

If Socialism was compatible with a free marketplace then Socialism would arise naturally without need for revolution or government intervention.  

I have stated quite a few times that I do not see how any nation could currently have a socialist economy.   The people would need to be culturally more directly involved and informed in what in their lives.   Until societies evolve to that point (if ever) I do not expect to see a major nation with a socialist economy.   But the fact that this has not happened yet does not translate into:  therefore socialism is incompatible with a free market.   Since socialism has not emerged at this point you could, with that reasoning, claim that socialism is incompatible with literally anything.

Logically, however, your position makes no sense to me.   There are plenty of socialist theories based on a free market.   They typically fall under the category of market socialism.   It should not be that hard to imagine a system where the people are democratically calling the shots in the workplace and the community.   Where individuals business (worker owned) are competing in a free marketplace and using their profits (surplus, if you will) to expand operations, fund research, and/or distribute earnings to the workers.    What about worker owned and operated businesses prevents market-based competition?    Do you presume that socialism means the economy is centrally planned?

Capitalism is not an abstract economic theory that requires artificially manipulating and controlling the marketplace.

Yup, apparently you have a command economy as part of your definition for socialism.   Just goes to show how the word 'socialism' is virtually meaningless.   One must get below the words to have any level of communication.

Yup, apparently you have a command economy as part of your definition for socialism.   Just goes to show how the word 'socialism' is virtually meaningless.   One must get below the words to have any level of communication.

A central bank setting inflation targets and manipulating money supply and interest rates to meet that target is a command economy.  

That fault isn't with the definition of Socialism; the fault is with the definition of a command economy.  Government monetary and fiscal policy indirectly manipulate the economy to influence production, investment, prices, and incomes.  While that may not be as finely tuned as direct control of economic factors, the actions of central banks and government economic policy pursues the same purpose.

Today's government monetary and fiscal policy has been directed toward benefiting the supply side of the economy while claiming that provides a benefit which trickles down to consumers.  Business friendly government policy is about manipulating the marketplace for the benefit of business on the supply side of the marketplace.

A command economy can use either direct or indirect controls.  The United States currently has a command economy that benefits the supply side of the marketplace.

A central bank setting inflation targets and manipulating money supply and interest rates to meet that target is a command economy.  

So you believe the USA (via the Fed) has a command economy?

So you believe the USA (via the Fed) has a command economy?

A command economy can use either direct or indirect controls.  The United States currently has a command economy that benefits the supply side of the marketplace.

That command of the economy is being accomplished through government monetary and fiscal policy.  That's primarily Congress.  The Federal Reserve's manipulation of money supply and interest rates is done through delegated Congressional authority.

The United States currently has a command economy that benefits the supply side of the marketplace.

I see.   

We have very different understandings of the term 'command economy'.

Trickle down economics could possibly be made to work.

It's been tried over and over and over and over again and it never works. The theory that the rich 1%er's will have so much wealth that they will kick some down to the people in the middle/lower class is complete and utter bullshit. Why do you think donny cut taxes for the wealthy? Same idea. 

Want to know what trickle down economics has done? 

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. 

That disparity has only grown since 2011. 

We have very different understandings of the term 'command economy'.

Yep. Yours makes sense. 

Trickle down never worked and never will

Trickle down never worked and never will

Barack Obama proved otherwise.

Which means what?

You guessed wrong, as usual 

Plus I work for a living.  

Your usual nonsense

Barack Obama proved otherwise.

Obama proposed tax cuts for the middle class three times that I can recall, every time, our GOP congress voted it down because the cuts weren't deep enough for the 1%er's. Look it up. 

Let me guess you want your fair share and earning it is for suckers.

I promise you I have more in the bank than you do. I retired at 41. I already have mine, I just happen to think that the rich should help those in need because it's those that are in need that put most of the money in the rich guys pocket in the first fucking place. 

Why are you against trickle down policy.

Because it doesn't fucking work! 

Because it doesn't fucking work.  You're the one who brought up wealth distribution.

Plus I didn't inherit a business.  I've had to work for my living

Which means what?

