Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Old_Joe and Lewis Braham. Please Explain This To Me
@Maurice, I was not saying calling liberals socialists is the same as a racial epithet, but it is now the only socially acceptable way for conservatives to caricature and stereotype all liberals much the way racial epithets were in the past. In the 1950s if someone was calling for racial equality in the office, the terms the right would've used--and did in fact use--to characterize that person would be socially unacceptable today. So now the term used to tar and feather all liberals is "socialist," or even more ridiculous "Marxist" without any real understanding as to what those words mean. Also, how is Bill Gates in any way a "socialist?" That man is a hardcore capitalist, about as hardcore as they come. If you mean giving his money to charity is socialist, well again that is a misunderstanding of the word socialist. Capitalists are free to give as much money to charity as they want and some of the greatest throughout history such as Andrew Carnegie have done so. That doesn't make them socialist in any shape or form. Gates is not calling for the dissolution of Microsoft so that the government can take over it.
Okay...done working out. Anything I say now would pale in comparison to Maurice's post (as well as being untimely, since it's been a few hours), so I'll just respond directly to a few comments directed at me.
@LewisBraham I invested in healthcare stocks to counteract the huge premium increases I suffered last year due to Obamacare....total self-interest...nothing to do with politics. And from what I've read, this year the premium hikes will be even worse. As I've said many times, I have the MFO board to thank for my growing HSA account. As far as my personal situation, I would love to be able to buy insurance across state lines...something the Republicans have suggested. In my state, there are huge price variations for the same policy by COUNTY....sometimes by as much as $3000/year. I am looking to build a new house and have researched this thoroughly. My former agent (I no longer use her because I found a cheaper policy at a different company) stated that dropping the pediatric dental/vision aspect would also reduce the premium. My deductible is now at $6500...that's for a healthy, 59 year old woman. If I ever reach that, I'm going to start getting my papers in order because I will probably be checking out.
@Hank@LewisBraham I also like Lewis' writing and forward many of his articles to my sons...the very highest praise I give anyone. He makes the mundane interesting and by his thoughtful comments here, I think he is a fair-minded person...even though I don't think we share many of the same political views...but at least he listens
@OldJoe In case you didn't know...and by your comments, I'll assume you didn't...PJ O'Rourke is a political satirist...you know, kinda like the original, snarky article you posted that started it all? Now you've been had Just kidding! I'm going to ignore the comment you made that started with "you folks", because you don't know anything about me...I'll be the bigger person.
@davidrmoran where you been, dude? I think we're winding down here and then you show up. I needed some help earlier trying to defend a fellow Eric Clapton fan @Maurice.
Gotta go now...make dinner and head to ballroom class. Everyone try to play nice in the sandbox, okay?
@Old_Joe, @LewisBraham, that was exactly my point. It's not all one-sided. I also agree that most of even more liberal politicians are not strictly socialists, but some do come closer than others. IMHO, former President Clinton was far less socialist than Obama, but whether anyone agrees or not may depend on which issues are more important to them. I agree with you completely that Clinton should have never been impeached by the House and I also think we wasted a lot of taxpayer money as well as the time and attention of our President and other government officials that could have been much better spent on more important things. Finally, I wouldn't suggest that Maurice's use of the term socialist was precise and I didn't take his use of the term to suggest that the majority of the California legislature is socialist, although if that's what you took it to mean then only Maurice would be able to "clarify" his intent in using the term. Regardless of what he intended though, my point was only that your use of the term "racial epithet" was in my mind less precise and more inflammatory than Maurice's and you used it while criticizing him for doing the same.
@hank, a very good point, thank you! I do think politicians have to take responsibility for what they say regardless of who sticks the words in their mouth but I'm sure you're right that they're not the ones doing the actual speechwriting, especially at the most senior levels. I've enjoyed some of the things that Lewis has written as well. I would say I'm not predisposed to believe in the same solutions that Lewis believes are appropriate in many cases, but that of course doesn't mean there aren't cases when do I agree with him or even just enjoy his writing.
