danivon wrote:If you know what Marx was saying, you also know it was a long term prediction and aim, rather than a definition of how it worked straight away. He was mainly wrong (in my view) about the middle bit - getting from here to there via revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It instead needs democratic action and consent.

And, yes, centralizing is a tenet of practical, implemented socialism.

And not universally applied. Tanzania in the 1970s decentralised under it's socialist government. France decentralised under Mitterand in the 1980s (it was the right wing Gaullists who liked to centralised post-war France). The UK saw devolution under Labour in the 90s.

Not in my definition of "conservative." In fact, to me, it's common sense. Why should Boston get a cut of the money every town needs for schools? Why should DC have a say in the education of kids in Idaho? A "conservative" believes in the Constitution, thus would not want more power in DC than the Constitution permits.

Well, yes, because you have your own definition of words. Ever heard of Lewis Carroll's Walrus?

Conservatism pre-dates the existence of America, and is not defined by America. A conservative, by definition, opposes change. Applying a narrower definition needs a little more than claiming 'common sense'. Besides, Conservatives have supported anti-constitutional measures, such as DOMA, the Patriot Act, etc.

It seems you know far less of it. For example, please cite ONE country in which socialism has been featured and the government has yielded, resulting in a worker's paradise.

I'll wait.

It was happening in Spain before the fascists launched their coup in 1936. It was happening in Hungary and Czechoslovakia before the Soviets crushed it. The areas controlled by that Zapatist rebels in Mexico are explicitly beyond government control. Of course the forces of the state (left, right, centrist) do not take kindly to challenges to it's power.

And of course we are still awaiting how Capitalism brings such great freedom and fairness, or avoids governments getting too powerful. Individuals get screwed by ideologies of all sides.

freeman3 wrote:Actually throw out the 80/20 rule--let them make as much money as they want that will encourage innovation. Cost? Obviously, I don't know. Actually would be perfectly ok if the program was not popular as that would limit the cost. Would have to charge premiums certainly to defray some of the costs. But this is the place where the poor, those with pre-existing conditions or anyone who can't get affordable insurance can go out as a last resort. If you charge a person an initial premium based on the chance that their health care expenses will exceed their max out-of-pockt cost that should defray some of the costs. Then the expense would be those who don't have the means to pay the initial premium for a kind of catastrophic coverage plus money not paid back to the government and not collected by the IRS. If you have a pre-existing condition and make a lot of money you're going to wind up paying a lot money. But a healthy person in their 20s will pay little but get covered, no one will go bankrupt, and mostly we would be subsidizing the treatment of those who cannot afford it. I suppose that could be expensive, though--I don't know. And because you have a last resort, you can have a free-wheeling freemarket no holds-barred private insurance health care market.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If you know what Marx was saying, you also know it was a long term prediction and aim, rather than a definition of how it worked straight away. He was mainly wrong (in my view) about the middle bit - getting from here to there via revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It instead needs democratic action and consent.

Right, except he understood one thing: that no one in their right mind believes such a system will work, It has to be imposed because it is irrational: you cannot expect those who have the ability to make wealth to be completely altruistic and those with less ability to be willing, in spite of their limitations, to also be altruistic. In other words, the only problem with Marxist theory is human nature.

And, yes, centralizing is a tenet of practical, implemented socialism.

False. It's a common feature, but not a 'tenet'. More of a means than an end, you see.

And not universally applied. Tanzania in the 1970s decentralised under it's socialist government. France decentralised under Mitterand in the 1980s (it was the right wing Gaullists who liked to centralised post-war France). The UK saw devolution under Labour in the 90s.

Well, let's see, Mr. Persnickety. If those regimes all "decentralized," then what happened before that? Oh, wait! There was something to "decentralize," which means . . . it was centralized!

So, it's pretty much a tenet. Thanks for playing.

No, I think it's actually a pretty common tenet (I like that word) of conservatism. Of course, that's hard for you to grasp: in Britain, your conservatives are moderates.

Conservatism pre-dates the existence of America, and is not defined by America. A conservative, by definition, opposes change. Applying a narrower definition needs a little more than claiming 'common sense'. Besides, Conservatives have supported anti-constitutional measures, such as DOMA, the Patriot Act, etc.

So, Bill Clinton was a conservative? Interesting. Biden? Schumer? Fascinating.

Traditional liberalism would exclude many "liberals" too, but that's kind of pointless, unless we're in a classroom.

It seems you know far less of it. For example, please cite ONE country in which socialism has been featured and the government has yielded, resulting in a worker's paradise.

I'll wait.

It was happening in Spain before the fascists launched their coup in 1936. It was happening in Hungary and Czechoslovakia before the Soviets crushed it. The areas controlled by that Zapatist rebels in Mexico are explicitly beyond government control. Of course the forces of the state (left, right, centrist) do not take kindly to challenges to it's power.