Barack Obama engineered a slow, steady economic recovery where most of the stimulus money went to banks and wealthy people.

His supporters rightfully point out the record of consistent job growth, fiscal stabilization, and economic growth.

Obama proposed tax cuts for the middle class three times that I can recall, every time, our GOP congress voted it down because the cuts weren't deep enough for the 1%er's. Look it up. 

Regardless of what he proposed, his actions ended up becoming a trickle down bailout of banks and shareholders.  Yet his economic record speaks for itself very positively.  His supporters continue to claim that the current robust economy is simply overflow from his administration.

Conversely, Reagan's actions ended up being very Keynesian, with massive government spending followed by increasing taxes to recoup the funds.

The interesting thing to the impartial observer is that both methods were effective.

Reagan's trickle down didn't work and it still doesn't.  

Reagan's trickle down didn't work and it still doesn't.

The facts disagree.

Blah, blah, blah.

I know, right?   Facts are sooooo inconvenient.

We have very different understandings of the term 'command economy'.

My point is that there isn't anything wrong with a command economy.  The United States already has a command economy.  As with anything, that can be managed intelligently or it can be managed stupidly.  Often that is determined by the goals being pursued.

I am also making the point that pursuing supply side goals is a stupid way to manage an economy.  The economy of the United States isn't performing as a capitalist economy should perform.  Switching to a different supply side system, like Socialism, won't fix the economy.

Socialism has always failed because it is a supply side method of managing an economy.  I suggest that Socialism has become more politically appealing because the current governmental supply side economic management is failing, too.  Replacing the current unworkable system with a different unworkable system is not a solution.

The facts disagree.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton wrecked the US economy.  Trickle down has been very good for pirates in our economy; thieves always want to fire the Sheriff.

The United States cannot revitalize manufacturing because the country's industrial infrastructure has been destroyed by pirates.  Thank Reagan and Clinton for that.  The United States is rapidly losing the capacity to create wealth.

Reagan killed capitalism.

All republicans wreck the economy and then leave it to the Democrat to clean up their fucking mess.  

Bill Clinton had a surplus which Dubya then depleted.  

Which facts would those be?

You are still so demeaning and condescending.  I would prefer not conversing with you any longer.  

Deal is off.

Toodles.  

Which facts would those be?

" As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget  deficits , raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. ...  Reagan  described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency."

en.wikipedia

"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not—repeat, did not—trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." - Ronald Reagan - November, 1986

"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan - March, 1987

“To watch that thing on television, as I did, to see those, those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” - Ronald Reagan speaking to Nixon in 1971 regarding African delegates to the UN

"As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. ... Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency."

Did Reagan spend a penny not approved by a Democratic House?

You are still so demeaning and condescending.

We're running out of mirrors !

My point is that there isn't anything wrong with a command economy.  The United States already has a command economy.

Good grief Nerm.

All republicans wreck the economy and then leave it to the Democrat to clean up their fucking mess.  

And Democrats never get around to cleaning up the mess.  

Bill Clinton was a supply side dimwit that actually turned Reagan's nonsense into reality.  Clinton put the US economy in the hands of financial planners, vulture capitalists, and supply side economists.  Clinton made Alan Greenspan chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Bill Clinton had a surplus which Dubya then depleted. 

Clinton achieved a budget surplus by stealing from workers, offshoring jobs, opening the borders for imports, and shrinking the size of government; just like any supply side Republican.  Bill Clinton was more Reagan than Reagan.  Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton wrecked the US economy and killed the future.

And Democrats betrayed the country by trying to put another Clinton in the White House.  Democrats don't clean up messes; they are joined at the hip with Republicans to wreck the United States for the benefit of financiers, vulture capitalists, hedge fund managers, financial markets, global banks, multinational corporations, and any pirate that will give them a dime.

Your usual nonsense.  

Faulting democrats for that abomination in the White Trash House.

Good grief Nerm.

What's the problem?  Am I taking too many carefully crafted talking points off the table?  Or am I getting too close to describing real problems that won't be solved by those talking points?

