Eye, you are conflating socialism, which is an economic system with autocracy which is a form of government.

Calling a pig a submarine will not make it swim underwater..........

Put whatever label you want on it, any system that puts the Governors above those Governed is wrong. The US is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, AUTOCRACY or SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.....and it's that way for a reason.

And hopefully will remain such while I still breathe.

Afterwards.........I won't care.

(edit) Welcome back Sarge, I've missed you. XOXO

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Eye do you know what the definition of Economics is? If you did your answers might be more lucid.

---

The US is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, AUTOCRACY or SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.....and it's that way for a reason.

I hope you know that Republic means "the people rule" in latin and Democracy "the people rule" in greek.
Just saying:)

This is worth noting...

Cuba has long had a nearly identical life expectancy to the United States, despite widespread poverty. The humanitarian-physician Paul Farmer notes in his book Pathologies of Power that there’s a saying in Cuba: “We live like poor people, but we die like rich people.” Farmer also notes that the rate of infant mortality in Cuba has been lower than in the Boston neighborhood of his own prestigious hospital, Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s.

All of this despite Cuba spending just $813 per person annually on health care compared with America’s $9,403.

In Cuba, health care is protected under the constitution as a fundamental human right. As a poor country, Cuba can’t afford to equivocate and waste money upholding that. This pressure seems to have created efficiency. Instead of pouring money into advanced medical technology, the system is forced to keep people healthy.

Even with a so-called private health care system, the U.S. spends $9,403 per person per year of public money on health care, whereas Canada with a public (OK... scary socialized) health care system spends just over half of that: $6,839 per person per year (Canadian) which is $5,142 U.S.

So by expenditure, U.S. health care is already almost twice as "socialist" as anyone else's. :^)

---

U.S. health care is already twice as "socialist" as anyone else's. :^)

Yes. Quite amazing:)
But if your sick in the US you also need a lawyer to feed.

Even with a so-called private health care system, the U.S. spends $9,403 per person per year of public money on health care, whereas Canada with a public (OK... scary socialized) health care system spends just over half of that: $6,839 per person per year (Canadian) which is $5,142 U.S.

Be careful when you compare by money.

What do you get for your bucks?
Who sets the prices?

Even with a so-called private health care system, the U.S. spends $9,403 per person per year of public money on health care, whereas Canada with a public (OK... scary socialized) health care system spends just over half of that: $6,839 per person per year (Canadian) which is $5,142 U.S.

Be careful when you compare by money.

What do you get for your bucks?
Who sets the prices?

A Canadian health care dollar buys far more than the US health care dollar, in health care, however in lawyers fees, insurance costs, etc. the US dollar has every country beat 1000X over.

Private health insurance in the US has ~15% overhead whereas medicare the overhead is 3%. Eye should digest that fact.

---

JE in a non-social society they might just consider than those in their early 70's are going to cost them too much in the near future, unless those of that age can prove they can afford it themselves.

The Rising Cost of Living Longer: Analysis of Medicare Spending by Age for Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare

Yea, it costs more to keep an old person alive than one who is younger, duh.

---

JE in a non-social society they might just consider than those in their early 70's are going to cost them too much in the near future, unless those of that age can prove they can afford it themselves.

The Rising Cost of Living Longer: Analysis of Medicare Spending by Age for Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare

They are already attempting that in Maryland with a Euthanasia bill. Which doesn't surprise me as it's just another step beyond live birth abortions.

Proponents tout the bill as a relief for those suffering a terminal illness or disability............Life is a Terminal Illness, think about it.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Clyde:

But our Guide was a Mayan descendant.

These discussions would usually begin while we were commenting upon what the Europeans and then Americans did to Native People in the USA. The native people's guide's would sometimes share that they believed that their people's Country's were also occupied by Mexican's, Peruvians, etc.

I hope you understand that it's still occurring and that the Mayan languages are still spoken.

Guatemala is 50% Mayan.

What is happening to them currently (and the Banana Republic history of Honduras and Guatemala) is central to understanding the immigrant families heading towards the US border now.

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/livingthelanguage/2012/04/20124161358285740.html

The civil war, fought largely around the issue of Mayan rights to land and status, has left deep wounds on a society that has not yet managed to shake off its colonial past.

---

Clyde:

But our Guide was a Mayan descendant.

These discussions would usually begin while we were commenting upon what the Europeans and then Americans did to Native People in the USA. The native people's guide's would sometimes share that they believed that their people's Country's were also occupied by Mexican's, Peruvians, etc.

I hope you understand that it's still occurring and that the Mayan languages are still spoken.

Guatemala is 50% Mayan.

What is happening to them currently (and the Banana Republic history of Honduras and Guatemala) is central to understanding the immigrant families heading towards the US border now.

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/livingthelanguage/2012/04/20124161358285740.html

The civil war, fought largely around the issue of Mayan rights to land and status, has left deep wounds on a society that has not yet managed to shake off its colonial past.

marmot,

When we were travelling with others to Mayan runs in the Yucatan. Our Mayan guide, in English, started to describe negatively the Latino Mexican "occupation" of his people. He was using the same description as Indigenous People in Central Mexico during a demonstration carried on Mexican TV a couple of days before. Later on, our private conversation with him in Spanish exposed even more hatred of what he believed to be Latino Mexican occupation and destruction of his people.

