Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
and that statement, everyone, is the Red Herring fallacy.
to refresh your memory - the discussion is on socialism, social programs and supposedly socialism has failed.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
socialism
Started by mille125
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
to refresh your memory - the discussion is on socialism, social programs and supposedly socialism has failed.
its weird.
WE are the ones paying that 35% tax rate. not the poor. not the uber rich.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
yes and the middle class and upper middle class should not be the targets of tax hikes.
getting rid of tax havens and eliminating "buy borrow die" tactics focus on the ultra wealthy, who are not us, and who are not paying their share of taxes.
god forbid we talk about mega corporations (not mom and pop business) and their tax breaks and bail outs.
what?
How Spain Became Europe’s Fastest Growing Major Economy
Higher value-added service sectors are driving outperformance for Spain versus other large eurozone economies, resulting in higher GDP forecasts for 2026 and 2027.
www.goldmansachs.com
you avoided my question and focused on a few ultra rich celebrities. I think that is called a strawman or something like that
Oh yes, once again the causation correlation fallacy. Thought you of all people would know better.we actually have that data. at least with regards to health.
Life Expectancy by State 2026
Life expectancy rankings for all 50 states. Compare longevity rates, explore historical trends and projections, and see what drives differences in life expectancy nationwide. Current US average: 78.50worldpopulationreview.com
states with highest life expectancy happen to be predominantly blue states:
to wit, highest in order are Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Mass, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island. then comes Utah.
worst are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia and dead last Mississippi.
(Florida 12 and Texas 28)
this pattern is continued with regards to education by public school ranking:
Public School Rankings by State 2026
New York ranks highest for public schools in 2026, while Arizona ranks lowest.
NY, Conn, Mass, NJ, Ill are tops.
NM, Ok, Nevada, Alaska and Ariz worst. (yes Ariz and NM are purple)
and by happiness raking. the happiest states are:
hawaii, maryland, nebraska, new jersey, conn, utah, california
least happy states are NM, Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia (dead last)
what is most remarkable about these stats, besides the fact that blue states tend to be at the very top and red states at the bottom? the states with the highest taxes tend to be at the top too.
Yes, I think we can all agree that tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy and major corporations should be closed but then what? That won’t make a dent in the deficit. Give us some real solutions instead of whining about the .0001%yes and the middle class and upper middle class should not be the targets of tax hikes.
getting rid of tax havens and eliminating "buy borrow die" tactics focus on the ultra wealthy, who are not us, and who are not paying their share of taxes.
god forbid we talk about mega corporations (not mom and pop business) and their tax breaks and bail outs.
what?
How Spain Became Europe’s Fastest Growing Major Economy
Higher value-added service sectors are driving outperformance for Spain versus other large eurozone economies, resulting in higher GDP forecasts for 2026 and 2027.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy".
Quick Google search says $72 billion a year lost to step up basis. For a tax loophole with no convincing reason to exist, that’s a pretty good dent. Sure beats cutting public health programs and calling it efficiency.
Remind me what the deficit is again?
ZERO difference. It's just gonna scratch the envy itch for 2 seconds and then back to complaining about the rich.
Obese Americans laying around sedentary and eating garbage food vs healthy, fit Asian populations eating with chopsticks and you think the difference in their health is because of the political party of their governor.
Frankly, embarrassing.
About 4% of the annual deficit. Like I said, not bad for one single loophole. Seemed like most of the MAGA faithful on here were very enthusiastic about DOGE, which had “no noticeable impact” on federal spending despite large cuts in workforce, according to this Cato institute analysis (https://www.cato.org/blog/doge-prod...e-workforce-cut-record-spending-kept-rising-0).
We could also save a few hundred billion more by not having these pointless wars in the Middle East…
Maybe then we could afford things like public health, to be able to prevent things like cyclospora, and screwworms.
Do you think those states with higher obesity have less education, lower socioeconomic status, worse infrastructure, fewer and less access parks, less access to healthcare, and more food deserts? They do have lower taxes.
