Wednesday, March 28, 2012
DFL and DSA?
I frustrated another commenter on MN Publius by inferring that some of the Democratic platform seemed somewhat Socialistic to me. (not sure if I meant to or he read into it) He proceeded to explain to me that Socialists are much more extreme than anything the Democrats would consider. (see link below)
After browsing through their position papers, I am still not convinced. I believe that just like the Republicans, the Democrats contain a wide variety of different beliefs. I mean a vote for a DSA candidate would be as pointless as a vote for the Independent party in most cases...
Thoughts?
Democrats: What We Stand For
Democratic Socialists of America: Where We Stand
MN Publius: Unlike After the Great Depression
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
emThere isn't any contradiction between capitalism and Socialism, at least not at this point. Which is why Americans are so fond of doing business in China. Socialism has become a real economic force in the world, and it's challenging America in it's very foundations. After we defeated socialism's step child, Soviet style communism, we somehow leapt to he idea that the socialist model had definitively failed. We got, as President Obama has pointed out, a bit lazy. We indulged ourselves in the belief that we didn't have to work to build capitalism, that somehow we could make money by shuffling paper. We switched from a George Romney version of capitalism to a Mitt Romney version of pseudo capitalism. Where factory closings become the subject of humorous anecdotes. And now we are seeing the results.
--Hiram
--Hiram
Yesterday, on this board, someone else ventured the idea that investors had a right to get a hundred percent of their investment back. That's pretty much implies a form of socialism, where government assumes the burden of losses. The doctrine does have it's appeal.
--Hiram
The minute I see somebody complain that the economy is not growing because the rich people are getting all the money, I think "socialist"! What else would you call it when "rich people" aren't considered part of the same economy and society as everybody else? Does having your rich neighbor buy a bigger car make you somehow poorer? Of course not. At worst it makes you envious of him-- one of the Seven Deadlies-- but otherwise doesn't harm you in the least. At best it motivates you to work a little harder to get rich yourself, and THAT makes the economy grow faster. If government steps in and taxes away the money your neighbor would have spent on the car, NOBODY benefits, not even the people who would have been employed making the car.
Perhaps it isn't fair to call Democrats socialists, no moreso than it is fair to call [all] Republicans conservatives, but some ideas that they may hold dear are certainly shared in common with those who DO call themselves socialists. Like a duck walking and quacking, QED.
The minute I see somebody complain that the economy is not growing because the rich people are getting all the money, I think "socialist"
Is an idea or an argument simply because someone attaches a label to it? Much of conservative economics has it's origins in a Marxist understanding of the world, particularly with respect to their view that capitalist economies are inherently cyclical. Does the fact that that view was held by Marx make it wrong?
We should really try to stop confusing name calling with reasoned analysis. As for what it's fair to call Democrats, I refer you to ancient childhood wisdom that sticks and stones may indeed may break my bones, but I like to think at least that names will never hurt me.
--Hiram
Applying labels to ideas is a simple shorthand that helps us all communicate. If I had to fully explain all the flaws in some of the Democrats' economic theories, I would run out of black dots on this screen. Saying the idea is "socialist" means that it reflects the socialist approach of nationalizing the means of production (like GM and Chrysler) or of "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" that pretty much sums up the Democrats' agenda.
Applying labels to a person is usually far more problematic, because no one person is an ideal ideologue of any given stripe. In fact, it is almost impossible to define a set of policy positions -- aka a "party platform"-- that every single member of the party or person who claims the nominal label of that party agrees with. I've just said not all Republicans are conservatives or libertarians, neither of which are pure ideologies themselves, nor are all Democrats socialists, communists, or radical, unwashed, wild-eyed, dope-smoking hippie types. An idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it. But it can be labelled. People can't.
J. Ewing
Applying labels to ideas is a simple shorthand that helps us all communicate.
Only if the label has some relationship to some underlying concept of value. "Socialist" is used as a meaningless pejorative and a verbal stick. If you want an instance of socialism in action, check out the article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about how Bain manipulated the tax system for the benefit of it's executives.
--Hiram
I think name calling and how one reacts is interesting.
If you are a big fan of government redestributing wealth and providing healthcare, you would be proud of a fairness oriented Socialist label.
Just as if you are against Government redistribution and healthcare, you would be proud of a personal rewards oriented Capitalist label.
Now how or why do people start to see the labels as bad or good? Maybe it is fallout from the cold war...
Do I favor redistributing wealth? Am I in favor of confiscating Mitt Romney's 14 million dollars a year and distributing it among the poor? Well, no. So does that mean I am a capitalist?
