Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (16479)	4/27/2017 6:52:14 PM
From: Dracin72	Respond to of 365320

"Having the provisioning of water be overwhelmingly by the government on an ongoing basis is socialist provision of water" In the area of northern california where I live the city charges me about $4-5 per month for 900 gallons of water. However, I pay $98 for "hookup fees" and taxes. So my water is basically free but I pay for the service of it being transported to my home essentially.

To: combjelly who wrote (16479)	4/27/2017 7:14:43 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 365320

In the USSR people often paid for goods and services. "Charged for" != "not socialist". "Social" (normally meaning government) ownership of the means of production is socialism, even if the government (or some other type of collective ownership) charges for the product. The way that Canada, New Zealand and Britain provider healthcare is pretty clearly socialized medicine. The UK yes (even if there is a non-socialized sector on the side). Canada not so much (I don't think New Zealand either but I no less about it and don't want to look it to it right now). The NHS (or really the various NHSs) is socialized medicine to the extent it provides care itself, employs those who provide care, owns the clinics, hospitals etc. . "Medicare for all" wouldn't really be that. It would be closer to socialized medicine than what we have now but would be "socialized medical payment" (I would say "socialized health insurance" but some of what it does doesn't fit that idea.) To use another example, food stamps aren't really socialism, at least not in the classic sense of the meaning of that term. Government food distribution centers (or government owned farms and ranches, and foods processing plants) etc. would be. The US is a mixed model, from the fully socialized VA The VA pretty much is socialized medicine, not 100 percent but close enough to get that label. It does contract some things out but its not worth quibbling on that point. The only counterargument for calling it non-socialist would be that access to VA care is an earned benefit, not something generally distributed to everyone, but still it functions as a socialized system in a narrower area. As far as results, the more socialized things are the better people like it. The VA has some big problems with the results side. More generally if someone is getting something "for free" they are likely to say they like it, even if they grumble about high taxes (and so don't want to pay for it), and esp. if they don't pay much in the way of taxes (and thus for the most part are not paying for it.