What Socialism is NOT

@spruce112358 said
The problem at present is healthcare costs which are rising FAR above the inflation rate, not where the money comes from. 😆

A public utility sets prices for services that are controlled by a board - in this case the 'board' would be Medicare. 😆

When prices are constrained to something reasonable (about 1/3 of what they are presently) people will use a variety of measures to pay for them: insurance, out-of-pocket, gummint assistance etc.

I take no issue with this post. EXCEPT as usual you always leave one of your statemetns unfounded , unclosed. You do that here when you say, and I quote...
"The problem at present is healthcare costs which are rising FAR above the inflation rate, not where the money comes from. 😆

So we have to find the money to pay for it all first, do we not? THAT is more important. So your statement does not fit your premise. Better that you'd said we have to find the money first......and follow wkith your socialist agenda that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare. So you need do a thread about how to convince the guy over on Maple street should pay your medical bills.

You are all so daft, or you pretend to be. Please justify the masses all pooling their resources to pay all healthcare. Which gets us back to socialism.
What if some people work real hard, and some do not work at all? Last week a big push began to require people to be self-sufficient to qualify for entitlements, medicaid, etc. Tell me too, is Trump wrong with that thought process? Makes sense to me.
Signed, the not-pharisee.

@AverageJoe1 said
You thus confirm that it is your belief that everyone is responsible for everyone else. I don't believe that. Speaking morally, you are somewhat correct, and to stave off the possibility of someone stealing, we should support the 50M peiople in this country who cannot fend for themselves, need food, clothing and shelter. If that is available to them, and they slip off ...[text shortened]... sue. Not the wretch in Les Miserables who stole a loaf of bread. And the candlesticks.
Spruce?

You are obliged to help protect the rights of everyone equally. So am I. To discharge that obligation, you and I constituted a government and support it with tax dollars. 😆

I’m sorry you don’t agree with that, but it doesn’t matter. You live here, under a Constitution that says exactly that. As a country, this is what we’ve decided to do.

You ARE responsible for protecting the rights of EVERYBODY ELSE! It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe it. It’s true, and you have to do it. It’s not a matter of personal choice.

As for which rights need protection, we discuss that. We vote on it. And we’ve decided that the right to eat comes before the right to own stocks. So when @AverageJoe1 says, “But for that person to eat, I have to sell my stocks!” we are all ok with that. Not you, maybe, but as a society we agree that that is how it has to be. Your right to property is of LESSER importance than someone’s right to eat.

You get it now. 😆

@AverageJoe1 said
So we have to find the money to pay for it all first, do we not?

No, focusing on how to pay FAR TOO MUCH for health care is what is causing the problem. 😆

First, focus on bringing down costs by 2/3rds - to European levels.

Then paying for it becomes much simpler. 😆

@AverageJoe1 said

Should taxpayers pay for the expenses of people who are not destitute?? That was the issue.

Some people cannot do for themselves - adults who are homeless with medical conditions, minor orphans, those injured at work with impossible medical debts, those who have a crippling genetic disorder, people with bipolar disease and hallucinations, etc.

And then you have a separate classification of people who are destitute - people who have no money, no property, high debts, etc.

Many people graduate high school or college 'destitute.' But they will get a job and be fine. They have a support network of some kind, and they will work their way up into solvency (although student debt has made this MUCH harder than it was for you and me) PROVIDED they don't get sick and get knocked back down by our ridiculously expensive healthcare system. But young people often don't get sick (unless they get in an accident.)

There is no rational reason to say to an adult who is disabled 'You must ALSO be destitute before getting help.' Currently, that is what we do. More than $1999 in a bank account means a person can lose or not get SS assistance. The $2000 limit was established in 1979 and has NEVER been increased to reflect inflation. Which means that once you are disabled, you are REQUIRED to stay destitute to continue receiving assistance.

That doesn't make any sense. The idea is to get PAST being unable to do for oneself, to get OFF assistance, to get OUT of poverty. I feel like that is a goal our society has completely given up on, and that is a shame.

High medical costs are the number 1 reason people stay poor and can't get back on their feet.

