Fox News guest: AOC does the 'Latina thing'

[Whispering 18,865]

12 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Which is why these programs will be tough to achieve because Americans don’t trust the government and their horrible spending tendencies. 

And overall US culture which isn’t focused on community. 

True. People that already have private insurance want to keep it. That doesn’t mean they don’t want healthcare for the working poor and uninsured. It just means that they are mistrustful of the government. I can understand that position. This is a complex problem that doesn’t have an easy answer. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

25 minutes ago, marteo said:

How is she precisely ignorant in her democratic socialist beliefs? (please explain what socialism is to you) And please do not give a vague answer. I am sure everyone would appreciate a well articulated, smart and fact based response. Thanks

Her beliefs are ignorant in two ways:

1. Democratic Socialism is post-capitalist and therefore is not compatible with our free markets or competition. That's an issue. It is our free markets that create an incentive for someone to succeed. Abolishing our markets (something democratic socialism aims to do) encourages nothing more than the status quo (mediocrity).  This philosophy (mediocrity) is quite literally ignorant. 

2. She has said that she is a democratic socialist while in the same breathe claiming that capitalism does NOT need to be abolished. It's an oxymoronic and ignorant statement. But even then, she continually supports and refuses to exit the Democratic Socialists of America who are definitively post-capitalist in ideology. She seems... confused. She can either be a democratic socialist and support the abolishment of capitalism OR she can be a social democrat and advocate for a mix of capitalism and socialism with the greater focus being on the latter rather than the former... We currently have way too many capitalist ideals in our country and that is not working. 

There you go. There is your well-articulated, smart, and fact-based response. 

You're welcome

[Morphine Prince 109,645]

2 minutes ago, Whispering said:

True. People that already have private insurance want to keep it. That doesn’t mean they don’t want healthcare for the working poor and uninsured. It just means that they are mistrustful of the government. I can understand that position. This is a complex problem that doesn’t have an easy answer. 

To be honest though, there are a lot of people here who just outright don’t want to pay more in taxes because of the whole “why should I pay more for others?” mentality. 

We are accustomed to not getting much from our government. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

Just now, marteo said:

did just google you answer? What a shame if you did. Have your own opinion. Let´s not let people tell how to think. That response of yours it really shows how easy you let others manipulate your beliefs and opinions. 

No, I just wrote that. LMAO. 

If you knew me, you'd understand that NO ONE tells me what to think. 

VERY well-articulated, fact-based, and smart response you conjured up. 

When you have no evidence, resort to attacking the individual... I guess that is the strength of the "Resistance" nowadays. People on the left who dislike Trump need to rely on their intelligence instead of stupid, petty, partisan bickering-tactics.

[NotNightwing 1,710]

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

"You really aren’t. Your taxes are not at forty to fifty per cent of your income."

"Unfortunately, medical school is so unbelievably expensive, it takes a higher salary to convince people to go through eight to ten more years of schooling and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. When you start your profession at age 32 to 35, work sixty hours a week, and owe two to three hundred thousand dollars in debt- you deserve better pay. "

"People that already have private insurance want to keep it."

 

Most countries with universal healthcare don't have taxes much higher than the US. The top NZ tax bracket for example is 33% And most people don't even reach that. We manage free healthcare for our citizens despite being a lot poorer than the US. Plus private systems still exist. There is no reason why you can't still get private health insurance.

I agree that doctors need to be paid a lot though. The debt that is accumulated from medical school is enormous. At least in New Zealand it is surmountable though. Student loans are completely interest free here.

[Jill 31,812]

6 hours ago, TheQueenLG said:

To me, being free includes the ability to achieve success greater than the status quo. Socialism intrinsically prevents this. I believe our capitalistic system must be regulated to a degree in which someone working minimum wage can afford their (bare minimum) living expenses (rent, utilities, food, healthcare, etc.).

Keeping our system at least partially capitalistic affords aspirational people the opportunity to achieve success greater than the status quo. I'm on your side, I think. 

Do you know what you're talking about here? Nobody is rooting for full on socialism. AOC is defending similar policies to those that are currently being used in Europe (esp. Finland, Sweden, and all of the crossflagies) and part of South America. Also, even if it was socialism (which, again, isn't) the fact that you're saying socialism "intrisincally prevents this [the ability to, quote on quote, achieve success greater that the status quo]", shows you lack the understanding of what socialism really is. Competition will exist in every economic system, but the fact you're saying this proves you're just guiding yourself based on what the right is saying about socialism which, surprise suprise, isn't accurate in the least.

