Socialism

Socialized Health Care

What a stupid website. Propaganda.

In Australia we have both private and public hospitals. Public hospitals are free but yes, there is often a waiting time. There is a huge problem with Australian healthcare right now but it's because we just don't have enough hospitals/people to staff them, rather than a problem with the system.

If you have the money, you are welcome to immediate care in a private hospital.

I don't understand why people are whining about socialized health care. Granted the implementation is where all the criticism should go, but most people I've encountered seem to get hung up on the socialized part of the name. Hell, here in the US we've had a socialized welfare system since 1935, its called Social Security. It has social in the name but no one complains about that.

Socialized health care = have someone else pay for your medical bill. It's not my fault you can't afford health insurance-- it's your own. I shouldn't have to pay for deadbeat drug atticts because I decided to work my ass off in life and get a good job. Success should be rewarded, not punished.

The Obama administration wants America to depend on them. If America is depending on them, America is going to vote for them. Just listen to these idiots. Who do you think they voted for? Why do you think they voted for him? What do you think they've done to be successful in life?

Welfare is stupid too. Nobody should get free shit because they didn't work hard enough. If you're disabled and are unable to get a job after honestly trying, then I'm fine with them getting enough to live. I don't know where you get "no one complains about that" from.

Socialized health care = have someone else pay for your medical bill. It's not my fault you can't afford health insurance-- it's your own. I shouldn't have to pay for deadbeat drug atticts because I decided to work my ass off in life and get a good job. Success should be rewarded, not punished.

The Obama administration wants America to depend on them. If America is depending on them, America is going to vote for them. Just listen to these idiots. Who do you think they voted for? Why do you think they voted for him? What do you think they've done to be successful in life?

Welfare is stupid too. Nobody should get free shit because they didn't work hard enough. If you're disabled and are unable to get a job after honestly trying, then I'm fine with them getting enough to live. I don't know where you get "no one complains about that" from.

How much do you think is going to be added per person in tax to fund this social healthcare system? Answer: not a lot! If you're unwilling to pay a tiny bit more in your taxes to provide everybody with decent healthcare (it turns out there are those less fortunate in the US and, for several reasons [such as a poor education], they are unable to get a high paying job that would fund their x operation [which are fucking costly, you arsehole]) then you're pretty much just a big jerk. Cool, man.

Irock only has healthcare because his parents have it. Get out in the word a little, and then have an opinion.

How much do you think is going to be added per person in tax to fund this social healthcare system? Answer: not a lot! If you're unwilling to pay a tiny bit more in your taxes to provide everybody with decent healthcare (it turns out there are those less fortunate in the US and, for several reasons [such as a poor education], they are unable to get a high paying job that would fund their x operation [which are fucking costly, you arsehole]) then you're pretty much just a big jerk. Cool, man.

The amount is irrelevant and unknown. It's the principle. I don't want anyone to pay for me, and I don't want to pay for anyone else. If everyone actually tried to be able to afford health care, they could. There are people that have come from the shittiest projects and the shittiest schools to being successful. You just have to apply yourself. Anyone who thinks someone else is obligated to pay for them is a real asshole.

Irock only has healthcare because his parents have it. Get out in the word a little, and then have an opinion.

Even if I didn't have healthcare, I wouldn't want socialized health care. I'm not a greedy leech like so many other people. I prefer to work for my benefits. I don't want people to work for me.

Yeah? Bullshit. I work in the healthcare industry in the US. Emergency medicine, to be exact. The fact that I can't afford healthcare aside, the number of patients who have chosen to suffer rather than go to the hospital and pay a bill is fucking staggering. If I could have helped them pay the bill, I would have. It's not a question of working for what you need, it's a question of society taking care of its members. Even cows have enough sense to protect the herd.

The fun irony of this is that in the end the Insurance Executives will be paying for other people's healthcare while denying those who can't go through them.

Yeah? Bullshit. I work in the healthcare industry in the US. Emergency medicine, to be exact. The fact that I can't afford healthcare aside, the number of patients who have chosen to suffer rather than go to the hospital and pay a bill is fucking staggering. If I could have helped them pay the bill, I would have. It's not a question of working for what you need, it's a question of society taking care of its members. Even cows have enough sense to protect the herd.

Maybe we should have socialized water too! People need water to survive! We should have socialized electricity so people don't freeze to death! We could have socialized home insurance as well! Ah, I know. Let's give all our money to the government, and they can give us all everything! They can distribute an equal amount of water, electricity, give us all the same health insurance, let us all eat the same food, give everyone home insurance, give us all the same living facilities, give us all the same clothes, and everyone would be happy! We'd all be equals, and any money we made would go to the government to pay for everyone else! What a perfect world. The government is supposed to take care of us. :]]]

That's a dumb comparison. It might be valid if there were "water insurance" but there isn't. Another case of someone with no knowledge on a subject trying to form an opinion.

It's valid because it's an example of how ridiculous it would be if everything were socialized.

Your only argument seems to be "you're a kid you don't now anything lol"

Maybe we should have socialized water too! People need water to survive! We should have socialized electricity so people don't freeze to death! We could have socialized home insurance as well!

Maybe we should.

The government is supposed to take care of us. :]]]

No? Then what is it for?

Ah, I know. Let's give all our money to the government, and they can give us all everything! They can distribute an equal amount of water, electricity, give us all the same health insurance, let us all eat the same food, give everyone home insurance, give us all the same living facilities, give us all the same clothes, and everyone would be happy! We'd all be equals, and any money we made would go to the government to pay for everyone else! What a perfect world.

I'd agree with you, except that history has shown that a totally socialist society does not work. I think we need to have a balance of free enterprise AND gov't organized programs. I will say, though, that before we do that, we as a country need to get the politicians under OUR thumb instead of the other way round.

And Irock, just for the record, I don't think you're a dumb kid. In fact, you strike me as a very intelligent, witty and articulate individual. You must be, or you couldn't piss me off so much! I just think that once you start REALLY taking care of yourself and see how tough it is, maybe you opinion will change about a few things.

