Expanded markets are not "Socialism."  What Trump's doing is not PRICE CONTROL.

Show us in the plan where Trump instituted "price controls."  He didn't. 

But, why let facts interfere with a your poor attempt at trolling.

Oh, I'm sorry, is medicare not a socialistic program?  Silly me, I thought it was a government program.

It seems like a perfect bridge building opportunity that you decided to waste by calling out the hypocrisy of people who...can't afford expensive drugs? Since when is anti-racketeering considered socialism? Who are these radical fundamentalist libertarian strawmen you are going after?

I am happy he is doing it. I favor a limited increase in government funded healthcare. I think we should be able to talk about it without the fearmongering of anything remotely socialistic shutting down the conversation.

Oh, I'm sorry, is medicare not a socialistic program?  Silly me, I thought it was a government program.

Medicare is something workers pay into, and therefore deserve to have access to it.

Please point to the place that says systems we pay into and get benefits from later are socialist programs.

Trying to paint all government programs as socialism is a socialist-progressive-liberal tactic.  Schools, fire departments and road systems are all socialist, according to the idiots trying to argue for their ideals, simply because the government manages the program.  If that were the case, the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is one big socialist enterprise.

Medicare is something workers pay into, and therefore deserve to have access to it.

Please point to the place that says systems we pay into and get benefits from later are socialist programs.

Trying to paint all government programs as socialism is a socialist-progressive-liberal tactic.  Schools, fire departments and road systems are all socialist, according to the idiots trying to argue for their ideals, simply because the government manages the program.  If that were the case, the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is one big socialist enterprise.

Socialist programs tax you to redistribute  wealth and services.   Services for all.... You really do refuse to ever be wrong even when you clearly are.... you live in a weird fantasy conservative land.   Idk how you think labeling government programs as socialism is a socialist-progressive-liberal tactic.  It's clearly a conservative thing.... you know Medicare for all and Republicans attacking it for socialism....

Socialist programs tax you to redistribute  wealth and services.   Services for all.... You really do refuse to ever be wrong even when you clearly are.... you live in a weird fantasy conservative land.   Idk how you think labeling government programs as socialism is a socialist-progressive-liberal tactic.  It's clearly a conservative thing.... you know Medicare for all and Republicans attacking it for socialism....

Wrong.

Taxes are not a socialist concept.  Are you telling me that Rome, a nation that rose and fell centuries before Socialism and Marx existed was a socialist nation?

That premise of yours is debunked.

Government already redistributes wealth in the form of collecting from all states and giving more back to some, and less back to others. 

I refuse to be wrong when debating YOU.  I have a 99.97% chance of being right, so why even pretend you know what you're typing?

Don't be too sure. A case in point can be found at Big Think, a publication whose videos and
short articles I often enjoy. An article detailing the recent surge in the popularity of socialism
was teed up this way by the brand’s social media editor: If you’re against socialism, don’t drive
on public roads or call 911!

The comment, which was liked more than 2,500 times, demonstrates either an appalling ignorance
or a blatant disdain for truth and accuracy.

Fact: In 1806, more than a decade before Karl Marx was born, the United States Congress passed, and
President Thomas Jefferson signed, legislation authorizing construction of the Cumberland Road, an interstate
highway that would stretch more than 600 miles, connecting the Potomac and Ohio Rivers.

But we shouldn't stop there. Nearly two thousand years before Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels
penned The Communist Manifesto, Rome had established what many historians consider the grandest
engineering achievement of the ancient world: a system of stone-paved highways that snaked across more
than 100 provinces, stretching some 250,000 miles. These highways were funded almost entirely with public
funds. (Exceptions were made when rich senators offered to pony up denarii on projects so they'd have their
names attached to roads.)

A publication that calls itself "Big Think" should not be conflating government spending with socialism. It
displays either ignorance, lazy thinking, or wanton dishonesty. What’s ironic is that the writer of the Big Think
article, Paul Ratner, actually attempts to make this distinction himself, citing a description of socialism from
Jacobin, a socialist magazine:

“In their guide, the writers and editors of Jacobin also try to dispel some of the
confusion related to socialism. In particular, they argue, many people tend to
associate any kind of government institution, even the DMV, with socialism. But
just because it’s a part of the government doesn’t make it socialist.”

So please, once and for all: can we retire the tired fallacy that government services and socialism are one
and the same? They’re not.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/socialism-not-public-roads-and-911-service/

Wrong.

Taxes are not a socialist concept.  Are you telling me that Rome, a nation that rose and fell centuries before Socialism and Marx existed was a socialist nation?

