England, Canada, France, Australia, are not communist countries and they have have universal health care...see details?

It’d take away from the revenue potential of the big boys, which makes it anti-business. And for those that forgot the Cold War, anti-business means communist. Because the only communist country left on Earth is North Korea, we’ve all forgotten what the word really means. Even China has gone all capitalist on us.

@BlackSwanEffect so big business wouldn’t be able to make as much revenue if was to be affordable to everyone,so they call it Communist and that scares all the red necks into thinking it’s bad?
Wow just wow!!

That’s my view on it Squeeky. Business has lobbying power that in most countries would be called corrupt. They’ve got the government by the neck!

Communism means the destruction of private property, so by destroying our private health care system, you turn it into a communist health care system. It doesn’t mean you’re making communism the standard system of all industries, but it does have a slippery slope because if you can destroy private property in one industry, what stopping you from doing it in another? Food is just as important as healthcare, right? With that logic, you can easily see a communist system for food, utilities, cars, cellphone an internet service, and so on.

The reason many cannot access our private healthcare system is because they’re poor.

So should roads be private? What about the sidewalks? What about the police? What about the Fire department?

Oh, and do you hate your ISP as much as you hate your power and water company? The last two are regulated by Title 2. Comcast isn’t.

In Australia, we have both public and private health facilities. Everyone is entitled to use the public health system. We pay for this out of a levy in our payroll tax.

We also have private hospitals, specialists and other health care services. Having a public health system has not damaged the availability of private health options or the profitability of those private medical options. The two supplement each other.

Individuals who can afford to (or want to) can pay for additional private health insurance. This will subsidise but not fully pay for access to private health services. To encourage wealthier people to take out private insurance, the government makes those in a higher income bracket, pay a higher levy towards public health if they don’t have private insurance. Everyone who works pays the basic levy amount.

The two systems work in harmony. If I need elective surgery, I can pay to see a specialist and to have surgery in a private hospital. If I have private insurance, my insurance will subsidise any cost to me. However, it won’t cover it totally and I will have a bill to pay. If I don’t have private insurance, I can choose to pay for all the treatment myself. Alternatively, I can have the treatment completed through the public system. I will not receive a bill at all, but I may have to wait longer and I will not have choice about the doctors I see and my surgery will take place in a public hospital.

Should I have a heart attack or develop cancer, regardless of my financial situation, it would be in my best interest to be treated in the public system. Most specialists have both a private practice and work in the public system so I’m likely to see people at the top of their field in the public system. To have chronic illnesses cared for under the private system is very expensive because of the gap between what insurance (and Medicare) pays and what the private specialist/doctor charges plus hospital/surgery/medication fees.

In Australia, having a public system has not destroyed the various private medical businesses that operate. They’re very profitable. However, nobody needs to go without healthcare. Everyone, regardless of how rich or how poor they are, can access healthcare and medicine.

I actually hear the word socialism thrown around more than communism.

Some people in the US feel capitalism is America and being a democracy is America and believing in God is America. They are all wrapped up into one for them.

Communists are atheists, so if you are an atheist you must be a communist. Capitalism means free market and less government, so wanting the government to run things is the antithesis of that. So, if you want more government you must be socialist, maybe a communist, it is anti-American and anti-God.

See, God blesses our nation and we need to do what pleases Him.

That’s the explanation for most if the religious right. There are people not so religious who still worry that the government will screw it up and are afraid of taking the risk of change. Or, some people simply believe medical costs get higher if we socialize medical more. They forget that our medical costs were ridiculously high – ridiculously – even before Obama.

Then there are people who don’t like the idea of paying for other people to get medical care. They don’t want the wealthier paying for the poor to have those benefits.

I will point out that from what little I have read there was quite a but if opposition to socialized medicine in Canada when it was first proposed and being enacted.

Hey @johnpowell our highways here in B.C Canada are taken care of by private contractors and they do an incredible shitty job at maintaining the roads, most of us here would like the Government to take it back.

The world is turned upside down on its head.

That a society somehow “chooses” to base its economic production by having a relatively small class of people owning that means of production, necessitates state coercion and government intervention. The history of capitalism is such: It’s one increase of state power and government intervention after the other, all to maintain the wealth and privileges of the “owner class” and to maintain and protect the private property they enjoy.

There’s no “natural” reason that the relatively few should accumulate ever more wealth on the basis of “owning” the means to create that wealth (private property), whilst everyone else do the actual productive work and get relatively less for it.

What a lot of the apologetics for this patently unjust system entails, is to conflate personal property with private property. So, there are absurd arguments that communism requires one to not own anything at all—you’d have to share your house and toothbrush, because that’s all “private property”.

To focus back more on the question: The healthcare systems in the UK, and the other countries with a national healthcare system, of course, are not in any way shape or form “communist”. Threats of “communism”, in the US context, are invoked as an emotional appeal. Chomsky described Anti-Communism as the national religion of the US. I agree with him. It is one of the unifying narratives of US political culture—a part of the doctrinal system. Labelling something as “communist” is a convenient threat to sway people away from things that may actually be good for them (and invariably not so good for the wealth and privileges of the elites and the propertied.)

Nice answer @Kropotkin I can see it’s not as much communism as much as the wealthy wont be able reap much profit from universal health care as they do from private, so conveniently call it communism to scare the right and the red necks away, and they go on to screw the less fortunate another day. nice system.

For a while circulating around Facebook among my republican American friends was a quote from Margaret Thatcher. I don’t remember the quote, but it spoke if capitalism and smaller government. They used it as a way to fight back against liberals who were pointing to Europe as an example for social programs and more income equality.

They seemed to forget Thatcher didn’t touch socialized medicine. She left it intact and didn’t try to dismantle it.

@JLeslie “Thatcher didn’t touch socialized medicine. She left it intact and didn’t try to dismantle it.”

Not true. However, I also don’t think Americans quite understand how hated Thatcher was, and still is.

@JLeslie That sentiment expressed by Thatcher was echoed and amplified by Saint Ronald Reagan, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

This has become the “Neo-conservative” mantra in US politics for everything ranging from health care to business regulation to government spending, and is a major reason, IMHO, the US is not closer to a type of universal health care.

@SQUEEKY2 The irony here is that the US system is the envy of the elites and oligarchs in the UK.

Thatcher wanted to outright privatise the NHS. She only went as far as implementing “market mechanisms” in the system. The effect was that regional bodies of the NHS would compete with each other for funding—don’t ask me to explain in detail. The fevered schemes of neo-liberal ideologues doesn’t make much sense to me at the best of times. It laid the groundwork for what came later.