The government is supposed to take care of us. :]]]

No? Then what is it for?

To govern us. Hence the name. They're only here to make sure we don't all kill ourselves. Without the people, there is no government.

Exactly. So shouldn't a government run by the people take care of its people? What is the ultimate purpose of the making and execution of law? Shouldn't law be for the benefit of the country in all aspects? And if so, why not have law that provides for the people's basic needs?

Look, I don't want a totalitarian government. I do want a government that offers me a choice between going it alone and having help when I need it. While there are programs that do offer help to those in need, they are flawed because of the stark and sudden cutoffs. If you make x amount of money per year, you get a, b, and c help. If you go a cent above the cutoff, you get no help. That's just one aspect among many. The system does not work. Other systems do- at least better than ours. I think we are entitled to something better.

Maybe we should.

We shouldn't.

No? Then what is it for?

They're here to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations. They're here to protect the country and the people in it. They're also here to provide necessary services such as law enforcement, fire protection, emergency services, the national weather service, public schools, and the military.

Law enforcement - Enforces the law. Without law, there's chaos. Keeps people safe.
Fire protection - Keeps people safe. Prevents properties from being destroyed.
Emergency services - Keeps people safe.
The National Weather Service - Keeps people safe.
Public schools - Enables people to get an education, eventually leading to people being able to pay for themselves.
Military - Keeps the country safe.

We don't need unnecessary services such as Cash for Clunkers, public libraries, Welfare for those who can get jobs, and socialized medicine.

Cash for clunkers - Trading less fuel efficient vehicles for fuel efficient ones.
Public libraries - It's like a video rental store except with books and everyone pays for it even if they don't use it. It's like if they made a blockbuster tax.
Welfare - This is given out to lazy people who don't want to succeed in life so they can pay to live, or disabled people who can't get jobs. It should only apply to the latter if they absolutely can't get a single job that pays enough to live.
Socialized medicine - Free health care for people who don't make enough to afford health insurance, won't get a job that provides health insurance, don't plan on advancing in their career to pay for health insurance, don't want to go to college to get a good enough job, and don't plan on trying to pay their personal medical bills.

If you want to help people afford things that aren't necessities, do it with your own money. It's not the government's job to steal money from those who make money and give it to those who don't.

Welfare - This is given out to lazy people who don't want to succeed in life so they can pay to live, or disabled people who can't get jobs. It should only apply to the latter if they absolutely can't get a single job that pays enough to live.

Agreed. I can't say the same for anything else you said, though. As far as the government stealing money, well, they have other agencies in their corrupt little pockets to do that for them. Look into the background of the previous administration and you should see what I mean. Or mandatory auto insurance.

I am totally mystified that you would say putting more fuel efficient cars on the road is bad. How is that bad? Public libraries are supposed to house information and culture. How is that bad?

As far as fire and emergency services goes, that's what I do. The past three years the two departments I work for have received barely enough to pay salaries- funny, considering the highest paid among us makes $17.50 an hour- never mind keeping our equipment in repair. So much for the government holding up their end of things.

 On that note, I'm a fire medic. I've gone to school, gotten training and work my ass off every day. Yes, there are people who want to have everything handed to them and don't do shit to improve their position in life, but not me. If the lazy fuck across the street gets free healthcare, why don't I, the working stiff who provides some of that care, get anything? If he's entitled to it, so am I and so is everyone else, and I defy you to tell the mom whose little girl just got hit by a car that health insurance is not a necessity.

Agreed. I can't say the same for anything else you said, though. As far as the government stealing money, well, they have other agencies in their corrupt little pockets to do that for them. Look into the background of the previous administration and you should see what I mean.

I don't know what you mean.

I am totally mystified that you would say putting more fuel efficient cars on the road is bad. How is that bad? Public libraries are supposed to house information and culture. How is that bad?

It's not a necessity. Better cars are something people should pay for themselves. The government shouldn't even be involved in car trading.

As far as fire and emergency services goes, that's what I do. The past three years the two departments I work for have received barely enough to pay salaries- funny, considering the highest paid among us makes $17.50 an hour- never mind keeping our equipment in repair. So much for the government holding up their end of things.

I think it's time to consider a new career.

On that note, I'm a fire medic. I've gone to school, gotten training and work my ass off every day.

That's why you should have researched and planned your career goals, if you honestly can't afford health insurance.

Yes, there are people who want to have everything handed to them and don't do shit to improve their position in life, but not me. If the lazy fuck across the street gets free healthcare, why don't I, the working stiff who provides some of that care, get anything? If he's entitled to it, so am I and so is everyone else, and I defy you to tell the mom whose little girl just got hit by a car that health insurance is not a necessity.

Everyone's entitled to the opportunities to be able to have health care. Everyone gets these opportunities, unless they're unable to work due to a disability. Nobody's entitled to free health care, unless maybe they're disabled and unable to work.

Agreed. I can't say the same for anything else you said, though. As far as the government stealing money, well, they have other agencies in their corrupt little pockets to do that for them. Look into the background of the previous administration and you should see what I mean.

I don't know what you mean.

when people elect a third party to make decisions in their best interest, it never happens, they make decisions in their own interest.

Agreed. I can't say the same for anything else you said, though. As far as the government stealing money, well, they have other agencies in their corrupt little pockets to do that for them. Look into the background of the previous administration and you should see what I mean.

I don't know what you mean.

when people elect a third party to make decisions in their best interest, it never happens, they make decisions in their own interest.

We elect parties to govern us. Not make decisions for us. It's a democracy, and everything should be voted on.

Capitalism is a system of equal responsibility without equal opportunity. Work for those more fortunate than you or live on the fringe of society.

These are the options of a proletarian.

A fellow employee here asked me once, "If capitalism is so bad, what should we do instead?"  I don't know. I wish I did. Capitalism has its useful aspects, but so does socialism, or a monarchy. Hell, feudalism worked for a while. I wish there was a way to get the working parts of all those different systems, cram them in a box and say, "here's yer perfect government".

