Enlightening Healthcare Article

[Darkside-void]

I thought it would be a good idea to clear the air around the Healthcare debate a bit. Yet I wasn't sure if I should post this in the "Healthcare Conspiracy" thread, as I thought it would be wildly off-topic.

Before you click the link and read the article, a disclaimer:

I understand that some of you here will be turned off by what you perceive as an unfair bias in this article. Nonetheless, it's entirely simple to read through it, aware that it's biased, and pick up on the sound facts expressed there. Please do so.

Link

[GayDorf]

It is kind of sad that officials from one end of the ideological divide must manufacture dissent in order to push petty political agendas in attempts to be re-elected on the concept of opposition to what is being characterized by the same people as "evil" legislation.

[hansari]

You know whats funny?

Half the people whining about "socialized medicine" are probably on Medicare...

[Memorize]

At 8/9/09 10:53 PM, GayDorf wrote: It is kind of sad that officials from one end of the ideological divide must manufacture dissent in order to push petty political agendas in attempts to be re-elected on the concept of opposition to what is being characterized by the same people as "evil" legislation.

Yeah, because obviously the anti-Iraq and anti-Vietnam protests weren't organized.

Or... you know, Union protests either.

[Slick-Rob]

OK, my problem here is the way that people slander those with reasonable dissent to this health care plan. Nancy Pelosi referred to the dissenters at the town meetings as Nazis, and that is completely unacceptable. Apparently, it was ok for her to protest the way Bush ran the government, but when Obama gets in office and the democrats have control of Congress, question ing their way is unpatriotic and Nazi-like!!!

[Darkside-void]

At 8/11/09 01:03 PM, Slick-Rob wrote: OK, my problem here is the way that people slander those with reasonable dissent to this health care plan. Nancy Pelosi referred to the dissenters at the town meetings as Nazis, and that is completely unacceptable. Apparently, it was ok for her to protest the way Bush ran the government, but when Obama gets in office and the democrats have control of Congress, question ing their way is unpatriotic and Nazi-like!!!

I can understand your concern, but the fact is, Pelosi didn't call them Nazis. She said they were carrying swastikas. It seems infinitely more likely that she was pointing out the ridiculous comparison the protesters were making between the Obama Admin and Nazism. And as is clearly demonstrated here, protesters were indeed carrying signs calling the Administration Nazis. Not to mention that it was people such as Rush Limbaugh who first grabbed onto Pelosi's comments and decided that she must be insinuating that the protesters were Nazis.

Ironically, if I recall my history correctly, the Fascists were actually a reaction to the spread of Socialism in Europe, and the Fascists and Socialists hated each other. Just goes to show that Rush and others don't know their history.

(Please excuse the blatant bias on the part of the blogger in the second Limbaugh link, and the fact that the video comes from MSNBC. I didn't feel like digging through Limbaugh's website to find the specific clip where he said that.)

[b0b3rt]

I found it moderately difficult to read through the entire post, but this really stuck out at me:

"there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system"

I don't understand how he can say (write?) that with a straight face. What the Obama administration wants is exactly that. Now, they probably won't get it, and he admits that much in the article. But he wants us to believe that Obama is not pushing for government controlled health-care?

[hansari]

At 8/11/09 02:54 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

At 8/11/09 01:03 PM, Slick-Rob wrote: OK, my problem here is the way that people slander those with reasonable dissent to this health care plan. Nancy Pelosi referred to the dissenters at the town meetings as Nazis, and that is completely unacceptable. Apparently, it was ok for her to protest the way Bush ran the government, but when Obama gets in office and the democrats have control of Congress, question ing their way is unpatriotic and Nazi-like!!!

I can understand your concern, but the fact is, Pelosi didn't call them Nazis. She said they were carrying swastikas. It seems infinitely more likely that she was pointing out the ridiculous comparison the protesters were making between the Obama Admin and Nazism. And as is clearly demonstrated here, protesters were indeed carrying signs calling the Administration Nazis. Not to mention that it was people such as Rush Limbaugh who first grabbed onto Pelosi's comments and decided that she must be insinuating that the protesters were Nazis.