--Hiram
I said labels have their usefulness, but that occurs only when we have mutually accepted meanings for them, and ignore the pejoratives that have become associated with them. Somebody from the DSA, for example, might refer to an idea of one of her fellow travelers as "socialist" and it would be high praise. If I said that about the exact same idea, from a Democrat, it would have pejorative connotations, because of who I am and because the Democrat would not want that honest label applied, knowing that it would not "sell" well with the more general public. So, expect me to call 'em like I see 'em; you know what I mean.
J. Ewing
Are you for government supplied healthcare? Just like all continuums, there are different degrees.
Also, do you want to significantly raise the tax rates on the rich? If so, what is your rational?
At my small group meeting at my liberal church last night someone mentioned Obama is being accused more frequently of trying to turn the USA into a European style social democracy. The comments made were something like -Oh no, insurance for everybody. Who wants that. Free college. Oh my! What would I ever do with 6 weeks paid vacation.
In my view it too bad Obama is not more of a Social Demcrat though he would need to have a much more liberal congress.
And yet the question comes back to who will pay for that 6 wks of vacation, health care and college if 45% of Americans do not pay income tax?
And will the people who get it for free actually appreciate it? Or will they find more things they must receive without effort or sacrifice?
Do people on our food and housing programs feel fortunate, or do they think they are owed more?
the USA has plenty of $ for providing health care for all. If we spent health care $ smarter it wouldn't even cost much more to have everyone included in the system.
Could someone explain to me again why religious conservatives have no compassion for the 50 million, mostly working poor people who are uninsured
Someone smarter than me will have to answer that one.
I once asked a very Conservative Christian woman about helping some needy folks.(ie Mexico / NAFTA) Her answer was that we can't save everyone. It left me very puzzled...
I am thinking God may have some interesting words for these folks... And there may be some unhappy dead "pious" folk who are unpleasantly surprised.
As for reducing the cost, we beat that to death many times and I don't see it happening.G2A Healthcare Drivers
Are you for government supplied healthcare? Just like all continuums, there are different degrees.
It seems according to the Supreme Court, that's the only kind that's constitutional. Who knew the founders were a bunch of socialists?
Also, do you want to significantly raise the tax rates on the rich? If so, what is your rational?
Sure. Because they are the ones with the money.
--Hiram
We tax the rich, because it's the rich who have the money. It's what we ask of them in our society. To put it more concretely, The rich pay for the military, and the poor serve in it. That's the deal, that's the social contract we have made. Do you think that arrangement represents some sort of unfair redistribution of wealth? Who do you think gets the better of the deal?
--Hiram
"Could someone explain to me again why religious conservatives have no compassion for the 50 million, mostly working poor people who are uninsured."
I can explain it easily: they don't exist. Of the supposed 45 (not 50) million who don't have health insurance, 20 million are already eligible for Medicaid and don't apply, 15 million are illegal immigrants who aren't eligible, and 15 million are people who could afford their own but choose to spend their money on other things. So, 50 million of the 45 million uninsured... wait a minute... (all numbers approximate)
And you are still confusing health INSURANCE with health care!
Let's assume for a second that the 45 million number was real instead of totally bogus and for political purposes. Then let's give every one of them-- Poof!-- Cadillac health insurance, like members of Congress have. Now tell me, does there exist a single hour MORE of actual health CARE for these people? No.
There is compassion and then there is common sense. If you were talking about something like free speech, everyone in the country could have it and it wouldn't cost you one thin dime. That doesn't mean we are required to buy them a bullhorn and of course we don't. But when you talk about a "right" to health care you are talking about something that must come from the labor of other people, and nobody has had that right since 1863. If you want to be compassionate, don't be enslaving medical professionals. If you find somebody sick and choose to pay for their care, God bless you. Heck, I might even help. But don't have government stick a gun in my back and a hand in my purse and expect me to thank you for arranging it.
J. Ewing
Here's a thought experiment for you single-payer advocates. Let us assume government becomes the single payer for all health care in the country. Because you are a US citizen, you automatically get all of the health care you need and, initially, want. Will demand for things like heart transplants, nose jobs, simple drugs and high-tech cures go up or stay the same? If so, will this escalate costs to the government? Where will government get the money for all of this? (hint: Medicaid is broke, and Medicare is broke.) If government eventually runs out of other people's money, what steps can the government take, and what will be the consequence?
J. Ewing
Will demand for things like heart transplants, nose jobs, simple drugs and high-tech cures go up or stay the same?
