Yup that's socialism and it's evil. Why should i pay into a system so that other people (some of whom may not contribute as much as i do) can benefit from a service i may myself never need!?
What's next, some kind of healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to healthcare without having to pay through the nose?! Ridiculous!
Based on this reasoning* one could also ask if all firemen are gay. Let’s review: they handle hose, slide down poles, wear phallic helmets, have porn mustaches and take group showers together. And don’t get me started on the Dalmatians! Sheesh it doesn’t get gayer than that! (* results may vary with medication types and dosage)
Actually no, as an American I can tell you that is exactly the role of the government, to provide for the people what the people can not do for themselves collectively. We can't fight our own fires, build our own bridges or highways or fill the potholes.
SW-User
It's public good. And we Murkans use public good and curse it at the same time. Go Murka! Trump 2024!
There's a clear difference between the collective benefits of collecting trash, paving roads, and putting out fires and having someone like Joe Biden being the principal controlling agent of a national economy. I don't understand why people think any and all government services are the same as socialism
@LeeInTheNorthWoods Not all government services are socialism. But Medicare is unquestionably a form of socialized medicine, not that different than other single-payer systems. As is Social Security with respect to retirement and disability benefits. Yet a huge portion of people who benefit from those programs completely oppose any form of expanded access to health insurance (even the ACA, which is a market-based system far from socialism). It always looks different when you're on the receiving end of the benefits.
@Harmonium1923 Sorry, I'm on Medicare and I need (as does everyone else on Medicare) additional insurance provided by private insurance companies. And I pay premiums to those private companies every month. I'm also required to make copayments to doctors, medical services practices, and hospitals. There are a wide variety of "supplemental" insurance programs for retirees that enable them to see specialist, have elective surgery (which is for almost everything that isn't life threatening), get partial payment for dental work, etc. It's actually the two government programs (Medicare Parts A & B) that are supplements but let's not argue semantics. In any case, IT IS NOT A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.
How many people do you know who can live on monthly Social Security payments? When Soc Sec was started in 1935, FDR made it very clear that the program would only be a supplement to retirement savings. It never was and is not now intended to be a pension program on its own. Social Security monthly payments are based on the amount each recipient paid into the system during his/her working life. So, high wage earners get more money from this government program than low- and modest-wage earners. The federal government isn't magically producing its own capital and paying it out based on need -- no matter how some people may want to characterize it.
It's irresponsible for politicians, academics, and the news media to make people think the government will give them a comfortable old age.
@LeeInTheNorthWoods Hey, I get it and I don't disagree that Medicare has gaps and Social Security isn't enough for a comfortable retirement. But they are the quintessential "social insurance" programs, designed to provide a minimum level of coverage and protection for everyone, and redistributing funds from those with more funds to those with greater need. They are socialist in nature, but I'm in favor of them, despite believing in free market capitalism. There is much to be said for a safety net designed to cover basic human needs. My point was only that it's ironic how often the word "socialism" is used as unthinking criticism by those who would never imagine giving up their Medicare or Social Security benefits (or their pandemic relief checks, or their extended unemployment benefits to name just a few other examples).
Red became a standard color for fire engines in the beginning of the twentieth century because almost all of the cars on the road were black (Ford Model T produced 1908-1927). The red stood out.
The red and gold flag was adopted in 1949 for the Peoples Republic of China. It has changed the gold design a couple of times but it's still red and gold. So, it seems that Chairman Mao copied from us!
Note: Some fire departments now prefer chartreuse equipment.
A traditional socialist concept in that it's the "state" providing services for all. Not like the good old days when competing fire companies would brawl with each other while buildings burned because they'd send a bill to the burning building's owner or wouldn't put out the fire.
First, to be “ inclusive” it is FIREFIGHTER, not fireman/men. I was one for 33 years. It is as are the police, an essential service, and if you want to say that paying taxes to have them is “ socialism” that’s fine. If you didn’t there would be chaos and mayhem and there would be scorched parts of this nation. Fire is a tremendous force of nature and uncontrolled is devastating.
If its paid for by federal taxes, yes. Thats socialism in this country. Is why the constitution grants each state the right to administor its own currencies. End the Fed[eral reserve/central banks, thats socialism in reality]