A similar belief was expressed during our recent trip to Machu Picchu in Peru during a private conversation with one of the guides

So you get an idea of the frustration I have with the US media's narrative (even MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR) which portray the flood of people as Spanish speaking and looking for work or fleeing drug gang violence but not talking about the ethnic cleansing of Mayans by the Spanish speaking culture that is wiping out forests for the sake of palm oil reservations or dam construction that will flood their home valleys. US food production interests effects in their home areas is prime to their delocation but is completely ignored.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/palm-oil-industry-expansion-spurs-guatemala-indigenous-migration-190122160154738.html

(Why is this in a thread about socialism? Because it's a tale about unregulated food capitalism causing economic refugees and ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples.
I might need to switch my prime news podcast to Al Jazeera, their coverage here is detailed and covers a deep gap in the US and BBC coverage.)

---

[/quote]
Yes... Unrestrained Capitalism, Criminal Governments and Ethnic Cleansing by Latino America are among the problems infecting the Region.

Placing more and more centralized control, be it Socialism or other Systems into the hands of imperfect humans and some may be evil. Will always lead to the destruction of the people.[/quote]

I agree with you, in part. About 1% of humans are psychopaths with a part of the brain involved in empathy, turned off. They have some role in human endeavors but tend to cause corruption.

What you don't seem to get is that democratic socialism is not the same as autocratic 'communist' states.
Democratic socialism is Amazon work force holding an election and choosing their shift leaders and the executive in charge of their division by democracy; not having the leader imposed upon them by Bezos and his chosen executives. Democratic socialism is increasing the amount of control from the lower levels upwards and opposing autocratic, top-down management. It's about eliminating proxy voting of corporate stock and requiring all share holders to vote on company policy, giving the wider share holders more control over company abuses and reducing the effects of a psychopathic CEO.

---

Allowing the Amazon workers to 'elect' their foremen and supervisors would seem to be more of a Representative Republic than a Socialist form of selection. As Clyde points out repeatedly it's not the system that goes wrong(Democratic, Socialist, Communist, or what ever label is applied), it's the implementation by imperfect humans who generally cannot help but succumb to the siren call of POWER.

Perhaps, Memento Mori, should be a mantra required of all persons in ANY leadership position.

I must amend a statement I made earlier in this thread regarding the US form of Government. I stated it is a Republic, which is not entirely the case. I left out the word REPRESENTATIVE. Meaning every citizen does not cast a vote on every issue which is why we have (and most systems have) a Congress composed of those chosen by those citizens to represent their collective views(often regionally rooted) on those issues. This leads to understanding the Electoral College and why it is NOT outdated as a method for election of the President.

The Founding Fathers were very wise and prescient in many ways many are just only now being appreciated by most people. True one of the reasons for the Electoral College was the time it took to count the votes and report them to the seat of government. But the other reason was to prevent one large population area controlling the leadership of the entire country which effectively would disenfranchise a large portion of the population.

The smaller and less populous original States didn't want New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts controlling who becomes President or not. This is known as 'mob rule'. And usually ends in chaos. The same is even more true today as popular vote election of the President would most certainly remove any candidates not acceptable to the left or right coast population centers and would disenfranchise the votes cast by the immense center of the country. Those States (mine being one) who have signed on to elimination of the College are undertaking a task they can't win. It will require an Amendment to the Constitution, supported by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the States by popular vote IN EACH STATE.

Conversely perhaps a new system where by every Senator and Congressperson must be elected by the popular majority vote of EVERY US voter no matter where they live. Now that would be a 'one person, one vote' system I could get behind.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Would it be fairer to have each states electoral college votes proportional as in Nebraska and Maine?

Would it be fairer to have each states electoral college votes proportional as in Nebraska and Maine?

Also not add Senators to the total of votes each state is allowed in the electoral college.

Aye.
This is why I leave for extended periods of time, among other things.
Aye.

Have you tried filter? Results in clean pure water.

Of course. But people I do not want to filter respond to those I have filtered.
Yes, I learn some things from those I do not have on filter.
But, I could probably learn it elsewhere.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Would it be fairer to have each states electoral college votes proportional as in Nebraska and Maine?

I did some reading on this a few years back. If I understood correctly, a simple (a / b) = (c / d) approach was not or is no longer used. It appeared that recursive formula using square roots is what is being used. Something, unfortunately, many people would not be able to follow.

First, has anyone read up on this recently? Can you back what I'm saying?

Second, yes, we know the U.S. is a representative republic. But, what does this say about "one person, one vote" in the sense of what one person's vote does in the Electoral College? I suspect my one vote carries more weight than another's one vote in another state, but less than another's one vote in another state. If I'm right, how is that fair? OK, OK, life isn't fair! If I'm right, how does that stack up against the intentions of our Constitution's framers??

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

OK, life isn't fair! If I'm right, how does that stack up against the intentions of our Constitution's framers??

Sarge it sucks.

---