I know I would get a heart transplant if they weren't so darned expensive. I try to get major, invasive, life risking, surgeries as often I can. And I am sure I am not alone in this. Once Americans know they can get heart transplants for free, I am sure everyone will want one. It's a craze that will sweep the nation.
--Hiram
J-
Thanks for attempting to answer my question. Maybe you could try again once you get your facts straight from this tutorial:
Overview of the uninsured
though I have no doubt you will consider yourself more of an expert on the uninsured that those researchers with their Phd's at Kaiser.
Also as you are so against healthcare being paid for through tax $ will you be declining your enrollment in Medicare?
I thought it was interesting when she said private insurance was limited and expensive. That is how most of my farmer friends are covered.
Also, by my simple math it seems that ~29 mil citizens have no insurance and that the other ~20 mil are illegal immigrants that won't be covered either way.
To finish my thought regarding my farmer friends, they don't think their premiums are too high. However they typically carry pretty big deductibles.
Hiram,
I can't argue your logic about taxing the rich since they have the money. Makes sense to me.
On the other hand, I guess you could call our military an excellent wealth redistribution system. The wealthy are paying and the poor are working to earn good wages, get an education, and gain global knowledge & experiences.
I don't think the Capitalists see this as an issue. They happily spend on things that provide them value. It is the taxes that are redistributed to the poor for no return effort that frustate most. G2A Why are poor people poor? Or those spent on a myriad of overlapping and inefficient Gov't departments.
As I keep saying, I have no problem with being in the middle of the continuum, therefore I would happily raise the taxes on the rich. However I think we had better be able to provide them value for the money we appropriate.
"Giving" money to "dependent" people is one sure way to keep them "dependent" and create more "dependent" people which is good for no one.
If you have kids you are already aware of this, they would happily spend everything you give them and then come back asking for more. Training them about work, rewards, self control, budgetting, saving, etc is our job.
Somehow the "poor" people need to learn that lesson and have their hopes rekindled. Sending them checks for no effort just won't cut it. That is just enabling the co-dependency and propogating the problem.
"Maybe you could try again once you get your facts straight from this tutorial:" - Laurie
OK, taking my facts straight from the tutorial, I don't see where anything that I said changes, except that the number of supposedly uninsured increased to 49.1 million when I wasn't looking. I was quoting Obama with the 45 million number.
The research is informative, until you start deciding what it MEANS, and then our opinions will diverge, I suspect. I note that it was done by Kaiser, who as insurers expected that Obamacare was going to make them rich with 50 million new health insurance policies. The research was either done for the Obama admin. or was done to support the idea of Obamacare as the big insurance companies all did, expecting a windfall. At the end, the chart shows the "ACA" and "mandate" as the way to insure these uninsured, without ever suggesting another alternative. It then goes on to point out that these people cannot get health CARE now! Isn't that a clue that costs are being driven by a lack of supply, not a lack of insurance? Yes, some people postpone or miss care because of cost, but that's how everything else works. The poor postpone purchases of Cadillacs. If government would get out of the way supply would increase-- more people would enter the health care business and insurance costs would drop-- and it would all balance out. Also notice that the number of employer insured is predicted to drop by less than 1 million, but the reality is now 6 million people and climbing. Research in pursuit of a political agenda is always suspect, and predictions based on such research doubly so. A little common sense often tells you a lot more than a Ph.D can.
As for Medicare, I hate to break it to you but you CANNOT decline. It will be taken out of your Social Security check, like it or not, and when you go to your doctor (if he/she will still see you at all), you will be treated under Medicare and ONLY under Medicare. You will get the treatment Medicare will pay for, and the doctor will get what Medicare decides to pay for (about 1/3 of real prices) I would gladly give that up in exchange for being allowed to choose my doctor and work out with HER what my treatment should be, and at what cost.
J. Ewing
I don't think the Capitalists see this as an issue. They happily spend on things that provide them value.
Not really. Nobody likes to pay taxes, and are perfectly happy to get things from which they get value. I don't see Mitt Romney clamoring for more money for our schools, or more money for health care, and social security, the existence of which made available to him the healthy workforce on which his immense fortune was based.
--Hiram
Sure wish the option to decline to enroll in Medicare existed. I reached the age of 65 last year. It now costs me $99 every month for part B and $137 a month to cover the medications and services Medicare doesn't cover. I did choose to purchase the medication coverage since it mirrors the private insurance I had until I turned 65. The one that dropped me because I was enrolled in Medicare.