You think the US has a command economy.   The unique meaning that you tend to apply to select concepts makes meaningful discussion arduous.    

In other words, I do not have the patience to unravel language where the nouns are strangely redefined.

You think the US has a command economy.   The unique meaning that you tend to apply to select concepts makes meaningful discussion arduous.     In other words, I do not have the patience to unravel language where the nouns are strangely redefined.

A command economy is defined as an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by a government.  That is direct government control of the economy.

I am pointing out that the United States uses government policy to indirectly to achieve the same result.  The government utilizes central planning to directly control the monetary system, the credit system, stimulative fiscal policies, and the regulatory environment to indirectly influence production, investment, prices, and incomes.  The United States does utilize central planning to exert control over production, investment, prices, and incomes.

The United States also directly controls production, investment, prices, and incomes through a variety of subsidies, incentives, and social programs.  Income security and minimum wage requirements are centrally planned controls; a feature of a command economy.  Trade agreements, import duties, tariffs, and subsidies are centrally planned controls; a feature of a command economy.  The government created 401k and IRA markets are centrally planned controls on investment; a feature of a command economy.

The United States already has a command economy through indirect and direct controls.  That may not be as extensive or as unified as is found in Communist countries but, nevertheless, it is still a command economy.

Now, what are you complaining about?

I am pointing out that the United States uses government policy to indirectly to achieve the same result. 

You are claiming that indirect actions by the government are equivalent to direct control over the economy.   You are free to believe what you wish, but when your beliefs redefine well established words, your misuse of those words produces incoherence.  

The United States already has a command economy through indirect and direct controls.  That may not be as extensive or as unified as is found in Communist countries but, nevertheless, it is still a command economy.

You are standing alone making that claim.    You would have some support if you were arguing that the USA is a mixed economy, but declaring our market economy to be a command economy is just silly and I have no interest in this nonsense.

Now, what are you complaining about?

I am not complaining.   I am stating that I am not interested in a discussion when you redefine well-defined words and, worse, repeatedly insist that your redefinition is correct.  

"If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit".

If you were ever introduced to the utterly bassackwards nonscience I called Kelonomics back in the day then you would know that the only way to explain such nonsensical counterlogical claptrap was to redefine many commonly used words and terms completely differently than they are commonly understood to mean which is a dishonest approach ... 

Kudos for trying but you're participating in a "Classic" exercise in futility!

the United States uses government policy to indirectly to achieve the same result.  The government utilizes central planning to directly control the monetary system, the credit system, stimulative fiscal policies, and the regulatory environment to indirectly influence production, investment, prices, and incomes.

Comparing that to "socialism" is like claiming that the invisible property lines we have drawn up to determine property rights are really 30 ft tall barbed wire prison fencing. We need a government that "utilizes central planning" to maintain the value of the dollar, it's no longer based on gold or silver or some tangible asset. Therefore, if the government weren't carefully planning and making minor adjustments to the best interest of private businesses and individuals we'd see overnight 1000% inflation like they have in many unstable countries in the past. The Fed is not socialist no matter how you want to imagine it so.

You are standing alone making that claim.    You would have some support if you were arguing that the USA is a mixed economy, but declaring our market economy to be a command economy is just silly and I have no interest in this nonsense.

A mixed economy is an economic system combining private and public enterprise.  That doesn't have anything to do with government control over an economy or a marketplace.

No, I'm not standing alone in making the claim that the United States is a command economy.  A command economy is about government control over the economy and marketplace.  The debate to shrink existing government controls or expand existing government controls really is premised upon the United States already being a command economy.

Democratic socialist proposals only have political appeal because the United States is already a command economy.  The proposals have been to expand the government's command over the economy.

I am not complaining.   I am stating that I am not interested in a discussion when you redefine well-defined words and, worse, repeatedly insist that your redefinition is correct. 

I am only applying the definitions to the real world.  Since you are not attempting to refute my application of the definitions, perhaps you can explain why the United States is not a command economy.

A mixed economy is an economic system combining private and public enterprise. 

