ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Your assertion was that there wasn't one iota of socialism in our healthcare.
Keep lying, keep getting called out.
Momma! that man keeps pointing out my lies, he's TROLLING!
AC
America Wastes $22 Trillion In War On Poverty
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
Your assertion was that there wasn't one iota of socialism in our healthcare.
Keep lying, keep getting called out.
Momma! that man keeps pointing out my lies, he's TROLLING!
AC
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you ARE saying that the healthcare system is socialized and I'm NOT just hearing voices in my head. Thanks for that confirmation that you did in fact say what I thought you did, now moving forward...
No, the healthcare system is not socialized. Of the entire system, only the VA has state provided goods and services, under state run economic infrastructure. EVERY SINGLE OTHER PIECE OF THE PIE IS PRIVATIZED! However, the VA healthcare is only available to veterans with service connected disability. Everyone else who goes to the VA uses their own insurance or is billed directly.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
sigh....
I'm saying our healthcare system is a mixed market.
Do you just not understand what that means? Maybe you are just not bright and not really making shit up.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you're not saying that healthcare market is socialized? In that case I agree.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I'm saying it's a mixed market, do you agree with that?
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
He just can't admit he was wrong, lot of that going on in here.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, it is a private market. The socialized part isn't available to the market.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
So... medicare, medicaid, SSID and insurance subsidies are not available? County and university hospitals don't exist? Critical access hospitals that get money from medicare to pay ALL costs are not available in the market? The VA system doesn't treat millions?
It really is a mixed market. I'm willing to bet you won't find anyone else but you that doesn't think so.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yes, they are, and they also rely on private economic infrastructure, private hospitals, private insurance, private drug supplies.
Subsidies are not a form of socialism. They are funds paid to private enterprise.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Which would be a mixed market wouldn't it?
When the government confiscates by force from some to give to others...
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Awe, so income redistribution is not a part of socialism.
You just can't quit can you.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Awe, so income redistribution is not a part of socialism.
You just can't quit can you.
No.
It isn't.
Property redistribution might be, unless it ends up privatized, in which case it is still capitalism.
Pass it Around
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I mean, I looked in the dictionary, didn't find what he described in the definition of socialism. All I found was a bunch of bullcrap about who owns economic infrastructure.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
A mixed economy is an economy that includes a variety of private and government control; reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.[1]http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Mixed_economy.html
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
LMAO
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Followed by "There is not one single definition for a mixed economy".
However, capitalism is very clearly defined as an economy in which economic infrastructure is privately owned.
However, capitalism is very clearly defined as an economy in which economic infrastructure is privately owned.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
yes, the very next sentence in the "definition" is "There is not one single definition for a mixed economy"
but I'm sure you knew that. You would never cherry pick a tiny snippet of a "definition" that suited your argument and omit the very next part which doesn't. You're far too honest.
I dare you to click on the little [2] right after it.
but I'm sure you knew that. You would never cherry pick a tiny snippet of a "definition" that suited your argument and omit the very next part which doesn't. You're far too honest.
I dare you to click on the little [2] right after it.
Similar threads
