4 ms·
If Medicaid and Medicare were "socialist" in any way whatsoever, we would have Medicaid for All for a fraction of the cost. These programs are so expensive beca
by sh34r 3y ago
If Medicaid and Medicare were "socialist" in any way whatsoever, we would have Medicaid for All for a fraction of the cost. These programs are so expensive because the "healthcare" system in this country is designed to funnel money into the oligarchs' pockets. It is a capitalist scam that presents the single greatest barrier to American entrepreneurship.
The UK NHS is a socialized healthcare system. The profit motive is not allowed to corrupt any part of the system. Pharmaceutical prices are strictly controlled (none of this $26k/year Alzheimer's drug nonsense). It is fully nationalized. Nationalizing an entire industry in peacetime is often (but not always) associated with socialism.
Even Canada's single payer system is not socialist in any sense of the word. It's just a government-run insurance plan. There are many multi-payer insurance systems in the world that perform far better than ours. Single-payer is not a panacea without price controls. Price controls are somewhat socialist. Funnily enough, the last US president to enact price controls was Richard Nixon, known friend of Marxists across the globe /s.
There's nothing socialist whatsoever about Social Security. It does not redistribute wealth. The tax is infamously capped at the first ~$130k of income you make per year. Any income above the cap is untaxed by Social Security. Your benefits are proportional to what you paid into it. Social Security is definitely not "wealth distribution." It is an income tax. It's income distribution if anything, but that's still pretty ghoulish framing for a stipend for retired folks that barely keeps them out of poverty.
> I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family.
No citations, just some half-remembered statistic from a right-wing propaganda outlet that conveniently adds up to the weed number. Very believable. Very representative of the average person's lived experiences. I cannot overstate how pathetic you have to be, in order to be resentful about welfare benefits while making a tech worker's salary.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt seems like you are all over the place without addressing the fundamental point? Is redistributive wealth policy count as democratic socialist policy or not? >There's nothing socialist whatsoever about Social Security.... Your benefits are proportional to what you paid into it. This simply isn't true. SS payments are not at all proportional to what you put in, with higher earners subsidizing lower. compare payouts for SS on 13k income and 130k income. What you pay in goes up by 10X and what you get back goes up by 3.5X you can play with a calculator if you want [1]. Tax on 13K income, SS benefit at retirement: $18,362/yr Tax on 25K income, SS benefit at retirement: $24,627/yr Tax on 50K income, SS benefit at retirement: $37,678/yr Tax on 100k income, SS benefit at retirement: $56,505/yr Tax on 130k income, SS benefit at retirement: $63,846/yr https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-calculator#NgAQe6s8S5 https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-calculator...