This just in, republicans have no problem with socialized medicine...

I don't mind these kinds of threads. I suppose you could ask Percy to shut it down? You could ask him to make it a rule to not allow anything but EvC related material? I dunno. The thread says "socialized medicine". I don't see where it says "socialism". Again, conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" in relation to socialized medicine......but only when the general populace gets access to it.They're not. "Socialized medicine" is not a "buzz-phrase", nor is it wholly incorrect in describing the sort of medical care the OP mentioned. IMO, you sling that word around too much. Just because it disagrees with your worldview doesn't make it "trolling". Disagreeing and having a conversation is not an argument.

"When the general populace gets access to it" is when it becomes what conservatives refer to as "socialism", no?Where socialized simply means 'subsidized', do we see conservatives screaming socialism at all those things too?Are they trying to shut down VA hospitals and end Medicare? I suppose some might be, but is that generally a conservative position? I don't think it is. I don't think that simply being subsidized is what conservatives are against when they argue against socialized medicine. They're generally against it being 'for everyone'. So when people say that the left is for socialized medicine, they're saying that they are for the sort of medical care the OP mentioned?But that's conflating seperate issues and I don't think you can be correct here. If you were, then the left should be championing this as an example of socialized medicine and something that we are aiming for. The fact that it is being used against the right means that they don't like the medical care the OP mentioned. So then why call it socialized medicine? I think its a result of a dishonest approach by the OP, and the fact that they're just not that good at trolling."Here's a guy who is against universal healthcare but for subsidized healthcare, so if we call them both 'socialized medicine' then we can make him into a hypocritical positon where he is both for and against 'socialized medicine' at the same time"I expect better than that.

quote:

---

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

---

Taz had no interest in an honest discussion when he posted the OP. He was just trying to get a rise out of people. That's trolling. My bad. How about disagreeing and having a conversation with the people who are arguing with them about doing that, you think that might be hurting your goal some?

Care to explain? Like I said: conservatives conflate the two. So YOU think socialized medicine=socialism? Tell me: do you think it is OK to use taxes to pay for a small sect of people's healthcare, but not OK to use it for the whole of society? If so, why? In a sense: yes. Except they want those sort of services for EVERYONE, not just a select few. It is being used against the right because it is hypocritical. I'm not sure where the confusion about that lies.... When it is subsidized with taxpayer money, it is, essentially, socialized medicine. And that's your opinion that you are entitled to.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : fixed image code

So does the OP... but nobody has a problem with that. I don't know what "socialism" is. I see the phrase "socialized medicine" thrown around, but I thought it was referring more to the universal aspect rather than just the subsidized aspect. I don't want the government to subsidize healthcare for the entire population because I don't think they'd do a very good job and I think the taxes would have to be ridiculously high. The VA hospital here in St. Louis is fucking pathetic, so with that as my example of government subsidized healthcare, it gets a big fat NO THANK YOU from me. I'd definately prefer my private health insurance and personal doctor to that. RIght, so its not just about being subsidized! And since the example in the OP is for just a select few, shouldn't you be explaining to Taz how this is not a good example of "socialized medicine"? Especially instead of arguing with me for trying to understand what the hell he is actually talking about? Because, technically, it isn't. You have to conflate things first. But that's not really what the left is trying to acheive with "socialized medicine", is it? Isn't having the services for everyone the larger goal?

Except that it doesn't..... As of late, it is a scare word used by conservatives to conjure up images about communism and how scary the cold war was. I've already explained this a number of times. It is socialized medicine because society is paying for it....Let's change the phrase to "taxpayer funded healthcare". It is exactly the same. I've yet to see a politician complain about it.... That is yet to be found out. There are plenty of measures that can be taken to redirect funds. Well, I'm glad you can afford it. Many people cannot. Yes, it is. They are taking advantage of a system that could be implemented on a larger scale. But, if it were on a larger scale, it's socialism. So long as only the select few get it, it's a-ok. The system, when implemented on a larger, societal scale, would be exactly the same. Except they would call it socialism and fight against it. Yes....

And you have been shown repeatedly that this is one restrictive definition.
Evidently others did not think that was what was meant. As shown by the OP itself. You are continuing to build a strawman. The op and others are obviously using this definition.

quote:

---

socialized medicine: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation

---

not

quote:

---

A system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.

---

Yes they are, but that would be Universal healthcare, which is a form of socialized medicine. It has been shown to you that we already have forms of socialized medicine in this country.Veterans health Service, Indian health Service and medicare are existing forms of socialized medicine. They are not universal healthcare.Are we debating now?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Except that it does.... Yes, let's:

quote:

---

This just in, republicans have no problem with taxpayer funded healthcare......

