OP, hope your kids aren't in public school, and I really hope you don't plan on Social Security or Medicare. Please don't take unemployment benefits, or complain about potholes. Don't engage in anything that has federal funding, please, which includes higher ed, the arts, medical advances from research.

It's all a one sided understanding with you types, but you're the first to complain about inflation, right? We have inflation due to corporate gouging- they got bail outs and turned around and took advantage of the system by raising prices.
. It's not even capitalism we have, it's a
system of oligarchy.

Our nation has the very rich, supported by tax cuts and benefits, but also we have people literally starving on the street and dying from a lack of health care access. So is this the question you really want to ask today?

Anonymous wrote:The question is what country would you hold up as the "gold standard" for the mix of capitalism and socialism.

Denmark is often voted the happiest and best country. You have high taxes, but free healthcare, free college, nearly free childcare, etc. However, you don't have many start-ups/entrepreneurial companies from Denmark.

Someone once said...what is important in life like healthcare, education, childcare, elder care is affordable in a place like Denmark, while in the US all the non-essentials (electronics, furniture, etc.) are cheap but the important stuff is very expensive.

What I don't understand is why people in the US can't accept socialized medicine. For some reason, everyone is fine with Medicare, but freaks out if you were to expand Medicare to people below 65. People don't want to pay high taxes, yet health insurance premiums are basically a tax...so we already pay taxes.

On the corporate side...why does my company have to understand and offer health plans to people? It makes no sense...we don't have to figure out auto or homeowners or other insurance. It is far better on the corporate side to just pay a tax or give employees a raise and get out of the business of figuring out healthcare.

I just don't get that.

+1 on the bolded. Boggles my mind why the US can't figure this out.

Anonymous wrote:The question is what country would you hold up as the "gold standard" for the mix of capitalism and socialism.

Denmark is often voted the happiest and best country. You have high taxes, but free healthcare, free college, nearly free childcare, etc. However, you don't have many start-ups/entrepreneurial companies from Denmark.

Someone once said...what is important in life like healthcare, education, childcare, elder care is affordable in a place like Denmark, while in the US all the non-essentials (electronics, furniture, etc.) are cheap but the important stuff is very expensive.

What I don't understand is why people in the US can't accept socialized medicine. For some reason, everyone is fine with Medicare, but freaks out if you were to expand Medicare to people below 65. People don't want to pay high taxes, yet health insurance premiums are basically a tax...so we already pay taxes.

On the corporate side...why does my company have to understand and offer health plans to people? It makes no sense...we don't have to figure out auto or homeowners or other insurance. It is far better on the corporate side to just pay a tax or give employees a raise and get out of the business of figuring out healthcare.

I just don't get that.

It frequently comes down to racism, whether people want to admit to it or not. There are many examples of where we've closed or shunned socialized goods where it would benefit us all because we couldn't get over race.

Public pools, public schools, socialized healthcare, welfare (remember welfare queen).

Anonymous wrote:Squeezing every dollar out of upper middle class's pockets in the name of income tax, property tax, insurance and college costs so they become middle class is a great way to keep classism going. Let them subsidize poor, why ask billionaires or mega millionaires.

You can take it from the super rich, but it is the MC/UMC where the money is because there is so many more of them.

Squeezing every dollar out of upper middle class's pockets in the name of income tax, property tax, insurance and college costs so they become middle class is a great way to keep classism going. Let them subsidize poor, why ask billionaires or mega millionaires.

Anonymous wrote:I’m very worried about the direction of our country. There seems to be an accelerating drift toward socialism with the forced distribution of wealth. The famous quote about socialism working until you run out of other people’s money keeps coming to mind. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Neither. We need a mix in which we are socialistic in providing basics to all and not letting individual wealth go to absurd highs. Capitalism is required to keep this world going, people need incentives and competition to do hard work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should have better socialized medicine. It’s not capitalism all the way or we turn into Cuba. There is lots of middle ground. Western Europe does well with capitalism but has a much better ( not perfect) health care system and provides better for the elderly etc.

I would make the argument that socialized medicine would catalyze capitalism. Because it would capitalize entrepreneurship -- it's a lot easier to take risks in creating new businesses, etc. if you have the health care safety net. In an employer-based health insurance system, people are afraid to leave their jobs.

And before anyone starts harping on the taxes for socialized medicine, I'd argue that the premiums and deductibles we have to pay are the equivalent of taxes.

And before anyone starts harping that they don't want the government making decisions about when and where you can get treatment, I'd argue that as much as it would suck, it's probably preferable to allowing a profit-motivated insurance company that's trying to meet quarterly earnings targets to make such decisions.

One solution is to provide basic health care for all but also allow private insurance for those who are willing to pay out of pocket for more care. The UK does this; Canada generally does not. Switzerland requires that everyone buy insurance for basic health care (assume if you're truly impovershed the state kicks in the fee) but enhanced insurance can be bought (or provided by an employer).

+1

The issue is with our current healthcare system nothing is uniform. Got my first mammogram 10 years ago. They billed my BCBS insurance $900. The negotiated rate for my insurance was $250. The next year I had smaller health care company insurance---billed $900 but my plans negotiated rate was $400. If you don't have insurance or have really crappy insurance, you could be anywhere between $250 and 900. If they will accept $250 from one place (large insurance) why won't they accept it from everyone? Why not let someone uninsured show up and get the $250 rate, as long as they pay in cash/check that same day (so no billing, chasing down the payment is required)?