So in short: yes, taxpayers should sometimes pay the expenses of people who are not destitute.

🙂

@spruce112358 said
Some people cannot do for themselves - adults who are homeless with medical conditions, minor orphans, those injured at work with impossible medical debts, those who have a crippling genetic disorder, people with bipolar disease and hallucinations, etc.

And then you have a separate classification of people who are destitute - people who have no money, no property, hig ...[text shortened]... So in short: yes, taxpayers should sometimes pay the expenses of people who are not destitute.

🙂

Speaking practically, not emotionally, then we have but to form an agency to decide the parameters. You in effect want to widen the qualifications of those who qualify to be supported by our tax money. In short, that is the sum of everything you have just said. YOu want ;more than the 50M to be supported by our government. If Shav is on the Board of the Agency, he will demand that each have housing and so it will go. I'd be there, I would tell them now to buy a house, one step at a time, starting with saving 10% of their income over several years of employment. If they are not employed, I would tell them to come back when they have a job.
Didn't you make up the phrase.."Dont give a man a fish, teach him to fish'."
I'm sitting here thinking you would round up every homeless person and start handing out cash. Your thinking is fairyland. Yeah, let's stop doing just fine for the last 249 years, change up a few things so everyone is equal, and then keep on doing fine. Yeah, right. Sacrifice our economy and prosperity by covering people who will not work. A 20-something girl told a street interviewer questioning here on the current government requirement to work if you want to qualify for Medicaid....i swear,,,(and she was quite healthy) "I wasn't put on this earth to work! "" She is one of your prorected class Spruce.

PS: I have looked through my journal, you have never responded to my sahing that Some People Work Harder Than Others. If you do, tell us that you introduce a guy who works hard to the girl who says she was not put on this earth to work.

@spruce112358 said
You are obliged to help protect the rights of everyone equally. So am I. To discharge that obligation, you and I constituted a government and support it with tax dollars. 😆

This para that you write....wow, needs a llittle interpretation. Seems like you and I have diff interpretations. Equal, for instance, taken literally means I get the same income as does Bezos.
Now you might write back, no, what it means is.........and there you go!!!!!

geez

@AverageJoe1 said
This para that you write....wow, needs a llittle interpretation. Seems like you and I have diff interpretations. Equal, for instance, taken literally means I get the same income as does Bezos.
Now you might write back, no, what it means is.........and there you go!!!!!

geez

There is no "right" to income. I've said this many times: I don't have a right to 3 egg salad sandwiches and a bottle of Wink soda every day because where would that come from?

I DO have a right not to die of exposure or thirst or starvation when there is food and water and shelter around that someone is not actively using at that moment. This is part of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So suppose I am starving and I break into your fridge and take a wedge of cheese. You say, "That's my property! I was going to use that to make lasagna! Arrest this man!" And gummint shows up and says, "He's starving. Your right to property does not outweigh his right to seek out enough food to live on. Let him have the cheese."

And then gummint says, "This solution is temporary and potentially inflammatory. @AverageJoe1 is a crazy, heavily armed MAGA - we could easily have had a murder right here! So we have to do something. @AverageJoe1, cough up some cash so we can keep this guy out of your kitchen. Yes, yes, we will find him a job once we get him on antipsychotic medications that stop the voices in his head - oh, we'll need an additional contribution for those meds.

"Fortunately, Medicare For All has reduced the costs of meds by 90% in many cases, so this will not cost you that much."

"We'll get out of your hair now. Piggly Wiggly has a sale on cheese, so you can easily get some more. Have a nice day." 😆

@AverageJoe1 said
Speaking practically, not emotionally, then we have but to form an agency to decide the parameters. You in effect want to widen the qualifications of those who qualify to be supported by our tax money. In short, that is the sum of everything you have just said. YOu want ;more than the 50M to be supported by our government. If Shav is on the Board of the Agency, he wil ...[text shortened]... that you introduce a guy who works hard to the girl who says she was not put on this earth to work.

I want 0M to be supported by gummint. And my way of supporting people moves towards that goal. Your way does not.