---

Not quite the same, is it? And that makes sense to me... I'm for having subsidized healthcare for the Vets but not for having subsidized healthcare for the entire population. That's not hypocritical. But it wouldn't be exactly the same, it'd be way huge-er. And that is what they're referring to as "Socialism", when its on a societal scale. So I'm not seeing the hypocricy. And don't you think that refering to "taxpayer funded healthcare" as "socialized medicine" on the one hand and then using "socialized medicine" to refer to univeral helathcare on the other hand is something that should not simply be accepted?

But from what I've been reading about Scott, he seems to be against 2nd definition and not the first one. So bringing up an example of him being for the first one doesn't contradict his position, and thus isn't technically hypocrisy. Not that he isn't a jerk or anything.You have to conflate the two to spin this into hypocrisy. Sure, is Scott against any of those things? Are Republicans in general?

Actually, it is. Why? Because they clamor on about smaller government and no taxes, all the while using TAXPAYER FUNDED HEALTHCARE. They get cheaper health insurance that you and I pay for, yet WE have to pay out the nose for worse care. You're OK with this?I'm not sure how much further this conversation with you can go. VA aside, you have no problem having your taxes go to a select few, but you do have a problem if a portion goes towards all, yourself included? Why should certain people get better healthcare than the rest, when the same system and funds could be used to care for everyone? I don't think I can further assist in the confusion you seem to be having.

No, I've already called that hypocritical bullshit. I've explained that I just don't get the 'socialized medicine' bit. In some cases, sure. I don't need government assistance in my healthcare, so I don't have a problem with me not getting it. My friend got disabled and can't work and I have no problem with having my taxes going to them to help with their medical needs. Because some people need help from the government but not everybody does and the government isn't up to the task of providing helathcare to everybody.

DO your taxes go towards his care? Do you realize that the right is trying to get rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare, regardless of whether there are people that need it? That is kinda the crux of the topic at hand.... They want to get rid of ALL of it, while taking advantage of it.... So you're saying this multimillionaire (the governor in the OP) IS in need of government help? More so than the janitor? Why not? Is the funding of war that important that some of those funds can't be redirected towards taking care of our own people?

I don't know. No... evidence? I haven't seen that they want to get rid of all of it. No, of course not. They can hardly get anything right. From what I've heard, the hospitals that they do have their hands in are fucked up. I don't know.

Boehner: We Will Cut Social Security, MedicarePractically every GOP lawmaker in both chambers is now on record supporting a ridiculous plan to end Medicare entirely, privatizing it out of existence, and replacing it with a voucher scheme. Boehner got ’98 percent’ of what he wanted in debt dealI mention Boehner as he is the lead voice. If you dig into the Tea Party ranks, they are much worse....It's not hard to find. Especially amid the fiasco labeled the "debt ceiling crisis". For profit health care (i.e.: the private insurance companies) do jack shit to care for consumers. They are all about profits....at yours and my expense. Now, I'm not claiming to know how good or bad of a job Uncle Sam would do, but at least Universal Healthcare would give EVERYONE the chance to get seen without worrying about going bankrupt just because they are sick and because they can't afford the outlandish premiums. Again, good for you that you can afford it. Ask the single parent with a few kids if they can. (hint: I am and I can't). Then why did you say the gov't wasn't up to the task? What is so much more important than taking care of US?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I don't see anything in there about getting rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare. Well, I still haven't seen anything about getting rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare. I haven't had any problems getting the care I need... and I think the services that I receive should come at my expense. I wonder what the side effects would be... I've been waiting to have children until I can better afford it. What's my incentive to be responsible if I'm just gonna have to pay for the people who weren't and would've gotten mine paid for if I hadn't? With a big enough safety-net, everyone will behave recklessly. Seems like a bad idea to me. They can't get anything right. How much of our military spending advances the result of taking care of us? That's a complicated subject.

Do you know what Social Security and Medicare are? Like I said: good for you for being able to afford it and not having any major health concerns. Not everyone is so lucky. And with Universal HealthCare: they still would. Except instead of you paying taxes for some elite few to get health care, on top of paying your premium, your taxes would also benefit you, and you wouldn't have the premium. Of everyone having access to healthcare, preventative services, OBGYN's for pregnant women, prescription drugs that they need? Oh it would be terrible, I'm sure. Again: good you. We can't all be perfect and not make mistakes. So who gets to decide who does have children and when? Why should those people suffer? Why should those children go without healthcare? Or, why should those families be broke just to pay for insurance? Is this Somalia? And if we allow teh gays to marry: everyone will marry gay. And if we end prohibition: everyone will turn into alcoholics. And if we teach kids safe sex (instead of abstinence), they'll all screw each other.{abe}
So are you more reckless because you have health insurance? I can tell you that people abuse the system as it is: all because they can go to the emergency room, not get turned down and not have to pay for it. Sure, their credit will get dinged, but when you're ass broke with medical bills up the ass: who cares?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.