Having said that, please keep in mind democratic socialism is different than full on socialism. AOC is defending the former.

[Economy 52,835]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

To be honest though, there are a lot of people here who just outright don’t want to pay more in taxes because of the whole “why should I pay more for others?” mentality. 

We are accustomed to not getting much from our government. 

Well if you replace taxes for the premiums, they don't necessarily have to pay more

 

You could have a single payers tax system and not have the rich pay for it all

 

Taxes could go up on the middle class income bracket who will pay more taxes but less on premiums... Because that way the rich also pay the same increased amount (they go thru that bracket as well) but everyone is paying their share, not someone paying for anyone elses

 

I think free healthcare would actually be cheaper because your not just getting rid of the profit margin of hospitals, your also getting rid of the profit margins for insurance companies which add to healthcare costs as well

 

In universal healthcare system, there's no profit margins to pay for... Just the costs!

[Morphine Prince 109,645]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

Well if you replace taxes for the premiums, they don't necessarily have to pay more

 

You could have a single payers tax system and not have the rich pay for it all

 

Taxes could go up on the middle class income bracket who will pay more taxes but less on premiums... Because that way the rich also pay the same increased amount (they go thru that bracket as well) but everyone is paying their share, not someone paying for anyone elses

 

I think free healthcare would actually be cheaper because your not just getting rid of the profit margin of hospitals, your also getting rid of the profit margins for insurance companies which add to healthcare costs as well

 

In universal healthcare system, there's no profit margins to pay for... Just the costs!

It's hard to communicate this to voters though. That's the issue. 

[Economy 52,835]

47 minutes ago, Deku said:

Most countries with universal healthcare don't have taxes much higher than the US. The top NZ tax bracket for example is 33% And most people don't even reach that. We manage free healthcare for our citizens despite being a lot poorer than the US. Plus private systems still exist. There is no reason why you can't still get private health insurance.

I agree that doctors need to be paid a lot though. The debt that is accumulated from medical school is enormous. At least in New Zealand it is surmountable though. Student loans are completely interest free here.

That's another option... Portugal where I used to live also has a hybrid system

 

They have the private healthcare which is faster but if u can't afford it you also have the government healthcare... It's not as great because Portugal can't afford much in terms of social programs but it's better than having nothing

 

When I lived in Portugal my family was too poor to afford private and I had severe astham attacks that were always lending me at the hospital and I required special mask treatments. I always got by ok with the Government funded Hospitals

 

[Economy 52,835]

17 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

It's hard to communicate this to voters though. That's the issue. 

I know... Ppl take positions without doing the proper research

 

I'm just saying... It wouldn't have to cost the average person more cuz the extra they'd pay in taxes would be saved on premiums

 

And if u increase the taxes on the middle class bracket u have the wealthy increase their taxes the same amount as average ppl so it's not like ur footing the bill all to the wealthy

 

Also as I mentioned to another user, where I lived before in Portugal they use a hybrid system... Private healthcare of better quality for those who have insurance or can afford it so they don't have to loose it but also have universal healthcare hospitals for those who can't. That's another option

 

Just to give an idea of the costs here in Canada my income taxes are about 18% with my $50,000 a year income. And my health insurance premiums (a few things are still privatized in Canadian healthcare that you need insurance for) are $15/week for me and my wife 

 

That's the kind of cost we have for our free healthcare. Perfectly duable

 

And if the US doesn't want the longer lines we have in Canada there's the option for more funding. We purposely ration healthcare spending cuz we don't like big deficits but the US already spends more per capita on health care than Canada so if the spending stayed the same u could have a better universal healthcare than we do!

 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

56 minutes ago, The Bad Joker said:

Do you know what you're talking about here? Nobody is rooting for full on socialism. AOC is defending similar policies to those that are currently being used in Europe (esp. Finland, Sweden, and all of the crossflagies) and part of South America. Also, even if it was socialism (which, again, isn't) the fact that you're saying socialism "intrisincally prevents this [the ability to, quote on quote, achieve success greater that the status quo]", shows you lack the understanding of what socialism really is. Competition will exist in every economic system, but the fact you're saying this proves you're just guiding yourself based on what the right is saying about socialism which, surprise suprise, isn't accurate in the least.

Having said that, please keep in mind democratic socialism is different than full on socialism. AOC is defending the former.

No. I DO want to play semantics here. Those other countries (Finland, Sweden) are socially democratic... In other words, they are NOT post-capitalist. They have just implemented more social programs than the US has. 