Ironically, if I recall my history correctly, the Fascists were actually a reaction to the spread of Socialism in Europe, and the Fascists and Socialists hated each other. Just goes to show that Rush and others don't know their history.

(Please excuse the blatant bias on the part of the blogger in the second Limbaugh link, and the fact that the video comes from MSNBC. I didn't feel like digging through Limbaugh's website to find the specific clip where he said that.)

I agree with you on Pelosi... and I would prefer these townhall fanatics to be more organized and formally debate congressman about healthcare (chances are they might win considering the lack of HARD information on healthcare there is out there)

But Obama isn't helping matters when he tells people, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQZAA3fFj LY

Does Obama not grasp what he says is controversial? (do we want another Gates thing to distract us...)

[homor]

At 8/9/09 10:53 PM, GayDorf wrote: It is kind of sad that officials from one end of the ideological divide must manufacture dissent

too bad its the Democratic allied Unions who are ACTUALLY doing that.

[Proteas]

At 8/9/09 09:49 PM, Darkside-void wrote: Link

Counter link, with proof (copy and paste "sec. 1233" into your browser's text search to bring it up). Section 5a.b. is particularly interesting.

At 8/9/09 11:21 PM, hansari wrote: Half the people whining about "socialized medicine" are probably on Medicare...

So the rich white republicans who are against this bill are all on medicare, hm?

That's what I call "fun with stereotypes."

[Darkside-void]

At 8/11/09 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/9/09 09:49 PM, Darkside-void wrote: Link

Counter link, with proof (copy and paste "sec. 1233" into your browser's text search to bring it up). Section 5a.b. is particularly interesting.

Hooray, links.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you aren't. Also, I can't figure out which Section 5a.b you're referring to.

From your first link (emphasis mine):

"I think, given that the member of Congress who drafted H.R. 3200 read and take seriously people like Klien, Yglesias, and Singer, we should be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled "Advanced Care Planning Consultation" requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity."

That's incorrect. What section 1233 would require is for Medicare to [i]pay[/i] for end-of-life counseling every five years [i]if the person covered by medicare wants end-of-life counseling[/i]. That is, Medicare would now pay for end-of-life counseling, but only every five years, meaning that if you want end-of-life counseling more frequently than every five years, Medicare won't cover those "extra", not-covered sessions. It does not [i]require[/i] Medicare recipients to go through the counseling, but it covers it if they [i]do[/i] desire it.

(^That paragraph seems kinda convoluted to me. Anything unclear?)

I guess, if you really want to be excessively technical, we would have to check Section 1861 of the Social Security Act to make absolutely sure, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding it online, mostly because I'm not sure which version of the Social Security Act the bill refers to. I suppose it must mean the most current version, though.

At 8/9/09 11:21 PM, hansari wrote: Half the people whining about "socialized medicine" are probably on Medicare...

So the rich white republicans who are against this bill are all on medicare, hm?

That's what I call "fun with stereotypes."

More like "old people who are against this bill are all on medicare".

.......Anyway,

Those among the rich who are mobilizing against the bill, being a small minority (and the rich in general a small minority as well), are clearly not the majority of the people against the bill, being such a minuscule number of people to begin with. The people eating up the propaganda they (the conservative rich) are spewing, however, might indeed include an enormous number of people 65 or older, perhaps even approaching 50% of the total "people who are against this bill". ...Theoretically.

(IF you had another point with that bit, or were being sarcastic, it obviously flew right over my head. Sorry.)

[hansari]

At 8/11/09 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/9/09 11:21 PM, hansari wrote: Half the people whining about "socialized medicine" are probably on Medicare...

So the rich white republicans who are against this bill are all on medicare, hm?

That's what I call "fun with stereotypes."

Excuse me, I forgot to include "in town halls meetings".

[homor]

At 8/12/09 02:54 AM, hansari wrote: Excuse me, I forgot to include "in town halls meetings".

because no one on the left has ever done anything to start trouble.