@LLJB, You're right that I probably overreacted. My bad on that. But where I disagree is this idea that many or even some liberal politicians necessarily come closer to socialism in part because many liberals actually believe their ideas foster capitalism over the long-term. Liberalism and capitalism actually have a long estimable history together and are not diametrically opposed. Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism So a liberal who believes we need public schools because an educated workforce can actually foster innovation and economic growth is far from a socialist. The same goes for liberals who believe we need regulated capital markets so people can have faith in capital markets, that without regulation capital markets actually can fall apart because trust disappears. Or even the belief in a minimum wage as that can cause greater consumption and actually spur economic growth from a better-paid workforce. Or public roads so that businesses can transport goods. These are not really anti-market or necessarily socialist ideas.
Yeah, socialist sure has replaced Hitler as an all-purpose rightwingnut epithet to hurl at anything progressive. Wonder what term they used during westward expansion (chiefly a federal gov enterprise) for all things jointly ventured, for the common good / common wealth. (Probably not today's 'I got mine; screw you'.)
@little5bee Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again? (Second request)
"In case you didn't know...and by your comments, I'll assume you didn't...PJ O'Rourke is a political satirist"
I'm well aware of who PJ O'Rourke is, thanks. What a sick compendium of filth and hatred.
An entertaining thread. Reminds me of time some fella picked up a hoax from either the the M* or Bogleheads site to the effect that Dodge and Cox was changing all their fund symbols and posted it here. We had fun with that one for a while too.
@OldJoe Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again? (Second request)
Thought I outlined that in my response to @LewisBraham, but I'll repeat it just for you: Personally, it would help tremendously if I could buy health insurance across state lines...heck, I'd settle for across COUNTY lines...it varies that much here in my state...that has been proposed by some "folks". I have been told by my (former) agent that premiums could be significantly lower just by dropping the maternity, and pediatric vision and dental. I no longer use my (former) agent because my premiums with that company were going up by 30%, so I switched policies to one with (only) a 10% increase. I wish I could have kept my old policy...you know, the one the President said I could keep if I liked it? I've made my peace with O'care though...it's the law... so all I worry about is what I have control over....shopping around for a better deal and taking care of my own health, so I never have to go over my crazy $6500/year deductible. What I don't like is people who aren't on it (like politicians and Medicare recipients) telling me how great O'care is. If you think it's that great, then come on, try it yourself!
Ok, you're not a PJ O'Rourke fan...I get that. Not for everyone. Not that crazy about him myself. I was just trying to defend @Maurice because he had the guts to post something that he knew would get himself attacked by you and a few others...sorry to be so blunt, but that's the truth. I think it's unfortunate that many posters who I've enjoyed reading in the past don't post much at all anymore and I think it's because of how ugly things get at times. I know I've been hesitant in the past to post, even to defend others when they're getting attacked, but I decided to step up again because I like @Maurice and I'd hate to see him go, as well. @Maurice has responded to this "hoax" with humor and if that's his response, that's good enough for me and I'm done. But if you want to keep attacking me, I'd suggest waiting till later...I'm going to be out most of the day and it just doesn't have the same punch if my response is three pages after your attack.
@OldJoe Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again? (Second request)
Thought I outlined that in my response to @LewisBraham, but I'll repeat it just for you: Personally, it would help tremendously if I could buy health insurance across state lines...heck, I'd settle for across COUNTY lines...it varies that much here in my state...that has been proposed by some "folks". I have been told by my (former) agent that premiums could be significantly lower just by dropping the maternity, and pediatric vision and dental. I no longer use my (former) agent because my premiums with that company were going up by 30%, so I switched policies to one with (only) a 10% increase. I wish I could have kept my old policy...you know, the one the President said I could keep if I liked it? I've made my peace with O'care though...it's the law... so all I worry about is what I have control over....shopping around for a better deal and taking care of my own health, so I never have to go over my crazy $6500/year deductible. What I don't like is people who aren't on it (like politicians and Medicare recipients) telling me how great O'care is. If you think it's that great, then come on, try it yourself!