That term also refers to an economy that is market based but regulated (controlled) by government.   A mix of market and command.   

I am only applying the definitions to the real world.  

Prove that.  Show me an authoritative source which deems the USA a command economy.

Comparing that to "socialism" is like claiming that the invisible property lines we have drawn up to determine property rights are really 30 ft tall barbed wire prison fencing. We need a government that "utilizes central planning" to maintain the value of the dollar, it's no longer based on gold or silver or some tangible asset. Therefore, if the government weren't carefully planning and making minor adjustments to the best interest of private businesses and individuals we'd see overnight 1000% inflation like they have in many unstable countries in the past. The Fed is not socialist no matter how you want to imagine it so.

Compare what to socialism? 

You are still so demeaning and condescending.  I would prefer not conversing with you any longer.  

Good for you! 

That term also refers to an economy that is market based but regulated (controlled) by government.   A mix of market and command. 

Are you suggesting that a command economy cannot utilize a marketplace?  If government controls extend into the marketplace, why isn't that command?

Prove that.  Show me an authoritative source which deems the USA a command economy.

Am I not allowed to think for myself?  If the whole idea is to just regurgitate 'authoritative' talking points then its no longer a debate, it's just a Trivial Pursuit game.

Am I not allowed to think for myself?

Sure, but thinking for oneself does not mean redefining terms as one sees fit.

The Fed is not socialist no matter how you want to imagine it so.

I never said the Federal Reserve was socialist.  What I said is the Federal Reserve is a feature of a command economy.

Socialism is defined as a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  Socialism is about ownership; there isn't any requirement for a command economy.

But socialism is also limited to who owns everything on the supply side of the marketplace.  All economic theories limited to the supply side of the marketplace always fail.  Why?

The demand side of the marketplace provides the incentives for investment, innovation, and production.  Businesses and suppliers cannot provide their own incentives in a free marketplace.

Any economic theory that excludes the regulating influence and incentives of the demand side of the marketplace becomes more reliant on government controls to provide incentives.  Ownership of businesses and supply doesn't change that.  Excluding the demand side of the marketplace increases the need for a command economy.

Sure, but thinking for oneself does not mean redefining terms as one sees fit.

I did not redefine anything.  I provided the definition and applied the definition.  

You even provided a definition of mixed economy that indicates the US is a command economy.  Appealing to purity does not refute my contention.  And my contention cannot be so easily refuted because their are too many examples to show that the US is a command economy.  Almost everything in the marketplace is regulated; the few exceptions are not a refutation.  And choice in the marketplace is not a refutation because all those choices must comply with the same regulations.

You even provided a definition of mixed economy that indicates the US is a command economy.

Nerm, we cannot seem to communicate. 

The demand side of the marketplace provides the incentives for investment, innovation, and production.  Businesses and suppliers cannot provide their own incentives in a free marketplace. Any economic theory that excludes the regulating influence and incentives of the demand side of the marketplace becomes more reliant on government controls to provide incentives.  Ownership of businesses and supply doesn't change that.  Excluding the demand side of the marketplace increases the need for a command economy.

To claim we are a total command economy would be to ignore out prodigious ability, as Americans, to demand and consume. To act as if the free hand of the market isn't making most of the decisions on a demand basis would be foolish. Yes, we use some aspects of a command economy to create stability which does play a large part in many major industries, from farming to big oil. The fossil fuel industry received more in subsidies than we spent on our military last year, over $650 billion, so both parties are complicit in allowing the bowling lane bumpers to be raised preventing any gutter ball bankruptcies for big industries with powerful lobbies. But that still doesn't make us socialist, so I'm not really sure what pointing out the command parts of our economy has to do with the current debate.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton wrecked the US economy.

Oh good grief.

The United States cannot revitalize manufacturing because the country's industrial infrastructure has been destroyed by pirates.

The United States cannot revitalize manufacturing because it is cheaper to pay a Malaysian $2/hr than pay an American $40/hr, and for the last 30 years it's been cheaper to pay shipping from Asia than pay American labor.

