Preliminary Statement from the BC Gingers.

[url=http://www.cjob.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1227382]Lowest unemployment rate in the country in NDP Manitoba[/url]

And I see they still have the social welfare state in social democratic countries of Scandinavia and Northern Europe: well-funded socialized medicine, social housing, generous unemployment insurance benefits, easy-access job training and re-training, free to affordable university tuitions, public pensions for all etc.

And do we have in Bananada with the neoliberal voodoo falling down around our ears?

Let's rag on the NDP some more. That should work wonders.

I haven't observed very many babblers plugging for Marxist or communist party candidates. Just the usual anti-NDP rhetoric.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quote:

PREAMBLE 

The New Democratic Party believes that social, economic and political progress in Canada can only be assured by the 

application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs. 

 

The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as follows: a) the production and distribution of goods 

and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit, b) the 

modification and control of the operations of monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic 

and social planning, towards these ends, and c) where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership. 

 

 

Looks like you beat me to it.     Last I looked this was still part of the NDP constitution, even if it's been routinely ignored for years.  Hardly unknown to the opposition or press either, they've been waving that red flag since the days of WAC.   I'll reply to our resident nay-sayers tomorrow, when I have more time.  Give them more time for that breaking news to sink in. 

And yes that's right, it's actually me Erik, onetime defender of the NDP and seeker of balance between social democrats and democratic socialists.  Nomore.  I told others I'd post this statement and thought I'd do it under another pseudonym to protect my identity and avoid old quarrels, but decided it was too effing complicated.  And besides, it's now quite clear to me that there's no serious interest among NDPers here.  Ruts are too comfortable for insiders I guess, even when they only run down.  Please lock my "GingerG1" account, since it's pretty much useless now, and feel free to suspend mine if you want.  I'd like to answer my old friend Moe first but I delivered the statement, and I'll take what's coming to me without complaint.   I'm now convinced that capitalism as we knew it is dead and old fashioned fascism is on our doorstep again, and we either adjust to changing realities and try roads not yet travelled or we go the same way as the dodo.  Time is shorter than anyone is admitting.   

Have Canadian socialists given up on federal level socialism and decided that it's all Carol James' fault? Last time I looked, Carol James wouid be premier of B.C. if an election were held today.

If we Balkanize the B.C. NDP Party, will that bring about socialism faster in a country where dollar democracy and obsolete electoral politics would still be an obstacle to democratic reform in general? And remember that Balkanization didn't work to bring about socialism in the Balkans.

Best of luck in constructing your vanguard of the proletariat. Please leave the BC NDP out of it.

Indeed. And that didn't even involve anything that anyone would consider genuinely "Red".  Just going back to basic human decency.

If I'm not mistaken, the third way is about supporting globalization(deregulation and privatization), which is basically neoliberal ideology.

Quote:

Modern usage The term was later used by politicians in the 1990s who wished to incorporate Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's projects of economic deregulation, privatization, and globalization into the mainstream centre-left political parties.

In Ontario, the NDP have been the most outspoken critics of neoliberal ideology since the 1980s and 90s and still today. And I don't believe that Carol James is anthying close to third way proponents such as Tony Blair or Jean Chretien, who were both federal-national level leaders during the years of third way experimentation.

But social democrats around the world have basically rejected third way political economy. Neoliberalism and Third way centrism are now thought to have been drivers of the current western world recession and financial meltdown,

From wikipedia:

Quote:

The Labour Party of Norway followed the third way during prime minister Jens Stoltenberg's first government (2000-2001) leading to a record low in the 2001 election with 24.3% of the popular votes. They were forced back to classical social-democratic way after winning the election of 2005 in a Red-Green Coalition with the Socialist Left party and Center Party (2005-present).

I really can't see any provincial NDP party campaigning on a platform for deregulation and privatization policies. NDP prov. governments have staved off privatizations of major public assets and utilities over the years, and sometimes only to have centrist and rightwing parties selling the moneymakers to rich friends of those parties in times after the NDP is thrown out of government.

And this is the inherently undemocratic nature of neoliberalism described by Naomi Klein and others. No political party really has promised to privatize and deregulate as per neoliberal ideology in their election platforms. Richard Nixon knew that neoliberalism would be at odds with his re-election chances. General Pinochet eventually abandoned neoliberalism in hopes of re-election. Our neoliberal stooges in Ottawa and Toronto were only elected with 22 percent of eligible voter support. Neoliberalism and third way baloney are inherently undemocratic in principle, and the NDP knew this was true many years ago.

