Challenge to those accusing the Dems of "socialism"

[Chaos]

Like I said... infantile.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Socialism is (or has become) an ill-defined buzzword that means whatever the individual viewing the word thinks it means. That's why providing universal healthcare is "socialist" and de-privatizing the military (i.e. relying less on private contractors) would not be "socialist". In an intellectually honest world we'd all be using the definition Francesca R gave and be done with it. But this thread is pretty clear evidence that conservatives will refuse to recognize the socialized bits (even those they agree with) of the system in favor of using the term as a smear and the liberals will continue to bend over backwards to avoid it in implicit agreement.

Gotta love partisan bickering

 

[mhaze]

It's not a "cop out". I'm just tired of having to repeat what has been provided to people just like you over and over and over and over. I'm done doing that. One of the tactics of the left is to always act like nothing has been posted before in support of an allegation made by conservatives. The left refuses to listen. Just like the left refuses to learn from history. That's why I object to this thread in general. There was no need to start a new thread. The author could have simply gone back to one of the previous threads on this subject and argued his case there, where definitions of socialism were certainly offered. He didn't because he wanted you to think (as I quoted him stating) that the definition of socialism has "never" been provided by those alleging Obama is a socialist.

So I suggest you learn to use your browser. Then you can read not only what I and a few other JREFers have posted on socialism, you can listen to what dozens of others have already said on this subject out in the real world. For example, you might want to start with this: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama--15421 and this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251245/radical-white-house-interview . I linked the latter to Chaos in the thread prompting this one, but he undoubtedly just ignored it. Then, if you want to go on believing Obama is not a socialist and is not trying to lead us towards a more socialist/communist country … go ahead. I can't stop you. All I can do is vote tomorrow and with millions of other Americans (at least 55%) ensure that doesn't happen regardless.

Besides … next you'll probably be asking me to define "is".

Nonetheless, I thank Francisca for coming in and yet again, noting the fundamental lie of the OP, both on premises and on pretended ignorance of past coverage of the issue.

And I and eagerly wait the future libtardy re emergence of the same issue, weeks or months hence. By their logic, to the extent that the new Congress prevents yet further socialist policy enacted, to that extent they have yet another proof that Obama isn't socialist.

 

[tyr_13]

It's not a "cop out". I'm just tired of having to repeat what has been provided to people just like you over and over and over and over. I'm done doing that. One of the tactics of the left is to always act like nothing has been posted before in support of an allegation made by conservatives. The left refuses to listen. Just like the left refuses to learn from history. That's why I object to this thread in general. There was no need to start a new thread. The author could have simply gone back to one of the previous threads on this subject and argued his case there, where definitions of socialism were certainly offered. He didn't because he wanted you to think (as I quoted him stating) that the definition of socialism has "never" been provided by those alleging Obama is a socialist.

So I suggest you learn to use your browser. Then you can read not only what I and a few other JREFers have posted on socialism, you can listen to what dozens of others have already said on this subject out in the real world. For example, you might want to start with this: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama--15421 and this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251245/radical-white-house-interview . I linked the latter to Chaos in the thread prompting this one, but he undoubtedly just ignored it. Then, if you want to go on believing Obama is not a socialist and is not trying to lead us towards a more socialist/communist country … go ahead. I can't stop you. All I can do is vote tomorrow and with millions of other Americans (at least 55%) ensure that doesn't happen regardless.

Besides … next you'll probably be asking me to define "is".

You'd be a good politician. You're very good at saying nothing with anger.

The entire point is that in other threads, what seems to be your working definition of 'socialism' is either uselessly broad, or simply 'anything I don't like'.

I know your reply will be along the lines of, 'no, and you're not paying attention because you're obviously a libtard' or something like that. However, it's exactly because I've tried to read your stuff in the past that I know how fallaciously you use the accusation.

Socialism does not equal automatic evil anyway. A valid argument would describe not just how a policy is socialist, but also how it is harmful or less optimal than a competing policy.

But go ahead and linkspam anyway. It keeps lefty busy. But simply saying 'yes I have' with no effort to link to it is a cop out. This isn't a discussion about what socialism means literally but how you are using it and what you mean by it.

 

[tyr_13]

Nonetheless, I thank Francisca for coming in and yet again, noting the fundamental lie of the OP, both on premises and on pretended ignorance of past coverage of the issue.