The ideological drive—which conveniently lines the pockets of various ministers and their business friends—to privatise and financialise various parts of the NHS has continued unabated with successive governments. The NHS used to be run by healthcare professionals, now it’s run by managers working for private companies who just happened to win contracts to “manage” the hospitals—and the predictable “streamlining” that that comes with.

Hospitals used to cook fresh in-house. Now it’s done by external private contractors.

Funding for new hospitals, equipment, etc, used to be financed directly from public funds. Then the government came up with a scheme whereby they’d finance NHS projects (and various other things) through the private sector—called PFI (private finance initiative). The result was that private investors put up the money and did the required project (often in a way to maximise their profits), and then be paid in installments over years and even decades for their service. The catch? The cost of paying these investors was often far more than simply using public funding. There are NHS trusts (regional heathcare authorities) that have had to be bailed out by the government as they couldn’t afford the PFI repayments.

@dappled_leaves interesting. I’ll look more into that. My point to American conservatives is socialized medicine does not mean the entire country will become owned by the government. Many democracies that have capitalism thriving also have socialized medicine. That talk like it is a catastrophic tipping point to communism.

I think our overall trend towards a smaller middle class is the tipping point. Like a Venezuelan acquaintance once said to me, there are just so many poor people in Venezuela they are going to vote for the person they perceive will make their life better.

@grac3alot have you seen any of the examples you stated in any of the countries I pointed out?
And Privatized highway maintenance is an absolute JOKE here in B.C everyone here would hand it back to the government in one second given half the chance, the Government sure couldn’t do any worse of a job than these private crooks are doing.

@johnpowell

Should? Everything you mentioned already had a private market and still partially exists today. In the 19 century, there were over 2,000 private companies that financed, built, and operated toll roads. That is also how our railroads were built. There are four new private roads being constructed in California today.

I don’t hate my ISP and I don’t use a company for power and water. My source of water comes from my well which goes through a filtration process. That is complimented with a large septic tank for waste. My home is powered by a home fuel cell and is complimented with backup generators.

@SQUEEKY2

What examples? Communist food systems? No, I have not. That doesn’t mean it can’t easily be decided one day that food is just as important as healthcare and needs to be nationalized.

Why do you suppose that is, anyway? Why haven’t they nationalized food, utilities, cars? If the logic is that the government can handle health care, why don’t the same communist supporters want to nationalize every industry? What is the answer to that?

People are mixing up Soviet style communism which was operating their health care under a socialist economic system vs what we have today, a communist universal health care system, but operating under some capitalist principles.

An affordable health care system is communism?
The logic that the Government should handle health care is the private sector has priced it out of reach for 55 million of your people , and many more would face financial ruin if they had a health crisis .
Should the average person face financial ruin if they needed medical help?
You say your country is the best country on earth to live,just don’t get sick or hurt because then your on your own.
What a right wing way to look at it,if we allow universal health care tomorrow the government will control everything,that is bullshit it hasn’t happened in those countries that have it ,and they have had it for years.
But please keep yelling it from the roof tops,you must have stock invested in the private health care insurance companies,to me that seems like the only industry that would hurt if the states adopted universal health care.

No flash of insight is necessary to understand why healthcare in this country consumes so whopping a portion of our GNP when compared to other first world nations. It’s simply a matter of looking at who it is that profits disproportionately from the current state of affairs. The healthcare issue is another one of those matters which snatches the covers off the way things work here as opposed to the way we are TOLD they work. A few hints? Why is it illegal for Americans to purchase their American made pharmaceuticals in Canada at huge savings? Why is it illegal for the Federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the best price for medicare, medicaid and VA pharmaceuticals? Just what sort of incentive is it that motivates our stalwart leaders to enact measures which ON THEIR FACE go against the public interest?

I

Of course @stanleybmanly the insurance companies along with the drug companies wouldn’t be able to screw the average joe the way they are now, if your country adopted universal health care, and that scares the shit out of them so,they scream communism to get the right wing red necks on their side.

Exactly! Who is it that benefits when there is an insurance company between you and your doctor? Which of the 3 parties in that relationship is embarrassingly unnecessary?

@SQUEEKY2

I told you what communism means (the elimination of private property). Affordability is either the byproduct of a privately run capitalist system, or a communist operated system that uses market principles.

You answered a question that I didn’t ask. You just said again that other countries have universal health care, but they didn’t nationalize food and utilities, so my question is why do you think that is? You just said the government should handle healthcare and does a super job, so why not let the government operate every industry? Still waiting for an answer for these two questions.

America has the best health care in the world if you stop measuring by the criteria of equity and accessibility and instead measure it by quality of care/technological availability, efficiency, and patient choice. All the studies out there are judging health care systems as a whole and comparing it based on equity and accessibility (14% of the poor). Change the criteria to what I mentioned, and the U.S would outrank the rest. You forget that our poor have a standard-of-living higher than 70% of the world’s population. It is way better to have small percentage of poor people than to have everyone equally poor.

55 million people are 14% of the population. That is small percentage and this country isn’t going to change an entire healthcare system just because a small percentage of people are unhappy. What would be the point of having everyone insured if that means we all have lower quality care/tech avail, lack of efficiency and no patient choice? Not to mention the major tax increases which would also drop the standard-of-living for everyone and new regulations to ban any form of health risks, like cigarettes and alcohol as a means of controlling healthcare costs. Its not like you’re going to be tax-exempt if you choose to not participate and go for the private sector. No, you would have to pay the higher taxes and still pay extra for private care. That isn’t much of a private choice.

Yes, I have stocks invested in every sector. That has nothing to do with the rejection of universal health care. There many arguments against it. Moral arguments, constitutional arguments, feasible arguments, etc.

@grac3alot yeah,yeah your way is far the best let the wage slaves die,after all they breed fast enough to replace themselves.
You are one scary person,I hope one day your life doesn’t depend on one of these people you would rather see die than get a health care system everyone can afford.
As for the rest (BARF)

You accuse me of not answering you, as I said this question wasn’t bad mouthing the healthcare system,rather bad mouthing the accessibility for all to that said system.
People say turn to a Government provided healthcare system would turn the US into a communist state, I provided 4 countries that have universal health care that are not communist,and you spout once they get health care everything will go, REALLY??
It hasn’t happened in those countries so why would it happen in yours??

Then you come back with your cold, well it’s only 14% of our population that can’t get it,such a small number anyways they can just die, then you go on about quality of health care and that was never an issue for what they charge in the states for health care IT BETTER BE THE FUCKING BEST.
then moral arguments? really?YOU fright wingers are afraid your taxes might go up a touch if everyone was to receive health care you would rather have those who can’t to just die,but it’s not just those 55million and to me that sounds like a lot, it’s millions more that sit on the edge and a health crisis would push them over. YOU are probably by far one of the coldest people I have ever responded to.

