How does government funded healthcare benefit humanity? Aside from attracting those who cannot afford healthcare and subsidizing the existence of lesser efficient conditions, what does it do? How is it morally acceptable to ignore our collective interest while placating one's own conscience with the squandering resources on inefficiencies nature would otherwise cull from mankind?

We can shower it with all the praises we might like to claim as our own, but it is fundamentally immoral. It is a betrayal of self and of mankind. If ever we reach a point wherein we are each so well groomed that not one among us is more competent than another and all share equally in social investment and return, then let us have it, but until that time it is reprehensible :c

Oil is mostly in Norway. and so the fuck what? I don't know if you realize this, but we got a lot of natural resources of our own including oil. Making Alaskan oil pay the population works out great BTW -- really popular successful etc..but why would you want to do that as an oil company if you can just get some clown to appoint Rex Tillerson?

Socialists TBH -- don't prioritize the environment as much as Hilary Clinton types do. And I mean politically. None of those god damn people actually care enough about the environment to lower their carbon footprint or propose policies that would.

Environment needs to come after wealth inequality...because you can't expect broke people to give a shit -- sorry its true. Saving the environment is a lot more appealing when your on vacation somewhere gocking at mother nature and have plenty of money in the bank.

The main real argument against modern Democratic-Socialism and why it wouldn't work in this country -- is that we are too racist. Racism isn't a problem in most socialist countries -- partly because of demographics. But its cultural as well. Less people feeling like shit because their not a big shot capitalist -- less need to blame people.

Im not sure what you mean but having an employer pay for healthcare vs having an individual carry their own is a matter of morality then you've been taking drugs.

this post is the effect of drugs

it's things like this from you that really make me scratch my head and elevate you in my mind to alpha troll.

are you sincerely arguing that a consolidation of wealth among 3 is better than 2000? What if we just had one super wealthy person? Would that be better yet?

liberals like to cry about the gap but what does the gap even mean, are you seriously upset that there are a few super rich individuals? many slightly rich individuals are still better than you, and even some mediocerally rich invidivuals are still better than you.

People that cry about the "gap" are just people who cry, they have no idea why the gap is bad, they just dont like that there are some people that are super rich and then, they, the regular person who smokes weed and watches netflix cant 'have more of that pie'

if you dont like it then work harder, cancel your netflix subs, and stop buying weed.

The gap causes NO economic problem. Products arent priced acordingly to the richest 1%

theyre priced accordingly to the bottom 99% that make up the most of the market.

All "the gap" means is that there are a few super rich people that dont spend their money and invest it in things that create jobs for the bottom 99% of people that like to cry smoke weed and watch netflix

the gap is a myth

tell me more about how your life is more difficult becuse 1 person out of 10,000,000 bought a g4

I'm saying that I think it got a lot worse. Things were more equal after Roosevelt -- even though he allowed a few corrupt billionaires. Things like this are like cancer..they just keep growing and just because the end justified the means in the 1940's -- doesn't mean it will last that way forever.

Oh yea the gap is a myth.

No one ever lobbied anyone in congress and skewed things to the wealthy

The people in control of all the wealth aren't actually in control at all -- its people shopping at Wal Mart

and the only reason anyone has money is because they worked hard for it and if they don't have money they are lazy and its a personal moral failing

Did I miss any other stupid idea debunked 10 years ago?

This is why I seriously might not vote Democrat next election. I admit I had my head up my ass about the potential of the party until recently -- same with many of us. I don't think anyone except a clothed socialist calling themselves Republican can get me to vote Republican. There is too much not to like with them.

I would put up with a lot of Jesus talk though if it came with the Sander's package.

Theoretically socialism only can work in the absence of scarcity, and in general will fail as long as human nature is such that it is. Greed and "want" causes us to work. If given our "needs" with little effort humans (and all animals) will put out less effort to obtain them. Productivity will moves downward to a lower steady state that is below sustainability.

We have sometimes seen socialist economies existing past a predicted failure. An insertion of resources from outside the system can maintain its existence. International borrowing and cash commodities can make up for lack of productivity but these cannot be sustained either. The oil of the North Atlantic states has been sustaining and infusing them with cash, and should for some time yet, but cannot forever, not should it confuse people into thinking they have solved socialism's faults.