Do you think that could have anything to do with priorities of their governing political party?
we actually have that data. at least with regards to health.
Life Expectancy by State 2026
Life expectancy rankings for all 50 states. Compare longevity rates, explore historical trends and projections, and see what drives differences in life expectancy nationwide. Current US average: 78.50
states with highest life expectancy happen to be predominantly blue states:
to wit, highest in order are Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Mass, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island. then comes Utah.
worst are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia and dead last Mississippi.
(Florida 12 and Texas 28)
this pattern is continued with regards to education by public school ranking:
Public School Rankings by State 2026
New York ranks highest for public schools in 2026, while Arizona ranks lowest.
NY, Conn, Mass, NJ, Ill are tops.
NM, Ok, Nevada, Alaska and Ariz worst. (yes Ariz and NM are purple)
and by happiness raking. the happiest states are:
hawaii, maryland, nebraska, new jersey, conn, utah, california
least happy states are NM, Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia (dead last)
what is most remarkable about these stats, besides the fact that blue states tend to be at the very top and red states at the bottom? the states with the highest taxes tend to be at the top too.
An indirect response to my query. We were talking about socialism versus nonsocialism. Myself and others have pointed out that a lot of the countries to use socialist policies have very different size and demographics to the US and not sure if you really addressed that important point (which could significantly impact the ability of these policies to be effective here)
I then suggested we could have some states in the US trial a socialist approach and then compare that to other states they do not do that. You seem to have morphed that concept into a simple blue state versus red state analysis
In addition, it does not sound like you are aware of some of the impressive progress on the educational front in some classic read states, that is worth reading about and getting up-to-date on
In addition, I did a quick AI search regarding where the best Public schools are in the US in the first 2 that popped up were Florida. I believe it is Mississippi that is made some significant recent gains and is even surpassing some of the blue blood/blood state prior kings of the hill in this regard. Of course this discussion is actually separate from the original and more pertinent topic
I don’t think they do to any noticeable degree. Even if there are small differences in those things as they would have no impact whatsoever on long-term health outcomes.
okay, real solutions:
cut defense spending significantly.
reduce waste in unnecessary weapons productions.
dont get into useless wars.
tax corporations for an appropriate amount.
make major corporations pay their employees a liveable wage so they do not have to rely on social programs like medicaid.
again, close tax loopholes utilized by the top 0.5% to prevent money from getting back in the US economy.
i guess i should have stated that blue states tend to have more social services and more socialist policies than red states and used that as a proxy for nore socialist approach. i used that because the data is already out there and one does not need to spend years doing the "study" and delay implementation - a common delay tactic.
===
first, 2 public schools does not make a state.
and i could find any site that declared that the top 2 schools are in florida. rather, one site said in NC 1 and Nevada 2, another site that had 1 & 2 in Arizona and 3& 4 in California, and USNews had 1 in Az, 2 in Indiana and 3 in Tennessee.
===
the data was 2026. takes into account changes in red states - thats why Mississippi is not #50 any more.
you know one of the reasons Mississippi improved? they spent money to fully fund education in 2024, 2025 and 2026, unlike years before.
After years of fighting, Mississippi education is fully funded with little fanfare
Column: Give Mississippi legislators credit. Without being cajoled, threatened or begged, they fully funded education during the recently completed special session.
mississippitoday.org
Mississippi lawmakers adopt increased K-12 public education budget even as student totals decline
Teachers and teacher assistants to see a $2,000 pay raise, while school attendance officers will get $5,000. Special education teachers will receive an additional $2,000 as well.
magnoliatribune.com
seems like socialist policies at work.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
okay, real solutions:
cut defense spending significantly.
reduce waste in unnecessary weapons productions.
dont get into useless wars.
tax corporations for an appropriate amount.
make major corporations pay their employees a liveable wage so they do not have to rely on social programs like medicaid.
again, close tax loopholes utilized by the top 0.5% to prevent money from getting back in the US economy.
i guess i should have stated that blue states tend to have more social services and more socialist policies than red states and used that as a proxy for nore socialist approach. i used that because the data is already out there and one does not need to spend years doing the "study" and delay implementation - a common delay tactic.