Mean Moe wrote:

Best of luck in constructing your vanguard of the proletariat. Please leave the BC NDP out of it.

Is that the best you can do?  Ok, lets keep it simple then.  If you hate the leftwing so much more than the right -you know, the ones who have been fucking us all over since Bennett two inherited his daddy's kingdom and Munro sounded the first call for retreat-- then why don't YOU just join the Liberals?  I'm sure you'd receive a lot of like sympathetic nods there, they really like reformed NDPers, and hey, maybe you can better appeal to Their moderate core?  What being such "pragmatic" realists.   Oh but of course you also want our energy, votes, and contribution$ too.  And maybe you enjoy playing your old "We are the world" or "All we need is Love, love" discs, after another hard day at the water cooler.  There, that more your speed? 

Seriously though, it's becoming apparent to me that the far right of the "big tent" NDP is not only completely contemptuous of everyone who came before them, but is now far more concerned abourt denying everyone who's suffered under this neo-liberal hocus pocus their rightful voice, than fighting ANY of our theoretical opponents.  But like so may of our generation the views YOu hold dear must of course accord with the views of the many.   

Sorry Moe and Curley, but anyone in the party is free to promote any policy ideas and goals they see fit, and support any candidate, no matter how far left of that "hard working" mainstream, who always finds enough spare time to dump their spoon fed cliches into every conversation.   Sorry again but democracy can only survive by listening to the other guy.  It doesn't mean Agreeing with them necessarily, but it does mean at least offering something beyond telling everyone ELse in the "big tent" to pack it in.  If you don't like what you hear, then take it to the next convention where others can at least decide for themselves, thank you.  If you truly are the voice for the New DP then you have nothing to be frightened of, and we can all then move onto more profitable pursuits.

Man, sarcasm comes so much more naturally to modern political discourse than other more noble forms.   I know I feel better.

Ok, I got to start on Sunday dinner soon, so I'll just say that I'm only speaking for myself now.  "Ginger" was just delivering the news. 

Kropotkin, kind of you but I think the neo-capitalists largely destroyed themselves.  Thats a subject that's worth at least as thread of its own though.

Fidel, I think youre expressing some valid concerns but we are not the ones "balkanizing" the left.  Have you ever heard the expression that "those who make reform impossible make revolution inevitable"?  Well we aint there yet but the principle remains true.   First uttered by an old Canadian Tory I believe, but no doubt treated as the crypto-socialist of the hour afterwords.  His words outlasted his critics though.  Because they remain true.

I do like your idea of going federal though, I'll definitely start another thread on that intriguing thought.    

When I have time.  You deserve at least onemore Moe, but must observe our remnant JudeoChristian traditions first.

Youre starting to drift again Fidel.  I'm no longer speaking for the group anyhow, but only for myself now. 

Wow, Mean Moe. A powerful argument.

But we don't really want to know where your hands have been. lol.

And things are exactly the same in Canada today as they were when Tommy Douglas checked out of Saskatchewan. Isn't that right, everyone?

Mean Moe wrote:

GingerGoodone wrote:

THE GINGER GROUP HAS BEEN FORMED TO:

1.  Address the democratic deficit within the provincial NDP;

The Ginger Group believes that the current leadership of the provincial NDP has lost its sense of direction and vision, along with the confidence of a large number of NDP members and supporters.  It is imperative that the Provincial NDP immediately address the democratic deficit within the Party.

Further, the Group believes that too much power has been concentrated in the hands of the Table Officers.  The ultimate decision making power must be returned to
Provincial Council.

The NDP has most democratic party system in the western world. IMO too much and PC is waste of time. PC is mostly made up of the complainers and naysayers with a defeatist attitude.

Very good.  We are the 'most democratic party in the west'...but unfortunately the body which happens to represent its paying members most closely are bunch of nay sayers and whiners.  So tell me Moe (or Dave) what great progressive acts have our duly appointed table officers proposed in recent memory which lowly council denied?    And what visionary concepts have they succesfully sold to John Q Public in your last three LOSING elections?  Well, I do recall head office flatly refusing the councils demands to back off their draconian cuts to welfare under McPhail, Clark and Harcourt, but we don't dare challenge John Q Public's carefully programmed prejudices when it could lose us a general election....