My Wife's Losing Her Obamacare Coverage Because The Insurer Lost $400 Million
@little5bee, Of course the reason plans under Obamacare in certain cases are more expensive is not because Obama is a "socialist," but because the law which the private sector healthcare industry helped write--the same private sector healthcare industry members of this board are profiting off of from their investments--directs a substantial amount of revenue to that private sector. Countries where there is socialized medicine have longer life expectancies and pay less per capita for healthcare than the U.S. Click here: ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php Nor is the fact that the law is structured this way Obama's fault. He had to structure it this way to get the bill passed. The benefits of the law involve covering more people and requiring garbage plans to have a minimum standard of care, thus driving up costs if those same plan providers and healthcare providers want the same or even greater profit margins. The closest we have to socialized medicine is Medicare, although it still deals with the private sector on a daily basis. Yet Medicare has been shown to deal more efficiently with regard to procedure and pharmaceutical costs than the private sector insurers which just don't have the leverage that a single giant insurer like Medicare has. If Obama had tried to extend Medicare to everyone via a public option, the private sector would've mounted a tremendous campaign against it and the law would never have passed. If Medicare had been extended to all, of course the profits from your Eventide healthcare fund would be significantly less. That would've been closer to socialism. Instead what Obama created is a boon for the private sector--not socialism at all.
"I was just trying to defend Maurice because he had the guts to post something that he knew would get himself attacked by you and a few others...sorry to be so blunt, but that's the truth."
@little5bee: Here's my reply to Maurice: "OK, so you were had, but don't feel too bad. It wouldn't surprise me if some ultra-lefty nutcake did propose something like that."
Could you do me a favor and advise me what part of that was an "attack"? Thanks!
@little5bee: I read your reply, above, with interest. My question was "Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again?"
Your reply was enlightening with respect to some of the obvious defects in the present version of "Obamacare", and I certainly agree that the ACA would benefit from a number of changes... it's hardly perfect as it now stands. The problem with your reply was that I didn't see even one reference to any "reasonable alternatives" for a better plan which had been proposed by the opposition when the program was being formulated.
By the way, could you explain why a simple question, such as that, is regarded as an "attack" rather than a request for information? It would seem to me that it could only be regarded as an attack if in fact there had been no alternatives proposed by those who didn't support the ACA.
Perhaps the definition of an "attack" is the asking of a question or the expression of an opinion by someone (obviously a socialist, Communist, or Marxist) who is not in exact agreement with you.
You all have committed a ton of energy and emotions to this posting. It is clear to me that the likely rewards from your efforts do not equal the costs. This is a debate that has no resolution today, and most likely none in the future. It is far too complex with many ill-defined and interactive parts. Additionally, the emotional aspects prompted some replies to be definitely unfriendly in character and by design. That’s sad.
Unlike many participating in these exchanges, I have no political agenda. I am politically very naïve having switched party votes frequently. The degree of Socialism vs. Capitalism in the USA is not a simple either/or dichotomy scenario. It positions itself on a scale that ranges from 100% socialism on one end to complete anarchy on the opposite end.
No nation has ever occupied either extreme, although some have approached these end points. Cuba is near one end position. Traditionally, the USA has been nearer the opposite end, although recently, it is sliding up the scale. Change happens.
“Every economic system in the modern world has elements that are both capitalist (private ownership and / or administration) and socialist (public ownership and / or administration). The two co-exist alongside each other, as they have done in every economic system since the beginning of time.”
This is a quote from a Chris Bowers article titled “ Just How Socialist? A Survey of Major Countries”. He lists the relative rankings of a number of Nations. Here is the Link:
Note that the USA is currently in the Number 11 position with a 44.7% (as of 2009) rating. That’s up from a Number 16 position with a 35.5% rating in 2007. Our socialism rating is rising under the Obama Presidency. I make no argument that this is either good or bad. It is just a fact. Even future assessments will be widely and contentiously judged since historians will argue this matter endlessly.
Formulating a Socialism Index is no simple task. What are the significant drivers, how should they be measured, and how much weight should each factor contribute? These questions have no precise answer and are subject to heated debate. I sure don’t have an answer.
The Heritage Foundation provides some insights here. I recognize that they are a conservative agenda-driven outfit, but their modeling parameters provide some guidelines. Their formulation includes rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency and open market parameters. Their Index of Economic Freedom is updated annually.