===
first, 2 public schools does not make a state.
and i could find any site that declared that the top 2 schools are in florida. rather, one site said in NC 1 and Nevada 2, another site that had 1 & 2 in Arizona and 3& 4 in California, and USNews had 1 in Az, 2 in Indiana and 3 in Tennessee.
===
the data was 2026. takes into account changes in red states - thats why Mississippi is not #50 any more.
you know one of the reasons Mississippi improved? they spent money to fully fund education in 2024, 2025 and 2026, unlike years before.
After years of fighting, Mississippi education is fully funded with little fanfare
Column: Give Mississippi legislators credit. Without being cajoled, threatened or begged, they fully funded education during the recently completed special session.
Mississippi lawmakers adopt increased K-12 public education budget even as student totals decline
Teachers and teacher assistants to see a $2,000 pay raise, while school attendance officers will get $5,000. Special education teachers will receive an additional $2,000 as well.
seems like socialist policies at work.
Calling basic Public services socialism is a classic red herring argument. Police and fire are not socialism whereas a city government opening a tax subsidized grocery store to undercut the market in a likely unsustainable manner that is closer to socialism. I.e. government takeover of industry
You seem a little gunshy I about doing an experiment in the US by having a state try "true socialism" and see how it works out
Because they know it won't work. It only looks like it works when there's no balanced budget and "free" unlimited money.
Obviously if it actually worked, states like California and Hawaii and Massachusetts would be showing us all the way.
Yes indeed. When looking at a percentage of income and factoring in federal and payroll taxes (all taxes taken out of ones check), middle and upper middle class worker pay the most, followed by the poor, followed by the ultra weathy. That is how it is and it stinks.
You have to define what you are calling "true socialism" There is no country the runs a true socialism program and there is no country that doesn't include some level of socialism. To say it any other way is just playing the fear mongering politics of the right.
My questions to you (going back to my original question posted at the start of this thread)
Why are so many who are on the right or right leaning yelling about "all of this socialism" but then 100 percent quiet on what the Trump administration has done especially concerning government ownership of various companies to a degree not seen in modern history?
What about the government given tax credits to corporations like Walmart? Isnt that socialism?
Yes US demographics are different from nearly every country. Trying to understand why you feel that fact influences socialist policies
As a resident of Texas in the last 20 plus years, I can tell you that the ranking of 41st to 43rd in education is being generous. I have lived in a dozen states and Texas by far has the worse education with a leadership that wants to siphon off even more public funds for a voucher system. With that said 3 of the top 20 schools are in Texas. So much like the US healthcare system, there are exemplary schools as well as those getting exemplary care but the masses are suffering.
I want Mandami to succeed, seems like a decent guy. I don't think socialist policies work but if he proves me wrong then great.
As far as 30% off grocery stores, do you really think this has any chance of succeeding? Step back and just look at the facts.
If City Store A sells at 30% compared to every private stores, what are the plausible outcomes?
#1 - city subsidizes, runs it well, always stocked, minimal waits = All other grocery stores goes bankrupt
#2 - Poorly run and always out of stock because people will be buying at 30% off and selling it at 15% off in the black market. There will be lines 3 hrs long. People will be buying in bulk and you will never keep the place stocked.
It sounds great when people spout low rates paid by the rich. How would you go about taxing unrealized gains short of a wealth tax.
Most docs are considered rich, how would you like to pay taxes on unrealized gains? If your house went up by 200K pegged by some unknown government formula, would you like to pay another 50k in taxes? Would you be good with paying taxes on your paper stock gains?
You are a business owner and had a successful year, valuation increased by $5M from the local "valuation" tax agency. Where are you finding the 1-1.5M to pay the tax? Are you taking a loan out or selling some other property? Guess what, you will likely need to sell the company.
Taxing wealth is just asinine.