Capitalism has its good side. Socialism, not so much. Ask Venezuelans how joyous it is. They'd answer, but they're standing in line for toilet paper.

freeman3 wrote:Well there is a problem to be solved--there is nothing magical about the ACA that says it is the solution. Give us an alternative, Republicans.

The Wall Street Journal said a few weeks ago that Republicans had an opening to come up with a plan on health care. I think you would find Democrats amenable to some new ideas. But if the Republicans don't offer an alternative then Democrats will just dig in their heels.

And one side or the other will "win" on this issue. But the result will not be good for the country.

danivon wrote:Still none of this noodling distracts from the point - Obamacare is not 'socialist'.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Still none of this noodling distracts from the point - Obamacare is not 'socialist'.

We disagree.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Still none of this noodling distracts from the point - Obamacare is not 'socialist'.

We disagree.

Well, yes. But as you make clear, that's largely because you don't use words to mean what they mean, just what you want them to.

danivon wrote:But we are using the same language, right? 'Conservative' has a fairly simple definition, which is based on conserving, keeping things the same, or resisting change.

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:But we are using the same language, right? 'Conservative' has a fairly simple definition, which is based on conserving, keeping things the same, or resisting change.

I've got to agree with Dan, your misuse/overuse of the word socialism damages all of your arguments when you whip it out. The word socialism means something to you that it doesn't to most of the rest of the educated world. It makes it harder to have a meaningful debate when the words we use have different meanings.

Doctor Fate wrote:Fine, you guys are experts on socialism, but you know little about conservatism.

Danivon wrote:'Conservative' has a fairly simple definition, which is based on conserving, keeping things the same, or resisting change.

Wikipedia wrote:Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances.[26] As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative. In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of Russell Kirk).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Fine, you guys are experts on socialism, but you know little about conservatism.

I know enough to know that it's based on the following:

Danivon wrote:'Conservative' has a fairly simple definition, which is based on conserving, keeping things the same, or resisting change.

American conservatives are really 'liberal conservatives':

Wikipedia wrote:Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances.[26] As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative. In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of Russell Kirk).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... nservatism

But there are many flavours of Conservatism in the US, let alone the whole world.

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning also indicates that 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, the first time that a clear majority in CNN polling has felt that way.

According to the survey, conducted last Monday through Wednesday, 40% say the President can manage the government effectively. That 40% figure is down 12 percentage points from June and is the worst score Obama received among the nine personal characteristics tested in the new poll.

. . . Obama’s woes are not limited to honesty and his managerial skills. Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.

Abbott Laboratories chief executive Miles White said something last Tuesday that should jolt tens of millions of Americans who watch from a comfortable distance as the giant Obamacare blimp ignites and tumbles to the ground. These Americans are safely ensconced in employer-provided health care coverage — for now.

But there are "clear incentives for companies to drop their health care plans and move people onto the exchanges," White told analysts at a luncheon, referring to the disastrously cranky and unreliable online insurance marketplaces created under Obamacare.

"I can tell you that the employees of Abbott or AbbVie (the pharmaceutical firm Abbott spun off in January) are going to be pretty unhappy about that, you know, if we did that," White said.

If President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders think the outcry against Obamacare is fierce now, watch if millions more Americans get blindsided with the news that they'll be forced into these dysfunctional government online marketplaces. Some will face higher premiums or higher deductibles, and they'll be required to share private medical and financial information on a website with a questionable security firewall, opening them to fraudsters, hackers and cyberchaos.

The full brunt of Obamacare's impact on Americans is still gathering. Every law creates winners and losers, but with this law so far, the losers are piling up:

• Millions of Americans have seen their individual coverage canceled and are scrambling to find new policies. Many are learning that their new coverage will probably cost more via higher premiums and deductibles … if they can break through the error messages to the HealthCare.gov website. The president's tepid "fix" last week would allow (but not require) insurers to renew old individual policies for a year, if state regulators are on board with that. On Friday, Illinois officials announced they would allow this temporary remedy. Now we'll see how Illinois insurers respond. Whatever happens, this move is only a delay. A complete overhaul of the federal law is still urgently needed.

• People who gain coverage through smaller employers are at risk of getting cancellation notices next year. Here's why: Many businesses with fewer than 50 employees buy coverage in the small-group market. These plans can temporarily keep offering coverage that didn't meet expensive Obamacare requirements. When that ends next year, though, many employers may cancel policies because Obamacare coverage will likely boost costs.

• Hospitals are bracing for financial turbulence as out-of-pocket deductibles climb and people find themselves liable for more of their medical bills before insurance kicks in, The Tribune's Peter Frost reports.

In the past, hospitals could count on insurers to pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of services, leaving the rest to patients. For patients with high-deductible plans, however, the insurer's share drops to as low as 60 percent, with consumers on the hook for the balance. And if patients can't pay? Hospitals can write it off as bad debt or, in some cases, charity care. But many hospitals are already operating on thin margins. Add them to the list of potential Obamacare losers in waiting.