That premise of yours is debunked.

Government already redistributes wealth in the form of collecting from all states and giving more back to some, and less back to others. 

I refuse to be wrong when debating YOU.  I have a 99.97% chance of being right, so why even pretend you know what you're typing?

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/socialism-not-public-roads-and-911-service/

By the way, the people coming up with the "socialist" programs, as you say, are elected by the people.

Since when does socialism allow the people to vote in, AND OUT, of office anyone they disagree with?  The decision making power rests with the people, not the government.

Think “Democratic Socialism” is good for America? Well, expect a move toward paying 10% (or more) in taxes. Maybe closer to +20%.

Price of freedom?  #GMAFB

Socialism is when the financial elitists bribe the Clintons to deregulate the financial industry and then proceed to run the economy into the ground in 2008, followed by massive bailouts for too-big-to-fail Wall Street Firms while Main Street picks up the tab by getting slapped with austerity measures and nobody goes to prison. Trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth, and they wonder why we sent Trump after them.

Wrong.

Taxes are not a socialist concept.  Are you telling me that Rome, a nation that rose and fell centuries before Socialism and Marx existed was a socialist nation?

That premise of yours is debunked.

Government already redistributes wealth in the form of collecting from all states and giving more back to some, and less back to others. 

I refuse to be wrong when debating YOU.  I have a 99.97% chance of being right, so why even pretend you know what you're typing?

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/socialism-not-public-roads-and-911-service/

Socialism isn't a concept that appeared out of thin air.  Like all other concepts it took from others.  Socialism uses taxes to fund public programs to "redistribute" the wealth and force some weird attempt of equality.  It utterly fails but its a backbone of socialists beliefs.   
Now republicans like to call universal healthcare, socialist.  That's just expanded Medicare.  How do you draw the line?

Socialism is when the financial elitists bribe the Clintons to deregulate the financial industry and then proceed to run the economy into the ground in 2008, followed by massive bailouts for too-big-to-fail Wall Street Firms while Main Street picks up the tab by getting slapped with austerity measures and nobody goes to prison. Trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth, and they wonder why we sent Trump after them.

"Clintons"  you do know he wasn't president for 8 years before then right?

Think “Democratic Socialism” is good for America? Well, expect a move toward paying 10% (or more) in taxes. Maybe closer to +20%.

Price of freedom?  #GMAFB

Yup socialism is retarded fuck high taxes.

Socialism isn't a concept that appeared out of thin air.  Like all other concepts it took from others.  Socialism uses taxes to fund public programs to "redistribute" the wealth and force some weird attempt of equality.  It utterly fails but its a backbone of socialists beliefs.   
Now republicans like to call universal healthcare, socialist.  That's just expanded Medicare.  How do you draw the line?

"Clintons"  you do know he wasn't president for 8 years before then right?

Yup socialism is retarded fuck high taxes.

So now you're an expert on the origins of all political and socio-economic systems throughout the history of man?

So, genius, educate us all.  When did Socialism first appear historically?  If it was before Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, then what country was using it as their model?  What was it called?  What were the highlights of the system?  Did it last?  Was it successful?  How long did it survive there?

Please, include as many links as you can Google.  I'd be interested to know how Socialism evolved into the authoritative, equal outcome system of economics Karl wrote about.

Who convinced you that universal healthcare (aka "single payer healthcare") is "just expanded Medicare?"  Whoever did lied to you.

p.s. Here's a hint:  There's a basic tenant of Socialism that prevented if from ever being implemented on a national scale, one that was overcome with the industrial revolution.  Think about it.

"Clintons"  you do know he wasn't president for 8 years before then right?

Who repealed the Glass-Steagall act? It is rather odd that someone on a pro-2a website wants to defend the Clintons.

Medicare is something workers pay into, and therefore deserve to have access to it.

Please point to the place that says systems we pay into and get benefits from later are socialist programs.

Trying to paint all government programs as socialism is a socialist-progressive-liberal tactic.  Schools, fire departments and road systems are all socialist, according to the idiots trying to argue for their ideals, simply because the government manages the program.  If that were the case, the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is one big socialist enterprise.

Not everyone who receives medicare pays into medicare though. Medicare is government provided health care to a certain extent. So my point is that if we can accept medicare then we can talk about government provided health care without fear mongering about socialism.

Not everyone who receives medicare pays into medicare though. Medicare is government provided health care to a certain extent. So my point is that if we can accept medicare then we can talk about government provided health care without fear mongering about socialism.