There will be one grocery store in each borough in high-need/food desert areas. So 5 grocery stores isn't going to put the rest out of business, especially with few high quality grocery stores in the areas targeted. 30% off only for core items. It will be a private operator running the store logistics.
It's an experiment for sure.
I highly recommend this course if you want to understand where AOC, Namdami, Sanders, and DSA's stand.
Peterson Academy | How to Think, Not What to Think.
Education devoid of ideology. Affordable to all, taught by the best.
I don't think most people, conservatives included, object to local, well executed safety net programs. It's just never the focus that I see coming from the left. The focus is ALWAYS more about hurting "rich" people because it's unfair that they're rich. Basically class envy. And that should never be a motivation. It's a character flaw imo.
But as for safety net programs, my preference would not be subsidized grocery stores but soup kitchens and the like. A safety net should not be bougie. The net should not be too comfortable for obvious reasons. But it should help people survive until they get back on their feet.
Do you think requiring the ultra wealthy to pay the same proportion of tax as someone who makes 50K per year is treating them unfairly?
The Trump adminstration has acquired equity or ownership stakes in dozens of private companies including US Steel, Westinghouse, and Intel.
I hear you guys screaming about Mamdani's idea on grocery stores but say nothing on my first statement. It makes your complaints look highly partisan.
This is without even going into tariffs. We dont hear a peep on that either from the right.
I hear you guys screaming about Mamdani's idea on grocery stores but say nothing on my first statement. It makes your complaints look highly partisan.
This is without even going into tariffs. We dont hear a peep on that either from the right.
Last edited:
I sat down and looked at the whole Mamdani grocery store plan.
It offers 30% discount from retail on many items but does not sell hot items, alcohol, or cigarettes (staple product for bodegas)
It pays no rent, property taxes,and has no bankruptcy risks. Government owned property is tax exempt.
Taxpayers are on the hook for construction costs (which wont be discounted) and ongoing profitability.
It will include 5 stores in food desert areas, one in each of the five boroughs.
Definitely an experiment that has been tried and failed in other places (Florida and Kansas) even though it hasn't been tried in any place like New York.
The question is will the model reshape pricing, competition and the small-business ecosystem that keeps food accessible in many neighborhoods.
It definitely has an inherent cost advantage relative to other grocery providers but the effect on the city’s bottom line is real and the city must make up this revenue elsewhere or absorbed it as a cost. Also remember the city is covering consturction and buildout costs so in a low margin business (groceries) there is a real risk that NYC taxpayers will bear losses.
Conversely, you have to ask if food deserts are there because private grocers underserve low-income neighborhoods because of margins.
The big question is will the stores be successful. Only time will tell. I think that it is unlikely that five stores in a place the size of New York's market will destroy the bogeda market especially if the govt stores have low quality items or run out of supply (which is likely). Not carrying hot foods, alcohol, and cigarettes will help bogedas stay affloat
It may come down to how it is viewed by the taxpayers. Most NYC taxpayers have said in surveys that they dont mind slightly higher taxes if they can see positive change (especially among the younger generation).
We will have to see what happens
It offers 30% discount from retail on many items but does not sell hot items, alcohol, or cigarettes (staple product for bodegas)
It pays no rent, property taxes,and has no bankruptcy risks. Government owned property is tax exempt.
Taxpayers are on the hook for construction costs (which wont be discounted) and ongoing profitability.
It will include 5 stores in food desert areas, one in each of the five boroughs.
Definitely an experiment that has been tried and failed in other places (Florida and Kansas) even though it hasn't been tried in any place like New York.
The question is will the model reshape pricing, competition and the small-business ecosystem that keeps food accessible in many neighborhoods.
It definitely has an inherent cost advantage relative to other grocery providers but the effect on the city’s bottom line is real and the city must make up this revenue elsewhere or absorbed it as a cost. Also remember the city is covering consturction and buildout costs so in a low margin business (groceries) there is a real risk that NYC taxpayers will bear losses.
Conversely, you have to ask if food deserts are there because private grocers underserve low-income neighborhoods because of margins.