Thank Reagan and Clinton for that.

No, thank Panamax freighters.

The United States is rapidly losing the capacity to create wealth.

Nonsense.  New millionaires are created in the United States every day.

To claim we are a total command economy would be to ignore out prodigious ability, as Americans, to demand and consume.

Why is 'total' a requirement? And what does consumer demand have to do with who owns businesses and supplies?

If General Motor's employees owned all the corporate stock instead of Wall Street stockholders, that would be socialist wouldn't it?  If the Federal government owned all the corporate stock on behalf of the public, that would be socialist wouldn't it?  Nothing else would need to change, GM could continue to operate as it does now.  General Motors becoming socialist wouldn't affect the marketplace at all.

On the other hand, the Federal government could impose standards and requirements on all manufactured vehicles; safety requirements, fuel efficiency requirements, pollution limits, size and weight restrictions, etc.  That would be governmental command control over what is available in the marketplace.  How many vehicle manufacturers there are and who owns those businesses doesn't matter.  The government command control directly affects the marketplace.

Socialism doesn't require a command economy.  And a command economy isn't necessarily socialist.  While the available examples from history combined socialism with a command economy, that isn't really a necessity.

To act as if the free hand of the market isn't making most of the decisions on a demand basis would be foolish.

Then taxes and regulations are really unimportant in affecting aggregate market based economic incentives.  Taxes and regulations may affect the microeconomics of individual businesses but won't affect the macroeconomic incentives provided by demand. 

The supply side economic expectations for smaller government isn't about the marketplace, those expectations are about providing more benefit to business owners and suppliers.  Socialism only changes the ownership of businesses but the expectation is still to provide more benefit to businesses.

But that still doesn't make us socialist, so I'm not really sure what pointing out the command parts of our economy has to do with the current debate.

As I explained, a command economy isn't necessarily socialist and doesn't have to be socialist.  A command economy doesn't indicate anything about who owns what or how economic output is distributed.

You are still so demeaning and condescending.

You're answering with "blah, blah, blah" and complaining about how other people treat you?  

Have a good day.

The United States cannot revitalize manufacturing because it is cheaper to pay a Malaysian $2/hr than pay an American $40/hr, and for the last 30 years it's been cheaper to pay shipping from Asia than pay American labor.

Then why are imports so expensive?  Apple does not manufacture iPhones in the United States so why do iPhones cost so much?  Why do General motors vehicles assembled in Mexico cost the same as those assembled in the United States?  Why isn't South American beef cheaper than American beef?

Automation doesn't require an hourly wage or benefits.  Automation works as well in the United States as anywhere else.  And automation costs the same no matter where it is installed.

Apple cannot build iPhones in the United States because it can't get screws.  The United States has lost its industrial infrastructure.  

Nonsense.  New millionaires are created in the United States every day.

The lottery creates new millionaires but the lottery does not create new wealth.  The increasing disparity in incomes (and wealth or savings) really does indicate that new millionaires are being creating by redistributing wealth from the bottom of the economy to the top.

Then why are imports so expensive?  Apple does not manufacture iPhones in the United States so why do iPhones cost so much?

Have you seen their P&L??  Also, huge amounts of the design work is done here in the US, just not the manufacturing.

  Why do General motors vehicles assembled in Mexico cost the same as those assembled in the United States?

They charge what they can get people to pay.

  Why isn't South American beef cheaper than American beef?

There isn't very much labor in beef.

Automation doesn't require an hourly wage or benefits.  Automation works as well in the United States as anywhere else.  And automation costs the same no matter where it is installed.

Sure, but automation is a relatively new phenomenon.  The Panamax freighter is not.

Apple cannot build iPhones in the United States because it can't get screws.  The United States has lost its industrial infrastructure.  

Apple isn't going to build iPhones in the US because they do work where it's done most cost-effectively.  That's how they became the world's biggest company.  When it costs less to build a fully automated assembly plant with 14 actual human workers somewhere in Wyoming than it costs to pay a Chinese slave labor camp to solder the damn things by hand, then iPhone production will come back to the US.  

