Socialism

ninjahood said:
answer my question... which private industry as been expropriated by da US government?
Click to expand...
Better yet, why dont you tell everyone which companies benefited from public funds??? Out of those companies please tell us who benefited more the workers or the executives?


Stop it, the door swing both ways.
 
ninjahood said:
answer my question... which private industry as been expropriated by da US government?
Click to expand...

why? you're straw manning this argument by pigeon holing socialism into something most people arent largely advocating for. socializing a system or an industry doesnt happen from one extreme to the other. especially not in the context of America. providing a public option in situations where the private option isnt accessible or feasible for millions of people isnt the same thing as the government completely seizing an industry and kicking private entities out.
 
ninjahood said:
borrowing/grants ≠ expropriated entire industry.




da question remains...which entire industry has da US government expropriated.
Click to expand...
Call it what you want, facts are private companies benefited from tax payers dollars.

Continue playing checkers!
 
jdfrenchbread23 said:
why? you're straw manning this argument by pigeon holing socialism into something most people arent largely advocating for. socializing a system or an industry doesnt happen from one extreme to the other. especially not in the context of America. providing a public option in situations where the private option isnt accessible or feasible for millions of people isnt the same thing as the government completely seizing an industry and kicking private entities out.
Click to expand...
Because he cant comprehend the argument at hand, dude is an extremist and tries to cloud the subject by irrelevant information.
 
jdfrenchbread23 said:
why? you're straw manning this argument by pigeon holing socialism into something most people arent largely advocating for.
Click to expand...

you obviously dunno what Socialism means then, because expropriation of private sector industries in large swaths is synonymous and basically da very epitome of socialism..

you are aware that Medicare for all means total abolishment of private sector health insurance...right?

gimme an example of when da US has expropriated an entire private sector.
 
ninjahood said:
you obviously dunno what Socialism means then, because expropriation of private sector industries in large swaths is synonymous and basically da very epitome of socialism..

you are aware that Medicare for all means total abolishment of private sector health insurance...right?

gimme an example of when da US has expropriated an entire private sector.
Click to expand...
And 99% of americans are ok with that.

The alternative, paying 300 dollars for 30 dollar medicine.

The alternative paying 500 dollars monthly for a family of 4 and in some state if your spouse work they have to have their own.

Ripping people off.

Bruh are you this dense?

People aren't trying to take over your cuchifrito sta d.
 
Last edited:
jdfrenchbread23 said:
providing a public option in situations where the private option isnt accessible or feasible for millions of people isnt the same thing as the government completely seizing an industry and kicking private entities out.
Click to expand...

you are aware that da subsequent bankruptcy of private-sector insurance because it cannot compete with free basically renders the same scenario as a government seizure right?

lifting da threshold of people who qualify for Medicaid (with being diligent with mitigating waste fraud and abuse) would likely be a better option.

that said? you can blame Lieberman for no public option now.
 
Last edited:
keko jones said:
And 99% of americans are ok with that.
Click to expand...

:lol:

if that was the case why did Obama say if you're happy with in health insurance you can keep it?

da reality is the vast majority of Americans are fine and happy with their employer-provided health insurance.

Medicare for all is tantamount to ripping away everyone's healthcare and foisting a government-run program...

government seizure of a private sector; Socialism.
 
what useful economic function is provided by health insurers that can't be performed as well or better by Medicare?
 
ninjahood said:
da reality is the vast majority of Americans are fine and happy with their employer-provided health insurance.
Click to expand...
please tell me what vast majority you're talking about?

I do agree that it does not have to be Medicare for all, but it has to be affordable.

The problem is that your definition of affordable is not the same as your people in the heights.
 
for da uninitiated, a good comparison can look no further than da history of the New York City subway with da private IRT line and subsequent government-built and funded IND line.
 
keko jones said:
please tell me what vast majority you're talking about?
Click to expand...


do yourself some homework, what is the percentage of people with employer-based health insurance and contrast it with people who have a grievance...da number is stark.
 
ninjahood said:
you are aware that da subsequent bankruptcy of private-sector insurance because it cannot compete with free basically renders the same scenario as a government seizure right?

lifting da threshold of people who qualify for Medicaid (with being diligent with mitigating waste fraud and abuse) would likely be a better option.

that said? you can blame Lieberman for no public option now.
Click to expand...

This assumes that the government product offered would compete though right? what if they product was tailored to the market of the underinsured or those without insurance? a market the insurance industry effectively isnt serving?

"lifting da threshold of people who qualify for Medicaid (with being diligent with mitigating waste fraud and abuse) would likely be a better option."
isnt this exactly what most people say a socialized option looks like? in the fact that its a service paid for by tax dollars provided for by the government. im unsure as to why "degrees" of socialism dont exist in your eyes? is it not a socialized system if the whole industry isnt run by the government?
 
ninjahood said:
do yourself some homework, what is the percentage of people with employer-based health insurance and contrast it with people who have a grievance...da number is stark.
Click to expand...
Why am I suppose to do the homework when you brought it up. INCREDIBLE!
 
ninjahood said:
:lol:

if that was the case why did Obama say if you're happy with in health insurance you can keep it?

da reality is the vast majority of Americans are fine and happy with their employer-provided health insurance.

Medicare for all is tantamount to ripping away everyone's healthcare and foisting a government-run program...

government seizure of a private sector; Socialism.
Click to expand...

ninjahood said:
do yourself some homework, what is the percentage of people with employer-based health insurance and contrast it with people who have a grievance...da number is stark.
Click to expand...

Can you post links for these statements?

What kind of grievance? Who is being polled?

I personally never had a "grievance" with my insurance, until I started my family.

If you just dont like m4a off top because it is a socialist program (I'm not into politics, I'll leave that argument to yall) thats cool. But stating that the majority of ppl are "fine" with their current situation and using that as an argument against m4a is misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom