Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "7 in 10 Millennials Would Vote Socialist" video.

@fittzie The US paying over double the OECD average is per capita, idiot. Alaska, with over 5x fewer people than Denmark, still has double the per capita costs. The entire OECD, with tens of millions more people than the US has an average per capita cost that's half the US's. Total population is largely irrelevant. If anything, a larger population should lower costs.
4
@fittzie Shrink government? Denmark has about 30% of the population working in the public sector, dumb dumb. The US has about 15%. You'd double the number of government workers, to be more like Denmark. You'd also have a 70+% unionization rate, which is why they have higher incomes.
2
@fittzie Yes, administrative costs disappear, if a single payer system is easier to operate than a multipayer system. Pharma costs disappear, if you set a lower maximum price they're allowed to sell at. Turning non-profit makes the cost of paying for a profit disappear. Some costs will just vanish. Private insurance costs have been increasing at almost double the rate of Medicare costs. That's without Medicare even, currently, negotiating down drug prices. Private insurance is a shit show. You're buying right wing bullshit. The US has tens of thousands dying due to lack of coverage, hundreds of thousands going bankrupt due to medical debt, over a million travelling to places like India for healthcare they can afford, and you're all worried about wait times for non life threatening procedures. The supposed tens of thousands of Canadians going to the US to avoid wait times? A myth. A few rich people might go to hurry along their hip surgery, or have some other non life threatening procedure, but the vast majority of Canadians getting healthcare in the US are elderly Snowbirds, who spend winters in Florida or Arizona. They're getting healthcare while in the US, not going to the US for healthcare. And, their Canadian coverage might still be picking up some of those bills.
2
Nah, it's more a problem with folks like Pakman, and people scared to call certain things "socialism". "Social democracy" is a decent mix of both capitalism and socialism. If you want to socialize a sector of society, say have health insurance publicly owned and operated, or education publicly owned and operated, then those sectors of society are socialistic. If you did that with all sectors, you'd have 100% socialism. If you privatized everything, have all sectors privately owned and operated, then you'd have 100% capitalism. Nobody disagrees that privatizing something isn't capitalistic. A true centrism (not US centrism which is actually right of centre) would be about 50/50 capitalism/socialism. Denmark pays like 60% taxes, has 70+% unionization, and has 30% of its workforce in the public sector. It's a pretty even mix, and ranked one of the best places in the world to live. So, "social democracy" is more properly democratic centrism, which is both "capitalism" and "socialism". David, and others, are just being dodgy, implying it's not at all "socialism". Basically every country in the world, except for the few remaining absolute monarchies, is now running on some percentage of both capitalism and socialism. Bernie is committed to democracy, and is currently only pushing for that kind of centrism. If his actual ideal is well left of that centre, then he's a democratic socialist. If not, then maybe he should call himself a democratic centrist. Either way, he is committed to the democratic part, and will only go as far as democracy will allow.
1
@ssiipp7848 It's like you're saving the word "socialism" for 100% socialism, and calling anything short of that "capitalism", which makes no sense.
1
@ssiipp7848 Extreme capitalists would prefer seeing social safety nets fully privatized, run by charities and private donations ... privately owned and operated. A "social democracy" supports making many of those things publicly owned, operated, and funded. A "social democracy" supports a degree of socialism. It's centrism ... a mix of both ... but you're pretending it's not at all socialism, claiming it's "capitalism" plus something you're refusing to call "socialism". What do you think a mixed economy is a mix of?
1
@ssiipp7848 No, democratic socialism does not refer to a post capitalistic system. It refers to the path to achieve socialism ... through democracy rather than violent revolution. Your centrism is on that path, from where the US is now.
1
@ssiipp7848 I didn't change anything. You claimed it comes after ditching capitalism, which is bullshit. Democratic socialists founded the early labour party, in the UK. It's a democratic path to ditching capitalism, and "social democracy", centrism, is on that path away from all out capitalism. How the hell is centrism "capitalism"?
1
@ssiipp7848 It really shouldn't be too hard to understand that the "social democracy" Pakman supports is centrism, and to act like centrism is capitalistic and not socialistic, to act like a fairly evenly mixed economy isn't a fairly evenly mix of both, is nonsensical. It's in the centre of both. It's a mix of both. "Social democracy" doesn't think capitalism is the best way to run many sectors of society, and advocates for those sectors to be socialized. That's advocating for an amount of socialism, while also advocating to keep an amount of capitalism. It isn't only advocating for capitalism. It's like you're arguing for only half of what "social democracy" actually is. "Social democracy" used to mean exactly the same thing as "democratic socialism", and it's still taking socialism as far as centrism. It's flawed, if the centre aimed for isn't the actual centre between capitalism and socialism, and instead a false centre is aimed for. That gets you corporate Dems, sitting in the "centre" of an Overton window that's almost completely right of centre. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eduard-Bernstein
1