The increasing disparity in incomes (and wealth or savings) really does indicate that new millionaires are being creating by redistributing wealth from the bottom of the economy to the top.

What it really indicates is how terrible a job we're doing educating poor kids on how to participate in the modern American economy.

There is new wealth.  The economy has grown substantially.  Most of that growth has gone to the top because people at the top know how to participate in the economy to their benefit.  People at the bottom have no clue.

Have you seen their P&L??  Also, huge amounts of the design work is done here in the US, just not the manufacturing.

P&L doesn't set stock value.  And design work is an intangible and frangible asset, not a durable asset.  Factories are durable assets that indicate corporate capacity to create wealth.

They charge what they can get people to pay.

Kelonomics

Sure, but automation is a relatively new phenomenon.  The Panamax freighter is not.

Panamax freighters are middlemen.  Middlemen are not productive contributors to economic output; middlemen are cost with no gain.  Middlemen do not create wealth.  Middlemen are macroeconomic inefficiencies in the production chain.

Apple isn't going to build iPhones in the US because they do work where it's done most cost-effectively.  That's how they became the world's biggest company.  When it costs less to build a fully automated assembly plant with 14 actual human workers somewhere in Wyoming than it costs to pay a Chinese slave labor camp to solder the damn things by hand, then iPhone production will come back to the US.

That's the problem with the LCS economy.  Manufacturing offshore introduces inefficiencies into the production chain because so many more middlemen are required.  Cost effective inefficiencies may generate profits but are a drag on creating wealth.

The LCS economy relies upon inflation more than production.  Creating money is profitable but that created money does not represent wealth.

What it really indicates is how terrible a job we're doing educating poor kids on how to participate in the modern American economy.

Apparently not since there are so many complaints about government programs.  Welfare works the same way, economically, as the stock market.

There is new wealth.  The economy has grown substantially.  Most of that growth has gone to the top because people at the top know how to participate in the economy to their benefit.  People at the bottom have no clue.

New money is not new wealth.  Inflation does not create wealth.  And the United States measures economic growth by ignoring substantial amounts of inflation.  The Federal Reserve manages the money supply which typically involves deflating the value of America's wealth.

If the United States pegged the dollar's value to a fixed standard then it's likely the economic growth of the United States would have been minuscule if not negative over the last few decades. 

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, in essence, socialism is the government's involvement in private business. Trump does this all the time, but whines about socialism. I guess socialism is ok with trump as long as it benefits him personally. 

That qualifies as statism and, indeed, many conflate statism with socialism.   So, I suppose, you have a point.

In true socialism as defined, there is NO private ownership of business.

With that in mind, and before one passes judgement on government owned business, one needs to look at some of the "businesses" the government does own and run.   Two come to my mind immediately.

The US Postal Service and the VA.

That's enough empirical evidence for me to be against government business ownership whenever possible.   No need to go any further.   I think of my Senators and Congresspeople as being "in charge" of ALL business for us in DC and i begin to laugh hysterically.  

Not one holy chance in hell they could make things better.   Not one.

In true socialism as defined, there is NO private ownership of business.

Socialism, at its core, means (at a minimum, there is more to say) that the workers own and operate all the businesses.  The private sector is most definitely in place.  The notion of state owned business is a consequence of the former USSR;  it is the direct opposite of what Marx was calling for.   

The private sector is most definitely in place.

How do you figure?

In our system, we distinguish the public sector from the private sector based on control.   Public sector entities are controlled by the government (the 'state'); private sector entities are controlled by citizens.

Following those distinctions, the private sector under socialism would consist of the businesses run by the workers; this would be the super majority of all businesses in the nation.

private sector entities are controlled by citizens.

Only "Controlled" by those "Certain Hated citizens" that were willing to take a gamble, and also hire the "Other" citizens.

"Following those distinctions, the private sector under socialism would consist of the businesses run by the workers;"

The "Other" citizens hired by "Certain" citizens, still have to follow the "Certain" citizens rules ! Would seem to make your distinction idea fall apart, unless the "Public" rulers got involved.