Quote:

GingerGoodone wrote:

2.  Refocus the Party on the environmental, social, and economic crises, particularly Climate Change, which confront the ordinary citizens of BC, and provide a sense of agency and belonging for the alienated membership of the party.

The Group believes that the leadership of the Party has insulated itself from the membership and appears to be incapable of, or unwilling to, address these crises.
This alienation is destroying the Party.

Sounds all nice but really have some doable prgmatic ideas, or are you really talking about state ownership and making business hurt.

In case you haven't noticed over the last thirty years, whats good for business isn't always good for the rest of us.  It's not even always good for business, but try telling that to the average CEO.

Quote:

GingerGoodone wrote:

3.  Return the Party to its democratic Socialist roots.

THE GINGER GROUP HAS THEREFORE GATHERED TOGETHER LIKE-MINDED PROVINCIAL NDP MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS TO:

A)    Restore to the membership the power to decide policy and to choose our organizational and political leadership.

B)    Restore our Party as a vigorous advocate for, and an agent of, social justice.

C)    Commit our Party to protection of the environment, including the initiation of real actions to deal with Climate Change

D)    Commit our Party to offering a clear and unambiguous socialist economic model to replace the failed capitalist system which is destroying our environment, undermining basic human rights, and robbing our citizens of their share in the common wealth of our province.

Yup  that's exactly what you want to do and never win an election either.

There's more than one form of socialism oh worldly wise, and most socialists are willing and able to take a longer view if necessity demands.  Davey Barrett managed to win on a radically socialistic platform, by todays standards, and made reforms that stood up for decades. Because most proved to work.  More than the present lot have managed to do in the last thirty years of playing nice with the enemy.  A period where I see no sign of their becoming anymore moderate in response.  That may be the underlying problem with "centrist" philosophy as a whole, the blind faith that if the left only played nice the other side would too.

Quote:

GingerGoodone wrote:

THE GINGER GROUP WILL ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS ABOVE THROUGH:

Resolutions at the bi-annual Provincial Convention to further these goals;

Electing Provincial leaders who advance the economic principles of socialism (ie. production for use and not for profit)

Electing leaders at the Constituency level who will work towards these goals.

These goals have been attempted at every convention, and the membership votes them down. But you call it a democratic deficit. Like I said, if you wish to start a socialist project then do it in one of the socialist parties because the BC NDP isn't one and can't be one, if it ever wants to form government.

Capitalism routinely collapses and socialism tends to eat itself. We need to learn from these lessons and take the best from both systems that allow people to prosper without the negative effects of both systems. To use a Hegelian terms, we need to be party of synthesis , not antithesis.

Capitalism has transmuted itself and gone through downturns but it has yet to collapse.  At best/worst there was a brief "Keynesian compromise" after the last great depression and war which the robber baron's grandchildren unilaterally decided they no longer needed when the Soviet Union fell and China was coopted.   But you are of course only focusing on certain aspects and skimming past the rest. 

The NDP was founded as democratic socialist and social democratic union, with support from organized labour.  Tommy Douglas and others openly described themselves as such with no less popular support than now.  More recent membership has regularly voted for progressive reforms which do work towards such goals in a perfectly democratic fashion, such as Barrett's "nationalizing" auto insurance, setting up legal aid, rental protection, the ALR and Islands Trust --even Harcourt's unsuccesful attempts at land management reform, but the latest lot of provincial appointees routinely and arbitrarily override them in favour of bland feel-good bumpf along with a more sincerely warm and fuzzy embrace of so-called "markets". 

If you look back over the totality of statements agreed upon by Gingers (red hat on again) you will find other things which could easily find favour among the majority, such as agreeing on the need for raising upper income taxation.  James has steadfastly refused to even admit to that, even though we all know the consequences of it- some of us firsthand.   That is not only directly counter to socialist principles but counter to moderate social democratic liberalism.    Something I believe most in our party still believe in.  And many Greens and moderate liberals could agree upon in principle too, if only some our own damn members didn't keep agreeing that the others guys are better economic stewards than we are.  The "other guys" being all those with particular interests in keeping wages down and budgets flat.

keglerdave wrote:

When someone referred to the BCNDP has a "big tent" party, they hit the nail on the head.  As can be seen by the above debate there are several factions within the party.  I still hold to the opinion though that one or 2 of the so called power brokers within the party hold wayy too much sway within it.  I've talked about tactics involved in electoral politics and the need to appeal to the masses. I'm not at all in favour of offshoring, exporting raw logs or any of the other moronic stupid business practices that have gone on in the last 2 decades in BC.  Its something akin to economic cannabilzation.  Eventually no one will be able to afford to buy your products and services and businesses will die as a result of it.  Look how well it worked in the states.