I recognize that the Heritage model is not exactly a Socialism vs. Capitalism knockout battle comparison, but it’s not a bad surrogate. The USA is in Position 12 on this scale. By clicking on any Country, you can access the multiple individual component ratings that combine to form a total score. Enjoy!
Please note that I am not advocating one measurement system over some other. You get to choose. I’m only offering some data and some modeling outcomes. MFO should be an emotionally and politically free zone. I’m trying to keep it that way. Please help.
Stay cool; Bad investment decisions are coupled to emotional overreactions.
Countries where there is socialized medicine have longer life expectancies and pay less per capita for healthcare than the U.S. Click here: ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
It's not that counties with socialized medicine have better health/lower costs; rather all developed countries do. (Now if you want to say that the US way off in its own corner, and relatively speaking all other countries have socialized medicine, that's another question.)
Here's an OECD release from 2013 that shows the data very clearly - the only OECD nations with lower life expectancies at birth are Chile, Czech and Slovak Republics, Poland, Estonia, Turkey, and Mexico. And here's an interactive OECD site so that you can compare countries.
Interesting thought is that people in the US face medical risks that are rare elsewhere: CBS News: Report: U.S. life expectancy lowest among wealthy nations due to disease and violence.
@MSF, I would say all developed nations which do provide some form of socialized universal healthcare fare better than us and we are in our own weird corner unlike any other nation. From your link: "The United States is one of the few OECD countries that has not achieved yet universal health coverage for a core set of services. In 2011, it had the highest proportion of its population without health coverage among all OECD countries, with 15% of the U.S. population uninsured. The Affordable Care Act is expected to expand health insurance coverage, which will become mandatory for nearly all citizens and legal residents from January 2014." It is this problem that the law was created to solve. Of course, the other problem your link highlights is the U.S. obesity rate, but again it is a weird situation we're in. While almost everyone bemoans how overweight Americans are and how wasteful and consumption-oriented we are in general, it is precisely such consumption that helps keep our economy afloat, especially the highly lucrative healthcare sector. I wonder if Americans stopped being obese if our economy would collapse.
@OldJoe you are correct..."attack" was way too strong of a word...my apologies. At my advanced age, I sometimes struggle to find the precise word without one of those...those..you know...thesauruses. Would "provoke" work for you?
As far as defending "my side" in Congress (whoever that is...idk...but you seem to know), no thanks! They had their chance...and failed. I would rather just defend people I like on the MFO board.
Glad you liked some of my ideas for Obamacare...not holding my breath though, for any of them to be adopted. As far as "reasonable alternatives"...one step at a time...see previous sentence. I think repeal and/or replace is as likely as me getting a pet unicorn, so like I said, I have made my peace with it and moved on...not worth it to keep fighting it...I tried banging my head against the wall in the past, but even that didn't get me to my $6500 deductible. I have some other ideas, too, which I utilized when I still had my old plan and its low premiums and deductible...did I mention that my deductible is now $6500? I understand that any program is going to have winners and losers...it just sucks to be one of the losers.
I'm not sure where I called Obama a socialist...can you point that out? My grandparents were immigrants from Eastern Europe, so I know what socialism is...and I know Obama is not even close. And I actually like him on a personal level for 3 reasons:
1) He's a great father...and I'm a great mother, so I love that.
2) I think I can beat him at golf. About a year ago, I didn't think so, but he seems to be playing a lot less lately, so I really think I can take him. Plus, he has a crappy swing.
3) I want him to give the eulogy at my funeral. When I was cleaning a few months ago, Beau Biden's funeral came on and Obama gave the best eulogy. When my boyfriend came home, I was sobbing into my Swiffer. If you haven't seen it, maybe it's on YouTube.
I really like this new, diplomatic Old Joe. In fact, if I can get enough support from the MFO Board, maybe I should throw my hat into the presidential ring. If I win, @NewOldJoe would definitely be on my short list for an ambassadorship!
...maybe I should throw my hat into the presidential ring@NewOldJoe would definitely be on my short list for an ambassadorship!
LittleBee, ummm, I disagree. I'd vote for Old Joe for president hands down. You sound more the diplomat to me (and maybe the agitator a little bit... here is where some would put a smiley face ).
And mfs, do you know how much hate mail I got for saying something similar to this, sarcastically of course...