I never said everything else will be nationalized. I said it is a potential slippery slope. I’m asking you why other countries are not nationalizing everything? And you’re still not answering. If you’re claiming the government can run health care and do a super job with it, why should only health care be nationalized and not food and utilities? Still no answer from you.

Right, accessibility is an issue for the poor but that doesn’t mean the answer is nationalization. Answers are suppose to benefit everyone, not a select few at the expense of everyone else. Congratulations, the poor will have health care and everyone else loses. Nice plan.

Oh, so you’re starting to understand that not everyone shares your moral views? Perhaps then the best thing to do is to mind your own business instead of involving everyone in your master plan? Just a thought.

Why does everyone lose if the less fortunate get health care?

Re-read my previous replies for the answer. I’m not going back in circles with you.

@grac3alot “I never said everything else will be nationalized. I said it is a potential slippery slope. I’m asking you why other countries are not nationalizing everything? And you’re still not answering. If you’re claiming the government can run health care and do a super job with it, why should only health care be nationalized and not food and utilities? Still no answer from you.”

No country is nationalising everything because the ideological drive is to go the opposite route and privatise everything. Lobbyists and party donors don’t make any money out of nationalisation. Politicians don’t make any money out of nationalising anything. The economic— and in turn, ideological pressure—is to put as much as possible into private hands, so the few can extract as much wealth as possible out of the system.

The countries that still have a public funded nationalised heatlh service are ones that had a history of a strong trade union movement, of social democratic governments, and formerly nationalised industry and utilities. The national health services of these countres are the vestiges of a social democratic system, because the public sentiment and affection for public healthcare is so great, that it would be the death of any political party that dared do away with it—and probably mass insurrection.

Great answer @Kropotkin .
And very true.

@Kropotkin, spot on analysis. Our current government is hellbent on trying to impose a more US health system on us along with privatising anything else they can. I doubt they will be our ‘current’ government for long if they mess too heavily with Medicare.

@Kropotkin

So since you didn’t include the citizens as being part of the ideological drive to push for privatization, is it safe to say that you’re insinuating that the citizens of those countries actually desire complete nationalization of all industries, but it is the lobbyists, party donors and politicians that are undermining their will?

@grac3alot ”. . .is it safe to say that you’re insinuating that the citizens of those countries actually desire complete nationalization of all industries, but it is the lobbyists, party donors and politicians that are undermining their will?”

I don’t know about complete nationalisation, but it really is the lobbyists, party donors, and politicians undermining their will. There’s a lot of research concluding this. The recent Princeton study concluding that the US was effectively an oligarchy, as elected politicians primarily represent elite and business group interests, while public opinion goes practically ignored (except if it just happens to align with elite or business interests)

Thomas Ferguson also has compelling analysis in his Investment Theory of Party Competition. His conclusion is that the sources of party funding is the primary driver of policy decisions, and not what the public desires.

There are also attempts to sell elite ideology to the public and to manipulate their opinions also. This is done through the corporate media—funded by elites and business, who also lobby government and fund political parties.

Despite this, public opinion is still widely different from elite and business group interests; for example, the Princeston study showed a close correlation between the policies desired by trade unions and general public opinion.

And regarding desire for nationalisation (in the UK at least). This is from YouGov, an online UK survey and polling site:

“68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately. The British people also tend strongly to prefer a publicly-run National Health Service (as it is now) and a publicly-run Royal Mail (as it was until this year). ”

Privatization doesn’t work for health care because they are far to greedy for everyone to afford.
Privatizing can work in some places say Highway construction where it is in the publics interest to go to the lowest bidder.
But as for Highway maintenance it doesn’t, to have a for profit company is wrong if they can save money by not putting salt and sand on the road and get away with it they will, is that in the publics interest??
I can understand that privatizing health care would hurt the profits of the health care insurance companies, but is that really such a bad thing.
And @grac3alot Governments don’t want to take over industry,because they make far more tax dollars keeping it in private hands.
Oh and keep with your 14% it does sound better than 55million but that is the number I will keep usng.

@Kropotkin, the privatisation debate was a key issue in the previous State government election in Queensland. The selling off of public assets played a significant role in the downfall of the former Bligh, Queensland State Australian Labor Party government. The LNP took that election by 78–7 seats. The ALP were decimated.

A new State election has just been called for Jan 31. The current LNP Newman government is not popular and the privatisation debate is ongoing. I don’t believe the last election result was solely down to the issue of privatisation. The ALP had been in power for a long time (with different leaders) and I think the electorate were ready for a change. However, it was a major issue and will be in this upcoming election.

The LNP have also gone down the privatisation road and people are not happy about it. The Newman government also sacked many government workers and has undermined our democratic and judicial processes, but that’s a whole different discussion. To avoid a protracted election campaign that could only harm the LNP, Newman called an election yesterday for the end of this month.

@Kropotkin

I would agree with you if the sources you’re quoting were peer-reviewed, but they’re not. The princeton study was peer-reviewed by a biased academic journal called the Cambridge Journal of Economics. After reading their about, their aim is to publish articles that followed the economic traditions established by Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor while maintaining a strong connection with the Cambridge School of Keynesian Economics.

Same lack of peer-review for Thomas Ferguson’s analysis.

There are also attempts to sell elite ideology to the public and to manipulate their opinions also. This is done through the corporate media—funded by elites and business, who also lobby government and fund political parties.

I need to see the peer-review evidence for this.

The poll seems legit and it expresses UK sentiment.

U.S polls are different.

Here is the results for universal healthcare sentiment in the United States link

56% say no to universal health care, 42% yes.

So considering that none of the evidence is peer-reviewed or reviewed by a biased journal, it cannot be taken seriously. The only thing that can be taken seriously is the poll.

Interesting link up until 2012 the for universal health care was in front, now for the last 2 to 3 years the nay side has pulled out front by a whole 14points, amazing there is that 14 number you like so much.
Maybe that number would change if you ask the 55million that can’t afford your wonderful private health care.

Yes, the American people got to finally taste the implementation of Obama Care in 2013. It tasted like shit. It is going to taste even worse in the coming years and that isn’t even a full blown universal health care system.

I guess sometimes that is the best way to learn. They need to taste the garbage they voted for to find out it isn’t good for them.

WOW you frightwingers sure live in a world of your own.

@grac3alot I had a long answer typed out, but—

You want peer-reviewed evidence for every claim I make?

I’ve already offered far more than you have in terms of analysis and citing sources. So—you go ahead and give me your peer-reviewed evidence for all your claims.

