Here Comes The Left

[scombrid]

Why did I write in hyperbolic terms? I’m tired of the pretend centrists ignoring Russ Vought and company with their tech bro buddies.

 

[Bronzeage]

Y'all make is sound like socialism would be worse than what we have right now.

What socialist countries, past or present, would you say is/was better off than the US with regard to the economy, freedom, opportunities and human rights then ours right now?

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences. Does that count as a human right for me, or the ICE agent? If rights were really an issue, I would have become President and become above the law which the rest of us are subject to, but that's a very limited opportunity. I have a better chance of becoming and ICE agent.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I consider myself one of the fortunate ones to have been born in a place, time and circumstances which allowed me to prosper, and when problems arose, I could afford the insurance to pay the hospital and doctors who kept me alive. It wasn't because of any economy, freedom, opportunities, or human rights. I just got lucky.

Nobody, including me is saying the US doesn't have its share of problems. Always have, always will. You did not answer the question I asked, though (see bold). Do you have even just one in mind?

Since you have declared Norway, Sweden, and Finland off limits for answers, I'm at a loss to counter your straw man argument.

It seems like being the biggest economy on the planet, while losing 4 out of 1000 babies is more than our share, but if it's one of those "have and always will have" problems, there's no point in looking at the countries that are doing socialism wrong, but have fewer dead babies.

Do you have a link for the US maternal deaths of 4 per 1000? That does seem awful high. Though I have read that the US rate is increasing.
The WHO has the US at 21.1/100,000

This statistic includes infants who die before the age of one year. I found numbers ranging from 3.4 to 5.4.

https://www.americashealthrankings.org/publications/reports/2023-annual-report/international-comparison.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oops
View attachment 54631

I found the correct link by Googling the link.

America’s Health Rankings | AHR

State-by-state study of our nation’s health. See the strengths, challenges, and overall rank of each state, based on key health measures.

www.americashealthrankings.org

 

[Tigers!]

Oops
View attachment 54631

I found the correct link by Googling the link.

America’s Health Rankings | AHR

State-by-state study of our nation’s health. See the strengths, challenges, and overall rank of each state, based on key health measures.

www.americashealthrankings.org

I trying googling the link to but my work lap top decided to have a go slow.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

This thread belongs in the joke gallery. The USA is already the most socialist country that has ever existed. Of course, that socialism takes the form of corporate socialism, not what most people think of as socialism, although most Americans don't have a clue what recognized socialism is. If you are afraid of socialism be very afraid of the current US government and its billionaire friends.

 

[Tigers!]

This thread belongs in the joke gallery. The USA is already the most socialist country that has ever existed. Of course, that socialism takes the form of corporate socialism, not what most people think of as socialism, although most Americans don't have a clue what recognized socialism is. If you are afraid of socialism be very afraid of the current US government and its billionaire friends.

I am just afraid of a yank with a gun.

 

[Toni]

And herein lies the other problem: In the US, Medicaid and increasingly Medicare reimbursements don’t cover the cost of service provided. Private insurers follow Medicare for their reimbursement fee schedule

Same problem in Oz with our Medicare.

The real problem with ‘Doctor Oz’ is that he’s long on celebrity privilege and opinion and very short on medical ethics and knowledge.

 

[RVonse]

This thread belongs in the joke gallery. The USA is already the most socialist country that has ever existed. Of course, that socialism takes the form of corporate socialism, not what most people think of as socialism, although most Americans don't have a clue what recognized socialism is. If you are afraid of socialism be very afraid of the current US government and its billionaire friends.

Profits that are privatized and losses that are always socialized as too big to fail.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And herein lies the other problem: In the US, Medicaid and increasingly Medicare reimbursements don’t cover the cost of service provided. Private insurers follow Medicare for their reimbursement fee schedule

Same problem in Oz with our Medicare.

The real problem with ‘Doctor Oz’ is that he’s long on celebrity privilege and opinion and very short on medical ethics and knowledge.

Don't bring up medical ethics! Too woke.

 

[Derec]

Norway, Sweden, Denmark......hell even the UK and France are BETTER than what we have here in the US.

None of these are socialist countries. There is a big difference between socialism and social democracy.

Also, I would push against the claim that UK or France are "BETTER than what we have here".
For example UK is very politically unstable right now, and have problems with both economic growth and funding for social services.
Hell, their per capita GDP is lower than that of Mississippi.

And note also that Norway is in an unusual position because it has both a very small population (5.6M) and relatively high oil production (1.7Mbbl/d).

 

[Derec]

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences.

The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. You are much more likely to get shot during a mugging or carjacking, and even that is improbable.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I think the relatively high infant mortality here is mostly due to different definitions of "live births". If a country does not count infants who die within hours of birth among "live births", then their infant mortality rate will be lower. That is in general a problem with international comparisons for any variable where there may be different definitions or reporting differences.