Definitely should be advocating policies to encourage value added BC owned and operated industries.  On the Green Energy front, they should be advocating for home and business owners subsidy for installing self generation products on their properties.( EG. Solar panels and Wind mills) Instead of the IPP plan of the current regime.

keglerdave wrote:

There are certain perceptions of the BCNDP held by the electorate at large.  One is that, just like the Big Business wags the tail of the BC Liberals, that the BCFED and certain sectors of the labour movement wag the tail of the BCNDP.  For some reason, people accept it with the Fibs, but the BCNDP has never gotten a fair shake from it.  Labour has a right to be involved politically, but I think more at a grass roots level, and their voices should be concerned with labour issues.  There is a distinct difference I think in the politics of the rank and file union people and some of those at the executive level and especially at the level of the BCFED.

There's a simple and effective way to deal with the perception of how the big boys (labour and business) swing too much say in the political process in BC.  Ban all corporate and union donations to political parties.  And that should further extend into the municipal and civic electoral side as well. 

Part of this issue is the prominence that Labour groups get within the party. You don't see the BCCoC president as a keynote speaker at conventions. This leads to the perception that unions have more influence on the BCNDP then corporations do on the BC Libs. The other part is that the general public, and many union members, are miffed and dismayed at the fact that unions are sticking their noses into international affairs instead of just dealing with the issue of their membership.  The situation in Israel is not CUPE's problem.

keglerdave wrote:

In terms of the party structure as it is today, well looks like the Provincial office is for lack of a better term, a clusterf*ck.  Now there's people going around talking to labour councils about the BCNDP's strategies for the 2013 campaign, in terms of outreach etc.  I think that perhaps they need to engage the membership as a whole and find out where they are at.  Too many times the BCNDP is a dictatorial Top Down organization.  Provincial office orders it, and the constituencies have to march lock step with it.  From what I'm hearing, seems like the lessons about who's paying the bills and the fact that the $$$$ is not there right now, is slowly seeping into the heads of some people.

One other thing that the party needs to look at is the funding overall for it. Currently, provincial office receives 50% of all monies raised.  So if you're a constituency and you want to raise $5000 for whatever you may need, you actually have to raise $10,000 so that provincial office can get their cut.  And lately, they haven't been doing a hell of a lot to justify that cut in my opinion.  So I think that the  Provincial office should receive 30% of PACs directed to individual constituencies, and when it comes to constituency fundraisers, the constituency should hold ALL the money, less any costs in services provided by provincial office (call outs etc).

I will have disagree with you. The lack of discipline in the constituencies was evident in the run up, and during, the last election. putting more money and power into their hands will only amplify this fact.  It would also hobble the parties ability to redirect funds to areas that are winnable. Plus the fact that this would make some constituencies very rich and others very poor.

keglerdave wrote:

One final thought about the direction the party should go.  There are those that would slam the direction Carole James has taken the party.  To an extent, over the last campaign, I would agree.  She was elected leader in 2003, but ever since, I don't think that she's ever been able to fully present the platform and ideas that won her the leadership back then.  There's one or 2 huge roadblocks in the way, who are more concerned about media hits, and promoting their organizations, and controlling the political agenda of the BCNDP, then getting rid of the most arrogant, corrupt, criminally led (DUI... OI, OI, OI) government in BC history. As a result of that, we have the 3rd party alternative stoking up.  That can be a good thing, if the Libs can hold onto some sort of their constituency, or a real bad thing, if they completely implode and all their votes go to the 3rd party.  With 2 years and 11 months to go until the next election, I do believe that the BCNDP is at a huge crossroads. 