The big question is will the stores be successful. Only time will tell. I think that it is unlikely that five stores in a place the size of New York's market will destroy the bogeda market especially if the govt stores have low quality items or run out of supply (which is likely). Not carrying hot foods, alcohol, and cigarettes will help bogedas stay affloat
It may come down to how it is viewed by the taxpayers. Most NYC taxpayers have said in surveys that they dont mind slightly higher taxes if they can see positive change (especially among the younger generation).
We will have to see what happens
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Astronomical military spending, international sanctions, and severely restricted trading have nothing to do with it, right?
But who knows? Maybe some of this will change. We are voting with North Korea in the UN against our European allies now.
But who knows? Maybe some of this will change. We are voting with North Korea in the UN against our European allies now.
Last edited:
This has also become a huge concern for farmers in the Midwest who could face bankruptcy if a wealth tax went into effect. If passed, we’re all going to be totally screwed. Thank you democratic socialists of America. 🫡
❝ Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have introduced bills that would establish a national wealth tax. In California, voters will decide this fall whether to impose a 5 percent levy on the net worth of billionaires living in the state. Other states, such as Rhode Island and Minnesota, have considered similar policies over the past year.
Elected officials have a habit of dreaming up ideas that look good on paper but fall apart in the real world. I spent 20 years in public service — two terms as governor of Nebraska and two terms as a U.S. senator — listening to farmers and ranchers. Advocates for wealth taxes are not considering how these policies would hurt people in agriculture.
Unlike traditional income taxes, wealth taxes target what people own rather than what they earn, upending the long-standing U.S. practice of taxing income only when it is realized. If Congress were to pass a wealth tax, the federal government would have to assess the value of each person’s assets annually, whether or not those assets had been bought or sold. The government is not prepared to do that.
For many owners of family farms, a wealth tax could cause a crisis. Land appreciates and then depreciates. Equipment values fluctuate. A farming operation that looks substantial on paper might in practice be running on tight margins or at a loss. Owners already pay property taxes on their land’s assessed value. Families that have worked their farms for generations might not have the cash to pay an additional annual tax on the combined value of their land, equipment and livestock. That could force the owners to sell some of those assets to pay the tax liability.
Most of the proposed wealth taxes target billionaires, but the government is unlikely to limit itself to such high earners for long. Implementing a wealth tax would require an extensive new administrative bureaucracy. With that infrastructure in place, the temptation to extend the levy to people further down the income ladder would be too great. Washington has never seen a tax it didn’t want to expand.
But wealth taxes might not even raise significant revenue. A study of California’s tax proposal from the Hoover Institution found that California would lose nearly $25 billion in income tax revenue because high-net-worth individuals would leave the state. A federal wealth tax would push the richest Americans to send their assets overseas or find other loopholes. If the government increases spending in anticipation of new revenue that never materializes, the middle class would foot the bill.
The federal government has an obvious alternative to a wealth tax. The IRS estimates that nearly $700 billion in taxes are not paid each year. Enforcing the existing tax code to recoup that annual shortfall is the most practical and least disruptive path to making sure everyone pays their fair share. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for every $1 the IRS invests in tax enforcement, the agency earns up to $9 in revenue. States could make similar investments.
Most important, collecting unpaid taxes would mean farmers wouldn’t be forced to sell their assets. The tax code should be fair, enforceable and grounded in how the economy actually works, not in how it looks from a Washington office. A wealth tax fails every one of those tests. ❞
Interesting but we already established that the tax code isnt fair unless you feel that the combined taxes of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Donald Trump in any given year of paying less than you or I (individually) is fair.
Maybe you do.
If you instituted even a small wealth tax on all who have greater than 300 million plus of wealth, you may get some to pay a fair share. Maybe the group that I mentioned abive pays 5% on their real earnings instead of the 0.8-1.8% that each of them pay now.
But again you like to protect this group. I find that to be asinine.
Ah yes, spending more on IRS agents and enforcement does sound like a good idea. I wonder if anyone has made any changes to IRS staffing within the past few years?