Soooo, based on that, what really is the difference between "Public" and "Private" these days. 

Could that change though?

Not sure what you mean.   

So if I owned my own business, that means the people I hire own it too?

Best way to understand this is to NOT start from the presumption that you are in a capitalist economy that has abruptly moved to a socialist economy.   The two are profoundly different and would be the result of a long evolution; not abrupt.

So the premise that you own a business as an individual in a socialist economy does not make much sense.   While it works, most business will involve more than a single worker (and thus more than a single owner).

Imagine instead that you (and others) have an idea for a business.   You would start the business by leasing means of production (land, buildings, equipment, capital, etc.).   The money your business makes will go to expenses, taxes and to the owners.   Everyone who works in the business is an owner (and thus have a vote).   Compensation, however, is unequal.

Internally, the workers would vote on major strategic initiatives (e.g. to start a new product line) and to form the management structure.   The democracy would not apply to every decision in the company; lesser decisions are handled democratically in a representative structure.   For example, electing a management team who will make decisions on behalf of the owners (and subject to owner's removing them from management).

New workers who join the enterprise are owners with a vote.    Ultimately everyone working for the business has a vote and owns part of the business and nobody outside of the business has a vote or owns part of the business.

Do I own it fully without the government and state having any part of it?

Yes.   The owners own the business.   The means of production, however, are owned by the public and are leased to the business.

Key here is to forget about how our current system works.   A socialist economy is profoundly different (a different paradigm).   Imagine how things might operate in 2100 or 2200 after significant societal evolution, not as they are in 2019.

Following those distinctions, the private sector under socialism would consist of the businesses run by the workers; this would be the super majority of all businesses in the nation.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion about what "private" is.   If i own my company, i view that as private ownership.   If ALL the employees own the company, i don't really view that as private ownership.   It's owned "collectively" which to me is not "private" by any definition i'm familiar with in private commerce.

I hear what you're saying.   I just don't agree with it.

I hear what you're saying.   I just don't agree with it.

My point was that there would still be government (what we call the public sector) and business (what I was calling the private sector to keep with familiar terms).  If you wish to call that something else it does not matter.   The important thing is that businesses operate outside of government: they compete, hire, make products, etc.   The dynamics would be very different from what we have today, same with the relationship with government, but there would still be two sectors.

That is your definition of Socialism, not the one i'm familiar with.   Mine is the same as the one in the article which clearly states:

Clearly stated, socialism includes government ownership.

Regardless, I view "private" as closely held by a few people.   Not the majority or all the people in a company.  

It's simply not the same thing IMO.   One is truly private, one is not.   YMMV ... as it clearly does but i simply don't agree.

The standard dictionary definition for socialism provides the most common usages (meanings) of the word.   In this case, one typically finds socialism with two usages:  collective ownership and government/state ownership.  You have ignored the collective ownership usage:  "... collective or governmental ownership".   The governmental ownership usage no doubt is there to cover the various systems self-labeled as 'socialism' with the former USSR as the exemplar.   The collective ownership usage refers to the original (core) meaning of the term.

Regardless, I view "private" as closely held by a few people.   Not the majority or all the people in a company.  

I explained to you what I meant and noted that I am fine with whatever you wish to call it.   My point is that there would still be businesses operating outside of government in the collective usage of the term.  Indeed, the whole point of socialism (originally and in modern theories) is that the workers are owner/operators;  not that they would in effect work for the state.   

Thank you for explaining it to me T,G, I am not so sure if I would be totally for that.

Understandably.   We are living in a time where we are culturally predisposed to capitalism and, to add to that, all of our environment (everything from employee relations to retirement) is based upon our existing system.   A genuine socialist economy would be profoundly different and would be a change that most everyone could not assimilate.

Ergo my position that socialism, if it were to come to pass some day, will be the result of evolution and it will be what the society culturally and structurally desires.

You have ignored the collective ownership usage:

Not really, i just pointed out that it wasn't the only definition.   You on the other hand have concentrated heavily on the collective definition which i as well have no problem with.   That said I can only speak for my company.      I think of all our employees or the government running our company and it makes me laugh.