AOC is part of the DSA and they are fundamentally post-capitalist... Her economic ideology is MORE extreme than these European countries. Seriously. 

My issues aren't with the policies that she's proposing, it's with her fundamental ideology. 

Her ideology is literally so extreme that it never has been truly implemented. A post-capitalist economy has never been implemented anywhere on Earth in modern history... Yet AOC's group of choice, the DSA, desires to be post-capitalist.

I like AOC, but she's misguided. Periodt. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Well if you replace taxes for the premiums, they don't necessarily have to pay more

You have to account for the premiums that the employers pay for. Often times, it’s way more than the private individual pays for their policy. The government or the individual will have to pick up that part, as well. 

[Economy 52,835]

Just now, Whispering said:

You have to account for the premiums that the employers pay for. Often times, it’s way more than the private individual pays for their policy. The government or the individual will have to pick up that part, as well. 

Good point. My health insurance for example is 50% payed for by my company. I'm not sure I would even get my insurance if I had to pay the full price

 

Either way... The overall economic burden on the nation as a whole should drop. 

 

Between hospitals making money and the insurances making money as well... A lot of extra cost is added in private healthcare because of the profit margins

 

It's like car insurance. My Province has high car insurance... A couple of Provinces in Canada have a provincial plan where the premiums are just to cover the costs and the prices are a lot lower!

[Morphine Prince 109,645]

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, TheQueenLG said:

No. I DO want to play semantics here. Those other countries (Finland, Sweden) are socially democratic... In other words, they are NOT post-capitalist. They have just implemented more social programs than the US has. 

AOC is part of the DSA and they are fundamentally post-capitalist... Her economic ideology is MORE extreme than these European countries. Seriously. 

My issues aren't with the policies that she's proposing, it's with her fundamental ideology. 

Her ideology is literally so extreme that it never has been truly implemented. A post-capitalist economy has never been implemented anywhere on Earth in modern history... Yet AOC's group of choice, the DSA, desires to be post-capitalist.

I like AOC, but she's misguided. Periodt. 

I think you think she is more 'radical' than she is tbh, even knowing about DSA and that some members do identify as such....Obviously Pure Socialism has its faults, but I think the purpose of being anti capitalist or critical of capitalism, ala "post-capitalism" is to acknowledge that our system isn't working and to open a discussion and propose ideas beyond that mutually agreed upon point. 
There's a wide range of ideas under that umbrella term. Some may wish to reform the existing capitalist system, while some may think it is not salvageable,  fundamentally unsustainable, immoral, etc. and wish to find a new system to take its place. Some others may think the latter, but that the "new" system they are looking for is just a beefed up, regulated Capitalist-ish society, with many social programs to combat capitalism's penchant for corruption and wealth disparities (*Cough* Democratic Socialists *Cough*).

I'm honestly more interested in what you think is wrong about being post capitalist or at least what is wrong about being as critical of capitalism as she is. I grew up in feminist academic circles so I talk to outright marxists, anarchists, communist feminists, quite often  and AOC is nowhere near where some of these people are politically . What is misguided about sharing your skepticism or condemnation of elements of capitalism with the public?? (And again, you are assuming the severity of her ideals by association; the DSA has never claimed all members must be gung ho for the abolition of capitalism or anything  Just that many people are more pro socialist than capitalist and even anti-capitalist, which isnt abolitionist  )

 To me, her complaints are very capitalist criticism 101 ... many people who might not identify as strongly as she does agree, as we can tell from the public's response to her and her ideas, despite the numerous think pieces from the right (and moderate-left) daily.

To me it sounds so childish and defeatist to throw up your hands like this. Its like "How dare this young woman criticize CAPITALISM, our lord and savior that must never be questioned, because even if its not very good, theres nothing better and there never will be!!! /s" Not to mention the banal McCarthyist "Socialism!?! Venezuela!?!?"  witch hunt the right is so fond of doing  

It's really not  new information that capitalism encourages oppression, hierarchy, monopoly, etc. in its efforts to maximize wealth and this renders it an imperfect system when it comes to delivering on most of the assets that we initially used to justify adopting said system. It might work better if we had a true meritocracy,  but we don't so... And I also don't really think you can argue that capitalism is just so great and worth keeping because "it fosters competition, which drives innovation and creativity while promising opportunity etc etc...." when the vast majority of people will never be able to meaningfully have access to or sometimes even participate in this system in any way other than for bare essentials  To me that sounds like stubbornly holding onto an ideal even though the data shows that capitalism has a really quite abysmal success rate when it comes to things that matter.