The party must start to advocate for pragmatic policies that are easy to understand, regardless of ideology. I have advocated it in the past, and will again here. On the tax front we should be pushing for a GAI and flat tax w. surtaxes for income over $250k. On the environment we should push for the aforementioned individual solution. And we should be honestly looking at healthcare and only being an insurer. However, ideology and fear of the public service unions prevents many of these progressive, yet pragmatic, polices from even being considered.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mean Moe wrote:

The party must start to advocate for pragmatic policies that are easy to understand, regardless of ideology. I have advocated it in the past, and will again here. On the tax front we should be pushing for a GAI and flat tax w. surtaxes for income over $250k. On the environment we should push for the aforementioned individual solution. And we should be honestly looking at healthcare and only being an insurer. However, ideology and fear of the public service unions prevents many of these progressive, yet pragmatic, polices from even being considered.

Really if you are the true voice of the party when are you going to stop claiming you have anything to do with socialism. Public sector employees bad, individual environmental actions good and lets partner with business. Quite the wining platform.  A formula that has been used by the Liberal party of Canada for generations and they keep winning.  I keep opposing that winning formula federally by voting NDP because it does not lead to progressive change no matter what Ujhal and Bob claim.

Holy leap of logic Batman!

I never said that any union was bad. Just that fear of their backlash has prevented innovative and pragmatic solutions to many issues.

Do you oppose helping people install their own energy production systems?

As for the rest, it's so out in left field that even Mao would have probelms with it.

You go and argue against the smart ass remark and not the beef of the comment. It's awesome to watch.

What I meant by health insurance only is the provincial government should sell most hospitals to private sector.  This would allow billions of dollars to be transferred into scrapping MSP, expanding coverage and improving performances.  Before you start on the private sector will do this and that, this policy would set the fee for service for hospitals, monitor and regulate their performances.

The fact is that most other portion of the health services sector are private entities function under the current fee for service contract. The other side is that infrastructure maintenance on the hospitals takes up a large portion of the budget. These monies would be best diverted to actual care.

My comment about the public sector unions was due to expected offense and this type of policy. I don't blame them for trying to protect their ground but their are many legislative options for ensuring that their contracts carry over to the new employer.

It is also a more progressive option then many of the other solutions being sold. I would certainly rather see an expanded public medical insurance plan with no fees then allowing user fees or a parallel private system. Wouldn't you?

So, you prefer the current privatization route? or you actually think that it can be stopped with the same old, same old?

Clean Energy and BC Hydro.

The carbon tax revenue and the dollars saved from stopping IPP projects should be shifted to subsidies for homeowners to have two way meters and personal energy generation devices(solar,wind, geo-thermal, etc) installed on their homes of up to 100%. Business and landlords should have a subsidy approaching 75% of the costs. This type of policy would not only take power generation away from private industries that are getting sweetheart deals and put it in the hands of the people. It would also massively reduce consumer power consumption, even if only 1/3 of those eligible take part. This will allow BC hydro to save dollars and continue to reinvest in BC, reduce the demand in BC and allow them to export more power for profit.  As much as I have no disdain for private enterprises, wealth creation or profit motive, natural monopolies need to be in public hands.

Income Taxes and Guaranteed Annual Income

A universal income benefit of around $10,000/yr should be supplied to all registered voters in BC. The transfer would be in lieu of income tax deductions and taxable. This will allow for the cancellation of a myriad of individual transfer programs such as welfare, homeowners grants et al. Saving a few billion dollars.

Coupled with a flat tax of 15% and progressive surtaxes on income over $250k/yr. (EG. $250k-2%; $500k-3%; $1M-5%)This has the potential to cut after tax income gaps from top to bottom in half. Under the current income tax system someone making $15k has an after tax income of $14,797.60. With the proposed system, their after tax income would jump to $21,250. While a person making $250k currently has an after tax income of $221,705.42. With the proposed system their after tax income would fall to $220,220. As you can see in this example after tax income went from a ratio of 15:1 to 10:1.  While the ratio between $1M/yr and $10K/yr drops from 86:1 to 49:1.

It also removes the stigma of receiving government income supplements because everyone is getting them. It removes any penalty for those on social asst. seeking work. It would also generate an additional $1.5B of revenue for the government. The benefits of this system are far reaching progressive and positive.

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.bcndp.ca/why-ndp/health-care]Gordon Campbell's Liebrals lied about health care, too[/url] Liberals are pathological lying-liars.