May I respectfully suggest that the US does have socialized medicine - the VA
OK, now that all of us have calmed down a bit, let me try to tie up some loose ends.
• Maurice got suckered, no big deal, kinda funny really. Sure, Mo and I disagree, sometimes violently, on some social issues. But there's been plenty of times when we've been in complete agreement on other issues. It's not personal, at all. As a result of this shouting match, I suspect the same sort of future relationship with little5bee may evolve.
• As I noted to Maurice, the far left has it's full quota of loonies also, many of whom seem to prefer California, for some strange reason.
• Maybe we can all be a little more cautious with inflammatory broad-brush personal characterizations.
Thanks to: • @LewisBraham for supplying the heavy hitting for "our side". • @msf for his usual low-volatility factual commentary. • @MJG for his thoughtful contribution. • @MikeM for his complimentary remarks. • @little5bee for grace under fire, and agreeing that enough is enough. • Everyone else who had the patience to wade through this.
One final observation on this thread: Lewis and I didn't initiate it, we were specifically called to battle by @Maurice. Thanks Mo, you turkey!
"attack", "question", "beg to differ", or "take exception to" .... Who gives a **** ?
As Americans we like powerful words. We often exaggerate. It's part of our political heritage. Has anyone read Patrick Henry's "Speech to the Virginia Convention" or Thomas Paine's "Crisis"?
I do think, however, that in an age wherein the media often seems to be the message both sides have sought to attach negative connotations to words once regarded somewhat objectively. "Liberal", "right-winger", "socialist", "entitlement", "government bureaucrat" are but a few of these juiced-up phrases now in our public lexicon.
In keeping with the spirit, here's some Rand Paul ..... "We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare. The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped." http://time.com/3773964/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-launch-speech-transcript/
And some Bernie Sanders ..... "No, we will not balance the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor, who have already sacrificed enough in terms of lost jobs, lost wages, lost homes, and lost pensions. Yes, we will demand that millionaires and billionaires and the largest corporations in America contribute to deficit reduction as a matter of shared sacrifice ... And, no we will not be blackmailed once again by the Republican leadership in Washington ..." https://www.facebook.com/notes/being-liberal/full-transcript-of-senator-bernie-sanders-speech-in-the-senate-on-june-27th-2011/10150240880387450
Comments
lolz, dangerous slide. You could do some speechwriting in NH tonight and tomorrow for the GOP clown train.
Again, facts have a well-known liberal bias.
@LewisBraham I invested in healthcare stocks to counteract the huge premium increases I suffered last year due to Obamacare....total self-interest...nothing to do with politics. And from what I've read, this year the premium hikes will be even worse. As I've said many times, I have the MFO board to thank for my growing HSA account. As far as my personal situation, I would love to be able to buy insurance across state lines...something the Republicans have suggested. In my state, there are huge price variations for the same policy by COUNTY....sometimes by as much as $3000/year. I am looking to build a new house and have researched this thoroughly. My former agent (I no longer use her because I found a cheaper policy at a different company) stated that dropping the pediatric dental/vision aspect would also reduce the premium. My deductible is now at $6500...that's for a healthy, 59 year old woman. If I ever reach that, I'm going to start getting my papers in order because I will probably be checking out.
@Hank @LewisBraham I also like Lewis' writing and forward many of his articles to my sons...the very highest praise I give anyone. He makes the mundane interesting and by his thoughtful comments here, I think he is a fair-minded person...even though I don't think we share many of the same political views...but at least he listens
@OldJoe In case you didn't know...and by your comments, I'll assume you didn't...PJ O'Rourke is a political satirist...you know, kinda like the original, snarky article you posted that started it all? Now you've been had
@davidrmoran where you been, dude? I think we're winding down here and then you show up. I needed some help earlier trying to defend a fellow Eric Clapton fan @Maurice.
Gotta go now...make dinner and head to ballroom class. Everyone try to play nice in the sandbox, okay?
@hank, a very good point, thank you! I do think politicians have to take responsibility for what they say regardless of who sticks the words in their mouth but I'm sure you're right that they're not the ones doing the actual speechwriting, especially at the most senior levels. I've enjoyed some of the things that Lewis has written as well. I would say I'm not predisposed to believe in the same solutions that Lewis believes are appropriate in many cases, but that of course doesn't mean there aren't cases when do I agree with him or even just enjoy his writing.
