Because they have never paid taxes and still live in an idealistic world.

Questions are good but if this is more than a rant, the right question must be asked.

I'm in my early thirties, so i count as young? What about elementary school kids?

And what do you mean by socialism? The usa has tons of socialist policies that no one (or at least not most) seem to have a problem with. Public schools, public libraries, social security, unemployment benefits, the government of most states requiring you to have auto insurance if you want to drive, and others i can't think of right now.

Probably you have none of these things in mind when you say socialism, but are simply aping rhetoric that a pundit is spouting who could care less if your child has a basic education.

The only way a debate like this becomes grounded in reality is by talking about specific problems with specific policies. Otherwise both sides are swiming in a sea of idealisti nonesense.

It's not that anyone particularly likes socialism but rather they like some socialistic qualities of other socialist countries. And really I can't believe you don't if you're saying anyone else has a problem with socialism you're really kind of shooting yourself in your own foot and should just go ahead and voluntarily give up your social security if you really have a problem with social programs.

Or don't complain when you get hurt on the job and there's no longer a disability program you can apply for. Don't even bother. Because if anyone says they don't like social programs, you're either lying or stupid.

Send me your social security when you get too old to work. I'll take it.

BS

Unless they're too young to work then they've paid taxes and if they haven't then they're too young to vote too. So they don't apply to the question lol

I love this reply thanks Lano. Well said.

I was very much thinking of uni students. Who are able to work if they want to.

In the UK it’s very much uni students who want socialism.

However, like lano said, most countries do have some aspects of socialism.

Again in the UK we would defend our NHS Til death, people support the NHS more than the monarchy. And it’s very much socialist. However as the last general election proved, it can go to far. People didn’t want free WiFi and nationalised transport.

On the other hand, America hates the thought of universal health care.

It’s probably to do with culture and people don’t like things changing, or can’t see how we could be better off.

People want more without paying more. And we don’t trust the government to give more without taxing us more.

Thats the funny thing llama, you're european concerned about socialism while people on the right in the usa will look at europe and call you all irresponsible socialists.

It just illustrates that the term in most public discourse is disconnected from its real meaning and is just used as a rhetorical device to make people think of the soviet union. If you're for ANY form of public healthcare, you're with Stalin! Puh leez

Actually it's probably because a lot of Americans are stupid. Let me say it cause I'm an American. A lot of Americans are just unbelievably STUPID. Not even ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed with education. I mean STUUUUUPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIID

Something may have been in their drinking water and messed them up maybe. I dunno. smh It's sad.

I think i took it as a sincere question and replied addressing the problems with the question. If I did not answer appropriately, it's because as it stands, the question comes off as quite vague for the reasons i mentioned.

In other words, you might as well ask why most everyone is socialist if you're not going to specify which socialist policies you are presuming are especially popular with college students.

If you're asking a question honestly you also have to be open to the idea that maybe the question, as posed, will not give a meaningful answer.

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.

The funny thing is that our healthcare really isn’t that different. We still pay for it in monthly deductions from wages. It’s like insurance but as a tax. The good thing is if you’re not working you still get healthcare. At least we don’t have to worry about being in debt if we break a leg!

Apparently the UK also pays less for The same medication than US do.

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.

I would include wanting something without working for it is a popular view, as well.

-----------

Well, Lano, the standard definition of Socialism is to lean on the government politic as a benefactor for your needs wants and desires.

Drivel. While you accuse the Poster of aping rhetoric and framing his/her thoughts as comming from something more than a higher functioning amobea, it seems you can't sort the difference between what is social and what is socialist and where to place the "ism."

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.

No, I don't mind programs such as Social Security and/or Unemployment. They suit me according to the level I have INVESTED into it. Secondly, it is specific to me - no other person benefits from my labor and certainly I cannot draw benefits from the labor and investment of others.

Public education and schools ride a fine line. It is by taxation of property and homeowners that primarily fund public schools. If a particular educational instution want funds above its primary source, only then does it nurse from the government t!t.
My parents worked and payed into the system and because I received the benefit of that it was fair and balanced.

College, or "advanced education," does NOT directly operate from the same angle of taxation. Loans, grants and awarded tuitions usually rely on the government who borrows that money from the FED. This also means that when a former student who went to school to be a rocket scientist, can have their student loans forgiven after a few drops of tears when the only job hiring is a corporate drive-thru....

But, having graduated high school decades ago and no children of my own, why should I be taxed for someone else's kid? So, when you say; "The usa has tons of socialist policies that no one (or at least not most) seem to have a problem with," is an assumption. Just because people bite their tongue doesn't mean they're enjoying it.

