Socialism and Haircuts


#1

French President Francois Hollande is the Socialist leader of France. His dislike of the rich and tax the rich views are what got him elected. But like a good socialist he spends $10,000 Euros [about $11,000 US] PER MONTH, EVERY MONTH on his haircuts.

Socialist Leaders: “do as I say, NOT as I do”


#2

The sales approach to socialism is pretty simple (at least as sold here in the U.S.). Your unhappy, your not doing well, it’s not your fault, your wealth is being sucked off by those rich people, joint the movement, we will all be equal, we will all share, we will all be better off, we will all poop flowers.
.
That’s because it’s really hard to sell let’s change those in charge, get rid of the successful businessmen, replace them with ME (or us).
.
So basically the difference is that you replace the people that are good at what they do, with people that are good at selling propaganda. It’s an easy sell to stupid people & we have a lot of them in this country. They agree with stuff that they can’t even explain. Bill Gates has the most money so he is robbing from you? How? (Ok there I will admit that MS Vista was robbery but that wasn’t that much money). Again the REAL problem in this country is consumerism. Gotta have it, gotta have it now, gotta charge it on a credit card, gotta pay for it (& everything else I gotta have) with money that I haven’t even earned yet. Feel like a debt slave, look in the mirror at the cause.


#3

Many of us remember when President Bill Clinton tied up the Los Angeles Airport so that he could get a $400 haircut from a west coast specialist to the stars. Tennis star Billy Jean King had a great summation for how socialist politicians operate. “Capitalism for them, socialism for us.” Socialist leaders tend to live like kings, while the people they claim to be helping live like dogs. You can see all of the world were socialism or communism are in force. Places like North Korea, Cuba and old Soviet Union, especially under Stalin. Communism cooks for for its leaders and for stupid people who think they will live better under it.


#4

You can choose beauty or choose thriftiness, you can’t choose both. He went with beauty.


#5

My youngest (the liberal) was preaching to the oldest (the conservative) how medical should be “free” & can be “free”. He used the example of them both getting free medical care because I was in the military. The oldest schooled him on it’s true cost by point out that back then the military was paid peanuts & how rough it was to make ends meet. Of course the youngest was to young to remember the days of $50 left after paying bills on payday or endless mac & cheese for dinner. He doesn’t know about the months of saving to buy school clothes or the even longer saving periods to buy Christmas gifts. Now days it’s a good news bad news thing for him. The bad news is that he’s to old to learn any new concepts (like how to save, manage money, or even political ideas). The good news is that if the dems (his party) get in taxes are going up & the first time they take more money out of his check Mr Live payday to payday is going to be screwed.


#6

[quote=“Old_Tex, post:5, topic:49125”]
My youngest (the liberal) was preaching to the oldest (the conservative) how medical should be “free” & can be “free”.
[/quote]Note: I’m not specifically addressing this to your position(as I don’t know what they are), but the general view I see most often.

Universal healthcare is cheaper than “Wait until they’re on death’s door and then spare no expense” which is what we do now. I’m fine with no healthcare coverage, but we have to actually let people without insurance die. Saying “No preventative care, but waiting until it’s an emergency is the way to go” is absolutely moronic.

The typical conservative stance I see over and over is
Spend $5,000 in preventative heart care for a MOOCHER!? SOCIALISM!
No preventative money was spent and the same guy needs a bypass, or he’ll die? Let’s spend $50,000 then! Can’t let the poor man die, even if he can’t afford it.

That’s a pretty high hill of stupid. It literally has no ability to see right past one’s own face. Think ahead, it saves money. I’d be a lot less critical of conservative views on healthcare if they’d stick with the “No care if you can’t pay” angle. But they don’t. Everyone gets healthcare, or we let people who can’t afford it die. Pick one. Stop wavering back and forth between the two.


#7

[quote=“CWolf, post:6, topic:49125”]
Note: I’m not specifically addressing this to your position(as I don’t know what they are), but the general view I see most often.

Universal healthcare is cheaper than “Wait until they’re on death’s door and then spare no expense” which is what we do now. I’m fine with no healthcare coverage, but we have to actually let people without insurance die. Saying “No preventative care, but waiting until it’s an emergency is the way to go” is absolutely moronic.

The typical conservative stance I see over and over is
Spend $5,000 in preventative heart care for a MOOCHER!? SOCIALISM!
No preventative money was spent and the same guy needs a bypass, or he’ll die? Let’s spend $50,000 then! Can’t let the poor man die, even if he can’t afford it.

That’s a pretty high hill of stupid. It literally has no ability to see right past one’s own face. Think ahead, it saves money. I’d be a lot less critical of conservative views on healthcare if they’d stick with the “No care if you can’t pay” angle. But they don’t. Everyone gets healthcare, or we let people who can’t afford it die. Pick one. Stop wavering back and forth between the two.
[/quote]I have obamacare and I pay hospital and doctor fees on top of it. I also pay for medicare. I used to have insurance that paid for everything and a $5 co-pay for meds. No obamacare has not helped me.


#8

Cheaper than preventive healthcare, true, but cheaper, never.

We have 2 excellent models of healthcare to look at. Both have been around for over 50 years, we have detailed records of healthcare, costs and ever factor you can apply. The VA and the military models, I have been in both for a very long time:

In the military free turns into 'let go to the Doctor today I have a hangnail, meet your there for coffee. The waiting rooms are choked and clogged with young and old wives towing all the kids they can have for the most minor of issues, they don’t work and meeting at the hospital gives them something to do all day while they wait.

Anyone ever wonder why Obamacare was created when in fact we had 2 govt care systems already? Medicare and Medicaid, there was no need for a 3rd…


#9

They fixed the “hang out” thing in many Europian countries by limiting the number of non-emergency doctor appointments you can have without a co-pay. The co-pay for more than 6-8 non-emergency appointments then runs $15, which puts an end to getting an appointment out of boredom.

And the facts are clear. Every country with universal healthcare spends less on it than we do for our “No prevention, only emergencies!”. The way we do it right now is the most expensive way.

[quote=“samspade, post:7, topic:49125”]
I have obamacare and I pay hospital and doctor fees on top of it. I also pay for medicare. I used to have insurance that paid for everything and a $5 co-pay for meds. No obamacare has not helped me.
[/quote]Obamacare is an extension of what we already have. It is not a universal healthcare system. It was based around expanding the private insurance market, which is literally the opposite of socialized medicine. We still have private for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. Both need to go.


#10

Anyone ever wonder why Obamacare was created when in fact we had 2 govt care systems already?
.
I never wondered. It was a doing well tax. Those that are doing well are taxed to pay for those that aren’t. Socialism.
.
To me the government is addressing HC all wrong. Examine HC & find out why it costs so much. Maybe lawyers advertising on TV that sue for free just might be part of the problem. Court costs being so much that companies will settle out of court because it’s cheaper also might be part of the problem. Those are just off the top of my head.


#11

True, but that is not the long game. The goal of Obamacare is to become the single (only) and single payer system (Universal healthcare), the govt wants to do this in order to hide the non contributors. Mix in those who pay with those who do not pay and now the guy who is paying thinks everyone else is paying just like him.

The cost of Medicaid is near the cost of Medicare and in fact if you count the overlap costs Medicaid costs are probably in excess of Medicare. Its out of control because the govt continues to open up eligibility. Yet no one pay in (some states do have co-pays). Costs of means tested benefits in this country are at $1 + Trillion annually or almost 1/3 of our federal budget is going to those who do not contribute…