This podcast and info may help keep the egg off your face. although it focuses on health it could be more broadly based.
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/skeptics-guide-health-news-and-diet-fads
So a liberal who believes we need public schools because an educated workforce can actually foster innovation and economic growth is far from a socialist. The same goes for liberals who believe we need regulated capital markets so people can have faith in capital markets, that without regulation capital markets actually can fall apart because trust disappears. Or even the belief in a minimum wage as that can cause greater consumption and actually spur economic growth from a better-paid workforce. Or public roads so that businesses can transport goods. These are not really anti-market or necessarily socialist ideas.
Yeah, socialist sure has replaced Hitler as an all-purpose rightwingnut epithet to hurl at anything progressive. Wonder what term they used during westward expansion (chiefly a federal gov enterprise) for all things jointly ventured, for the common good / common wealth. (Probably not today's 'I got mine; screw you'.)
@little5bee Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again? (Second request)
"In case you didn't know...and by your comments, I'll assume you didn't...PJ O'Rourke is a political satirist"
I'm well aware of who PJ O'Rourke is, thanks. What a sick compendium of filth and hatred.
Thought I outlined that in my response to @LewisBraham, but I'll repeat it just for you: Personally, it would help tremendously if I could buy health insurance across state lines...heck, I'd settle for across COUNTY lines...it varies that much here in my state...that has been proposed by some "folks". I have been told by my (former) agent that premiums could be significantly lower just by dropping the maternity, and pediatric vision and dental. I no longer use my (former) agent because my premiums with that company were going up by 30%, so I switched policies to one with (only) a 10% increase. I wish I could have kept my old policy...you know, the one the President said I could keep if I liked it? I've made my peace with O'care though...it's the law... so all I worry about is what I have control over....shopping around for a better deal and taking care of my own health, so I never have to go over my crazy $6500/year deductible. What I don't like is people who aren't on it (like politicians and Medicare recipients) telling me how great O'care is. If you think it's that great, then come on, try it yourself!
Ok, you're not a PJ O'Rourke fan...I get that. Not for everyone. Not that crazy about him myself. I was just trying to defend @Maurice because he had the guts to post something that he knew would get himself attacked by you and a few others...sorry to be so blunt, but that's the truth. I think it's unfortunate that many posters who I've enjoyed reading in the past don't post much at all anymore and I think it's because of how ugly things get at times. I know I've been hesitant in the past to post, even to defend others when they're getting attacked, but I decided to step up again because I like @Maurice and I'd hate to see him go, as well. @Maurice has responded to this "hoax" with humor and if that's his response, that's good enough for me and I'm done. But if you want to keep attacking me, I'd suggest waiting till later...I'm going to be out most of the day and it just doesn't have the same punch if my response is three pages after your attack.
My Wife's Losing Her Obamacare Coverage Because The Insurer Lost $400 Million
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/08/03/my-wifes-losing-her-obamacare-coverage-because-the-insurer-lost-400-million/
Of course the reason plans under Obamacare in certain cases are more expensive is not because Obama is a "socialist," but because the law which the private sector healthcare industry helped write--the same private sector healthcare industry members of this board are profiting off of from their investments--directs a substantial amount of revenue to that private sector. Countries where there is socialized medicine have longer life expectancies and pay less per capita for healthcare than the U.S. Click here: ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
Nor is the fact that the law is structured this way Obama's fault. He had to structure it this way to get the bill passed. The benefits of the law involve covering more people and requiring garbage plans to have a minimum standard of care, thus driving up costs if those same plan providers and healthcare providers want the same or even greater profit margins. The closest we have to socialized medicine is Medicare, although it still deals with the private sector on a daily basis. Yet Medicare has been shown to deal more efficiently with regard to procedure and pharmaceutical costs than the private sector insurers which just don't have the leverage that a single giant insurer like Medicare has. If Obama had tried to extend Medicare to everyone via a public option, the private sector would've mounted a tremendous campaign against it and the law would never have passed. If Medicare had been extended to all, of course the profits from your Eventide healthcare fund would be significantly less. That would've been closer to socialism. Instead what Obama created is a boon for the private sector--not socialism at all.