Manditory vehicle insurance is communist not socialist. It benefits commercial corporations only. The State recieves kick-backs from that corporation for it's conduct of business and is the main incentive to motivate law enforcement to bust as many "drivers" who drive without it.
It's a box bigger than Pandora. The ONLY people who don't have a problem with it are those who can afford it without feeling the financial loss, or hunger that goes with it.
But....who's getting social vehicle insurance? No one, because there's no such thing and therefore pointless to list it among "socialistic programs."

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.

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).

Everything about what you say here is that we're paying for it anyway(or paid for by borrowing). As much as you are with social security, why not also be happy with how much you're investing into health insurance plans(education etc.) that just happen to, not only make affordable health care available to you, but also available to everyone? Since you're paying for it anyway, why wouldn't you be happy investing in a health care system that just happens to help make a healthier U.S? Why would you even notice that much? Why isn't it better to just go ahead and pay the same kind of payments into that kind of program rather than, paying interest on it, or paying for it by creating debt now? You said it yourself, it's all coming from somewhere, whether taxed loaned etc etc. Reshape it to help us all. The only thing we have to do is get our politicians to stop acting like idiots and actually work up a way to make it work. If it's not affordable health care for all then it's not a solution from the start. And this calling names and petty bickering(talking about the politicians) doesn't help them get their jobs done.

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.

I’m with Lano on this - why post a question if you’re not willing to read anything contrary to what you think? So... Lano answers thoughtfully and you dismiss him and ask him to leave but Helpcop backs up your point of view so he’s a lot of help for you?

That’s not cool.

I'll answer this both metaphorically and directly.

1. You're a good student. You study hard and burn the midnight oil. Other students in your class aren't like that. But, no problem, right? Well, in this case, the grading system operates under a socialistic system.
You get back your report card and to your surprise you're given all C's..... Why? Because the grading system operates under a socialistic system, that's why. The A's you make are thrown in with the class average of others who are failures (= F) in order that others can benefit from your hard work. There is no incentive for the other parasites to get off their lazy azz and study - they're content with C's. If they actually got the grade they deserve, the school would kick them out into the street.
It's failures like those that need to hit the g0€€dΩmm ground and bounce....

That's one thing, but when it comes to Social Security, it's not a matter of public averages. What makes Social Security "social" is because it's a government program that is offered to all who pay into that program.

For example, if you're a hard working student, given the grade you actually work for, it may do you some good to take a (slightly) lesser grade when the time may come where you don't do so well. A grade reserve program. Then, and ONLY then, will an average do you good because you're relying on your past performance to bring that percentage up.
You're not relying on the performance of lazy blood suckers in the class for a higher grade.

There is no such thing as affordable health care under a socialistic construct. It's beneficial to the blood suckers and those who are fiscally disadvantaged - but it's far from affordable.
Do you even know what affordability means? It means that the given cost of anything is such that you can reach right into your own pocket and pay for it without sacrificing your first-born child, or selling your soul to Satan.

In case it's not clear enough, let me ask you this; why don't we start a social program where everyone must have mandatory GROCERY INSURENCE......???
If you think $6.95 for a "Family Sized" bag of Dorito's chips are expensive just hop aboard the grocery insurance train (like all the other social trains) and see what happens then. You'll see those chips tagged at $69.95 and it won't be long before you lose your house because you defaulted on your refi the last time you went shopping....
Standing on that platform you will quickly come to sobriety when you see others "qualify" for free and unlimited benefits who can make it to grocery store AND out the door with overflowing shopping carts WITH every known bag of chips under the created heaven....
There's your "affordable healthcare."

Meanwhile....those rows of giant shopping carts.....forget it.....they're not for you, but for someone else. On a sunny day, you'll be lucky to pull out the petite cart - made specifically for hard working person. Otherwise, it's the hand-held basket....with a fully armed escort to assist you with your shopping experience.

I will not support a system that makes me financially responsible for your health care needs. Your health is your responsibility, not mine. The bill that you generate is not something that I am obligated to pay for.
If you like hand-out's and freebies, hope like #e!! the system goes full commie.

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.

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.

Socialism works perfectly until you run out of other peoples money

Then, you're still missing the mark, friend.

Correct, however, the question must be answered; HOW is the evaluation of performance conducted? Under a social construct performance is averaged by means of grade redistribution

I'll come back to this.👆

Okay, and then.....

👆 This example does not work, Lano, because you're working hard to make the students of the classroom better grades - you're not earning specifically what you worked so hard for. The ONLY hope you have for higher grades is the hope other students will perform equal to or greater than you.
You can give every student in the class an abundance of the best resources and it won't make a difference if they don't have the personal motivation to work hard, study and perform well.
I don't have to take a hit on my grades because someone else's IQ is naturally low, much less if a perfectly intelligent student is lazy.

That's not "fair." That's forced theft, is what that is.... The parents of those students bought those pencils directly from their own pocket and gave it to their children - those are personal and private belongings.
The school operates under taxation. With multiple budget meetings, the oversight committee could account for a "broken pencil" happenstance - but anyone willing to suggest that forced theft is fair, when someone demands it, has a clear sense of entitlement.