[TheMason]

At 8/11/09 02:54 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

At 8/11/09 01:03 PM, Slick-Rob wrote: OK, my problem here is the way that people slander those with reasonable dissent to this health care plan. Nancy Pelosi referred to the dissenters at the town meetings as Nazis, and that is completely unacceptable. Apparently, it was ok for her to protest the way Bush ran the government, but when Obama gets in office and the democrats have control of Congress, question ing their way is unpatriotic and Nazi-like!!!

I can understand your concern, but the fact is, Pelosi didn't call them Nazis. She said they were carrying swastikas. It seems infinitely more likely that she was pointing out the ridiculous comparison the protesters were making between the Obama Admin and Nazism. And as is clearly demonstrated here, protesters were indeed carrying signs calling the Administration Nazis. Not to mention that it was people such as Rush Limbaugh who first grabbed onto Pelosi's comments and decided that she must be insinuating that the protesters were Nazis.

Then where was she during the last eight years? Or is it okay and reasonable to portray Republican administrations as NAZI-ish?

What is ridiculous is party leaders who have been around as long as Pelosi crying foul about things that have been common in American politics for as long as I can remember. Furthermore, the history books tell me protests have been around since the birth of the Republic.

* The image of Clinton and G.W. Bush were superimposed on Hitler's body as a sign of protest. Thus Obama is not the first president to have this happen to him. I'm pretty sure presidents have been compared to facists since the 1960s.
* Along with the cries of foul concerning NAZI/Obama comparisons is the burning of politicians in effiagy. Again, this is nothing new...but rather something that has a long history in this country as a form of protest. It is not necessarily a threat.

Ironically, if I recall my history correctly, the Fascists were actually a reaction to the spread of Socialism in Europe, and the Fascists and Socialists hated each other. Just goes to show that Rush and others don't know their history.

Actually, you don't recall your history correctly. What NAZI refers to is the National Socialism. Furthermore, the name of the party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

What they were:
* anti-Communism
* anti-Economic Liberalism (aka Capitalism)
* pro-Collectivism (aka Socialism)

The Volkswagon brand was created by the NAZIs. Translated it means: The People's Car. It was originally billed as a cheap mode of transportation targeted at the lower and middle classes. Furthermore, it was to be driven on the autobahn which the NAZIs billed as a highway system for the people.

""We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance."
-Adolf Hitler

"I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."
-Adolf Hitler

The NAZI party is: "...on the side of labor and against finance."
-Joseph Goebbels

NAZI-ism was opposed to Democratic Socialism. This more of an inter-ideological schism rather than a fight between two opposing ideologies. In other words, Hitler and the NAZIs just had a different view of Socialism than most of Europe...but he (and the party) were still socialists.

[hansari]

At 8/12/09 05:11 AM, homor wrote:

At 8/12/09 02:54 AM, hansari wrote: Excuse me, I forgot to include "in town halls meetings".

because no one on the left has ever done anything to start trouble.

Where the fuck did I say anything about "causing trouble"?!

I'm not citing "town hall insanity" like MSNBC so screw off. (and look at my prior posts if you think I'm another Left-wing fanatic)

I was merely pointing out something quite humorous. That there are a good amount of people who think socialized medicine will bring us all to ruin when they themselves are on it and would be screwed without it. (medicare/medicaid).

Just look at these people. At an AARP meet, they say they think the current healthcare system is still sustainable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoMNDdQ1_
h0

*Note the video I provided doesn't show old people pulling off WWE moves...

Which is just ridiculous. Social Security, Healthcare...we need reform.

[Darkside-void]

At 8/12/09 11:09 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/11/09 02:54 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

At 8/11/09 01:03 PM, Slick-Rob wrote: OK, my problem here is the way that people slander those with reasonable dissent to this health care plan. Nancy Pelosi referred to the dissenters at the town meetings as Nazis, and that is completely unacceptable. Apparently, it was ok for her to protest the way Bush ran the government, but when Obama gets in office and the democrats have control of Congress, question ing their way is unpatriotic and Nazi-like!!!