Either would likely be a total disaster.

Over 40 years here and i know exactly what you are talking about.   Which is why i laugh at the prospects of our employees taking it over.

"Clusterfuck" might not be an extreme enough adjective to describe what would happen.

Which is why i laugh at the prospects of our employees taking it over.

Well....yeah.

The downfall of that theory is the (quite well-meaning and honorable) presumption that people are equal enough to collectively own and manage an enterprise.  Currently, that's just not the case.

I do think TiG is reasonably straightforward in acknowledging this, and does state repeatedly that any sort of collective ownership system would need to be something we evolved into.  Presumably, this evolution would include a dramatic increase in quality and capability of the average American. 

Sadly, our educational system is in such a state that we appear to be accelerating in the opposite direction of that necessary evolution.

Agreed, i just never see it happening.   There will always be the "doers" doing a disproportionate amount of work and the "takers" who are content to let the someone else do as much of the work possible.

If some of my people spent half the time they spend trying to scam the system, on doing their job properly, we'd all be cooking with gas but alas ...... this is not how it works.

Not really, i just pointed out that it wasn't the only definition.  

I had already noted that.   

You on the other hand have concentrated heavily on the collective definition which i as well have no problem with.  

Yes, that is indeed what I focused on.

I think of all our employees or the government running our company and it makes me laugh.

And rightly so.  You are looking at a current situation in our capitalist environment and abruptly transforming into a socialist environment.  That makes as much sense as taking a team of carpenters who specialize in framing residential homes and having them run a robotics company.   

I have repeatedly emphasized that socialism would not emerge unless society evolves to the point where the people are engaged, informed and want to be hands-on democratically running the show.   That is not how societies work today.  It may never work that way.   So taking our current society and abruptly putting these players into a socialist paradigm is silly.   Not only are the people not culturally aligned, the entire infrastructure of our society is predicated on the capitalist mode.

See @6.2.21

You too are simply thinking of taking our current capitalistic world and abruptly flipping it into a socialist world.

That is of course not going to work.   Further, that is a scenario that would never happen (unless maybe the nation was conquered).

There will always be the "doers" doing a disproportionate amount of work and the "takers" who are content to let the someone else do as much of the work possible.

Maybe.   If so then society will never evolve to the point where socialism will work.   That is, if the majority of the people in society are followers, takers and seeking to do the minimum to get by, then they will remain serfs.

If what we see now in terms of societal evolution is the best we will ever get in terms of working together, taking responsibility, seeing the big picture,  then I do not see socialism in the future.

On another note, this article is about how the senate now is further muddying the water and trying to effectively ban anything that can be labeled as 'socialism'.  Yet, almost anything can be labeled as such.

It is pretty clear to us in this thread that socialism (as an actual economic system) is not going to just appear in the USA because of legislation.   So the economic system of socialism is certainly not a threat.

The threat, however, are the things that people incorrectly call 'socialism'.

The point of this article is that fighting 'socialism' is like fighting 'bad legislation'.   It is meaningless.   One cannot fight bad legislation, one can only fight specific legislation such as handing out free tuition to everyone in the USA.   The point is that anyone who simply states:  'I am against socialism' is not saying anything because the meaning of the word 'socialism' is all over the map.

AOC wants to raise minimum wage.   That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the economic system of socialism yet many people consider that to be part of 'socialism'.   So fight specifically against the raising of minimum wage, not against 'socialism'.   Fight against aggressive punitive taxation of wealth, not against 'socialism'.   

Basically, I am suggesting that 'socialism' should be avoided in political discussion and instead break it down into what we are actually talking about and discuss at the line item level.   Then at least the debaters know what they are debating.

cnbc

Montana might need to consider electing a senator who contributes more than wasting time on a vague resolution for a very confused meme.

Lol .... don't just pick on Montana.   In the scheme of things there are many people in congress as bad or worse than Daines.   On both sides.

That .... is the unfortunate reality of our current situation.