It costs my medical provider 18% more than he recovers from Medicare and my supplemental policy. I have been told inumerable times that I must change from medication a to medication b because a better rate had been negotiated and the medication formulary had changed. Something neither I or my provider can control. I have most times chosen to personally pay retail for medication rather than accept the forced change. This option is no longer available under Medicare rules. They state that my provider cannot accept a private payment from a Medicare enrolled patient without sanctions up loss of licensure. I don't know about others but I find these rules and restrictions on the most private parts of my personal health care unacceptable.
"It costs my medical provider 18% more than he recovers from Medicare and my supplemental policy."
"I have been told iNnumerable times that I must change from medication a to medication b because a better rate had been negotiated and the medication formulary had changed."
This is an example of the double bind government health care programs, and really any program, find themselves. In effect, these programs are criticized for both doing little, and for doing too much. In this case, the Medicare is being complained of, because it pays too little to providers, and also because it tries to keep costs down. It's really impossible to respond to one criticism without ramping up the other. And it's really impossible to imagine any system that isn't vulnerable to both criticisms. This is a more general problem in our discourse where advocates of a policy are required to be consistent, but critics are not. We saw a similar example when we were discussing the GM bailout, where the president was criticized for not meeting the demands of both the bondholders and the vultures when the interests of each were in conflict with the other.
In general, the point of Medicare is to insure those who would otherwise be uninsurable at an affordable rate.
--Hiram
It costs my medical provider 18% more than he recovers from Medicare and my supplemental policy.
In a particular part of the economy where a box of tissues has been known to cost 700 dollars, I am skeptical of any assertion concerning specific costs. My basic view of pricing in this area is that someone plucked the numbers out of thin air, and strangely enough, those numbers seem to support whatever position those plucking they are taking at any given time.
What are the odds?
--Hiram
As I advance more quickly than I would like, into my dotage, I often ask myself whether those say they like soup, but insist that the soup must be hot and cold at the same time, aren't really having a problem with the temperature, their real problem is with soup.
--Hiram
The data exists to support the 18%. Doctors can bill for a reasonable return however they will actually be paid the amount Medicare chooses to pay. What is lost in this transaction is my ability to make an informed decision concerning what healthcare I actually need and how much I am willing to pay for. For many years my healthcare provider and I did not go through the health insurance managed healthcare maze. He didn't need additional staff to process insurance forms. I didn't pay for services I never intended to use because they were "part of my plan". My medical expenses averaged 25% less than my-coworkers on a regular basis.
The data exists to support the 18%.
I am sure it does. The omnipresence of data is characteristic of our society in this internet age.
"What is lost in this transaction is my ability to make an informed decision concerning what healthcare I actually need and how much I am willing to pay for."
This is a problem in the health care that goes to it's very nature. We simply don't know enough to make informed decisions. This is one of the basic reasons why economists believe that markets are ineffective in the health care area.
It's in the nature of insurance that we pay for services we don't receive. The tradeoff is that others pay for services they don't receive that we do. I think this goes to the nature of why it's so easy to characterize what happens in health care as socialism. Viewed in a certain way, insurance is like socialism. Insurance is a form of sharing risk communally. Insurance argues against individual responsibility. Insurance always includes within it and element of moral hazard; I mean why engage in risky behavior since someone else will get the burden of the consequences?
--Hiram
Perhaps the solution for both sides is to permit a truly free market in health insurance. By some estimates this would cut the cost of health insurance by half, allowing many more people to become insured while not compromising the quality of care as government mandates do. This savings would both drive and benefit from reductions in the total cost of health care delivered by better targeting that care. I've been insured under both systems, and when I switched to the "free market model" my costs dropped by 50% in the quality of care actually improved. I know it works.
J. Ewing
Free markets don't work in health care for a number of reasons, some of them alluded to by the other anonymous, including the lack of information. For markets to work, you need information.
Do free markets in the automobile market mean that everyone gets a Cadillac? Or do some of us drive clunkers? And do some of us have to walk?
--Hiram
Free markets don't work in health care because they haven't been tried in the last 50 years or so. We've been accustomed to the top-heavy, government-dominated, over-regulated "system" that we have. Take off those government-mandated blinders and chains, and it will work just fine. People will demand the information they need and make informed decisions, just like they do buying groceries. A little regulation, sure, but something like the labeling requirements for foodstuffs should be sufficient.
J. Ewing
Free markets in automobiles means that everybody buys what they want consistent with what they can afford. Why should health care be any different, especially if you allow charity back into the equation?
J. Ewing
Post a Comment