And I and eagerly wait the future libtardy re emergence of the same issue, weeks or months hence. By their logic, to the extent that the new Congress prevents yet further socialist policy enacted, to that extent they have yet another proof that Obama isn't socialist.

Called it just a few minutes too late.

 

[bikerdruid]

And in the handling of the jobs by the provinces (and they do it in different ways) those provinces are capable of going broke if they spend money unwisely.

wrong.
the canada health act is an act of our federal government.
the federal government funds a major portion of the provincial healthcare costs through transfer payments.
the provinces must comply with the act, or face federal sanctions.
there is no private industry involved at any level.
no one makes money on our system except those employed as doctors, nurses and administrators.

private insurance companies are the administrators of the proposed american system.
therefore, it is not socialized healthcare.
you folks seem to have a mental disconnect about this.
the proposed american system is not socialism.
it is for profit healthcare insurance.
get it through your heads.

 

[D'rok]

in canada, where we have true socialized healthcare, the program is handled by a government agency.
the doctors and nurses are government employees.

No they aren't.

at no level is it in the hands of private industry

Yes it is. Most clinics are private sector businesess. And many hospitals are public/private partnerships. It varies from province to province, but the private sector is often the primary care provider. They just send the bill to the provincial government. The Federal government determines what services will be covered by medicare and health services in the provinces must meet the standards set by Ottawa.

there is no private industry involved at any level.

False, as above. The government is the insurer, not the provider.

 

[mhaze]

No they aren't.

Yes it is. Most clinics are private sector businesess. And many hospitals are public/private partnerships. It varies from province to province, but the private sector is often the primary care provider. They just send the bill to the provincial government. The Federal government determines what services will be covered by medicare and health services in the provinces must meet the standards set by Ottawa.

False, as above. The government is the insurer, not the provider.

That sounds about right from my discussion with a Canadian doctor on this issue.

It is a very important difference, that the province or state is the responsible government entity rather than the federal government.

Which really shows how much lying or disinformation has been used to pass off on the American people a very, very different product than what Canada has while alleging "Canada can do it, why can't we".

 

[tyr_13]

wrong.
the canada health act is an act of our federal government.
the federal government funds a major portion of the provincial healthcare costs through transfer payments.
the provinces must comply with the act, or face federal sanctions.
there is no private industry involved at any level.
no one makes money on our system except those employed as doctors, nurses and administrators.
private insurance companies are the administrators of the proposed american system.
therefore, it is not socialized healthcare.
you folks seem to have a mental disconnect about this.
the proposed american system is not socialism.
it is for profit healthcare insurance.get it through your heads.

D'rok, I've highlighted the parts that show that, I believe, we were talking about the insurance and payment portions of health care and that further the doctors and such are pointed out to be private.

Although it is a useful point to remind people of, that the doctors don't change even in a socialized system.

 

[bikerdruid]

No they aren't.

Yes it is. Most clinics are private sector businesess. And many hospitals are public/private partnerships. It varies from province to province, but the private sector is often the primary care provider. They just send the bill to the provincial government. The Federal government determines what services will be covered by medicare and health services in the provinces must meet the standards set by Ottawa.

False, as above. The government is the insurer, not the provider.

you must live in a different canada than i do.
there is not a private clinic (except dentists and chiropractors, and they are not covered anyways) that i know of.
all alberta hospitals are government owned/administered.
my doctors are employed by the government.
where the heck do you live?

 

[D'rok]

D'rok, I've highlighted the parts that show that, I believe, we were talking about the insurance and payment portions of health care and that further the doctors and such are pointed out to be private.

Although it is a useful point to remind people of, that the doctors don't change even in a socialized system.

I was reacting to bikerdruid's erroneous claim that private indsutry was not involved at any level and that doctors were government employees.


He's describing a nationalized system, which isn't what we have here in Canuckia. We have a mixed system with the private sector very involved in the delivery of care.

 

[D'rok]

you must live in a different canada than i do.
there is not a private clinic (except dentists and chiropractors, and they are not covered anyways) that i know of.
all alberta hospitals are government owned/administered.
my doctors are employed by the government.
where the heck do you live?