Capitalism is a system of equal responsibility without equal opportunity. Work for those more fortunate than you or live on the fringe of society.

These are the options of a proletarian.

Nobody has equal opportunity. Some people are more lucky than others. However, everyone has the opportunity (not an equal one) to become the person others work for. Not everyone chooses to pursue that opportunity, however.

If not everyone has the same opportunity, the system doesn't work.

But again, I cannot argue that some are more apt to pursue bettering themselves than others.

Here's the post I accidentally put in the sewers:

I think it's time to consider a new career.
That's why you should have researched and planned your career goals, if you honestly can't afford health insurance.

Woah, buddy. Not cool. What if everyone in my field "considered a new career"?

By your own argument, emergency services are essential and should be provided by the gov't. If that is true, gov't funds should go towards fire departments' upkeep and payroll, and thet are not. With the addition of healthcare alone, my salary would be enough to support me and my family of four others.

I planned my career around service, as does anyone else in my position. If the gov't was dispensing funds to FD's the way it should, I could afford insurance. I maintain, they are not holding up their end of the deal. And why not?

While I agree that the gov't should be involved in free enterprise as little as possible, more fuel efficient cars are just good for everyone, and the environment. Isn't that everyone's responsibility?

 

If not everyone has the same opportunity, the system doesn't work.

Of course the system doesn't work.

The working class is gonna snap in this country, and then they'll be remembering more "victims of socialism". They push and push working people to their breaking point, and then when they finally stand up against the abuse, all the dead abusers are now victims. If you take all the "possible" wealth of the world and placed it on a pie chart, if one section of population has a majority of the pie there is less for everyone else. Wealth is power. They don't "need" it, they want it. Power to control other "free" individuals.

I wish there was a way to get the working parts of all those different systems, cram them in a box and say, "here's yer perfect government".

That's never going to happen. =/ Humans aren't perfect, so the same can be said for any human institution.

My point isn't that you're young, it's that you don't understand what you're opposing.

Humans aren't perfect, so the same can be said for any human institution.

Oh, absolutely. It all comes down to personal responsibility, and nobody seems to want to take any. Doctors, for example, run abunch of unnessecary tests to cover their asses and avoid a lawsuit. The problem there starts with the patient: hey, sometimes you get bad news. I'm really sorry, I am, but sometimes there's nothing that can be done. Sometimes unseen complications happen no matter how thourogh the doc is. The problem continues with the docs: I don't wanna get sued, so I'm gonna run every test I can think of. That drives up the cost of healthcare, and now insurance companies get involved... ugh.

Even if I didn't have healthcare, I wouldn't want socialized health care. I'm not a greedy leech like so many other people. I prefer to work for my benefits. I don't want people to work for me.

 

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Irock, you don't even know what you're talking about ._. stop it

If not everyone has the same opportunity, the system doesn't work.

You can't give everyone the same exact opportunities. It can't be that way unless the government makes everyone have the same amount of wealth, and that wouldn't be right.

Everyone still has opportunities to become successful. From the moment you're born, you're given opportunities. Somewhere I have the opportunity to become president, but that won't happen because I have no plans of attempting to becoming the president. Every single person has the opportunities to make something of themselves.

Woah, buddy. Not cool. What if everyone in my field "considered a new career"?

Then I'm sure the government would reconsider giving health care to the men and women who work in your emergency field.

By your own argument, emergency services are essential and should be provided by the gov't. If that is true, gov't funds should go towards fire departments' upkeep and payroll, and thet are not. With the addition of healthcare alone, my salary would be enough to support me and my family of four others.

More government funds SHOULD go to the fire departments' upkeep and payroll. That doesn't mean we need to form a total socialized health care system.

I planned my career around service, as does anyone else in my position. If the gov't was dispensing funds to FD's the way it should, I could afford insurance. I maintain, they are not holding up their end of the deal. And why not?

Again, I agree that they should fund the FD's (assuming you mean fire departments) properly.

While I agree that the gov't should be involved in free enterprise as little as possible, more fuel efficient cars are just good for everyone, and the environment. Isn't that everyone's responsibility?

Global warming isn't a threat to us, real or not.

It's only good for the people who were able to take advantage of the cash for clunkers system. The taxpayers payed for a few people to get better cars just so those people would have to buy less gas. That's ridiculous.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3108/articlesocialismchart.jpg

I've already gone over everything except Department of Transportation.

Department of Transportation is necessary because without it, roads would pose a greater risk to people. It protects people.

Public libraries are still video rental stores for books. There's no reason they shouldn't be owned by private businesses.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

I lol'd so hard.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.
[/quote]
Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

You can't give everyone the same exact opportunities. It can't be that way unless the government makes everyone have the same amount of wealth, and that wouldn't be right.

Why not?

Global warming isn't a threat to us, real or not.

Now that's disappointing. Everything else you said, even if I disagreed, showed some thought.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

You've obviously never been in want of basic needs.

I love how America was founded and formed on the idea of equal opportunity and such, but people fight equality so hard.

Also lol Irockpolitics
go listen to Rush Limbaugh some more.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Because doctors don't work for free, medicine isn't free, and it's not my responsibility if you're sick or get in a car accident.

You can't give everyone the same exact opportunities. It can't be that way unless the government makes everyone have the same amount of wealth, and that wouldn't be right.

Why not?

Because if everyone had to have the same amount of wealth, and their kids had to have the same amount of wealth, getting a job wouldn't mean anything because you'd have the same amount of wealth as everyone else.

Global warming isn't a threat to us, real or not.

Now that's disappointing. Everything else you said, even if I disagreed, showed some thought.

Global warming, real or not, simply isn't a threat to us.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

You've obviously never been in want of basic needs.

Not having to pay money for something isn't a need.

I love how America was founded and formed on the idea of equal opportunity and such, but people fight equality so hard.

We have equal opportunity in the sense that everyone has the opportunity to become what they want to become.

I love how America was founded and formed on the idea of equal opportunity and such, but people fight equality so hard.

We have equal opportunity in the sense that everyone has the opportunity to become what they want to become.