@little5bee: Here's my reply to Maurice: "OK, so you were had, but don't feel too bad. It wouldn't surprise me if some ultra-lefty nutcake did propose something like that."
Could you do me a favor and advise me what part of that was an "attack"? Thanks!
Your reply was enlightening with respect to some of the obvious defects in the present version of "Obamacare", and I certainly agree that the ACA would benefit from a number of changes... it's hardly perfect as it now stands. The problem with your reply was that I didn't see even one reference to any "reasonable alternatives" for a better plan which had been proposed by the opposition when the program was being formulated.
By the way, could you explain why a simple question, such as that, is regarded as an "attack" rather than a request for information? It would seem to me that it could only be regarded as an attack if in fact there had been no alternatives proposed by those who didn't support the ACA.
Perhaps the definition of an "attack" is the asking of a question or the expression of an opinion by someone (obviously a socialist, Communist, or Marxist) who is not in exact agreement with you.
You all have committed a ton of energy and emotions to this posting. It is clear to me that the likely rewards from your efforts do not equal the costs. This is a debate that has no resolution today, and most likely none in the future. It is far too complex with many ill-defined and interactive parts. Additionally, the emotional aspects prompted some replies to be definitely unfriendly in character and by design. That’s sad.
Unlike many participating in these exchanges, I have no political agenda. I am politically very naïve having switched party votes frequently. The degree of Socialism vs. Capitalism in the USA is not a simple either/or dichotomy scenario. It positions itself on a scale that ranges from 100% socialism on one end to complete anarchy on the opposite end.
No nation has ever occupied either extreme, although some have approached these end points. Cuba is near one end position. Traditionally, the USA has been nearer the opposite end, although recently, it is sliding up the scale. Change happens.
“Every economic system in the modern world has elements that are both capitalist (private ownership and / or administration) and socialist (public ownership and / or administration). The two co-exist alongside each other, as they have done in every economic system since the beginning of time.”
This is a quote from a Chris Bowers article titled “ Just How Socialist? A Survey of Major Countries”. He lists the relative rankings of a number of Nations. Here is the Link:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/12706/just-how-socialist-a-survey-of-major-countries
Note that the USA is currently in the Number 11 position with a 44.7% (as of 2009) rating. That’s up from a Number 16 position with a 35.5% rating in 2007. Our socialism rating is rising under the Obama Presidency. I make no argument that this is either good or bad. It is just a fact. Even future assessments will be widely and contentiously judged since historians will argue this matter endlessly.
Formulating a Socialism Index is no simple task. What are the significant drivers, how should they be measured, and how much weight should each factor contribute? These questions have no precise answer and are subject to heated debate. I sure don’t have an answer.
The Heritage Foundation provides some insights here. I recognize that they are a conservative agenda-driven outfit, but their modeling parameters provide some guidelines. Their formulation includes rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency and open market parameters. Their Index of Economic Freedom is updated annually.
Here is the Link to their 2015 Country rankings:
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
I recognize that the Heritage model is not exactly a Socialism vs. Capitalism knockout battle comparison, but it’s not a bad surrogate. The USA is in Position 12 on this scale. By clicking on any Country, you can access the multiple individual component ratings that combine to form a total score. Enjoy!
Please note that I am not advocating one measurement system over some other. You get to choose. I’m only offering some data and some modeling outcomes. MFO should be an emotionally and politically free zone. I’m trying to keep it that way. Please help.
Stay cool; Bad investment decisions are coupled to emotional overreactions.
Best Wishes.
Here's an OECD release from 2013 that shows the data very clearly - the only OECD nations with lower life expectancies at birth are Chile, Czech and Slovak Republics, Poland, Estonia, Turkey, and Mexico. And here's an interactive OECD site so that you can compare countries.
Interesting thought is that people in the US face medical risks that are rare elsewhere:
CBS News: Report: U.S. life expectancy lowest among wealthy nations due to disease and violence. May I respectfully suggest that the US does have socialized medicine - the VA. But Medicare is certainly what most people are more familiar with.