Another reason why US infant mortality may be unusually high is abortion. If almost all "incompatible with life" pregnancies are aborted, that reduces infant mortality. If many parents decide to deliver the baby, who then dies within hours and days, that increases infant mortality statistics.

 

[Derec]

Change can be scary, because it allows the mind to imagine all types of results.

Some changes are negative, and some changes can be predicted to have bad outcomes. Like embracing socialist policies.

The idea that the “far left”’s potential toehold that will springboard into a full blown totalitarian dystopia is the stuff of miniseries, not realistic analysis in my opinion.

Maybe it will not be Soviet Union or Khmer Rouge, but embracing socialist policies would still be harmful to the US. Look at DSA platform - it has some very bad ideas indeed.

Moreover, the same chicken littles are silent about the much more realistic foothold white “Christian” nationalists have here and their attempted goosestepping towards a different totalitarian dystopia.

Just because mostly white and Christian right-wing extremists are bad, does not mean that the disproportionally third world and Muslim socialist extremists like Zohran Mamdani, Adam Hamawy, and Avila Chevalier are in any way good, or that Dems should embrace them.

 

[Toni]

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences.

The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. You are much more likely to get shot during a mugging or carjacking, and even that is improbable.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I think the discrepancy is mostly due to different definitions of "live births". If a country does not count infants who die within hours of birth among "live births", then their infant mortality rate will be lower. That is in general a problem with international comparisons for any variable where there may be different definitions or reporting differences.

An infant who died within a few hours or days or weeks or months is still one of the infants who would be counted in any infant mortality statistic.

 

[Toni]

Change can be scary, because it allows the mind to imagine all types of results.

Some changes are negative, and some changes can be predicted to have bad outcomes. Like embracing socialist policies.

The idea that the “far left”’s potential toehold that will springboard into a full blown totalitarian dystopia is the stuff of miniseries, not realistic analysis in my opinion.

Maybe it will not be Soviet Union or Khmer Rouge, but embracing socialist policies would still be harmful to the US. Look at DSA platform - it has some very bad ideas indeed.

Moreover, the same chicken littles are silent about the much more realistic foothold white “Christian” nationalists have here and their attempted goosestepping towards a different totalitarian dystopia.

Just because mostly white and Christian right-wing extremists are bad, does not mean that the disproportionally third world and Muslim socialist extremists like Zohran Mamdani, Adam Hamawy, and Avila Chevalier are in any way good, or that Dems should embrace them.

Do you oppose Social Security? Roads and highways paid for by governments? Public education?

Those are all 'socialism.'

 

[Derec]

There's part of the rub. Socialism is a matter of degree. The US has lots of socialism, those countries have more.

That's a misunderstanding of terms. "Socialism" is not just a fancy word for "social programs". It's a specific economic system predicated on public control of means of production. It does not just mean "a country that has some social programs and labor regulations".
DSA knows what socialism is, since their constitution is pretty explicit. But their candidates downplay that part when trying to win primaries against real Dems.

But they are different in other ways too. They are smaller and more culturally homogeneous.
It's pretty apples and oranges.
Tom

You are right about that. Especially Norway with its high per capita oil production.

 

[Derec]

Do you oppose Social Security? Roads and highways paid for by governments? Public education? Those are all 'socialism.'

No, they are not. "Socialism" is not just a fancy word for "social programs" or "public sector". It's a specific economic system.

DSA know what socialism is, and they have spelled it out in their constitution: public ownership and control of means of production and rejection of profit-based economy. They even talk about alienation of labor, which is a specifically Marxist term, and economic planning, which harkens to centrally planned economies in actually existing socialist countries.

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

That's what socialism is. Not public roads and social security.

 

[Derec]

Since you have declared Norway, Sweden, and Finland off limits for answers, I'm at a loss to counter your straw man argument.

It seems like being the biggest economy on the planet, while losing 4 out of 1000 babies is more than our share, but if it's one of those "have and always will have" problems, there's no point in looking at the countries that are doing socialism wrong, but have fewer dead babies.

They are not doing socialism at all. Or do you suppose IKEA and Nokia are government-owned enterprises?

 

[Derec]

That's only if you go by the rigid definition of "socialism" as being "planned economy".

As opposed to the loosey-goosey definition of socialism where every country with public roads is "socialist"?

 

[Derec]

Since there seems to be a dispute over what "real socialism" entails, in order to understand your point more clearly, which "actually existing socialism" do you mean?

"Real socialism" or "actually existing socialism" is a term of art. It refers to socialism as actually practiced in USSR, GDR, etc. as opposed to some ideal version of socialism.

 

[Derec]

What the hell is "Here Cokes The Left" supposed to mean?