Come on, HelpCop. Are you really splitting hairs on that little point? That doesn't really contradict what I said, but since we're splitting hairs:

So we have a democracy, but we also don't? Which is it? I think you're being less clear on what you are trying to say then you think you are.

[‌quote HelpCop]

Go back and re-read what I originally wrote. After reading, think about the dots I have connected for you until enlightenment is achieved...

[‌/quote]

Or maybe, just MAYBE it wasn't quite is clear cut as you would have liked it to be.

I find you often treat questions of clarifications as a form of disagreement, criticism, or willful obstinacy. That's not what they are, and I'm not going re-read what you wrote a hundred times to try and divine what you really meant.

[‌quote HelpCop]
No, we're talking about socialism -
[‌/quote]

that's been my point from the beginning. the issue just isn't that clear. You said something true earlier:

[‌quote HelpCop]

Everything you listed has a unique dynamic when it comes to the body politic, but instead of considering that, you carried on as if no one would notice.

[‌/quote]

That's true, and I wasn't really disagreeing with it, the point is, that they are still all forms, to one degree or another socialist policies. The idea that that a totally socialist system is what's hot with the young people today, just isn't what the issue is about, no one wants to live in the Soviet Union and we all know the problems their system had.

That having even a little bit of socialism means we're suddenly living in the Soviet Union is make-believe dichotomy invented by spinsters on the right to make you afraid. You don't like it when people call your social security "socialism" but sorry, it's a mild form of something that you've been convinced is your enemy and you're mooching off the rest of us young people who are giving you OUR money when you retire do live in some sort of comfort, as well as direct contributions your employer, who has to shell out a little extra dough in addition to your contribution. You aren't just getting back the money you're putting in, if that was the case, SS wouldn't be in the situation it's in now where it's losing money.

The difference between social security and the concept of public heathcare, at least in this specific respect of fairness and entitlement is that you've convinced yourself that you wouldn't benefit from it, which isn't true anyway, because, just like the roads, it would be there IF YOU NEEDED IT. Again, with social security: Lots of people who pay into will never use it because they'll die young or maybe they don't need it because they are able to keep working until the day they die....they still have to pay into when they get a job though, whether they like it or not.

You're actually more likely to need healthcare at some point in your life then have a chance of benefiting from social security.

***********

[‌quote HelpCop]
The real reality is no one owes you anything under any circumstance regardless of life or limb.
[‌/quote]

The REAL sense of entitlement is with this medieval let-them-eat-cake mentality. The thought that a little bit of your tax money might go to a sick child is really that abhorrent to you? No, don't do surgery on that sick child who needs a heart transplant, we need to use that money to fill the potholes on my street so I have a less bumpy ride to work.

So, as the discussion has proceeded, for my own taking stock, I need to be clear, at least on what i am talking about. Right now, we're talking about HYPOTHETICAL public healthcare, something which, as i've said above, I'm not sure 100 percent I support but would in the absence of a real solution to the myriad healthcare issues the country has. That being said....

As far as I can see, what you're doing is characterizing taxes in support of a policy you happen not to agree with as theft. That isn't fair. Strictly speaking, all taxes are involuntary forms of public donation, ie, theft in that very general sense. We don't call it theft because the theory is that these taxes have legitimacy because they are passed by our elected officials, and therefore, we are taxing ourselves, in an indirect way. We live in a democracy, and if more people decide they want a tax than people who don't want the tax, then you're just gonna have to get taxed and suck it up. Again, we all get taxed on things that we don't want and will never use. If you don't drive, you still have to pay taxes for the roads. If you don't believe in a war the country is fighting, you still have to pay for the guns the country is using to fight it.

On the second paragraph there...we're not talking about ferraris here. We're talking about healthcare. If not having that Ferrari meant I would die a slow and painful death, then yes, give me the Ferrari mr. millionaire.

The unfortunate irony of your example is that a Ferrari may very well be more affordable to some people with major health problems than the costs of keeping themselves alive, even if they are lucky enough to have insurance in the first place.

I am probably really just not understanding your analogy then. I think your example makes a lot more sense if we're talking about something like fixed income rather then public saftety nets. In your analogy, I am assuming the A students are the rich, correct? If that's the case, it's more like that, instead of getting an A+, they get an A or an A- so that someone who is getting a F can squeeze by with a D-. The people who are getting Cs wouldn't be bringing everyone else down because they'd be paying their way on their own.