@Kropotkin I wouldn’t worry about @grac3alot doesn’t except any link we could provide for whatever reason, seems to hate the less fortunate, anything democrat.

@Kropotkin

I don’t think that is an unreasonable request. I mean, If I just took your word on what you just wrote without looking for bias in your sources, I would have now been a victim to your propaganda (no offence). I don’t think you did it on purpose, I’m just explaining to you why I can’t take your evidence seriously. Otherwise, I might have sooner agreed with you, at least partially.

You can quote me 100 sources. Quantity doesn’t matter if the quality of the sources are inferior. As it applies practically, you didn’t really provide anything other than the poll that I agreed with.

@grac3alot What nonsense. The propaganda here has been all from you. Lots of economics journals specialise in particular schools of economic thought, that is the nature of economics—it is a value-laden discipline. Regardless, the study was on political science, and not economics.

Do you have an actual criticism of the study, or do you just want to attempt to poison the well and look for excuses to dismiss any evidence presented?

And as for the US poll on healthcare—notice how the opinion shifted significantly after Obama’s election. Why do you think that is?

Still waiting for any of your peer-reviewed evidence. If you wish to make such high demands of evidence from others (for things that I think are pretty damn obvious too), then apply them to yourself. Dismissing dissenting views from your own for what you claim is a lack of evidence does not make your position true. Put up or shut up.

@Kropotkin

Who cares what lots do? Quality is all that matters. NBER doesn’t do that and it the largest and most recognized peer-review community for economics.

If the study was on political science then it should be reviewed by peers of that field, not by some biased economic journal. I’m not going to waste my time reading and commenting on a piece that didn’t stand up to scrutiny by professionals of said field. I can go to CNN and FOX news for that kind of propaganda.

What are you talking about? Obama has been in office since 2009. Look at the graph. It was a steady 50% up, 47/46 down from third quarter of 09 till the end of 2012. Obamacare was implemented in 2013, which, if you look at the chart, is when rejection of government controlled healthcare percentages increased. It has nothing to do with Obama being in office.

There is no peer-review evidence for my claim. I already explained that. It is claim that if the latest peer-review studies on health care system comparisons would change their criteria for ranking, I’m willing to bet that the U.S would outrank other countries. I continued arguing that point based on that bet.

@grac3alot Maybe you’ll want to read the study. It wasn’t published by the Cambridge Journal of Economics, but by Cambridge Journals of the Cambridge University Press.

Ok, I read it.

From the study

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (refer to table 2). Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from Government.

our evidence does not indicate that in U.S. policy making the average citizen always loses out. Since the preferences of ordinary citizens tend to be positively correlated with the preferences of economic elites, ordinary citizens often win the policies they want, even if they are more or less coincidental beneficiaries rather than causes of the victory.

If that is true then only a minority of cases are the problem (where the elites disagree with the average voter) yet the author still claims “elite domination”. He’s contradicting his own data. Judging by the data, then, government policy is consistent with majority preferences about two-thirds of the time.

On another page he writes, Some particular U.S. membership organization especially the AARP and labor unions do tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. But other membership groups take stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to what the average American wants.

Now this is propaganda. Not only is it not accurate link and link2 but his biases are confirmed in an answer he gave to an interviewer which was an immediate red flag for me.

When the author was asked, What are the three or four most crucial factors that have made the United States this way?

He answered, the second thing is the lack of mass organizations that represent and facilitate the voice of ordinary citizens. Part of that would be the decline of unions in the country which has been quite dramatic over the last 30 or 40 years. And part of it is the lack of a socialist or a worker’s party.

So his basic propaganda here is that unions/socialist represent the people and gun owners, pro-lifers are evil and do not.

@grac3alot “If that is true then only a minority of cases are the problem (where the elites disagree with the average voter) yet the author still claims “elite domination”. He’s contradicting his own data. Judging by the data, then, government policy is consistent with majority preferences about two-thirds of the time.”

The author concludes two major influences on policy making, elites—consistent with elite theory, and business interest groups, which supports the biased pluralism model. The conclusion that it’s a mix of the two.

That the average public gets what it wants when the elites happen to want it is neither here nor there, since the study is about who influences policy decisions. The inference made from the data is that the average public has little to no say in policy decisions. That is the pertinent point.

There is also a large contradiction between what the public wants and what business interest groups want. There’s even conflict between elites and business interest groups.

Also, public opinion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. You do accept that what people think and believe is based on some sort of external reality, and various influences from it, right?

“But other membership groups take stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to what the average American wants. . .”

“Now this is propaganda. . .”

Nothing in your links contradict the claim. The author doesn’t even mention gun control or views on abortion, but rather “policy decisions” that average Americans want.

“the second thing is the lack of mass organizations that represent and facilitate the voice of ordinary citizens. Part of that would be the decline of unions in the country which has been quite dramatic over the last 30 or 40 years. And part of it is the lack of a socialist or a worker’s party.”

What propaganda? His answer is pretty consistent with the data, and how the US has historically compared to countries which have had a strong trade union movement and social democratic (socialist, if you like) parties. The US has had a very weak labour movement, has relatively weak unions, and has never had what can be called a “workers’ party”—that is why it is the way it is!

Just because you have an ideological prejudice against what the author says doesn’t make it “propaganda”. Propaganda involves emotional appeal—here we have empirical evidence and actual data, supported by logical inferences and arguments. The exact opposite to propaganda —very much unlike your attempts to poison the well and clutch for excuses to dismiss what you don’t like to hear.

I never disagreed with this average public has little to no say in policy decisions. That is probably true, however, what isn’t true is that government policy in two-thirds of the cases is determined by elite preferences. Data does not support this view.

Also, biased pluralism is a natural aspect of a political/capitalist economy. There is no surprise that in such a system highly successful capitalists are going to have a disproportionate amount of influence on public affairs (economic policy). They’re the best of said field, so their expertise is being harnessed.

@Kropotkin Also, public opinion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. You do accept that what people think and believe is based on some sort of external reality, and various influences from it, right?

No, what humans think and believe has an epigenetic influence. It isn’t exclusively external or internal, it is both.

@Kropotkin Nothing in your links contradict the claim. The author doesn’t even mention gun control or views on abortion, but rather “policy decisions” that average Americans want.

Then you’re not reading. He says it is unrelated or negatively related to what the American people want. Obviously that isn’t true, because using the data of my links, most Americans are divided between abortion and majority of Americans wants the government to stop controlling guns. So what he is saying, again, is not supported by data.