No they don't.

Global warming isn't a threat to us, real or not.

yes it is.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Because doctors don't work for free, medicine isn't free, and it's not my responsibility if you're sick or get in a car accident.

Police officers work for free now? Irock, everything is still paid for. Only now it's paid for by the government (through taxes) which takes a huge load off everybody.

I love how America was founded and formed on the idea of equal opportunity and such, but people fight equality so hard.

We have equal opportunity in the sense that everyone has the opportunity to become what they want to become.

No they don't.

Yes they do. If you work hard enough, anyone has the potential to become what they want to be. It may not be easy, but it can happen.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Because doctors don't work for free, medicine isn't free, and it's not my responsibility if you're sick or get in a car accident.

Police officers work for free now? Irock, everything is still paid for. Only now it's paid for by the government (through taxes) which takes a huge load off everybody.

Police officers are necessary to enforce the laws the government set, and to protect citizens. For this reason, our taxes should pay for law enforcement.

Debt isn't a threat.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Because doctors don't work for free, medicine isn't free, and it's not my responsibility if you're sick or get in a car accident.

Police officers work for free now? Irock, everything is still paid for. Only now it's paid for by the government (through taxes) which takes a huge load off everybody.

Police officers are necessary to enforce the laws the government set, and to protect citizens. For this reason, our taxes should pay for law enforcement.

Debt isn't a threat.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Also, debt is a pretty fucking big threat =/

hokay, so here's how the U.S. exists.

The U.S. owes the largest amount of money in the world. And everything that they're blaming everyone else for, for causing the low financial crisis, borrowing too much, spending money all day, that's how the U.S. exists. The U.S. is paying for the Iraq war with loans from China. The U.S. debt is so large, that during the bailout the national debt clock ran out of room for the extradition, and they had to build a new clock.

The world is locked in debt repayments.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA</a>

Al Franken is the man.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Because doctors don't work for free, medicine isn't free, and it's not my responsibility if you're sick or get in a car accident.

Police officers work for free now? Irock, everything is still paid for. Only now it's paid for by the government (through taxes) which takes a huge load off everybody.

Police officers are necessary to enforce the laws the government set, and to protect citizens. For this reason, our taxes should pay for law enforcement.

Debt isn't a threat.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Also, debt is a pretty fucking big threat =/

Because it's their own responsibilities to pay for their own treatment. It's everyone's responsibilities to pay for transportation because it has an effect on everyone.

Owing money is in no way threatening to anyone.

Welcome to America, everyone is equal, but the rich are more equal than the poor.

Owing money is in no way threatening to anyone.

owing money for too long means foreclosure on your house and loss of property which means

• homelessness
• no money for food
• no money for water
• no money for healthcare

not a threat huh? 
Those are your basic needs (shelter, food, water, health) and they're all gone because you owed too much money.

Irock, yes it is. Debt is definitely a threat.

Irock's point is most likely that debt as an entity will not kill you, but the repercussions of debt very well can threaten your livelihood and your future very easily.

I really don't see why providing free healthcare to people is any less essential than keeping them safe from criminals... or ensuring them safety from fire... or etc. etc.

Because criminals, fires, dangerous roads, and terrorists are dangerous. Debt isn't.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Because doctors don't work for free, medicine isn't free, and it's not my responsibility if you're sick or get in a car accident.

Police officers work for free now? Irock, everything is still paid for. Only now it's paid for by the government (through taxes) which takes a huge load off everybody.

Police officers are necessary to enforce the laws the government set, and to protect citizens. For this reason, our taxes should pay for law enforcement.

Debt isn't a threat.

Obviously whatever you need healthcare for is dangerous, so why should anybody have to pay A LOT OF MONEY to get treated for it?

Also, debt is a pretty fucking big threat =/

Because it's their own responsibilities to pay for their own treatment. It's everyone's responsibilities to pay for transportation because it has an effect on everyone.

Owing money is in no way threatening to anyone.

Why is it their own responsibility? America is pretty much the only country with this system right now, and clearly it's not working, so why do you defend it so much? Why is it preferred that millions of people just go further and further into debt because of all their expenses? And owing money is a threat to everybody. On the small scale it leads to depression/suicide and a lower quality of life, and on a large scale, it leads to the fucking collapse of the economy.

Owing money is a GIGANTIC threat. Jeez, Irock, if you owe, you can't even get a job in some places. How f'ed up is that?

Get some life experience, man. I've been broke, I've seen how shit works. I'm a parent trying to make a future for my kids. I don't know where you get these ideas from but I'd give it serious thought. I hope you understand things a little better when it's your time to fend for yourself, 'cause the way things are now, it's just you against the world. Do you have ANY idea how hard that is? I'm willing to bet no. 

Owing money is in no way threatening to anyone.

owing money for too long means foreclosure on your house and loss of property which means

• homelessness
• no money for food
• no money for water
• no money for healthcare

not a threat huh? 
Those are your basic needs (shelter, food, water, health) and they're all gone because you owed too much money.

There is medical financial aid. Most people are able to make the payments on their medical bills. Everyone has the opportunity to be able to get health insurance. It's your job to pursue that opportunity.

Welcome to America, everyone is equal, but the rich are more equal than the poor.

Do you know how they became rich? They tried, and they worked.

Get some life experience, man. I've been broke, I've seen how shit works. I'm a parent trying to make a future for my kids. I don't know where you get these ideas from but I'd give it serious thought. I hope you understand things a little better when it's your time to fend for yourself, 'cause the way things are now, it's just you against the world. Do you have ANY idea how hard that is? I'm willing to bet no.

Life experience will only make your opinion less valid. Since you've been broke, you want things to be handed out to you. If you've been rich, you may not want health reform because it has a negative effect on you. It's supposed to be you against the world. I never said life is easy. Everyone still has the opportunities to become successful, but it's not easy. Tough luck. I'll never ask for a handout from anyone. You get what you earn.

There is medical financial aid. Most people are able to make the payments on their medical bills. Everyone has the opportunity to be able to get health insurance. It's your job to pursue that opportunity.