I'm not talking P3s. I was talking about fee for service agreements under the current fee for service regime. The Liberals are having private companies build them new hospitals then renting them for pretty much eternity. MY approach would be to have them purchase current hospitals and run them under the above agreements.

Mean Moe and Fidel, the true face of the NDP.  So Mean what do you think about the shale oil in the North.  Should we continue on the really low royalty regime first started by the Clark government and then continued by Campbell?  

Fidel is it official NDP policy or just your buddy Mean Moe's idea to strip non registered voters from their entitlement to the social safety net?

Quote:

A universal income benefit of around $10,000/yr should be supplied to all registered voters in BC. The transfer would be in lieu of income tax deductions and taxable. This will allow for the cancellation of a myriad of individual transfer programs such as welfare, homeowners grants et al. Saving a few billion dollars.

Someone is having you on Fidel but I don't think its me.

Fidel wrote:

As far as some babblers are concerned, the federal Liberals were perfect when neoliberalizing the country from their perch on high in Ottawa.

Can you provide quotes from these "some babblers" to prove this?

Mean Moe wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mean Moe and Fidel, the true face of the NDP.  So Mean what do you think about the shale oil in the North.  Should we continue on the really low royalty regime first started by the Clark government and then continued by Campbell?  

Fidel is it official NDP policy or just your buddy Mean Moe's idea to strip non registered voters from their entitlement to the social safety net?

Quote:

A universal income benefit of around $10,000/yr should be supplied to all registered voters in BC. The transfer would be in lieu of income tax deductions and taxable. This will allow for the cancellation of a myriad of individual transfer programs such as welfare, homeowners grants et al. Saving a few billion dollars.

 

Someone is having you on Fidel but I don't think its me.

 

Honestly, you look for a consipracy around every corner. Instead of a way to bilk people, look at it as a way to encourage democratic participation. I would go so far as to have penalties for not particpating. Don't vote for 1 election -20%, 2 elections -50%, 3 elections -100%. Do really think that having to vote for your GAI is that onerous?

 

Thanks for confirming my worst suspicions.  When the political left is captured by the same elitist forces as the centre-right then not voting is the only strategic choice left.  I also consider it a right, as should anyone else who understands the meaning of democracy. 

For the first time in years I refused to vote in the last provincial and federal elections, although I would have if any meaningful alternatives were presented.  I'm still waiting.  

But then North America's backwards elites are actually fine with low voter turnout, despite their occasional gestures of anger or concern.  They can't even bother updating the registration list anymore, didn't say boo when Confederate thugs stole a couple states from the Democrats again, and consistently resist any attempt at electoral reform or even eliminating old fashioned gerrymandering.  The BC NDP's main strategy is to remain errily silent on issues that concern their base and to silence any trace of in-house dissent, while membership declines by seventy five percent.

Mean Moe wrote:

What I meant by health insurance only is the provincial government should sell most hospitals to private sector.  This would allow billions of dollars to be transferred into scrapping MSP, expanding coverage and improving performances.  Before you start on the private sector will do this and that, this policy would set the fee for service for hospitals, monitor and regulate their performances.

The fact is that most other portion of the health services sector are private entities function under the current fee for service contract. The other side is that infrastructure maintenance on the hospitals takes up a large portion of the budget. These monies would be best diverted to actual care.

My comment about the public sector unions was due to expected offense and this type of policy. I don't blame them for trying to protect their ground but their are many legislative options for ensuring that their contracts carry over to the new employer.

It is also a more progressive option then many of the other solutions being sold. I would certainly rather see an expanded public medical insurance plan with no fees then allowing user fees or a parallel private system. Wouldn't you?

Holy shit.    I'm truly tempted to send your idiotic, contradictory and reactionary responses to every sitting New Democrat and see if they're as far gone as you are.   Hey dude, selling public hospitals to the private sector is not the least bit "progressive", even if you add some vanilla fudge about purely public insurence schemes, and if you really understood anything about business either you'd know that owners and shareholders are only interested in "maximizing profits" and "market share".  They say so themselves.  Serving the "customer" is a distant second outside their expensive advertizing budgets.   And "the public" of course never sees a dime of these "privatization" fire-sales, only the big banks who stopped paying into the kitty decades ago.   But then healthcare users aren't really customers in the traditional sense either, are they?  But you've probably never even thought about that little distinction either.