U should look into how countries with free healthcare and how the people like it.

Main take away is weeks/months to see a doctor, less youre bleeding out in the ER. Then they will work on you fast.

Ive talked to maybe 6 diff people who received the free healthcare and all 6 said it sucks. Germany, england x3,  taiwan, and brittan.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

U should look into how countries with free healthcare and how the people like it.

Main take away is weeks/months to see a doctor, less youre bleeding out in the ER. Then they will work on you fast.

Ive talked to maybe 6 diff people who received the free healthcare and all 6 said it sucks. Germany, england x3,  taiwan, and brittan.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

what's the difference between england and "brittan"?
focus

Not everyone who receives medicare pays into medicare though. Medicare is government provided health care to a certain extent. So my point is that if we can accept medicare then we can talk about government provided health care without fear mongering about socialism.

Here is a clarification of what you said here. Just so you know.

No matter what, you cannot get Medicare without paying FOR it. Period. You can qualify to get it without paying INTO it as a worker. But only through your spouse if they are 65 or older and they are already paying FOR it. And you must be married at least a year in order to qualify to pay FOR Medicare if you never paid INTO it as a worker. Then you can pay FOR it and get it. But under no circumstances can anyone get Medicare without paying FOR it. And, BTW, you are forced into paying FOR it when you turn 65 except under certain rare personal circumstances. And it is NOT government provided healthcare. It is medical insurance you purchase from the government. And it is not good medical insurance either. But that is a different topic.

You might be confusing Medicare with Medicaid. Which is an emergency type of Federally funded and state government provided healthcare which one generally does not have to pay for in order to receive it. However, if one works and pays taxes to the Feds and the States then they are paying for Medicaid through their general tax deductions from their paychecks. This is separate from the Medicare deduction from your paycheck. Generally speaking tho, people who qualify to receive Medicaid are existing below the poverty level.

The Medicare and Medicaid programs are very complicated to understand and navigate. When you make broad statements like you did, it makes it sound like Medicare is a socialism program. It isn’t. It is literally health insurance that you pay for 2 ways from the government. You pay Into it out of your paycheck through specific deductions while you are of normal working age. And then you pay for it every month out of your SS check when you turn 65 except under some rare circumstances. But if you don’t start paying for it when you turn 65 it will cost you a lot more per month when, not if, you do start paying for it.

Medicare Part A (Hospital Coverage) does not have a monthly cost to it if you paid into it for 40 quarters or more during your working years. Medicare Part B (General Medical Coverage) starts immediately at age 65 and you have to make monthly payments for it. Then there is Medicare Part D. Part D coverage is paid to a private insurance company by you. And then there is Medicare Part C (Advantage Plans) which tries to supplement Medicare and is paid for by Medicare directly to a private insurance company. But it covers little more than Medicare itself. Then there are supplement plans that you pay for to private insurance companies that can cover everything that Medicare doesn’t.

See how complicated the subject of Medicare is? You need to qualify your statements about paying for it and paying into it. Because you can get it without paying into it under rare circumstances but you cannot get it without paying for it monthly. And Since you have to pay for it monthly, it literally cannot be a socialism program. I hope this clears things up.

U should look into how countries with free healthcare and how the people like it.

Main take away is weeks/months to see a doctor, less youre bleeding out in the ER. Then they will work on you fast.

Ive talked to maybe 6 diff people who received the free healthcare and all 6 said it sucks. Germany, england x3,  taiwan, and brittan.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I believe Frontline did a special on this subject a few years back, they covered about 5 different countries with 5 different types of government healthcare programs. Each had their issues to be sure but long waits was not universal among them. Some had wait-time issues, some had funding issues, some had quality issues. No system is perfect to be sure.

My wife is from Japan and she is quite satisfied with their health care system. The problem they have IIRC is that there is not enough funding right now. It might have something to do with their aging population raising the costs.

I think we as conservatives need to be able to have real discussions about the pros and the cons without it getting shutdown by labeling it all socialism. I think we as a country need to move a little bit more to the left on the issue but also find a balance with the best from both sides.  The main thing I think we should push for is socialized medicine for people under 18, the same as we do with K-12 education, etc.

Here is a clarification of what you said here. Just so you know.

No matter what, you cannot get Medicare without paying FOR it. Period. You can qualify to get it without paying INTO it as a worker. But only through your spouse if they are 65 or older and they are already paying FOR it. And you must be married at least a year in order to qualify to pay FOR Medicare if you never paid INTO it as a worker. Then you can pay FOR it and get it. But under no circumstances can anyone get Medicare without paying FOR it. And, BTW, you are forced into paying FOR it when you turn 65 except under certain rare personal circumstances. And it is NOT government provided healthcare. It is medical insurance you purchase from the government. And it is not good medical insurance either. But that is a different topic.