I’m glad he said what said. Will open a lot Of people eyes
Bill Maher is a useful idiot. Dems used to love him and Republicans hated him. Now that he's softened on Trump it's just flipped.
Most socialist movements in the past were powered by the working class, but they mostly voted for Trump.
This seems to be mostly kids and privileged elitists who never got their hands dirty.
This seems to be mostly kids and privileged elitists who never got their hands dirty.
But this movement is a treat to usa. We can’t have every damm person ages 18-28 to want free stuff. You know what’s sucks about it the people that get affected by this are the families that don’t have an establish family line in education or anything successful. It also doesn’t matter if there immigrant, white, or asain. Look at the Asian families most everyone is an engineer or nurse and they live middle to upper middle class. Families are respectful honest try to stay out of trouble. If this DHS movement goes through trust me blacks and Latinos will stay in the same cycle of being at the end of the line in regards to better there family through education. If your not black or Hispanic you will never know what I’m taking about so don’t comment if you don’t.
Also this mindset that the blacks and browns have that we are being depressed bc of slaver or bc they took our land bs needs to stop. All they need is a family to get out of that cycle and there family as a whole will be better and that new generation of children will value education, be honest, responsible, stay out of trouble etc.
Socialism will just make the problems for minorities worst
To much nonsense to refute but you should know that there are a lot of Asians who live in poverty. Every Asian is not an engineer.
Its almost been a year since I posted this question and still none of the Trump sympathetizers here have attempted to answer the question.
Let me ask it again, Please explain why there is so much repudiation of socialism on the Democrat side while there is absolutely no heartburn over all of the moves that Trump has made that are outright socialists. You could make a strong argument that he is one of the most socialists presidents in the modern era.
Yet no outrageous from anyone.
Why?
Let me ask it again, Please explain why there is so much repudiation of socialism on the Democrat side while there is absolutely no heartburn over all of the moves that Trump has made that are outright socialists. You could make a strong argument that he is one of the most socialists presidents in the modern era.
Yet no outrageous from anyone.
Why?
Stick with the talking points. Trump cannot be a socialist if he is a Nazi.
Despite having "Socialist" in their party's name (the National Socialist German Workers' Party), their ideology and actions were violently opposed to traditional socialist principles. Historians widely classify Nazism as a far-right, fascist movement. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Yes but not to the extreme of our minority groups.
this is actually a common misconception
movements were actually spurred on by the bourgeoisie and the elites who were competing with the monarchy/czars. french revolution, bolshevik revolution, etc. who like to think it is the poor/working class who were able to rise up, but it is typically by the educated and wealthier types....
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Socialist Chic and the ‘Medicare for All’ Sham
What Abdul El-Sayed proposes is a single-payer system nothing like the program for the elderly.
By
Allysia Finley
Aug. 2, 2026 12:34 pm ET
2153
Gift unlocked article
Listen
(6 min)
Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit, Aug. 1. Finn Gomez/Getty Images
A friend recently observed that many young, relatively affluent people in his New York City neighborhood—which voted heavily for Zohran Mamdani—dress like hobos and sport Carhartt workwear. Call it socialist chic. The sartorial style is also an apt metaphor for patrician progressives who feign solidarity with the proletariat.
Consider Abdul El-Sayed, the left-wing front-runner in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary this Tuesday. Mr. El-Sayed has surged to the lead against Rep. Haley Stevens by presenting himself as a man of the people. He has called for free child care, “Medicare for all” and an 8% wealth tax on billionaires.
“I don’t think that our system should be in the business of creating billionaires,” he said during a March debate. “I think our system should be in the business of empowering everyday folks to be able to live a life with access to the basic dignities that they need and deserve, good housing, good healthcare, affordable food.”
Nobody can disagree with the latter goals. But Mr. El-Sayed’s prescriptions to achieve them would expand government control of healthcare and the private economy and exacerbate the socioeconomic inequalities he inveighs against.