What do you think Socialized Healthcare provides?
The exact same opportunity, but more readily accessible.
I never knew Accessible Healthcare was such a detriment to society.

Don't like it, then go pay for expensive private healthcare.
It's the same exact thing, you pay a monthly payment for access to the healthcare benefits, all socialized healthcare provides is a much cheaper option for people who can't afford the high private healthcare rates.

Do you know how they became rich? They tried, and they worked.

So they deserve better opportunities?  
I don't think so.

Life experience will only make your opinion less valid. Since you've been broke, you want things to be handed out to you. If you've been rich, you may not want health reform because it has a negative effect on you. It's supposed to be you against the world. I never said life is easy. Everyone still has the opportunities to become successful, but it's not easy. Tough luck. I'll never ask for a handout from anyone. You get what you earn.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I love Irock's ideal world, where nobody helps anyone but themselves.

People like you are why society is declining.

Get some life experience, man. I've been broke, I've seen how shit works. I'm a parent trying to make a future for my kids. I don't know where you get these ideas from but I'd give it serious thought. I hope you understand things a little better when it's your time to fend for yourself, 'cause the way things are now, it's just you against the world. Do you have ANY idea how hard that is? I'm willing to bet no.

Life experience will only make your opinion less valid.

what the fuck

Get some life experience, man. I've been broke, I've seen how shit works. I'm a parent trying to make a future for my kids. I don't know where you get these ideas from but I'd give it serious thought. I hope you understand things a little better when it's your time to fend for yourself, 'cause the way things are now, it's just you against the world. Do you have ANY idea how hard that is? I'm willing to bet no.

Life experience will only make your opinion less valid.

what the fuck

You forgot to debate against the part where I explained my point. That's sort of the point of a debate.

There is medical financial aid. Most people are able to make the payments on their medical bills. Everyone has the opportunity to be able to get health insurance. It's your job to pursue that opportunity.

Don't like it, then go pay for expensive private healthcare.
It's the same exact thing, you pay a monthly payment for access to the healthcare benefits, all socialized healthcare provides is a much cheaper option for people who can't afford the high private healthcare rates.

But everyone has to pay for it, even if they don't take advantage of it. Make those who use socialized health care pay for it. Not those who choose not to use it.

Do you know how they became rich? They tried, and they worked.

So they deserve better opportunities?  
I don't think so.

They worked for it.

Life experience will only make your opinion less valid. Since you've been broke, you want things to be handed out to you. If you've been rich, you may not want health reform because it has a negative effect on you. It's supposed to be you against the world. I never said life is easy. Everyone still has the opportunities to become successful, but it's not easy. Tough luck. I'll never ask for a handout from anyone. You get what you earn.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I love Irock's ideal world, where nobody helps anyone but themselves.

People like you are why society is declining.

Don't take words out of my mouth. People are free to help others, and I'm all for that. However, I'm not for being forced to use your money to solve other people's issues.
Anyway, I'm done debating. It doesn't do anything other than get everyone fired up.

We could argue our opinions all day, but they'll never change.

Nobody's right, since it's all opinion. We'll never know who is right unless we could see what would have happenned if we would have gone with __ plan, then compare it to what really happened.

Okay, let's put it to bed. Now I'm really dying to see what's going to happen in the next 10 years or so. Thank you all for such stimulating conversation!
















Even you, Irock.... I guess.....

Irock you seem to think the Government shouldn't help us when we need it most, but to simply sit on the sidelines calling new rules whenever they see fit.

That's why we have Welfare, it's a very big thing. Sure it gets taken advantage of, what doesn't?

Public libraries, you're really at the loss here. You technically get all of the information for free, since you don't pay taxes yet. You're
technically wasting money by not using it. Not saying you should just because you can, but other people do use it. That's why it's here.
It's also great, they contain tons for shelf space than book retailers do and they also archive local news papers.

I don't think anyone mentioned public schools, but for those who can't afford an education for their children. Our country needs educated people, just like it needs healthy people. Those cannot pay for simple things like a healthy living and a good education shouldn't be any less entitled to it.

That being said, it is your responsibility for your own well-being. And Irock, I don't think a public plan will cover face-lifts and other miscellaneous shit like that.
For those who would take advantage, the government obviously has to make sure they don't. It has yet to truly happen, but hopefully it will someday.

that's what confuses me about irock's stance entirely. i dont understand how one would take advantage of free healthcare. it's not like people are going to intentionally hurt themselves all the time just so they can get free treatment out of it. that's why i feel like he's really just arguing welfare, not socialized health care.

Take advantage means to draw advantages from.

To take advantage of socialized heath care would be to use it to your advantage (getting free health care)

Take advantage means to draw advantages from.

To take advantage of socialized heath care would be to use it to your advantage (getting free health care)

it's not free, you pay for it in taxes.

Take advantage means to draw advantages from.

To take advantage of socialized heath care would be to use it to your advantage (getting free health care)

it's not free, you pay for it in taxes.

With Obama's health care plan, only people who make an income of $200,000 or more will pay for it. Something tells me the majority of those people are going to have private health care.

With Obama's health care plan, only people who make an income of $200,000 or more will pay for it. Something tells me the majority of those people are going to have private health care.

Can you link me to where it says that?

A 15 YEAR OLD COMES TO DEBATE ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT AND LIFE!

Get some life experience, man. I've been broke, I've seen how shit works. I'm a parent trying to make a future for my kids. I don't know where you get these ideas from but I'd give it serious thought. I hope you understand things a little better when it's your time to fend for yourself, 'cause the way things are now, it's just you against the world. Do you have ANY idea how hard that is? I'm willing to bet no.

Life experience will only make your opinion less valid.

what the fuck

I understand what Irock means here. Yes, life experience will give you a better understanding of the system and how it works in real life and not just paper, but it will make your opinion more biased. As he said, if you've been broke, you're going to tend to want help. If you've been rich, you'll want to keep the money to yourself (most of the time). This is just my interpretation of Irock's argument for that.