You might be confusing Medicare with Medicaid. Which is an emergency type of Federally funded and state government provided healthcare which one generally does not have to pay for in order to receive it. However, if one works and pays taxes to the Feds and the States then they are paying for Medicaid through their general tax deductions from their paychecks. This is separate from the Medicare deduction from your paycheck. Generally speaking tho, people who qualify to receive Medicaid are existing below the poverty level.

The Medicare and Medicaid programs are very complicated to understand and navigate. When you make broad statements like you did, it makes it sound like Medicare is a socialism program. It isn’t. It is literally health insurance that you pay for 2 ways from the government. You pay Into it out of your paycheck through specific deductions while you are of normal working age. And then you pay for it every month out of your SS check when you turn 65 except under some rare circumstances. But if you don’t start paying for it when you turn 65 it will cost you a lot more per month when, not if, you do start paying for it.

Medicare Part A (Hospital Coverage) does not have a monthly cost to it if you paid into it for 40 quarters or more during your working years. Medicare Part B (General Medical Coverage) starts immediately at age 65 and you have to make monthly payments for it. Then there is Medicare Part D. Part D coverage is paid to a private insurance company by you. And then there is Medicare Part C (Advantage Plans) which tries to supplement Medicare and is paid for by Medicare directly to a private insurance company. But it covers little more than Medicare itself. Then there are supplement plans that you pay for to private insurance companies that can cover everything that Medicare doesn’t.

See how complicated the subject of Medicare is? You need to qualify your statements about paying for it and paying into it. Because you can get it without paying into it under rare circumstances but you cannot get it without paying for it monthly. And Since you have to pay for it monthly, it literally cannot be a socialism program. I hope this clears things up.

You are correct, medicare is insurance, not healthcare, I should have made that distinction. The healthcare discussion often crosses back and forth mixing health care and health insurance.

I didn't mean to make medicare sound like a full blown socialist medical program, I was only pointing out that there are some socialistic elements to it. I was thinking of people who can get medicare without paying into it when they have social security disability, Lou Gehrigs disease, or a kidney problem requiring dialysis.
https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare/can-you-get-medicare-if-you-have-never-worked#medicare-eligibility.

So correct me if I am wrong here but medicare is basically a tax to pay for a government funded health insurance. So if we can accept that and not call for it to be removed, I don't think we can object so strongly against something like Obamacare which didn't privatize health care or health insurance. Obamacare wasn't socialized healthcare was it? Don't get me wrong, I have a number of criticisms about Obamacare, I am just trying to make sure we are consistent here. If we are fine with medicare then we can't bemoan any and all other forms of government subsidized healthcare and/or health insurance.

Not all socialized medicine is bad, in fact for some things it is far superior. It is very easy to slip into identity politics and lose track of the real issue, though, which is controlling costs. Right now Americans pay ridiculous amounts of money for healthcare that is substandard in most cases. This is because of a predatory Financial Services sector of our economy that has latched on and refuses to let go. It is not doctors who decide what treatment is appropriate, but accountants and algorithms.

Absurd healthcare costs and layers of useless overpaid middle men are a huge chunk of our "economy". Unfortunately tackling that problem by any means other than extend-and-pretend will trigger a 2008 crash on steroids. Politicians know the crash is inevitable, but nobody wants to be blamed for setting it off.

You are correct, medicare is insurance, not healthcare, I should have made that distinction. The healthcare discussion often crosses back and forth mixing health care and health insurance.

I didn't mean to make medicare sound like a full blown socialist medical program, I was only pointing out that there are some socialistic elements to it. I was thinking of people who can get medicare without paying into it when they have social security disability, Lou Gehrigs disease, or a kidney problem requiring dialysis.
https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare/can-you-get-medicare-if-you-have-never-worked#medicare-eligibility.

So correct me if I am wrong here but medicare is basically a tax to pay for a government funded health insurance. So if we can accept that and not call for it to be removed, I don't think we can object so strongly against something like Obamacare which didn't privatize health care or health insurance. Obamacare wasn't socialized healthcare was it? Don't get me wrong, I have a number of criticisms about Obamacare, I am just trying to make sure we are consistent here. If we are fine with medicare then we can't bemoan any and all other forms of government subsidized healthcare and/or health insurance.