I can understand your concern, but the fact is, Pelosi didn't call them Nazis. She said they were carrying swastikas. It seems infinitely more likely that she was pointing out the ridiculous comparison the protesters were making between the Obama Admin and Nazism. And as is clearly demonstrated here, protesters were indeed carrying signs calling the Administration Nazis. Not to mention that it was people such as Rush Limbaugh who first grabbed onto Pelosi's comments and decided that she must be insinuating that the protesters were Nazis.

Then where was she during the last eight years? Or is it okay and reasonable to portray Republican administrations as NAZI-ish?

What is ridiculous is party leaders who have been around as long as Pelosi crying foul about things that have been common in American politics for as long as I can remember. Furthermore, the history books tell me protests have been around since the birth of the Republic.

* The image of Clinton and G.W. Bush were superimposed on Hitler's body as a sign of protest. Thus Obama is not the first president to have this happen to him. I'm pretty sure presidents have been compared to facists since the 1960s.
* Along with the cries of foul concerning NAZI/Obama comparisons is the burning of politicians in effiagy. Again, this is nothing new...but rather something that has a long history in this country as a form of protest. It is not necessarily a threat.

Perhaps people have been making such comparisons (XYZ is a Nazi!) for ages, but that doesn't make the comparison to Nazism any more valid. Pelosi didn't speak out against the Bush/Nazi comparisons, true. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an understood standard of discourse, even if Pelosi chose not to press for the standard to be enforced in that particular way during an earlier presidency.

And the fact that we've also been burning people in effigy forever is also not entirely the point. Burning someone in effigy, or painting them with a swastika or a Hitler mustache, or any of the various other things many protesters have been doing is the like the equivalent of screaming in inarticulate rage. It doesn't actually add anything to the debate.

Ironically, if I recall my history correctly, the Fascists were actually a reaction to the spread of Socialism in Europe, and the Fascists and Socialists hated each other. Just goes to show that Rush and others don't know their history.

[History of the Nazi Party]

Yes, all of that is true, but I was actually referring to the first Rush Limbaugh link I put in that post ("Rush Limbaugh has his fascism all backwards"), in which he said,

Limbaugh: "Folks, this is Mussolini-type stuff. This is the President of the United States -- who cannot deal with opposition, there will not be any, he is going to silence it -- sending his union thugs out to physically assault, and in some cases to, in all cases, intimidate average Americans who just want some answers."

Mussolini's regime, of course, was where we got the word Fascism. The thing is, Limbaugh and others are also simultaneously calling Obama and his supporters in Unions Socialists, ironic considering that the Fascists and Socialists hated each other. So my point that Limbaugh and others don't know their history still stands. I guess I could have been a bit more specific in the other post, though.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

The NAzi's can not be described as socialists. The base core of Socialism is the assumption that all men are equal. Nazism is based around the assumption of racialism and social darwinism, which assumes people are not equal, ergo they can not be the same thing.

[zephiran]

At 8/12/09 06:13 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The NAzi's can not be described as socialists. The base core of Socialism is the assumption that all men are equal. Nazism is based around the assumption of racialism and social darwinism, which assumes people are not equal, ergo they can not be the same thing.

If anything, I´ve found the nationalsocialists to best fit the description of a "populist" party - strong emphasis on traditionally right-wing ideals like traditionalism and nationalism while at the same time taking the "anti-burgeoise" sentiment from the left side of the political spectrum makes it hard to put a really solid label on the party. The party was a literal hotpot of political ideas - blame this, blame that, offer relatively quick and easy solutions to complicated problems, whatever works best to win over the public opinion - that in the end proved to be successful. Play the strings of the populace just right, and you will find yourself the winner in the political arena.

Nationalsocialism rode on a wave of disstrust of the socialdemocratic government, deep, underlying ideas of racial purity and antisemitism, and national pride. I´d like to think that the party agenda wasn´t as much "We´ll implement a planned economy, state-owned means of production and an egalitarian society to fix things up." as it was "Just let US handle things, seeing as the current government can´t do shit right, and everything´ll be alright!"
- to me, this marks the Nazis as predominantly populist, utilising the old "people" versus the "elite" sentiment.