A fellow employee here asked me once, "If capitalism is so bad, what should we do instead?"  I don't know. I wish I did. Capitalism has its useful aspects, but so does socialism, or a monarchy. Hell, feudalism worked for a while. I wish there was a way to get the working parts of all those different systems, cram them in a box and say, "here's yer perfect government".

You don't need to use a pre-existing type of government. The Framers developed the system of "federalism" all on their own through compromises and whatnot (although refined throughout the years of US history). You could always make a new system (but that's a pretty bad idea, lol).

Also, I remember my... 7th grade algebra teacher telling me that NASA once built some rocket that costed a couple million or billion dollars (I forget, but I think it's the latter). I think he said the rocket failed. Hooray! However, he went on to say that, even though the rocket was paid for by taxpayers, it costed everyone in the US about a cup of coffee. So, as others said, the distribution of payment for a government service by the taxpayers (does that make sense) is a load off most people.

Another thing: There's always that saying about "1% of the world controls 99% of the wealth and 99% of the world contrls 1% of the wealth." I have no idea if that's a statistical truth, but, whether it's a hyperbole or not, I'm sure it's something along the lines of that. Also, the US would most likely be representative of that as well. If we take from 1% of the population and give to 99% of the population, doesn't the government fulfill the needs of the common good?

Overall, I'm pretty split between this issue, lol. Just your average, moderate American here. I hate the idea of paying for other people's problems, but I do hate the poor being neglected. Coupled with being moderate, I'm about middle-class, so I become fairly apathetic to the issue. I kinda avoid politics anyways because my parents take care of anything so it's not my turn to worry completely about life.

Tezukake     - I wonder what today will bring? says:
*http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,35313.25.html
*Irock makes me want to rage
*Sure, healthcare like the NHS isn't the best

Purge the unclean! Destroy the righteous! says:
*i know
*i read through it all
  
Tezukake     - I wonder what today will bring? says:
*But if I break my arm, I know that I don't have to pay a shitload of money to get it treated

That's all I have to say on the matter.

that's what confuses me about irock's stance entirely. i dont understand how one would take advantage of free healthcare. it's not like people are going to intentionally hurt themselves all the time just so they can get free treatment out of it. that's why i feel like he's really just arguing welfare, not socialized health care.

I highly doubt Irock even thought of what I can rebuke to this, and if he says he did, he's probably bullshitting but;

People can abuse themselves to get drugs out of the system, morphine and all that shit that would normally be given as a procedure and take home for personal treatment.

I heard it as like 20% of the wealthiest people control in USA 80% of the its money. Maybe it was 2%/80%.

With Obama's health care plan, only people who make an income of $200,000 or more will pay for it. Something tells me the majority of those people are going to have private health care.

So? I don't see your point. If you're saying those people can afford private healthcare then yes, they can afford it. It gives them more benefits I'm going to assume. And what's wrong with that? Just like some people don't use libraries, but others do and they appreciate being able to.

The whole point of public plans is that it won't kill insurance companies and create competition. If they see that people are getting healthcare from someone else for less (and in many ways the the insurance company itself ends up paying for it) they'll want to rethink their policies to make them more attractive.
Now elaborating that parentheses bit, I'd assume the less people on the public plan the taxes will go down.

It seems likely that people who are abusing the system by being able to afford private healthcare would be dropped.
The way I see this is for the people who honestly cannot make ends meat while paying for healthcare.

that's what confuses me about irock's stance entirely. i dont understand how one would take advantage of free healthcare. it's not like people are going to intentionally hurt themselves all the time just so they can get free treatment out of it. that's why i feel like he's really just arguing welfare, not socialized health care.

I highly doubt Irock even thought of what I can rebuke to this, and if he says he did, he's probably bullshitting but;

That was my impression to what Irock's stance was the whole time. I thought the socialized health care was just an example.

[22:06:17] <@Malson> do you feel that paying a small extra amount in taxes is a breach of your personal rights?
[22:06:33] <@Malson> even though that extra amount could easily save lives?
[22:06:53] <+Irock> blah blah blah lives lives lives
[22:06:55] <+Irock> fuck lives
[22:06:57] <+Irock> they can all rot
[22:07:12] <+Irock> if they don't want to pay for their life, let them die

I think that should bring this thread to a close.

I second the moton.

Europe sees america as a bunch of weirdos who say no to human rights. In France you'll pay up to 10€ for a hospital visit and their taxes aren't steep or anything and they're known as happy, outgoing people. If you were born in poor conditions with no hope of education and proper work in the US then you're basically screwed. Why wouldn't you opt for a system that make the inhabitants happier? Most of your money goes toward benefits that make you happier and leaves you with less money to spend on totally useful stuff like videogames and a third TV.

Coming from a family with poor economic capabilities I am quite happy the system we have here works as it does. It should be especially relevant because of this recession we're going through causing people to get fired left and right; tons of people here have lost their jobs and they predict it'll get worse. But in the end we know it'll be okay because we have those who are still lucky to have jobs to look out for us less fortunate while we look for a new one.

Skanker, the problem with America is greed, and that nobody cares about anyone but themselves.

That's why people are against stuff like socialized healthcare. 
"It's -my- money, why should -I- ever pay to help someone else?" etc...

I live in Canada, so obviously healthcare is socialized here and I think that it's a better system than in the States. But I think you should probably be a little cautious about it - a lot of you don't seem to be questioning the system at all, as if it's going to be equivalent or roughly equivalent to the healthcare you receive now except not as expensive. It's not going to be, especially in rural areas; it's going to get a lot worse. Cancer patients shouldn't have to wait several weeks for diagnostic surgery or treatment. Waiting times, on average, are bad in Canada, but even that average is brought up a lot by the cities. When a hospital needs new equipment, they have to petition an administrative body of the government, and the government will react faster to places with larger populations or areas that have a lot of people who would vote for their party. A majority of doctors would probably prefer to live in a city with good equipment than move to some rural town with shit for equipment. Where there is a market demand, that is an incentive - when you make the same money no matter where you go, many of the best doctors will choose cities. The fact is that as with any government program, money is going to be stretched thin, and they can't update medical services everywhere they need to. Further, the cost of providing healthcare increases with time, which means to continue high quality treatment the government would have to continually raise taxes, but governments don't do that because the population complains and they don't get re-elected. So not only is it going to be worse immediately, but it's going to get even worse as time passes.