@Kropotkin What propaganda? His answer is pretty consistent with the data)

Actually, it isn’t. Since the 1950’s, approval ratings for Unions have dropped down to 53% in 2014 and in addition to that, 82% of the American public support right-to-work states. Once again, his data does not support his claim that unions tend to favor the same policies as average citizens

Who cares if other countries had strong labor unions and socialists? The fact that he wants that here is repugnant and based on the data, what unions want and what the public wants are different, so he is wrong again.

Since I’m not seeing any supporting data, this sounds like a nice piece of propaganda.

We’re talking about health care, anyway. The majority of the public doesn’t want it in the U.S, so the whole oligarchy argument is useless here. It is useless in two-thirds of all cases. Based on the trend, soon the majority of Americans won’t want unions here either.

@grac3alot “They’re the best of said field, so their expertise is being harnessed.”

Yes, I’m sure things like negative taxation, subsidies, convenient deregulations, and all the cosy interests between politicians and businesses is just harnessing their expertise. I think my eyes are spinning in their sockets.

“No, what humans think and believe has an epigenetic influence. It isn’t exclusively external or internal, it is both.”

Huh?

“Obviously that isn’t true, because using the data of my links”

We don’t know what data Gilens used, because he cites his book. Regardless, polls can yield different results depending on how the questions are framed. The Pew Research question was: “What do you think is more important—to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?”

I don’t think that’s a particularly neutrally framed question.

Let’s try Gallup Well—look at that. 47% want stricter laws, and 14% was less strict laws.

Even if there’s some discrepancy in the data here, your focus on this point is so petty that it just misses the point. You’re really just looking for excuses to dismiss the general thesis. Even if he’s wrong on this one small point—and you’ve hardly made a good case that he is—it doesn’t mean the study suddenly has no credibility and that it can be dismissed.

“Actually, it isn’t. Since the 1950’s, approval ratings for Unions have dropped down to 53% in 2014 and in addition to that, 82% of the American public support right-to-work states. Once again, his data does not support his claim that unions tend to favor the same policies as average citizens”

My mind boggles. Union support is 53% in the US? I’m amazed it’s that high, considering all the negativity and right-wing propaganda against them. What has this got to do with Gilens’ finding that trade unions are the interest group with policy desires that correlate strongest with that of the general public? Nothing. You’re saying something that you think makes a case, and it’s utterly irrelevant.

“Who cares if other countries had strong labor unions and socialists? The fact that he wants that here is repugnant and based on the data, what unions want and what the public wants are different, so he is wrong again.”

What data? You’ve not shown any supposed split between what unions and the public want. Here’s a clue for you though: trade unions comprise of ordinary working people.

“Since I’m not seeing any supporting data, this sounds like a nice piece of propaganda.”

Right back at you.

@grac3alot “We’re talking about health care, anyway. The majority of the public doesn’t want it in the U.S, so the whole oligarchy argument is useless here. It is useless in two-thirds of all cases. Based on the trend, soon the majority of Americans won’t want unions here either.”

Hey. You’re right. And they’ll complain and wonder why they’re paying so much and at how dissatisfied they are with it.

You know what’s an example of propaganda? It’s saying that nationalised healthcare is “communist”, and that it could lead to everything else turning into a communist system. That’s propaganda right there. You’re the propagandist here.

@Kropotkin Huh?

Influence isn’t exclusively environmental nor is it exclusively innate, so no, I don’t agree with you entirely that what people think and believe is just based on some external reality.

@Kropotkin What data?

You just quoted it. 82% of Americans support right-to-work laws, unions do not. Unions obviously support unions, while the polls are showing a growing disapproval of Unions by the American public.

Here is another peer-review study on union and non-union voting link Similarly, one more, link

@Kropotkin Hey. You’re right. And they’ll complain and wonder why they’re paying so much and at how dissatisfied they are with it.

The fact that the American people don’t want a universal health care means they blame government intervention for creating whatever problems that currently exist in the system. They want the government to fuck off, so that capitalism can fix the governments mess and restore equity, quality and efficiency.

Communism Part 1 a theory advocating elimination of private property
Part 2 a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Nationalization to invest control or ownership of in the national government

So yes, nationalization of anything is communism. That isn’t propaganda. These are the standard meanings of the terms. Making up your own definitions is propaganda.

Don’t pretend like you don’t have your own agenda. You branded yourself with an avatar and username of Peter Kropotkin, a man who is an anarcho-communist.

Shouldn’t health care be a civil right for all Americans?
The conservatives have convinced the right wing red necks that they will have to pay for it all,and no way are they going to pay for these losers that can’t afford health care.
How about once and for all put it to a National Referendum and truly see what the True American public wants not just the uptight Rep/cons, and their followers.

What @Earthbound_Misfit said. I too, live in Australia. I don’t have private cover, all our public hospitals are world renowned research and teaching centres. If you find yourself in one, you are receiving the best care the world has to offer. If I need care I can be seen the same day. My prescriptions are capped at 6$. I never, ever got why healthcare in the U.S. is the way it is. My sister lives there and under the current system has a 5000$ deductible. I have a conservative Christian Facebook friend who owns a home visit type service for the elderly. She has chided me about being “pro-socialist”. I have looked up what her franchise pays employees and what benefits they offer. No way could anyone with a family afford to live on that.

Which is really weird she sent me a pdf of “atlas shrugged’ and I found it so pithy and arcane I couldn’t even read it…she said her Christian anti Obama Drs. take cash payments and if anything catastrophic happened her church family would help pay the bill. this is someone I was best friends with for years but I do remember having to help her a lot with her coursework at u of I….

@SQUEEKY2

Health care was always a right for all Americans (an equal opportunity). That doesn’t mean outcomes (results) are going to be equal. You’re confusing equal opportunity (no government discrimination) with equal outcomes (results). You have a right to purchase health care but you don’t have a right to get care for free because you cannot afford it and you certainly don’t have a right to force someone else to pay for your care.

This is where liberals, social democrats and socialists disagree. They believe that outcomes need to be equalized as much as possible. The problem is that in order to equalize outcomes, you have to destroy the constitutional rights of the winners (middle-class/upper class/rich) and threaten them with violence so they give up a large portion of their income to the losers. So when you see universal public services like healthcare, or less severe services like welfare through wealth redistributive methods like progressive taxation (which ironically goes against equality since it is discrimination based on income), they’re all attempts to equalize outcomes.

I mean, what kind of response do you expect to get from people when you propose something so repugnant? You’re limiting people’s freedom of choice, you’re destroying all property rights of that aforementioned industry, and threatening people with violence so you can distribute their income against their will to a bunch of strange losers who want to be winners too. Not only that, but you’re also setting a standard that teaches you can get rewards without putting in the effort.