It is this problem that the law was created to solve. Of course, the other problem your link highlights is the U.S. obesity rate, but again it is a weird situation we're in. While almost everyone bemoans how overweight Americans are and how wasteful and consumption-oriented we are in general, it is precisely such consumption that helps keep our economy afloat, especially the highly lucrative healthcare sector. I wonder if Americans stopped being obese if our economy would collapse.
As far as defending "my side" in Congress (whoever that is...idk...but you seem to know), no thanks! They had their chance...and failed. I would rather just defend people I like on the MFO board.
Glad you liked some of my ideas for Obamacare...not holding my breath though, for any of them to be adopted. As far as "reasonable alternatives"...one step at a time...see previous sentence. I think repeal and/or replace is as likely as me getting a pet unicorn, so like I said, I have made my peace with it and moved on...not worth it to keep fighting it...I tried banging my head against the wall in the past, but even that didn't get me to my $6500 deductible. I have some other ideas, too, which I utilized when I still had my old plan and its low premiums and deductible...did I mention that my deductible is now $6500?
I'm not sure where I called Obama a socialist...can you point that out? My grandparents were immigrants from Eastern Europe, so I know what socialism is...and I know Obama is not even close. And I actually like him on a personal level for 3 reasons:
1) He's a great father...and I'm a great mother, so I love that.
2) I think I can beat him at golf. About a year ago, I didn't think so, but he seems to be playing a lot less lately, so I really think I can take him. Plus, he has a crappy swing.
3) I want him to give the eulogy at my funeral. When I was cleaning a few months ago, Beau Biden's funeral came on and Obama gave the best eulogy. When my boyfriend came home, I was sobbing into my Swiffer. If you haven't seen it, maybe it's on YouTube.
I really like this new, diplomatic Old Joe. In fact, if I can get enough support from the MFO Board, maybe I should throw my hat into the presidential ring. If I win, @NewOldJoe would definitely be on my short list for an ambassadorship!
And mfs, do you know how much hate mail I got for saying something similar to this, sarcastically of course...
• Maurice got suckered, no big deal, kinda funny really. Sure, Mo and I disagree, sometimes violently, on some social issues. But there's been plenty of times when we've been in complete agreement on other issues. It's not personal, at all. As a result of this shouting match, I suspect the same sort of future relationship with little5bee may evolve.
• As I noted to Maurice, the far left has it's full quota of loonies also, many of whom seem to prefer California, for some strange reason.
• Maybe we can all be a little more cautious with inflammatory broad-brush personal characterizations.
Thanks to:
• @LewisBraham for supplying the heavy hitting for "our side".
• @msf for his usual low-volatility factual commentary.
• @MJG for his thoughtful contribution.
• @MikeM for his complimentary remarks.
• @little5bee for grace under fire, and agreeing that enough is enough.
• Everyone else who had the patience to wade through this.
One final observation on this thread: Lewis and I didn't initiate it, we were specifically called to battle by @Maurice. Thanks Mo, you turkey!
As Americans we like powerful words. We often exaggerate. It's part of our political heritage. Has anyone read Patrick Henry's "Speech to the Virginia Convention" or Thomas Paine's "Crisis"?
I do think, however, that in an age wherein the media often seems to be the message both sides have sought to attach negative connotations to words once regarded somewhat objectively. "Liberal", "right-winger", "socialist", "entitlement", "government bureaucrat" are but a few of these juiced-up phrases now in our public lexicon.
In keeping with the spirit, here's some Rand Paul .....
"We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare.
The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped." http://time.com/3773964/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-launch-speech-transcript/
And some Bernie Sanders .....
"No, we will not balance the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor, who have already sacrificed enough in terms of lost jobs, lost wages, lost homes, and lost pensions. Yes, we will demand that millionaires and billionaires and the largest corporations in America contribute to deficit reduction as a matter of shared sacrifice ... And, no we will not be blackmailed once again by the Republican leadership in Washington ..." https://www.facebook.com/notes/being-liberal/full-transcript-of-senator-bernie-sanders-speech-in-the-senate-on-june-27th-2011/10150240880387450
Oh boy! How long until the election?
Peace!