I think you guys shouldn't be so reactionary about it. The system you have is bad, and socialized healthcare is better, but it seems to me that because people like Irock are so against it others are just championing it as the best thing ever. You have to take care to design the best possible healthcare system before it's implemented, because it's going to be next to impossible to change once it is. I think the supporters of it should be a lot more critical than they have been. I do think that worse healthcare is a morally correct tradeoff for increased access to healthcare, but there are better and worse ways to implement socialized healthcare. If the supporters of socialized healthcare are so partisan and uncritical of it because you're trying to react to proponents of the current system, then you end up rejecting good arguments that would make a socialized system better if they were considered in its implementation. I think you guys should be more careful before dismissing the arguments because, yes, the increased access is worth the costs, but it will exact a higher cost if people who support socialized healthcare aren't critical of its implementation, and I haven't seen much of that in this thread.

Of course there are problems that need to be ironed out, I agree as well. 
However I don't agree with Irock's reasons for opposing it.

If there were government controlled healthcare, I'd want only those who don't have private healthcare to pay for my medical treatment. Obviously, there would be a lot of people who use the government controlled healthcare, and a system like this could work.

I live in Canada, so obviously healthcare is socialized here and I think that it's a better system than in the States. But I think you should probably be a little cautious about it - a lot of you don't seem to be questioning the system at all, as if it's going to be equivalent or roughly equivalent to the healthcare you receive now except not as expensive. It's not going to be, especially in rural areas; it's going to get a lot worse. Cancer patients shouldn't have to wait several weeks for diagnostic surgery or treatment. Waiting times, on average, are bad in Canada, but even that average is brought up a lot by the cities. When a hospital needs new equipment, they have to petition an administrative body of the government, and the government will react faster to places with larger populations or areas that have a lot of people who would vote for their party. A majority of doctors would probably prefer to live in a city with good equipment than move to some rural town with shit for equipment. Where there is a market demand, that is an incentive - when you make the same money no matter where you go, many of the best doctors will choose cities. The fact is that as with any government program, money is going to be stretched thin, and they can't update medical services everywhere they need to. Further, the cost of providing healthcare increases with time, which means to continue high quality treatment the government would have to continually raise taxes, but governments don't do that because the population complains and they don't get re-elected. So not only is it going to be worse immediately, but it's going to get even worse as time passes.

I think you guys shouldn't be so reactionary about it. The system you have is bad, and socialized healthcare is better, but it seems to me that because people like Irock are so against it others are just championing it as the best thing ever. You have to take care to design the best possible healthcare system before it's implemented, because it's going to be next to impossible to change once it is. I think the supporters of it should be a lot more critical than they have been. I do think that worse healthcare is a morally correct tradeoff for increased access to healthcare, but there are better and worse ways to implement socialized healthcare. If the supporters of socialized healthcare are so partisan and uncritical of it because you're trying to react to proponents of the current system, then you end up rejecting good arguments that would make a socialized system better if they were considered in its implementation. I think you guys should be more careful before dismissing the arguments because, yes, the increased access is worth the costs, but it will exact a higher cost if people who support socialized healthcare aren't critical of its implementation, and I haven't seen much of that in this thread.

+ Rep

If there were government controlled healthcare, I'd want only those who don't have private healthcare to pay for my medical treatment. Obviously, there would be a lot of people who use the government controlled healthcare, and a system like this could work.

That, I would agree with Irock.

If there were government controlled healthcare, I'd want only those who don't have private healthcare to pay for my medical treatment. Obviously, there would be a lot of people who use the government controlled healthcare, and a system like this could work.

That, I would agree with Irock.

Yeah, I was thinking that, too. I was gonna point out things I thought about it which are obvious facts that anyone can derive so I can try to look smart by showing that I understand, lol.

I think you guys shouldn't be so reactionary about it. The system you have is bad, and socialized healthcare is better, but it seems to me that because people like Irock are so against it others are just championing it as the best thing ever. You have to take care to design the best possible healthcare system before it's implemented, because it's going to be next to impossible to change once it is. I think the supporters of it should be a lot more critical than they have been. I do think that worse healthcare is a morally correct tradeoff for increased access to healthcare, but there are better and worse ways to implement socialized healthcare. If the supporters of socialized healthcare are so partisan and uncritical of it because you're trying to react to proponents of the current system, then you end up rejecting good arguments that would make a socialized system better if they were considered in its implementation. I think you guys should be more careful before dismissing the arguments because, yes, the increased access is worth the costs, but it will exact a higher cost if people who support socialized healthcare aren't critical of its implementation, and I haven't seen much of that in this thread.

Good point, and admittedly, one I have have given little thought. However, given the agonizingly slow pace of American lawmaking, I would say get something on the table now, and work out the bugs as time goes by. Congress is not going to want to take time to solve problems that haven't occurred yet.

I think you guys shouldn't be so reactionary about it. The system you have is bad, and socialized healthcare is better, but it seems to me that because people like Irock are so against it others are just championing it as the best thing ever. You have to take care to design the best possible healthcare system before it's implemented, because it's going to be next to impossible to change once it is. I think the supporters of it should be a lot more critical than they have been. I do think that worse healthcare is a morally correct tradeoff for increased access to healthcare, but there are better and worse ways to implement socialized healthcare. If the supporters of socialized healthcare are so partisan and uncritical of it because you're trying to react to proponents of the current system, then you end up rejecting good arguments that would make a socialized system better if they were considered in its implementation. I think you guys should be more careful before dismissing the arguments because, yes, the increased access is worth the costs, but it will exact a higher cost if people who support socialized healthcare aren't critical of its implementation, and I haven't seen much of that in this thread.