My wife gets Medicare before age 65 because she is now disabled. It is a very onerous path to take and we hired a lawyer to help us through the process because we couldn’t afford the more common process of trying to do it ourselves. When you try to get it yourself you are prone to having to get turned down usually twice and then hire the lawyer to represent you at the final appeal. There is around an 80% failure rate. So we hired the lawyer in the beginning of the process and they filled out the paperwork and did some legwork for us making sure she was approved the first time. Which is rare. Then she had to wait two years to qualify for Medicare. By hiring the lawyer first thing we save at least a year if not two.

Here is the thing about getting Medicare without working and paying into it. For Medicare Part A, once you qualify for Medicare, and have never paid into it, the monthly cost for Medicare part A is quite high IMO. It has no monthly cost if you paid into Medicare as a worker for 40 quarters or more. And Medicare Part B is also quite high in monthly cost if you never worked and paid into Medicare. And basic Medicare coverage is quite bad. To me Medicare is not worth the money at this point. What you get for paying into it during your working years is a huge discount off the monthly premiums. I don’t consider it a tax as it is part of the entire Social Security umbrella that provides help to you when you retire. That is why you get such huge monthly discounts off the monthly premiums if you worked and paid into it. Good, bad or indifferent, the SS program which includes Medicare was designed as a supplement to retirement. Unfortunately, this has become more of a crutch for people who use the SS program as their entire retirement. The thing about Medicare being a tax is that you need not have to pay into it (See below).

The advent of the entire SS System including Medicare being available to those who qualify for SS Disability (whether they ever paid into the system or not) is a much more recent abomination of the system. It was never designed to cover anyone under those circumstances. How it got this way was from politicians making promises to modify the system in exchange for donations and votes. You can imagine the insurance industry was lobbying heavily for that. SS and Medicare were originally designed so that more money went into the system than went out. And it was supposed to have been kept separate from the general fund so politicians couldn’t get their hands on it. Of course that changed as well. Which is why the entire system is now going bankrupt. But that again is another topic for discussion. Originally only people who paid in received the benefits of the system. When you start including people who never pay into the system then more money goes out than comes in. But there are still other reasons I don’t consider it a tax. And that is due to the fact you can work all your life for a state or local government and as long as you are covered by a qualified health plan like my friends who paid into CalPers then they never had SS nor Medicare taken out of their checks. Not a tax.

Now Obamacare is another story. Obamacare as you noted is healthcare and not health insurance. Mostly defined this way due to the fact that no one is turned down due to a previous condition. But in my opinion it is a tax. Because the Obamacare program requires you to be covered under your employers health plan which you pay for directly or indirectly, or you have to buy into Obamacare. The only other choice you have is to pay a non participation tax. But that is taxation without representation and is illegal under our system. In my opinion this is a tax. And in my opinion forcing a tax upon someone who receives no benefit is socialism.

Sorry this is so long. To sum things up, SS and Medicare were not originally supposed to be government subsidized. The idea was more money coming in than going out. And funds kept separately. And it worked great for a long time. And if the program had never been expanded to include those who never paid into the system and if the funds were not dumped into the general fund where politicians could raid the funds and steal it from retirees then even with the advent of the Boomers retiring I believe the system could have handled it until the Boomers started dying off faster than they are retiring. So eventually the system will go bankrupt and it will have to become government subsidized or radically changed. But at this time it is not subsidized by the government. It is administered by the government but not subsidized. Obamacare is both administered and subsidized by the government. I am on Obamacare not by my choice. And my premiums are partially paid to Blue Cross by the government which is a subsidy. It is very expensive and I have poor coverage. But that is another topic for another time.

Health insurance (HMSA, Kaiser, etc), Medicare, and Medicaid are some things that I experienced while taking care of my dad.  Luckily, in general, my dad's health costs were covered since he had dual coverage with HMSA and Medicare.  However, it was somewhat of a nightmare at times weeding through the rules, even for hospital admin/accountants.  To the point where they were quibbling over whether or not what condition would constitute admittance being covered even with orders from Doctors.  Changes in care plans isn't something that they seem to deal with.  An example is if someone comes in for something planned as outpatient and then needs to be admitted.  Quite frustrating at times.

Overall, I believe the healthcare industry is effed up.  It is my opinion that admin and others are business minded, not healthcare minded or priortized.  Just more greed people getting rich at patient's expense.  Even for me.  My back surgery was put off while insurance was being figured out.  Whereas maybe 2 years before, my Doc said he could've gotten me into the OR the day after the initial consult.