^ ehhh my brain is exploding… I love America but thank lil baby jaysus everyday I don’t live there…

and @SQUEEKY2 I AM BADMOUTHING their healthcare system it reeks!! 120$ for a level 1 office visit bite me

I used to talk about health care being a civil right, now I just dwell on Americans not getting ripped off. I can afford to pay for health care, but I still don’t want to be robbed. Our system in America allows doctors and insurance companies to get away with thievery. What the fuck are you going to do if you are dying? People and health are more important than money right? So, people mortgage or lose their homes to try to pay the unscrupulous medical bills. So many who are part of the Christian right are on the side of capitalism and free market, but they don’t seem to care if it is done in a way that is unethcial and immoral. I consider myself to be a capitalistic, but with some integrity.

If I believed competition would lower medical costs I would be ok with keeping the government out, but we have proven that won’t happen when it comes to health care. More often than not when a doctor or drug rises their prices and makes more money, all the medical facilities and drug companies raise their prices too. It borders on, and sometimes is collusion in my opinion.

I just find america baffling. In so many ways, the religiousness, the battle between the right and the left, the utter ignorance and rudeness which I see posted on Facebook, and the time time wasted on the fallacy that denying some will add to the good of all. Utterly baffling to an australian.

@grac3alot “Influence isn’t exclusively environmental nor is it exclusively innate, so no, . . .”

You have this knack of reading one thing, and then making inferences that aren’t there. My claim was that people’s beliefs are based on an external reality—this is a truism. Yet you go ahead and think I’m saying that this is an exclusive variable, and that I’m denying any innate factors! I never effing mentioned innate factors. I’m alluding to things like media, culture, conformity, in-group bias and other psychological factors that shape people’s beliefs and attitudes. When I’m talking about what shapes beliefs in a large population like a nation, then it doesn’t make much sense to talk about people’s individual genetics—the factors are the culture, the norms and values, the institutions of that nation.

“You just quoted it. 82% of Americans support right-to-work laws, unions do not. Unions obviously support unions, while the polls are showing a growing disapproval of Unions by the American public.”

“Here is another peer-review study on union and non-union voting link Similarly, one more, link”

My mind boggles. Gilens’ states that the sort of policies unions want largely correlate with the policy desires of the average public. You find one policy and you think that’s a refutation! The other linked studies you gave have nothing to do with the claim that unions—as a special interest group—have a stronger correlation to average public policy desires than most other special interest groups.

“They want the government to fuck off, so that capitalism can fix the governments mess and restore equity, quality and efficiency.”

Except that according to Gallup the levels of dissatisfaction in the healthcare system hasn’t changed since the 90s. Was it an evil government run system back under Bush I and Bush II?

You are correct that it seems most Americans don’t want a public funded, government run healthcare system. Do you think this is because a healthcare system run exclusively by the private sector is objectively and rationally better, or maybe because there’s propaganda against the idea of a national healthcare system? Like—oh, I don’t know—calling it “communist”?

“So yes, nationalization of anything is communism.”

No, it’s not communism at all. You don’t know the meaning of the word. A nationalised enterprise can still be run in a capitalist manner. The state becomes the owner, rather than a corporate entity, or private individuals. It’s called state capitalism.

Nationalisation was a policy of European social democrats, and not communists. Communism involves the abolition of the state entirely. It’s literally a system without a centralised government.

“These are the standard meanings of the terms. Making up your own definitions is propaganda.”

My irony meter is exploding. Try looking up “communism” in a proper source describing political terms, and not in an American dictionary. The US was in a decades long “cold war” with a “Communist” country. A US-centric dictionary will contain the—ironically—propagandistic and negative misuse of the term, reflecting the common prejudices against communism. Like yours.

“Don’t pretend like you don’t have your own agenda. You branded yourself with an avatar and username of Peter Kropotkin, a man who is an anarcho-communist.”

I’m proud to use his name. He was a great academic and political philosopher. He was also a strident critic of the USSR at its inception, and not decades later when it became a convenient enemy invoked to stifle dissent and undermine alternative economic models to capitalism.

@Kropotkin Do you think this is because a healthcare system run exclusively by the private sector is objectively and rationally better, or maybe because there’s propaganda against the idea of a national healthcare system? Like—oh, I don’t know—calling it “communist”?

Private is better.

@Kropotkin No, it’s not communism at all. You don’t know the meaning of the word. A nationalised enterprise can still be run in a capitalist manner. The state becomes the owner, rather than a corporate entity, or private individuals. It’s called state capitalism

You’re not reading again. I already explained several times that all current major communist run health care systems around the world are operating under market principles. There is no discrepancy between the definition of communism and how the system operates. It is still communism. I live in America, so I follow standard dictionary of America.

Here, oxford dictionary, Communism

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. See also Marxism.

No private property. Same definition. Public ownership. Like I said, when you make up your own definitions, it is propaganda.

@grac3alot ” . . . all current major communist run health care systems . . .”

And I’ve explained several times that they’re not communist, but you’re the one not reading.

If you learn about political concepts from the dictionary, then that I guess that explains a lot. Maybe we can blame the “communist” education system in the US.

Ok, I think we have exhausted this enough.

Holy shit,^^^ you are one stubborn fright winger.
Amazing how you right wingers confuse Affordable with Free,n Canada we don’t get our health care for free but it is affordable to everyone regardless of their income.
The private form of US health care only works for people that can afford your screw em silly private health care insurance.
A lot of people can’t afford that with no fault of their own,and you and your fright wing friends would rather them face financial ruin or die,than admit the US needs something that everyone can afford.
The universal health care system seems to work for the rest of the world, WHY can’t you admit it would be just fine in the US as well?

@SQUEEKY2 It’s communist. Duh.

Oh yeah I fergot, gracey sure is one scary fright winger.

Hey @grac3alot I know you love privatization of everything, but here in B.C ever since our wonderful Government all those years ago privatized road maintenance it has been a fucking nightmare the private contractors have been doing a worse job year after year,than to when the Government was in charge of it.

@SQUEEKY2

First of all, you’re not making any sense. You have a 10% poverty rate in your country. That means whatever medical care the poor are receiving in your country is being paid for by taxed income of the working class. That means health care for the poor is free at the expense of the taxpayers.

Secondly, why would I want inferior health care just so 14% of our losers can have access? Who the hell implements policies for a small percentage of the population that is mainly for their benefit? No thanks.

Thirdly, it isn’t just about affordability. That isn’t the only criteria for measuring a system and it certainly isn’t just about healthcare. As mentioned before, America has the highest standard-of-living and we have better lives than anyone in the world. The peer-review research from the OECD confirms this with their better-life-index. Link. Here is what it looks like in chart form only by income and education link

You see that? Our bottom 10% have a standard-of-living/better life than 70% of the world’s population. Not only is our income per capita much greater, but our cost-of-living is much lower and our purchasing power is higher. No one compares to us.