While it is true that the nationalsocialists implemented a very strict and planned economy, i.e "socialism", I´d still like to point out that the sociopolitical stance of the party remained firmly anchored in the far, even extreme, right, making it hard to define JUST what " political shoes" it could fit into.

[MentalMyles]

my girlfriend's training to be a nurse and if Obama has his way. It will pretty much fuck up her future. bottom line, don't "fix" what isn't broken, especially if you have no fucking clue in how the health care system works.

[Bacchanalian]

At 8/11/09 09:14 PM, homor wrote: too bad its the Democratic allied Unions who are ACTUALLY doing that.

Now we should get in an argument over who pulled the first punch.

And now you'll assume I think th republicans pulled the first punch.

[Slizor]

NAZI-ism was opposed to Democratic Socialism. This more of an inter-ideological schism rather than a fight between two opposing ideologies. In other words, Hitler and the NAZIs just had a different view of Socialism than most of Europe...but he (and the party) were still socialists.

Oh pur-lease. Quoting the rhetoric of the Nazis is one thing....but believing it!? Next we'll be saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is just a "different (but valid) understanding of democracy".

The Nazi party, in its actions, supported Corporatism, reviled liberalism and reviled socialism. It was a third, extreme, way between the two main ideologies of the time, that drew upon populist propaganda at a time of worldwide economic crisis in order to gain a semi-legitimate power base.

Anyhows, I just popped into this thread to deliver this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug /11/nhs-united-states-republican-health

It's funny that Republicans don't seem to realise that attacking the NHS is just not done in this country. Sure, there's arguments about how to run it.........but outright attacks on the NHS is political suicide.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/12/09 08:11 PM, Grubby wrote: Socialized medicine?

So it's evil to have our libraries, police, and postal service be paid for the public by our government for our taxes?

I like the article.

Republicans don't believe that it's evil to have them paid by taxes.

But i do :D

If libraries, police, and postal services are not demanded on a free market, they wouldn't be supplied. Since the idea of them not being needed is absurd, on a free market they WOULD be supplied to the extent which they are demanded. Rather than the extent to which the caprices of state officials and progressives are willing to rob other people of their money to support a monopolistic system.

Anyway... All of the talk of how the Republicans are getting in the way of progress towards a brave new world in healthcare are all ignoring the crux of the matter; That government caused the shortages and high costs of healthcare to begin with.

[Slizor]

If libraries, police, and postal services are not demanded on a free market, they wouldn't be supplied. Since the idea of them not being needed is absurd, on a free market they WOULD be supplied to the extent which they are demanded. Rather than the extent to which the caprices of state officials and progressives are willing to rob other people of their money to support a monopolistic system.

Actually they would be supplied to the extent that they were profitable....so say goodbye to police in poor rural areas.

Also say goodbye to any kind of road/rail/transport system. Because, let's face it, who's gonna pay for a road?

[Korriken]

I think Obama just lost his 'winging it' privileges.

ALSO.....

Why is little Julia reading her simple question from a slip of paper? The dems wanna say that the protesters are manufactured and 'astro turf' movement? Bah, They're the ones with guys running around in uniforms harassing and attacking people.

I think the liberals know that its make or break time and that the odds are quickly turning against them. Obama had HOPED to ramrod it through with his massive liberal majority in the house and senate and be done before anyone could do anything, but some of the conservative Democrats turned on their own party. And now, they're catching hell in the form of swarms of protesters and not even the MEDIA can shield Obama now. The liberal stations try to make it seem like the conservatives are putting up a desperate, last ditch effort, using mob tactics to try and stall the bill. However, it's the liberals rely on mob tactics in order to silence the protesters to get the bill passed.

The liberals know their wet dream will be over come 2010 and they'll have to wake up and face the stern reality that they are not the rulers of the USA.

[TheMason]

At 8/12/09 06:13 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The NAzi's can not be described as socialists. The base core of Socialism is the assumption that all men are equal. Nazism is based around the assumption of racialism and social darwinism, which assumes people are not equal, ergo they can not be the same thing.

Yes TNT, the NAZIs can be described as socialist.

While the NAZIs were racists, they did espouse that within the Ayrian race all men were equal. Thus they took a socialist approach to economics.