Economies of scale is what universal healthcare would get us. Uniform pricing, and then yes if you choose you can purchase private insurance/concierge insurance/more "elite coverage" plans. But let everyone pay the same damn thing as a negotiated rate for your region, because yes NYC/LA should be able to charge more for services than Small town Montana. But you get the idea, there has to be a standardized rate for your region for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is what country would you hold up as the "gold standard" for the mix of capitalism and socialism.

Denmark is often voted the happiest and best country. You have high taxes, but free healthcare, free college, nearly free childcare, etc. However, you don't have many start-ups/entrepreneurial companies from Denmark.

Someone once said...what is important in life like healthcare, education, childcare, elder care is affordable in a place like Denmark, while in the US all the non-essentials (electronics, furniture, etc.) are cheap but the important stuff is very expensive.

What I don't understand is why people in the US can't accept socialized medicine. For some reason, everyone is fine with Medicare, but freaks out if you were to expand Medicare to people below 65. People don't want to pay high taxes, yet health insurance premiums are basically a tax...so we already pay taxes.

On the corporate side...why does my company have to understand and offer health plans to people? It makes no sense...we don't have to figure out auto or homeowners or other insurance. It is far better on the corporate side to just pay a tax or give employees a raise and get out of the business of figuring out healthcare.

I just don't get that.

Ozempic and Wygovy came from Denmark. Novo Nordisk is one of the most valuable companies on the planet. Denmark is a tiny country that hits way above its weight class on patents and startups per capita.

That's one company...also, it is the merger of two companies, one of which was founded in 1925 and the other in 1951. At least Sweden has Spotify.

There is not a single company from Denmark that compares to Google, FB, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Netflix, etc. Companies that didn't exist 30 years ago and now are in the Top 10 in the world in market capitalization.

I am not knocking Denmark, but you do trade-off a robust start-up ecosystem for one that tends to benefit established players.

Anonymous wrote:The question is what country would you hold up as the "gold standard" for the mix of capitalism and socialism.

Denmark is often voted the happiest and best country. You have high taxes, but free healthcare, free college, nearly free childcare, etc. However, you don't have many start-ups/entrepreneurial companies from Denmark.

Someone once said...what is important in life like healthcare, education, childcare, elder care is affordable in a place like Denmark, while in the US all the non-essentials (electronics, furniture, etc.) are cheap but the important stuff is very expensive.

What I don't understand is why people in the US can't accept socialized medicine. For some reason, everyone is fine with Medicare, but freaks out if you were to expand Medicare to people below 65. People don't want to pay high taxes, yet health insurance premiums are basically a tax...so we already pay taxes.

On the corporate side...why does my company have to understand and offer health plans to people? It makes no sense...we don't have to figure out auto or homeowners or other insurance. It is far better on the corporate side to just pay a tax or give employees a raise and get out of the business of figuring out healthcare.

I just don't get that.

Ozempic and Wygovy came from Denmark. Novo Nordisk is one of the most valuable companies on the planet. Denmark is a tiny country that hits way above its weight class on patents and startups per capita.

The question is what country would you hold up as the "gold standard" for the mix of capitalism and socialism.

Denmark is often voted the happiest and best country. You have high taxes, but free healthcare, free college, nearly free childcare, etc. However, you don't have many start-ups/entrepreneurial companies from Denmark.

Someone once said...what is important in life like healthcare, education, childcare, elder care is affordable in a place like Denmark, while in the US all the non-essentials (electronics, furniture, etc.) are cheap but the important stuff is very expensive.

What I don't understand is why people in the US can't accept socialized medicine. For some reason, everyone is fine with Medicare, but freaks out if you were to expand Medicare to people below 65. People don't want to pay high taxes, yet health insurance premiums are basically a tax...so we already pay taxes.

On the corporate side...why does my company have to understand and offer health plans to people? It makes no sense...we don't have to figure out auto or homeowners or other insurance. It is far better on the corporate side to just pay a tax or give employees a raise and get out of the business of figuring out healthcare.

I just don't get that.

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you go ask Argentina, USSR, China, North Korea, Venezuela, .....


It's as if people never learn from history.

BuT It WaSn'T REaL SoCiAliSm!!!!

Well, no. Those are generally examples of authoritarianism. You know, what the USA came dangerously close to under Trump. Kleptocracy is a form of capitalism, too.

Anonymous wrote:Communism is better.

In capitalism, man exploits man. But in communism it is the other way around.

Lol. Go ask the Cambodians how well it worked out for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, You can compare it yourself. Capitalism countries such as USA and Canada in North America vs Socialism countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, etc in South America.

Or the socialist countries of Northern Europe with the highest happiness and longest lifespans.

Oh please. Sweden had socialist policies in place to a T what modern leftist buffoons in America call for. The only problem is that Sweden was mired for decades in anemic gdp growth and debt. It wasn't until moderates came into Sweden that their economy improved. Sweden embraced more capitalism, cut taxes, and passed more pro-businness laws.

It might shock American socialists to learn that Nordics like Sweden have been cutting taxes and even have 0% taxes in wealth inheritance! No one wants to work hard if the govt will confiscate your rewards for creating.

Even the Prime Minister has gotten fed up with American stupidity and chastised American naivete regarding his country and so called socialism:

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

Why don't you go ask Argentina, USSR, China, North Korea, Venezuela, .....


It's as if people never learn from history.

BuT It WaSn'T REaL SoCiAliSm!!!!