And again, we're talking about healthcare here, or at least I am. The stakes are literally life, limb, and death.

I don't think this is true, at least it hasn't been true for me since Obamacare. I remember being out of college and working two jobs and being unable to get health insurance through them. Obamacare came around and I was able to get something affordable. It was that easy. well, barring issues with the website. That's just my own anecdote, of course, but I look at countries with public healthcare systems and they seem to find a way to make it work.

Is this in regard to something specific?

I'm not necessarily in favor of completely public health care but there are lots of problems with the healthcare industry, corruption, lack of transparency, and it demands a huge amount of investment and doesn't even completely cover costs, which I think is HORRIBLE. We need to do SOMETHING.

I don't think that analogy tracks for the following reason: Grades are evaluations of performance, and medical treatment is a resource.

The analogy would be closer like this: You only have one pencil. Most of the other kids in class have three or four pencils and there are a couple of kids in class that have fifty pencils a piece.

You work hard and get good grades, but on the final exam, which counts for 70 percent of your grade, your pencil breaks as you write your name on the top.

It's more than fair for the teacher, in a case like that, to demand that one of the kids with fifty pencils give you one, and maybe an extra for just in case.

Or you can just say "tough luck, you should just, you know, HAVE more pencils. Guess you're failure."

Unfortunately, pencil insurance is really expensive and our student in this scenario can't afford it cus his job doesn't provide it and he's just barely making ends meet and now it's too effin' late to get pencil insurance and he's going to fail and then..he DIES, cus that's what happens to a lot of people who can't afford health insurance.

The fact is...we all get sick...and sometimes its' worse than others. My point with the auto insurance above is sincere. I think it's outrageous that you're required to get it...you pay thousands of dollars into it that you likely never need.

Health insurance isn't like that. We all need it and use it all the time. Yet when Obamacare first rolled out when I pointed that out to people they were like, "Auto insurance? OF COURSE I NEED THAT! But don't make me get really low cost or free health insurance, it's not right!" There is an obvious contradiction in that way of thinking.

Ok, I don't really care what you appreciate, sir, just realize this is a public forum and you can't kick me out because you don't like what I have to say.

I'm the one who's asking a basic question that you really should have an simple answer to if you aren't just trolling: What do you mean when you say "socialism."

If your question is really that simple, why are you asking it? Just post your opinion instead of asking a clearly rhetorical question.

The fact that you're unwilling to really think about what you're asking kind of shows that it really wasn't an honest question open to different opinions on it. Sounds more like you're fishing for confirmation of your own views or just trolling.

Maybe it would be more succinct to ask it this way: So you're saying the poster is really asking is: "Why do young people like leaning on the government politic as a benefactor for your needs wants and desires so much?"

That would have been a much clearer way to ask the question without getting into a debate about what socialism is and is not, which is something admittedly there can be a philosophical difference on, even among self-professed socialists (of which I am not one).

I'm just saying that we need to be clear on what way say and how we mean it

The problem with this way of defining the word is you used the word "standard." If by standard you mean the dictionary definition, this is just incorrect. "standard definition" does not mean "how many people use the word."

When you use the word in a way that is incompatible with the ACTUAL standard definition, then it's no surprise when confusion as to what is meant arises.

Another point of clarification: by the literal definition of what you said, then all the things I mentioned ARE socialist. The government disperses all of those benefits, and they are definitely all either needs, wants, or desires.

I think what you really mean is: Socialism is when I have to pay taxes for things that directly benefit some parts of the population, but not all those who are paying taxes on it.

Before you accuse me of assuming things, I'm going to point out that I said "I think" that's what you mean, please don't accuse me of making assumptions where I have actually made none.

Anyway, nothing you said really clarifies what I am asking, which is what supposedly socialist policies does the poster mean. Because if you can't even define what you are asking about, we're kinda talking about nothing.

Do you have to pay co-pays, deductibles, and does the government only pay the large majority of the cost of big bills, and not cover other things at all?

Cus thats how my insurance company works.

It's not spin, it's a simple question of clarification.

Maybe you don't consider the basic public amenities of saftey nets i listed as socialist policies. If that is the case i am just asking you to specify what you mean when you say that.

I'm happy that people in quora understood you perfectly.