Socialism is an imperfect step between capitalism/individualism and communism/collectivism. Marx understood that there would be good and bad experiments with his theory. NAZI-ism was one of those evil experiments.

[Elfer]

Well, to be fair, I don't think it was the socialist economic policies of the Nazi party that made them infamous. It was probably more all the completely insane and evil stuff, like murder, torture, human experimentation, all that jazz.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/13/09 10:15 AM, TheMason wrote: Yes TNT, the NAZIs can be described as socialist.

Really not seeing it. I've spent the last two years reading up on Nazi-ism ( that word does not lend itself well to having ism added to it...) and I've yet to find anything that actually convinces me that they are socialist.

The exclusionary nature of their belief system, anti-semtic, racist, totally reviling alternative political stances to the point where the opposition is beaten, imprisoned or killed, is not the ideology of equality that is the basis of socialism.

And before you or someone else says ' BUT LOOK AT THE USSR OR STALIN!' I'd jsut like tos ay that they weren't socialist either in my mind as they ignored what socialism was about.

While the NAZIs were racists, they did espouse that within the Ayrian race all men were equal. Thus they took a socialist approach to economics.

Except that even among the Aryan race they espoused the Fuhrer principle. All worked to the good of the Fuhrer and the nation, not the good of the people. The Nazis merely used the discourse of socialism as a means to further their own political gain.

The reason we have this confusion about what we cna label the Nazis as in terms of political positioning is that they utlised a vriety of cotnradictory discoruse depending on whom they were trying to secure the support of.

I've seen British Foreign Office reports in the British national Archives from the German ambassdor at the time stating, in a rather more flamboyant manner than I'm using, that the NAzis were saying so many things to so many people that it was difficult to know what they were going to try and actually achieve.

Socialism is an imperfect step between capitalism/individualism and communism/collectivism. Marx understood that there would be good and bad experiments with his theory. NAZI-ism was one of those evil experiments.

Socialism is based around the core principle of Marxism that all men are equal though. Nazi-ism can be said to be related to Socialism, in that their are similarities, an off shoot of socialism even, but it rejects the principle that all men are equal, therefore it can not be socialism.

National Socialism stemmed from a socialist viewpoint. After all the Nazis were the German Workers Peoples Party, but they mutated and twisted the ideology into something which, in my mind can not be viewed as Socialism.

As for the definition that socialism is an intermediary step, I don't really buy that. As a student of political science ( And I'm pretty sure you are as well from my memory) I don't see how that definition is acceptable. According to that definition anything beyond individual Anarchy a la Hobbesian or Lockes State of Nature can be viewed as Socialist as it moves away from the focus of individual liberty and forces the individual to obey a society which will take his money etc.

Far too non-specific from a political analysis perspective in my mind.

[Elfer]

At 8/13/09 11:25 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Really not seeing it. I've spent the last two years reading up on Nazi-ism ( that word does not lend itself well to having ism added to it...) and I've yet to find anything that actually convinces me that they are socialist.

I think we're talking about economic socialism rather than, you know, societal socialism.

Yes it's probably not the best use of the word and there's a semantic argument that can be made about it, but really, you know what we're actually trying to talk about it, so why try to conflate the issues for the sake of a word?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/13/09 11:33 AM, Elfer wrote: I think we're talking about economic socialism rather than, you know, societal socialism.

If you're taking that stance then it isn't socialism, its an economic policy which focuses on alrge government. Yes that's an aspect of Socialism. That is an aspect of socialism, but its totally different. Right wing dictatorships which do not subscribe to socialist beleifs will have the same thing, doesn;t mean it's socialist.

Yes it's probably not the best use of the word and there's a semantic argument that can be made about it, but really, you know what we're actually trying to talk about it, so why try to conflate the issues for the sake of a word?

Cause the term socialism is a pet hate of mine. And hey, its a debate forum, and its kind of linked to the topic at hand so I figured why not?

[Elfer]

So what should we use to describe policies that are socialist in the economic sense, without necessarily making claims about societal policies? I think we can agree that "communism" already carries WAY too much baggage.