Mr. El-Sayed, 41, earned a doctorate in public health from Oxford University and a medical degree from Columbia—though he didn’t complete an internship and isn’t licensed to practice medicine. Instead of caring for patients, he has spent his career nurturing ties to progressive groups. “My career has never been about trying to maximize on money, otherwise I would have just gone and been a surgeon,” he said in June.
Still, he hasn’t done too shabbily. He and his wife, Sarah Jukaku, earned $686,069 in income last year, according to a financial disclosure report he released last month. That would rank him among Michigan’s top 1% of earners.
The couple made $262,299 from capital gains, which he said came from the sale of a property that his wife’s parents bought for them. His disclosure also noted “additional income” of $292,881 from his podcast, “America Dissected,” and his wife’s psychiatric practice. His podcast claims to “explore what’s really making us sick and what we’ll need to take on—be it racism, corporate capitalism, or snake-oil salesmen—to keep all of us healthy.”
Mr. El-Sayed and his wife also own between $882,000 and $2.2 million in assets, which include three rental properties, one of which his wife recently acquired in Dubai. Nobody should begrudge Mr. El-Sayed his modest fortune, but why should he begrudge billionaires theirs?
The left-wing candidate in recent days has tried to distance himself from the Democratic Socialists of America, perhaps because he worries the label will alienate voters in November. “I’m not a socialist,” Mr. El-Sayed said. “I’m just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works.” You wouldn’t know it from his policy agenda.
He does know how to make money selling snake oil. In 2021 he co-authored a book, “Medicare for All: A Citizen’s Guide,” with a foreword by Sen. Bernie Sanders. The catchphrase “Medicare for all” is misleading. What Mr. El-Sayed proposes isn’t universal Medicare but a single-payer system with no premiums, deductibles or cost-sharing.
Medicare has all of the above. All seniors who don’t also qualify for Medicaid have to pay a monthly Medicare Part B premium, starting at $202.90 a month and tied to income. Seniors who enroll in traditional Medicare fee-for-service also have a $1,736 deductible for inpatient hospital care, steep cost-sharing requirements and no limit on out-of-pocket spending.
They also have to purchase separate prescription-drug plans, whose monthly premiums range from zero to $239. About 40% of seniors in traditional Medicare buy supplemental insurance polices to cover benefits like dental and vision care not provided by the government and for protection against catastrophic costs.
Seniors also have the choice of enrolling in private federally subsidized Medicare Advantage insurance plans. About half of Medicare beneficiaries, and most of those with lower incomes, enroll in Advantage plans because they provide comprehensive coverage at lower cost than fee-for-service. Mr. El-Sayed wants to eliminate these plans.
Yet he slickly pitches “Medicare for all” as an antidote to America’s myriad healthcare ailments, which are largely caused by government policies. He complains that lower-income Americans struggle to access doctors. But that’s primarily because of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion and low government reimbursement rates for physicians.
Mr. El-Sayed’s idealized system resembles Medicaid, in which patients can wait months to see specialists. In single-payer systems in other countries where the government rations care, wait times are even worse. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine recently reported 15,860 avoidable deaths last year associated with long delays for Britain’s National Health Service.
The wealthy in countries with nationalized health systems can usually expedite care by paying out of pocket to see physicians, while the hoi polloi are consigned to long waits for substandard care. Like the rest of the socialist agenda, Medicare for All is a sham.
I dont think Trump is a Nazi. You are confusing me with JD Vance.
Trump doesn't believe it's the government's job to subordinate capitalism, eliminate competition, stick it to the rich, and redistribute wealth.
His isolated efforts to recapture assets that incidentally give the government leverage over certain companies is not socialism.
But I'm happy to see that he is growing on you 🤣
He isnt growing on me at all.
He isnt a Nazi but that doesnt mean that he isn't the most destructive president to our country that we have seen in our lifetime. Definitely dead last in ranking of presidents (this term worse than his first)
he is not a nazi even though it is reported that he had a copy of Hitlers writings on his nightstand.
he acknowledged that he owned a copy.
he is an oligarch and authoritarian.
he acknowledged that he owned a copy.
he is an oligarch and authoritarian.