By your account, I should be able to call the Gimme Troopers on any millionaire who has more than 50 Ferraris and make them give me one because my 1976 Ford Pinto finally bit the dust....
It's theft.

It just doesn't work that way.

Socialism/Communism are maternally related.

The cost of medical treatment is high due to the nature of it's greed. The MANDATE for INSURENCE has given healthcare a licence for lucre.

You know....I'm tired of selling my bags popcorn for a dollar each. So I'm going to start a law that forces you to buy my popcorn. When that law passes, I'm going to pop only one bag of popcorn and charge a million bucks for it. You, the next customer in line at gunpoint, are going to buy that bag, like it or not (is the mentality). You can pay for it with the total material sum of your labors, or you can find an insurance broker willing to qualify you.

👉This👈 is how it really is.

The sad part about it all is you never lived in a time where getting X-rays to set a broken bone and wear a cast would cost you $75 bucks. If necessary, a bad tooth yanked for $15 bucks.

Greed is something that has always existed, this is true. But, the level of where it is and what it now control is unpresidented.

That's a fact, and honestly, the money is already gone. We're just borrowing it until the end....

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.

When taxation is properly represented, it's not theft because I benefit by it.

I am characterizing the policies which have a communist construct - socialism.

The kid in the class with 50 pencils gets NO benefit when you (as an authority) steal from him to give to the kid whose pencil is broke. How does that kid (now with 49 pencils) benefit by that action....? He doesn't. Period. It's criminal and that is what's unfair, and it's appalling (but not surprising) that you think that kind of action is perfectly okay. It theft, Lano and it will never be "okay."
People with a sense of entitlement are the hardest to convince because they want something without labor or regard of the impact of the other person.

- "forms of public donation?" Are you serious? This isn't the Salvation Army or the March of Dimes we're talking about....
Taxes (forced or otherwise) aren't "donations." The government isn't a charity organization, but it seems likes it's being ran like one more and more in recent times.

[‌quote]We live in a democracy -[‌quote]

No, Lano, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic and that is the essential core of this country's founding.
However, we have a democracy for supposed " checks and balances." But, democracy in this country has mutated beyond the roll it was meant to play.

Stop dancing, Lano. You not going to high step past this. It was clear enough that I was addressing your sense if entitlement for those things which do not belong to you.👇

👆Which is a mentality you demonstrate here again. So, your character is made clear by this. The real reality is no one owes you anything under any circumstance regardless of life or limb.
Further, you're not going to redefine the comparison I made to your "Robbing Hood" pencil-theft example. It still remains theft.
I'm appalled (but to no surprise),the reason you can't figure it out is because of your sense of entitlement.
That millionaire with 50 Ferraris is you buddy. And now you have 49. But, wait! There's more! (Do you see it comming Lano?) There's a whole world in hardship out there and I (the authority) have determined that you should support the capable but unwilling.
It soon follows that you're standing in the social breadline, just like many people did in the USSR back in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

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

[‌quoteIn your analogy, I am assuming the A students are the rich, correct? [‌/quote]

I'm not combing through that again with you. What I said and what I meant were painstakingly clear to begin with.

No, we're talking about socialism -

POST: "Why do young people like socialism so much?"

Health care is a mere pixel of a deadlier topic.

Uhh, yes they are. Just like the trains that took the Jews to their death camps in Germany, the trains here are all set to go.
The FEMA camps are quietly awaiting your arrival when all of this collapses.

They're not "public" healthcare systems, Lano. Call it for what it really is; Social Healthcare. It works by cheapening the labor of it's citizens, stealing what little they have, redistributing it to the lazy and going further into debt. That's how it works.

This country has been compared to other countries until it has been compared to death.

The U.S. once had the greatest way and nothing compared to it....until it fell to socialism.

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.

the quote code didn't work, sigh, don't have time to fix it :/

Have a good day, Lano.
Best of luck.

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/8cyrzukJwvpN0xEoyj" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/check-clock-checkout-8cy...">via GIPHY</a></p>

damn html really does not like me sometimes.

Ok, clearly you say this trying to be mean, but you miss the mark completely. You clearly don't know anything about me and your embarassment is warranted for making such a petty comment despite your anonoymity.

As much as I would like to claim exclusive rights to unnecessary roughness when it comes to certian debates, it does our modest Help family no good to "gang up."
Much of what Lano says has a place, even though I don't fully agree with the premise.
I can only hope that the passing of time, events and experience would make more clear the things I've mentioned. Other than that, I did the best I could with what meager ability I have.
It's the weekend folks. Let's all enjoy it.

Im glad we made it back to civility and it sincerely warms my heart.

I admittedly get kinda heated myself at times it's not always easy to watch what you say in the heat of a discussion.

This discussion is sad. Talking without listening is not conversation.