Your statement that I made an about face when I said that a free market country can have elements of socialism was stupid and started this whole line.
My post #4:
Both countries are free market societies with more socialistic aspects than we have.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Socialism Is Bad for the Environment
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
- Status
My post #4:
Both countries are free market societies with more socialistic aspects than we have.
(sigh)
Democratic socialism, on the other hand, has worked well in countries like the UK and Denmark to preserve a decent environment.
That's where you went wrong. Neither country is an example of democratic socialism. The so-called "Nordic model" that fools like Bernie Sanders think could ever work in this country is more of an example of universal collectivism than anything else - everybody there pays sky-high taxes for things like universal health care. Tell me, do you REALLY want to tax the poor at 12%+? Drooling over the idea of a VAT at 25%? Because you have to do this:
Taxation in Denmark - Wikipedia
to begin to afford it.
Democratic socialism, on the other hand, has worked well in countries like the UK and Denmark to preserve a decent environment.
That's where you went wrong. Neither country is an example of democratic socialism. The so-called "Nordic model" that fools like Bernie Sanders think could ever work in this country is more of an example of universal collectivism than anything else - everybody there pays sky-high taxes for things like universal health care. Tell me, do you REALLY want to tax the poor at 12%+? Drooling over the idea of a VAT at 25%? Because you have to do this:
Taxation in Denmark - Wikipedia
to begin to afford it.
There is no such thing as Democratic Socialism. Its all just socialism.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
The UK is not a socialist country, but they have socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is a train wreck in every country that has it. It's why people in any country that has socialized medicine seeks treatment in the US.
Socialized medicine is plagued with long wait times and a bureaucratic bean counter who decides what your illness or injury is worth and also decides if you are going to even be allowed to obtain that treatment.
People, in many cases, have to wait months and years for treatment that is actually made more expensive because they have to wait for it. Illnesses that would have been relatively easy and inexpensive to treat in their early stages end up being far more expensive in their advanced stages due to the long wait time and then the government may decide it is too expensive to treat. That combined with the patient's age may end up barring them from treatment.
In the UK there was a recent story reported about an infant who was dying and after the doctors had done all they could do, was going to left to die in the hospital. The courts in England denied the parents the option of taking the child to the US. Even the Pope could not convince the courts of England to allow the child to seek treatment out of the UK.
The Democrats in the US want a socialized, "Single-Payer" healthcare for US citizens after the failure of the socialist, redistributive, "Obamacare." They want to take us in the direction of the kind of healthcare they have in the UK and Canada and that is not good for America. But the Democrats are bent upon destroying the current system we have in America in order to make us like other countries that have socialized medicine and less freedom.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
Yes, It is not a socialist country despite your claim that it was Democratic Socialist. You need to fact check the Democrats and their claims about Socialism.
How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker
Bench-marking U.S. quality measures against those of similarly large and wealthy countries is one way to assess how successful the U.S. has been at improving care for its population, and to learn from systems that often produce better outcomes. The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita). In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
What people like you don't understand is that the data from other countries is severely restricted and the failure of socialized medicine isn't reported as much in other countries and that gives the false impression that socialized medicine is better than private health care where people have freedom of choice.
I've talked to people from Canada, Denmark, the UK personally and they say their system is far superior to ours, especially those who have lived both here and abroad.
Well except for the systems in Canada and the UK are going broke. Denmark is not comparable.
The U.S. system is going broke. Not just the costs to the government but the bankruptcies of tens of thousands of people due to a medical emergency.
Doesn't justify going to another broke system.
It justifies going to a much better system.
It's not a better system. It is never better to give up freedom to acquire some perceived security. Socialism always means a loss of freedom. You use an anecodte to prove your point but if fails, also it is a logical fallacy. Here is some evidence of what I am talking about:
N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait
Canada’s Single-Payer Health Care System: A Cautionary Tale | National Review
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
Except that their system isn't far superior to ours when you have to wait two years for treatment. It is a failing system and it is not superior to ours in any way. People die waiting in line when it comes to socialized medicine.
If you want a preview of what the Democrats would drag us into, just look at the problems with VA. It is an example of government run health care. Look at the veterans who have died waiting in line for the government to pay for their health care. The same things happen in other parts of the world where they employ single-payer system. Anyone who tells you that a system like single-payer that rations out health care is superior to a privatized health care system that allows you to have freedom of choice, where your doctor and not the government, decides your course of treatment, is lying to you.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
The system we had before Obama got his Obamacare, was far better and there were other options to provide for those with pre-existing conditions, but the Dems wanted a socialistic program that has failed.
The US system can be fixed, but socialism isn't the way to do it.
If you think socialism and socialistic medicine is better, then why not go live in a socialist country?
The US system is Medicare and Medicaid. Are these going broke?
People going "broke" is not the US system. You might say health care in the US has high costs which could cause people without insurance to go broke, but don't say the US system is going broke.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Did you know anyone with a pre-existing condition back then?They went into a state high risk pool which was extremely expensive (if they could get insurance at all. My brother was in that situation.
What socialist countries are you talking about? I thought wed were finished with that dead-end discussion but go ahead.
?? There you go again. I said "the bankruptcies of tens of thousands of people due to a medical emergency."
My experience with Medicare is very good. It should be improved on and offered to everyone.
- Status