Born and raised in Alberta. Currently living in Ontario. Here's where my doctor works:

http://www.appletreemedicalgroup.com/

Notice the "affiliates and franchises" tab? It's a chain of private clinics. This is the norm in Alberta too. Like this:

http://www.medicentres.com

Most hospitals in Ontario are public/private partnerships. There is wide latitude for each province to organize their systems. Alberta does it under the umbrella of Alberta Health Services, which isn't government, but reports to government.

 

[bikerdruid]

Born and raised in Alberta. Currently living in Ontario. Here's where my doctor works:

http://www.appletreemedicalgroup.com/

Notice the "affiliates and franchises" tab? It's a chain of private clinics. This is the norm in Alberta too. Like this:

http://www.medicentres.com

Most hospitals in Ontario are public/private partnerships. There is wide latitude for each province to organize their systems. Alberta does it under the umbrella of Alberta Health Services, which isn't government, but reports to government.

i live in rural northern alberta.
our hospital is certainly government.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Most hospitals in Ontario are public/private partnerships. There is wide latitude for each province to organize their systems. Alberta does it under the umbrella of Alberta Health Services, which isn't government, but reports to government.

i live in rural northern alberta.
our hospital is certainly government.

Interesting.

Alberta Health Services isn't government. I've just found this description of their corporate organization.

Are the hospitals in Northern Alberta public/private partnerships?

Is bikerdruid mistaken? I'm asking because I'd have no idea how to answer these questions looking through the website I just linked to.

ETA: Perhaps we could find the hospital bikerdruid is referring to in their organizational chart?

 

[Francesca R]

It is a very important difference, that the province or state is the responsible government entity rather than the federal government.

Why is it an important difference? Why are you trying to argue that municipal government somehow does not count as government?

Is it that you think they are approximately equivalent to your immediate family or something? Do you volunteer state taxes before they ask for them? Or is it a silly attempt to try to paint socialized policies as private ones when they are not?

 

[Francesca R]

Are the hospitals in Northern Alberta public/private partnerships?

Very little of the sector is wholly state controlled in health care, but universal health cover is always state funded to some threshold (sometimes means tested). That is what is socialised about it. It can't work otherwise.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Very little of the sector is wholly state controlled in health care, but universal health cover is always state funded to some threshold (sometimes means tested). That is what is socialised about it. It can't work otherwise.

Very true. And as I pointed out (and probably shamelessly stole from some thread here on JREF) to my coworkers earlier this evening - the Healthcare Reform that passed here in the US this year was probably about as capitalist a universal healthcare system as could be.

The general population is required to pay a private industry. That's pretty hardcore capitalism right there. The private industry was only upset because they were forced to become a bit more ethical in their dealings with the general populace - that's about the most socialistic part of the whole deal (ok, not really, that was just said for rhetoric - but I think (hope) most everyone got the idea).

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Called it just a few minutes too late.

Tardy lib.

 

[D'rok]

Interesting.

Alberta Health Services isn't government. I've just found this description of their corporate organization.

Are the hospitals in Northern Alberta public/private partnerships?

Is bikerdruid mistaken? I'm asking because I'd have no idea how to answer these questions looking through the website I just linked to.

ETA: Perhaps we could find the hospital bikerdruid is referring to in their organizational chart?

Bikerdruid is partially mistaken, but it's an easy mistake to make. He is conflating government-funded with government. Alberta Health Services reports to the Minister of Health, but it isn't part of the Ministry of Health. Neither is it private industry. It is the provincial health agency/authority. This makes the lines very blurry. It's also brand new. The regions of the province used to have their own individual health authorities.

However, he's right about Alberta hospitals. They are entirely publicly owned. But doctors are not government employees. They work as independent contrators who bill the government on a fee-for-service basis.

Community medical clinics are typically private businesses that bill the government.

It is interesting that suppposedly arch-conservative Alberta has significantly more centralized government involvement in health care than supposedly arch-liberal Ontario.

 

[D'rok]

That sounds about right from my discussion with a Canadian doctor on this issue.

It is a very important difference, that the province or state is the responsible government entity rather than the federal government.

Which really shows how much lying or disinformation has been used to pass off on the American people a very, very different product than what Canada has while alleging "Canada can do it, why can't we".

The public option, had it survived, was roughly similar to what Canada does.

Congratualtions on torpedoing your one chance for sane health care.