Socialism has been demonstrated to fail 100% of the time. Really? Tell that to England. Denmark. Sweden. I could keep going...(Though, to be fair, it depends on how you are defining socialism. If you take the dictionary definition then you are correct, but no one is advocating state ownership of the means of production...or at least no one I converse with.)And I'm not a socialist. I'm a realist. I'm actually of the "let them die" ilk. Natural selection should be allowed to do its work. But the reality is that people (society) will NEVER accept that. Ever. They get emotional (which is natural), and they will not let granny die in the gutter outside the ER for lack of ability to pay. Given that fact, what can we do to make this as efficient as possible? Answer: single payer. Not my first choice, but the best choice we have given the constraint that we will not allow our fellow citizens to die.It's really that simple.Democrats demand that everyone participates, willing or unwilling, unless they donate enough money to the president.Otherwise you get free riders. If we aren't going to allow people to die, then everyone who needs help will get it. It's only fair that when they don't need help that they are contributing too.Ironically even the socialists understand that socialist programs don't work,...Hmmmm...yeah, the police don't work at all. Neither does the fire brigade. Yeah. And public education produced one of the best-educated populations around (before the right-wing nuts got hold of it and started corrupting it with nonsense). What a fiasco. Rural electrification was a complete disaster, yes it was. Must I go on?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<