Here is an example of all that.

Consumer Prices in Australia are 29.86% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Australia are 32.07% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in Australia are 36.88% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Australia are 33.07% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in Australia are 15.04% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Australia is 12.90% lower than in United States
United States Income Per Capita $54,000. Australia $45,000.

Fourthly, I already mentioned something that cannot be replaced. Property rights (a good portion of us like making money), freedom of choice (we like making our own personal decisions), constitutional rights (we don’t like to be coerced by our governments). How do you piss of a demonrat? Tell them you like freedom.

@SQUEEKY2 but here in B.C ever since our wonderful Government all those years ago privatized road maintenance it has been a fucking nightmare

Anecdotal evidence is not an argument. Can’t take it seriously.

I lived in America for 15 years, worked, owned a home. I came back here in 2013. My house payment is exactly the same as what I paid in the Pacific Northwest , for a larger home on a bigger block here. I make a much higher income than I did there, everyone does, the pay is higher here. Groceries mostly are about the same. Everything else, especially restaurants, is more expensive. That’s ok. I’m going to take my 100k plus salary, my free healthcare, my city without legions of homeless people and go have a cry because I live in a communist country.

Like I told squeaky, your anecdotal evidence is not an argument and cannot be taken seriously. Your personal experience is statistically insignificant. Your average salary per person is almost $10,000 less than ours. Your cost-of-living is much higher and your purchasing is lower. Those are the facts.

To translate that laymans terms, you make a lot less, you pay a lot more, and what you can buy with your money is much more limited than what we can do with ours.

Just looked up your poverty rate. it is the same as ours. The poverty rate in Australia is 13.9% out of a 22 million population.

We have 316 million people here in the U.S.

@grac3alot Averages don’t tell the whole story either. Salary per person America doesn’t explain how much 80% of the population makes. We have over 400 households making over $200 million a year. It would be more interesting to look at statistics that chop off the bottom 10% and the top 10% of both countries and see how the numbers roll out.

Some expenses might be higher in Australia but not their medical care. We need to look at that as an expense too, it’s a pretty substantial one.

Plus, not having to worth about medical care is worth money. My dad is retired military, not rich, but he says he feels “wealthy” because he doesn’t need to think about money. His mortgage is paid. He has a pension and he has medical care. Basic needs taken care of. He doesn’t have a yacht, a big house, and his cars are older, but he is happy to have made less during his working years for the security now.

How many Americans really feel secure financially? I think it’s a low number. Especially when we talk about health care. There is so much dishonestly in the system. The fees are not transparent at all.

@JLeslie Salary per person America doesn’t explain how much 80% of the population makes.

You’re looking at the wrong data. Look at the first link, not the chart. The chart is customized for top/bottom. I’m talking about every american, on average, is making $54,000 a year. but if you want household, look at the first link, the data is right there. Here..

Household net adjusted disposable income
Australia – 31,197
United State – 39,531

Household net financial wealth
Australia – 38,482
United State – 132,822

No comparison to us.

Medical Care:

Australia – 3500
United States – 7500

That is still not making a dent.

http://www.livingin-australia.com/salaries-australia/ Sorry I don’t believe you. Whatever, I know where I’d rather be.

The source of this link is dead, but I manually looked up on the .gov website. The numbers on the site you linked to aren’t accurate at all. Wonder why you didn’t link me to the .gov directly? Hmm?

Anyway, on the .gov website, the average weekly earnings of all employees was 1 122.90. That is a 53,000 average salary per person. When you adjust for disposable income, it will come out the figures I quoted from my peer-review link.

Furthermore, there is a 100,000 difference between U.S household net financial wealth and Australias which means your purchasing power is absolutely terrible compared to U.S. With the high cost-of-living, your money doesn’t go a long away.

You didn’t understand what I said. I want to know how the middle class compares atking out the super rich and very poor in both countries. I always think in terms of household incomes for stats like this, but we can use individual income also, I don’t care which.

If Australia has fewer millionaires and more people making $100k, then their average might look the same as the US, but really fewer people in the US are living well compared to Australia. I don’t know if your averages are mean or median, but I still think we need to cut away the extremes to see a more accurate picture.

How about a national referendum to once and for all see if Americans are as cold as you are or maybe they want universal health care, or does that idea scare you @grac3alot ?
And don’t bother throwing another red neck conservative link at us, does a National vote on the subject scare you?
Or would you welcome it to finally show us that it is NOT what your country wants, if your against a referendum than all your links and arguments are just fright wing B.S.

@JLeslie

There isn’t a universal standard for what is considered middle class or rich, nor is there a clear standard for how many households are middle class, nor do they have household incomes data that is split by income classes.. At least not from legitimate sources. I’ve seen some propaganda attempts though.

@SQUEEKY2

If I’m against universal healthcare why would I want to risk a national referendum? Even if there is one, it still has to align with our constitution. By your logic, if there is a national referendum to see if Americans want blacks enslaved again and the majority of the public says yes, then we have to do it.

Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the new deal twice and twice it was struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. The only way he got it passed was because the supreme court judges of that time died out and he appointed pro new deal judges to replace same. Sure enough, they passed it on the third attempt. We were never suppose to have a social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare system. Unconstitutional.

So not everything that is wanted is to be allowed.

An interesting thread, to be sure! I lived in the Pacific Northwest except for uni in the Bible Belt. On the west coast, I never met a person that had these ideas. That the disenfranchised, the unlucky, the very poor should just go die or something is an interesting thought and very alien to us communists. A lot of good info here.

I don’t know? When I click on the link it works fine, not dead. Maybe because I’m in Australia who knows.

@grac3alot we must part at disagreeing with each other, I will never see it your way or you mine.
I sure hope you never have to depend on one of those 55 million losers you hate so much.
For saying your country is the best in the world, maybe for the top wage earners, as for me if I never set foot in the states again it would be to soon.

@trailsillustrated don’t worry about it @grac3alot doesn’t except anyones link except the ones she posts.
She thinks an affordable health care would be the ruin of the US, even though they are the LAST industrialized nation on earth NOT to have it.
Health care US style is for the ones that can afford the over priced private health care insurance providers, the rest of the population can just go die,just make sure they stop and vote Republican on the way to the grave yard.

I guess the thing is, over there you really really notice the gap between the haves and the have nots. I was born in South Africa and I’ve seen some hell poverty, I guess I thought the in the USA it wouldn’t be so blaring and in your face.

