Dude, you gave up on that part of the conversation because your pedantry hit a brick wall. Empathy is not your strong suit.

@WilyRickWiles
No Dude. I answered all your questions. You answered none or mine.

Pedantic, I did not know that word means facts and logic?

And no, it is because I have empathy that I am not a Socialist. I saw what socialism brings and because I care I would not wish that in anyone.

@Hanno You just keep repeating yourself when your incorrect assumptions about other people's meaning are corrected.

@WilyRickWiles
Oh, I read the DSA website you gave me.
Then I compared that with the system that is in place in Finland.

You can attach meaning as much as you want... the system you prescribe to is not the Nordic model.
Your claims that they are the same is the issue here.

I am personally a big fan of the Nordic model by the way.
Strong work culture brought on by centuries of personal responsibility and Lutheran values... combined with strong social services that makes life great for everyone.

Pushing that hard here in NZ.

@Hanno You ignore time and time again that I am not saying that the ideology of the DSA is the same as the ideology behind Finland's status quo. Once again, all I am saying is that the main thing that DSA is working toward right now is social democracy, especially universal healthcare. The fact that it can coexist with capitalism does not mean it is not social democracy and does not mean that socialists cannot advocate for it.

@WilyRickWiles
Ok. Socialist can advocate for it.
But it is a bit like a cattle farmer advocating a vegetarian diet.

Can you have universal healthcare in the long term without Capitalism to pay for it? Where has this succeeded?

What I am trying to say it is great pushing good social services. However, if you have no economy to pay for it, how will it succeed?

I think that is the crux of my issue with democratic socialists.
You want the good stuff social services provide, however you provide no reasonable model of how to pay for it.

You recently stated that a few hundred billion will not harm the US economy.
My question is what health care does a few hundred billion buy you.

From my experience, minimum healthcare (to a standard that matters), is about $500 per month per person. (This is based on good private health care in medium economy country. In Belgium it is significantly higher.) that is $6 000 per annum and for the US $2 000 billion. Your few hundred billion will not cut it. Not even the extra $1 trillion your article advocates.

Now I read Sanders arguments... even if you save the money he thinks he will, the issue is you still have to pay for it and it is currently paid for by the capitalist economy.

The only reasonable way of achieving the social services you want is through capitalism.

So for socialists to campaign for these services is a bit like a cattle farmer campaigning for a vegetarian lifestyle.