MikeN, you might want to try re-reading those articles for comprehension.
I’d give The Bern credit for being right about this, except:
- It was pretty damn obvious.
- He endorsed her later anyway.
Remember Mitt Romney of the magic underpants? He was right about a lot of things, too. It didn’t matter.
Observer… a Trump propaganda rag run by Ivanka’s husband. Bernie is still out there campaigning for her.
He’s flailing about for some handhold, to salvage his credibility and his self respect. It’s too late. He’s hopelessly compromised.
That’s a way over-exaggerated version of socialism. If that’s the case, you should find no hotels or hospitals when you visit most of Europe.
However, the original Monopoly is a perfect analogue for the kind of inequality Bernie wants to prevent. Towards the end of the game, most pieces on the board is owned by just a few wealthy players, and the poor can’t make a move without hemorrhaging money. The system is rigged for the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer. When that even applies to getting an education or healthcare, the inequality begins to stump allover basic human rights and human dignity.
1 Like
Monopoly is rigged because it’s a game and it must have an end. The system is not.
There are no socialist states in Europe. There are only standard capitalist societies that due to a wealthy economy can afford to provide extra social services compared to other countries. This convenient controversy is what generated the myth of Scandinavian socialism, something often heralded by pseudo-socialists as an amazing achievement for mankind and rebuked by the politicians of those countries themselves. Not sure how those social programs will perform in the future, as those wealthy economies are linked to natural resources that are slowly being phased out by renewables and it would be a political suicide to suddenly come out and say:“Sorry folks, the party is over, no more cash for this and that”.
Healthcare is a service, not a human right.
Instruction is a service, not a human right.
Capitalism and free markets are what allows the poor to gain some wealth and move out of poverty, not socialism, communism and all other forms of government that put a person/party in a position of power under the promise of free handouts and equality for everyone, unless you consider “everyone is equally poor” to be a fair human condition, in which case cuba and north korea might be ideal for you (unless your last name is castro or you’re a relative of Kim…no chance of being poor in that case).
Fun fact: after the second world war in europe there weren’t many rich people, especially in the countries at the center of the conflict. What happened is that in many countries those people were allowed to take care of themselves and many of them went from small farmers to bigger farmers to reasonably wealthy farmers etc etc, climbing the ladder. In order to do so you need a government that allows and possibly helps people to do so, but you also need people willing to do so. No country has ever produced a wealthy population by giving out free handouts and aiming for equality. It’s a concept that may warm the heart until you think about it a bit better and you notice how it has always resulted in the history of the world, and we can all witness it daily by reading news from Venezuela.
“it has never been tried” is not an argument.
“it failed because the government made mistakes X and Y” is not an argument
“it failed because the US intervened” see above
“but capitalism will inevitably lead to an evil monopoly owned by a single entity!!” wake me up when that happens
1 Like
Having access to basic healthcare is a human right.
If someone has a serious illness and can’t visit the doctors because it’s too expensive, the system is essentially saying the poor don’t deserve healthcare.
If someone wants a botox injection for a facelift, that’s when it’s not a human right.
Any form of healthcare is a service. If you consider:“X is not a human right but having access to X is a human right” then you can apply it to literally everything, it doesn’t prove any point.
The fact that the state should provide some basic health services is something I perfectly agree with, but that’s different from “free healthcare for everyone, someone eventually will pay for it”.
“The rich getting richer …”
Midnight Oil saw it already all coming in 1982.
“Read about it”
(Great song by the way …)
You are mixing stuff. What you are describing is communism, which is absolute socialism. Bernie, nor any other semi-accepted politician, does not want communism. What he advocates is a more socialist economy. The thing is that every single country in the world right now (Believe it or not US economy is not absolute capitalism either) is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Bernie specifically stated, many times, that he believes in the Scandinavian model. The Scandinavian countries are some of the most democratic, egalitarian societies while still having very very healthy economies.
My own opinion: USA is getting dumber by the day, it needs to bring back free education or at least subsidize it heavily. Also private health care sucks, single-payer healthcare works in providing good universal health care at waaay lower costs. This is not an opinion, it is already implemented and tested in many countries. To quote yourself:
" “it has never been tried” is not an argument.
“it failed because the government made mistakes X and Y” is not an argument "
1 Like
Where to put the boundaries of social policies, and the necessary amount of taxes, is a very broad topic to discuss. Too many things to be considered and results vary from country to country depending on the economy. Some european states offer free X, Y and Z, then you get taxes that make it really hard for people to start or maintain small businesses. I much prefer the Taiwanese system where I pay very low taxes and then I can use my money to do whatever I want and buy whatever I need.
On the broader topics of healthcare and instruction:
healthcare: I like the system in Taiwan, pretty affordable for everyone but still allows private clinics to open and operate at competitive prices
instruction: we live in an era where people with university degrees struggle to find a job, or are forced to find one with a very low pay and that has no relation to their course of studies. Rather than giving free instruction to everyone just for the sake of it, I’d focus on promoting technical courses and university degrees with high employment rates. I don’t think the US or any country needs tax payers’ sponsored gender studies or any other “course” that paves the road to a job position in starbucks and mcdonalds.
Tell that to Corbyn and his:“We need to expropriate stuff from the rich and give it to the poor” tendencies!
IDK much about Corbyn or his policies, maybe he is a bit nutz.
Agree that Taiwanese healthcare seems awesome (haven’t moved there yet).
Education: Well just subsidize STEM, or other subjects with a shortage of educated people, no quarrels there.
If the state provides basic healthcare, then someone does eventually pay for it.
1 Like
Sure, but if the state’s hospitals provide absolutely everything for free you kill the private sector, or force a situation where private clinics can charge obscene amounts of money because if the line at the public hospitals is too long you have no alternative. Sounds familiar to me.
Why would there be state hospitals, except perhaps in the military, when there’s universal health insurance covering all basic healthcare?
Today there are few state owned hospitals in Taiwan, and everyone gets basic healthcare through NHI. That doesn’t mean you can get a Tommy John or a golden tooth for free. You get enough care to not die or transmit disease. Anything more comes out of your own pocket. That’s how it works in any “socialist” countries.
He already told you he doesn’t support that. You’re living in a Manichean fantasy.
That tendency has existed for a long time and is shared by basically all parties in basically all countries. It’s called taxation. 
Any form of healthcare is a service. If you consider:“X is not a human right but having access to X is a human right” then you can apply it to literally everything, it doesn’t prove any point.
If human rights = the end of civilization, why aren’t you campaigning to de-ratify all the international covenants and declarations the UN, EU, AU etc. have ever come up with?
The fact that the state should provide some basic health services is something I perfectly agree with,
Oh no, Ibby’s a leftista! 
but that’s different from “free healthcare for everyone, someone eventually will pay for it”.
“Basic services for all… who can afford them”?
Not sure how those social programs will perform in the future, as those wealthy economies are linked to natural resources that are slowly being phased out by renewables and it would be a political suicide to suddenly come out and say:“Sorry folks, the party is over, no more cash for this and that”.
That declaration already came in 2008 or 2009 (some big or medium size potato in Europe said it), yet here we are a decade later, and northern Europe has somehow neither collapsed nor fallen behind the US. 
As for social-welfare-contingent-on-natural-resources, you sound like you’re describing the Gulf states. You really don’t see the differences in “software” and “hardware”?
Forum about Taiwan
“Let’s talk about Bernie”
You should have seen how many simultaneous Trump threads there were in 2016 – most of them started by the same person…