I want everyone to be housed. There are ~650,000 homeless and 15 million empty houses in the United States. I think we can agree on a solution.

As for policy, we don't base that on the artless musings of a 20-year old. Sheesh, as you say. 😆

@spruce112358 said
There is no "right" to income. I've said this many times: I don't have a right to 3 egg salad sandwiches and a bottle of Wink soda every day because where would that come from?

I DO have a right not to die of exposure or thirst or starvation when there is food and water and shelter around that someone is not actively using at that moment. This is part of "the right t ...[text shortened]... hair now. Piggly Wiggly has a sale on cheese, so you can easily get some more. Have a nice day." 😆

Let's say I have a rental property, the market is down, it is vacant with no takers. You are saying that your guy's right to ..shelter..means that he can make his home there.
I simply cannot get into a Sonhouse-like thread, you write like he does these days. Gotta run. But can you tell all us posters what you are telling me, and maybe a little bit of an explanation? Even if he has such a right, which he does not, how will I 'show' this property to prospective tenants? Some states require 6 months to evict.
Why will you not give an honest answer to my ask??

@AverageJoe1 said
Let's say I have a rental property, the market is down, it is vacant with no takers. You are saying that your guy's right to ..shelter..means that he can make his home there.
I simply cannot get into a Sonhouse-like thread, you write like he does these days. Gotta run. But can you tell all us posters what you are telling me, and maybe a little bit of an explanation ...[text shortened]... nts? Some states require 6 months to evict.
Why will you not give an honest answer to my ask??

Hedge funds and foreign investors are holding 1,640,932* homes off the market waiting for them to “appreciate in value” while more than half a million Americans languish on the streets. They are “for rent” so they can claim depreciation - but few are actually rented since they are listed far above what the market will bear.

Those homes will be used first.

Gummint will take no notice of @AverageJoe1’s “a rental property” or “second home” if he has only one.

But a landlord with 85 properties, 15 of which are empty? 10 of which have been empty for a year? Yes, gummint will take a lively interest in those. People will be housed - maybe 3 in each, one per bedroom, for one year. Then let’s see if they can get jobs and manage on their own.

Will there be problems and difficulties? Absolutely! It’s the nature of humans to have problems.

But we can’t say to people, “you have a right to live, but no right to live anywhere.” That doesn’t add up.

Sell your extra, empty homes, @AverageJoe1! Residential property is NOT an investment! Don’t wait for me to come along and solve the homeless problem, lower crime rates, and raise inner city property values! Because you will feel ill-used and put-upon. You won’t be - but that’s the way you will feel. 😆

* this number is made up. But it has to be at least this high.

@spruce112358 said
Hedge funds and foreign investors are holding 1,640,932* homes off the market waiting for them to “appreciate in value” while more than half a million Americans languish on the streets. They are “for rent” so they can claim depreciation - but few are actually rented since they are listed far above what the market will bear.

Those homes will be used first.

Gummint w ...[text shortened]... t that’s the way you will feel. 😆

* this number is made up. But it has to be at least this high.

I read your first few liines and just fizzled, knowing the last of your post would have zero substance,,,,,,,,,,,,,in a capitalist society. And funny you and your buddy Suzianne preach to NOT allow dictating authoritarians to do what you say you want to do.
Yeah, that first part, the govt weill take a lively interest in the property of people who own the properties. Tough to read that from you, I ca understand people like Zoolkanzi and the Shav person who know only socialist atmosphere among people. You know, from each according the his ability, and how much he has worked and accumulated.....Yeah, from him, the guy who works harder than others...........................and oh, yeah, the guy who has rights to the properties. You are the professor of rights! on the Forum, but it is not convenient for this person, who spent his life doing what he is doing, to own any more than he needs. That is what you are saying. Tell Sue et al that when you wrote about rights, you were not speaking of the rights of this guy...the one whose business is rental properties. IF I have 1000 pounds of jelly beans and your people 'want' jelly beans, do you come get my jelly beans? Are you marx, little feller?

PS: Maybe he WANTS his properties to be empty. He has a plan fot those properties. Maybe to create a retirement community in 2030. Is that the biz of you and Marx??

