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

It is 'for everyone'. The fact that it only covers some people makes it UNFAIRLY 'for everyone' That don't make no sense.Are you just using the term 'socialized' because it is subsidized?

I clicked your link and went to the first definition:

quote:

---

socialized medicine 
—noun
any of various systems to provide the entire population with complete Medical care through government subsidization and regularization of medical and health services.

---

Epic fail.Your's is from the "Medical Dictionary", the second one.The third one is the same from what I just quoted from wiki:

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.

---

Are you taking the position that when the liberals are arguing for socialized medicine that they are arguing for medicine for just a subset of the people. And that what we see mentiond in the OP, high ranking officials getting cheap insurance, is a part of the socialized medicine that the liberals are arguing for. Why then, would they be using it against the other side? Shouldn't Taz be championing this example as a success of the pursuit of socialized medicine?That can't be it.No, you must just be doing what you always do. Scan the thread for a potential semantic error, browse the internet for a page that says something against the person you're replying to, copy and past and then post. You're not forwarding the debate, you're not even debating at all, and you're breaking the rules. You really have no worth here, please just stop posting.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I dont care what you choose to call it.Taxpayers are paying for the healthcare of high ranking officials. These officials fight against the same kind of care for their taxpayers.Is that fair?Btw, reading the wiki link you posted, you really cut short on that quote didnt you? Im guessing you just missed the last part by mistake.In reality though, socialized healthcare, would be any kind of goverment subsidized healthcare. If you want it for everyone, like the rest of the developed world, you want universal healthcare.Taxpayers are paying for entitlements for these guys, but are fighting to make sure, no one else gets the same entitlements. Thats just not fair.[EDIT]
From your posts in this thread, it seems you are perfectly OK, with the goverment paying for healthcare, as long as the only benificiaries are high ranking officials and not the regular taxpayers. Is it so?Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

Could you point me in the direction of how I can get this same healthcare that gov't officials get? I think I qualify as being a part of "everyone".

No, its hypocritical bullshit. Well, that was what I was questioning. I did miss that last part by mistake. However, I am familiar with people using it perjoratively. (Is that what you think Taz is doing?) I honestly don't know just what people are referring to when they throw around the phrase "socialized medicine". Hence my questioning. What reality? (the dictionary and wikipedia disagree with you)But let's accept that as the definition for now. I helped a VA hospital last month That's socialized medicine then. Alrighty.So the guy in question would be for socialized medicine (he's getting it), but apparently he is against universal healthcare. There's no contradiction there... sure, he's a real jerk, but doesn't that remove the hypocracy that Taz seems to be hinting at? Of course its not fair. This makes him a real asshole.I'm not really getting the socialized medicine bit. What!? No. What on earth did I type that makes you think that? Honestly, please quote me so I know what the fuck is going on here.

No, ergo this isn't socialized medicine. Thank you for making one of my points.

I'm not following. Did you, or did you not, say: ? Of course it isn't. But it IS government funded/subsidized....

Except that he says he's for universal health care and against socialized medicine. But in practice he's for socialized medicine and against universal health care.We typically call that "hypocrisy."

I was saying that if "socialized medicine" means that it is "for everyone", then this guys health insurance isn't "socialized medicine" because it is only for some. Thus, my second question for this thread, which has yet to be answered:

quote:

---

How is medical insurance that is only available to high-ranking state officials anything like socialized medicine, which is available to everyone?

​

Just because its subsidized?

---

Also:

quote:

---

Are you just using the term 'socialized' because it is subsidized?

---

I didn't know that about him. I'm just going by what's been presented in this thread.

I would say it is "socialized" because it is essentially funded by tax payers.

Obviously the term "socialized medicine" is defined in more ways than just the CS accepted definition.

quote:

---

The Veterans Health Administration, the military health care system,[123] and the Indian Health Service are examples of socialized medicine in the stricter sense of government administered care, although for limited populations.[citation needed]

​

Medicare and Medicaid are forms of publicly-funded health care, which fits the looser definition of socialized medicine.[citation needed] Part B coverage (Medical) requires a monthly premium of $96.40 (and possibly higher) and the first $135 of costs per year also fall to the senior and not the government.

---

Socialized medicine - Wikipedia

quote:

---

No one has the nerve to brand this country’s purest systems of socialized medicine the military and veterans hospitals for what they are. In both systems, care is not only paid for by the government but delivered in government facilities by doctors who are government employees. Even so, a parade of Washington’s political dignitaries, including President Bush, has turned to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., for checkups and treatment, without ideological complaint. Politicians who deplore government-run health care for average Americans are only too happy to use it themselves.

---

SourceEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Okay then. So, technically, this guy could be for a form of "socialilzed medicine" in the sense that its "essentially funded by tax payers", and also be against a form of "socialilzed medicine" in the sense that its "universal healthcare", and not be contradictory, right?

Obviously, I never said that I accept only one defintion. Yes, we know you can look stuff up on the internet.Do you care to debate at all?If you can't stop violating the forum guidlines then please just stop posting.

Do I have to reconstruct the whole argument with you again. It seems I have to do this a lot.Lets see you started with this. Message 2You clearly are stating that this is what you accept as the definition for "socialized medicine". When you were shown that that is not the only definition for the term you responded with this. Message 17
Still don't see the epic fail. You were clearly shown there were other definitions, but seemingly refuse to accept them, because your next statement was As if this is some sort of exoneration. I never stated that your idea was not a valid definition. All I have stated is that there are other definitions for the term which you seem to have wanted to deny as having any validity.Not violating forum rules. You made the argument that this is not socialized medicine we are talking about. I am providing evidence that the term has many more meanings than the one that you seem to think is the most important.What do you want me to add to these posts showing that you are wrong. There are times when someone makes a glaring mistake the only and best thing to do is to post the info that shows the glaring mistake. I am not sure what you and AdminPD expected me to say in the post. You clearly were unwilling to accept that you definition was not the sole definition of the term. More evidence was needed to show you you were wrong.