@trailsillustrated

The one that you linked to on fluther works, however, the link that the site uses to get its information from is just a link to the main website. It doesn’t actually link the data. I had to manually find it and when I did, the numbers didn’t match to the website you linked to on fluther.

@SQUEEKY2

I don’t hate them and I’m only calling them losers because that is how you referred to them. Just talking your language. No, it is the best for all its citizens, even our poor. The data supports that.

The .gov link, I accepted. The numbers were similar to the number that my link concluded with.

I bet it really pisses you demonrats off when a poor person votes republican?

@grac3alot you are well spoken and seem educated. May I ask what part of the usa do you reside?

North East

Thank you it is interesting to hear your views, the only other american that I’ve met that held similar I felt was not very smart. You seem to be.

Thanks.

@grac3alot “We were never suppose to have a social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare system. Unconstitutional.”

Without the New Deal, your precious capitalist system would have been torn to shreds, and you wouldn’t be here today spouting your Rand-esque, Social Darwinist dross (describing the poor who can’t afford health insurance as “losers”—classy)

1930s USA wasn’t as deluded as it is today. There was a much more militant and radical worker’s movement. There was a working class press, and working people knew why they were poor, and exactly who was shafting them.

The New Deal may well have been unconstitutional, it was also done to preserve capitalism.

I find it highly ironic (yet again!) that you’re here today bemoaning the one thing that historically saved the very economic system you laud.

Uh @grac3alot you referred to them as losers first not me, and you Rep/cons would rather they die than get a health care insurance they could afford.
I called them losers because that is what you called them not me.
And that is what you rep/cons do call them.

I find it astounding that an articulate and presumably sort of erudite person believes this. It’s very interesting, the only other time I’ve ever heard of it was from rednecks

@grac3alot I’m not saying we can necessarily find stats that exclude the lower and upper 10%, although that would not be hard to calculate for the people who actually have all the data, I am saying you need to question what averages mean. If half the people on my block make $25k and half make $75k, the average is $50k. I know you know this. If ⅓ make $40k, ⅓ make $50k and ⅓ make $60k, the average is still $50. The first example has people living in very different financial situations. Someone making $25 is barely getting by. Someone making $75 is doing pretty good. Assuming a typical community, not some sort if expensive city like NY.

As far as I know, although it might have changed in recent years, America is in the tip 10 of millionaires per capita and Australia I don’t even think makes the top 20. So, the American averages have extremes at the very top pulling our averages up.

The biggest obstacle to affordable insurance, IMHO, is the profit motive. The prime directive of any corporation is (and should be) to make money for its stockholders. Any corporation that says different is disingenuous at best, or outright lying at worst. Most insurance companies today are corporations. So when the ability to provide affordable insurance conflicts with the ability to make a profit, we should not be surprised that the profit takes precedence. Mutual insurance companies (owned by the member/policyholders) would make more sense in these cases.

@grac3alot I bet it really pisses you demonrats off when a poor person votes republican?

I assume by “demonrats” you actually mean “Democrats”. If you are going to do that, we should probably refer to the other side as “republi-cons”!

It doesn’t “piss me off” as much as it makes me sad. I’m saddened that so many poor persons can be persuaded convinced influenced to vote against their own best interest.

SUPER GREAT ANSWER^^^^^ @Yetanotheruser .

@Kropotkin

You’re forgetting that it was the federal reserve that caused the great depression, not the market. To then expect markets to fix the governments screwups overnight is not realistic. The New deal was the governments way of artificially cleaning up the mess it created. Also, it was suppose to be on a temporary solution, not a permanent system. As for markets, ups and downs are natural byproducts of a capitalist system. You will never have a steady up trend. Consumers and entrepreneurs misallocate resources, make poor investments, make bad choices which leads to economic downturn. The market corrects itself naturally by reallocating resources, saving, cutting expenses, cutting costs, etc.

The problem is that when there are natural market down times, you got all the jobless/poor cry babies that don’t want to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Of course they’re going to blame the entrepreneur for everything and beg the government to do something. That is where politicians come in and promise the cry babies solutions for votes.

@SQUEEKY2

No, you did. Here is what you wrote I sure hope you never have to depend on one of those 55 million losers I haven’t mentioned losers before this statement for yours. Go look back at the answers.

Busted.

@JLeslie (

Can’t help ya. No data.

@Yetanotheruser

Demonrats was just a response to squeeks play on words “redneck fright wingers”. I’m not sure he understands what redneck means. It is also a disparaging word. Do you call black people niggers? @SQUEEKY2 ?? Or is it only ok to use disparaging words against white people?

As for poor republicans, I think what you’re saying is arrogant. You assume that poor people are too dumb to know what is best for them and that they’re falling victims to propaganda. Evidence for this? None. It is that kind of talk that causes them to despise you. You undermine their existence.

Also, from the data I saw on the last presidential election, most of the poor who were white voted republican and it was mostly the poor minorities who voted for Obummer.

@grac3alot Arrogance has nothing to do with it. There was no assumption as to the intelligence or personal worth of those falling victims to propaganda. It is difficult not to confuse propaganda with the truth when the sources of information are limited by the plutocrats.

As you pointed out, most of the poor who were white did vote Republican. Most of that demographic was also living in regions where broadcast TV is dominated by the likes of Faux Fox News.

influenced to vote against their own best interest.

That is what you wrote. That statement is an implication that the poor don’t know what is best for them. So according to you, they’re voting against their own interest because they listen to fox and not because fox aligns with their interests. If you have fox, you have CNN. I’m sure they heard what CNN and MSNBC had to say. They didn’t like what the demonrats were offering.

WOW @grac3alot we must part on disagreeing you say you don’t hate any of these 55 million that can’t access your wonderful health care system, and they should just die before you would back anything that they could afford,after all it is a slippery slope and the health care system would wither and die if it wasn’t a max profit business that it is today.
BARF!!
So you say you don’t hate these people,and for once I believe you who else can you screw for your benefit? not any of your Repli/con buddies thats for sure.
I leave now feeling nothing but sorry for you, it must be very lonely in your ivory Tower ,with your rose coloured glasses,thinking all is well, so go now and shout from the roof tops OBAMA is evil and Rep/cons are good after all it’s the rep/cons that give you poor people jobs, sorry if that doesn’t include health benefits ,you can buy that yourself with the $2.25 an hour we pay you.

The minimum wage here is $16.40. The average person makes about 80k a year. I’ve never met anyone on less. It goes plenty far. There are poor people, they get the dole which and can if they want to live in council housing which has really cheap or no rent. I think that’s what the people that are homeless there would be doing over here.

@grac3alot And your data is questionable for how it actually applies to real life, so you have no data also.

What a nice simple and oh so true answer @JLeslie THANKS.^^