@AverageJoe1 said
I read your first few liines and just fizzled, knowing the last of your post would have zero substance,,,,,,,,,,,,,in a capitalist society. And funny you and your buddy Suzianne preach to NOT allow dictating authoritarians to do what you say you want to do.
Yeah, that first part, the govt weill take a lively interest in the property of people who own the properties. ...[text shortened]... those properties. Maybe to create a retirement community in 2030. Is that the biz of you and Marx??

First, YOU are the one who loves authoritarians! Our agenda will be hammered out using the usual democratic processes. 😆

Second, you haven't absorbed the lesson about the right to life coming before the right to property. Please repeat after me: "Gummint will protect my property rights AS LONG AS there is no one suffering from hunger or thirst or exposure." That's America (not Marx).

Now, there are many options open to you @AverageJoe1. One of the most obvious - make sure there is no one homeless in your city! Or county! Or state! Then Gummint will not have any interest in your home(s), and you can continue to rake in your piles of cash in peace.

So this is all on you, @AverageJoe1. Protect the rights of your fellow citizens, as you are obligated to do. Don't shirk your duty, living in luxury like a Pharisee and sneering at the poor! 😆

@spruce112358 said
First, YOU are the one who loves authoritarians! Our agenda will be hammered out using the usual democratic processes. 😆

Second, you haven't absorbed the lesson about the right to life coming before the right to property. Please repeat after me: "Gummint will protect my property rights AS LONG AS there is no one suffering from hunger or thirst or exposure." That's A ...[text shortened]... ated to do.[/b] Don't shirk your duty, living in luxury like a Pharisee and sneering at the poor! 😆

No, I quite disagree, taking the landlord's property and everyone's property for that matter,..................is marx. You can't kid a kidder.
Taking property is hardly a democratic process. Taking? You have rights to my apartment buildings, but I do not have rights to my apartment buildings? You are sonhouse all over again.

YOu keep writn gall this stuff about going out to give stuff to people who dont work....if they worked, we woudl not have to do that.
AND< you limit your remarks to a situatoin where masses of people, due to your election of Mamdani, are going to be i serious trouble, and that I should work harder to get them covered. You could have a point if the world were dire circumstances. Follow me here...we are not dire. If NYC goes into depression, I am not going to go heeeelllllp a bunch of people who voted on it.
It really si funny, the way you write like Marauder about Natural Law. We are the richest land on earth, we will never be faced with the scenario about which you keep pontificating. Wasted ink....at least on me. Hey, there is still some daylight, I think I will go out and earn a little more wealth for a rainy day. My neighbor is playing a video game. I worry that he may come over to get some of my food. I will send him to your house.

@AverageJoe1 said
Maybe to create a retirement community in 2030.

So he can shelter the homeless for at least 2026-2028 and still be ready for 2030. Cool! That works. 😆

@AverageJoe1 said
No, I quite disagree, taking the landlord's property and everyone's property for that matter,..................is marx. You can't kid a kidder.
Taking property is hardly a democratic process. Taking? You have rights to my apartment buildings, but I do not have rights to my apartment buildings? You are sonhouse all over again.

YOu keep writn gall this stuff abo ...[text shortened]... a video game. I worry that he may come over to get some of my food. I will send him to your house.

Kelo vs City of New London (upheld by the Supreme Court) made it BLINDINGLY clear that, in the United States of America, YOUR PROPERTY can be SEIZED and given to another entity "because that's what gummint wants."

@AverageJoe1, maybe you shouldn't have cheered this MAGA agenda so hard!?!? 'Cause OH SH** HERE COME THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS!!!!! 😆 😆 😆

But I'm on board: giving the Little Pink House to Pfizer was wrong. Why? Because it didn't protect anyone's rights.

I'm here to protect everyone's rights EQUALLY. And in some cases, that means someone else's rights get protected and yours don't (in cases of conflict; where both cannot be protected simulataneously.) But don't worry - gummint will still guard all your piles of cash and your personal goods and most of your other businesses, etc. etc. You'll still be rich - stop fretting. 😆