Good point, and admittedly, one I have have given little thought. However, given the agonizingly slow pace of American lawmaking, I would say get something on the table now, and work out the bugs as time goes by. Congress is not going to want to take time to solve problems that haven't occurred yet.

I don't know that much about the system they're planning so I was trying to play it safe by just debating what I already knew of what they were talking about.

However I do totally agree with this, my great uncle lived in Toronto and was 74. He died because they refused to treat him any more than they already had, which amounted to a bed and pain killers. They said he was past his due date and they couldn't do any more.
According to my father (who's a doctor, in the US, obviously) what he had would've been very easy to fix and inexpensive.
It just sickens me that they would be so inhumane. It doesn't matter if he's going to die eventually, everybody does, but you'd think the point of becoming a doctor would be to prevent your patients' deaths for as long as you can.
Possibly because of the healthcare system they have they felt as if it wouldn't be worth their time if they just got their regular paycheck to operate on him. This is another issue, if there's a tiered system then what motivates the doctors to treat the lower tiered patients as well as they would the top tier patients? Good nature would be the only thing, but that requires all humans to be decent, which is clearly not the case.

Now I can say that insurance companies will do anything in their power (anyone from the USA will know this, but I dunno about people from other countries) to deny claims or try and get back payments. When my dad had a private practice they'd send the check and three months or so later they'd call and tell him the patient he treated didn't have coverage for what he had treated them for and they wanted their money back.
Really it's to maximize profit, you can't really blame them for wanted to be a successful business, but that's also kind of counter productive, isn't it?
If there are no doctors (private practice or not) because they don't get paid by insurance companies what are the insurance companies insuring exactly...

And what you're saying is so on the money, but unfortunately we have two Political Parties taht do just that, argue for the sake of arguing. To be redundant it seems as if all the Republicans and Democrats do is just have polar opposite opinions for the sake of not agreeing. We pay for this bullshit, that's why it takes so long, is poorly implemented and is never really balanced to work for all citizens.
If you ever read in papers or whatever about US politics (you probably don't, and nobody should blame you for it they're pigs in the end) it seems like whenever a party member agrees with the opposing party on even the tiniest issue it creates a tsunami. Crazy.
It's like Playstation and Nintendo fanboys to put it another way. @_@

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27FOMW1scw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27FOMW1scw</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27FOMW1scw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27FOMW1scw</a>

I'll watch the rest later (only got 3 minutes in), but it is your fault if you're homeless, jobless or health careless.
I'm sorry but there's no logic in saying that it isn't and I hate to take the Irock route but in some ways he's right.

We've paid for your schooling, 1st grade-12th and in some cases college as well, we've paid for you to find work and support yourself while you do. Go to good will and find a decent pair of slacks, a tie and a shirt. Go get your hair cut and shave and go apply for a job.
You're a vet that's fallen into poverty? Go find your local VA healthcare center, they'll give you a job. They'll even give you healthcare for free in most cases.
Sure the government may have screwed you once, twice, three times, but it's not our or their fault if you decided to screw yourself afterwards.

People love pity, but the fact is pity gets nothing done.

I don't have healthcare. I work more than 40 hours a week.

I maintain: even cows have enough sense to take care of the herd.

I think if the US can provide more for its citizens the citizens will be more productive, by and large. Sure there will be those who intentionally abuse the system, of that I have no doubt, but I also believe that the majority- a large enough majority to make the system work- will not.

I don't have healthcare. I work more than 40 hours a week.

Except I never mentioned healthcare outside of veterans and once in my first sentence (lol I just noticed I had written "health careless").

At the point where I stopped watching he was saying that it's not your fault if you're jobless or homeless (or don't have healthcare).
Now I can understand if you were laid off due to cut backs or the company went down. What I can't understand is trying to rationalize that it's not your fault that you signed a loan you couldn't afford, you bought a house you couldn't afford, you bought a car you couldn't afford or you're a lazy goof off, a thief or generally not a good employee. Now please tell me his logic stands higher than the Empire State Building and I'll stand corrected.
Nobody put a gun to your head and said "Sign here, please.", and even if they did, you still have the choice to decline even if it means they pull the trigger.

Now most people can get healthcare, the problem is that we're too caught up in non-necessities to notice.
Do you really need to be paying 180$/year for WoW, 158/year for Netflix and another few hundred for Cable? No, you really don't if it comes down to it. That's my problem, the people who want everything handed to them, who are too oblivious to notice when a game is set to a higher priority than an injury. Negligence my friend, that is what I think the American citizens should not be paying for.
Suffice to say, I still think insurance companies are evil and I would like to see a public option.

Irock, what you are assuming is that people are payed what they are worth. Fine if you are a professional (like a architect for example), and if you are not getting paid enough you simply do a better job and attract more (or higher paying) clients. These sorts of professions help businesses earn more money in a relatively tangible and immediate way-- for example, building a shopping mall that will lease shops to businesses.

But there are many jobs that are far removed from the paying businesses. Either the benefit is indirect, like elementary teachers giving basic education to children, some of who might one day work for your company. Or the benefit is not immediate, like the workers who clean the toilets at the architect's firm. They don't design the shopping malls, but if they stops cleaning the toilets, in a few years the architects would all get ill and eventually not do their job properly.

Maybe one day when businesses start paying the true worth the services people provide then the government won't have to step in to ensure that useful service sectors aren't underpaid.

I fail to see how businesses aren't paying the 'true' worth for the services people provide for other people. You need to elaborate or give better examples.

I'm kinda pickin' up what he's layin' down, graf. I think he means that the guy pushing buttons in the steel mill gets 30 bucks an hour while the preschool teacher raising his kids makes $7.50 at the most... and that's just not fair. It's not that the millwright's job is less important, but it's not more important, either, and that's how corporate america treats them. Or to make a more general statement, many jobs are overpaid for their contribution to society while others are underpaid.

You get payed what your employer thinks you're worth, plain and simple. And janitors are easily replaced, so I fail to see how a janitor quiting will humble a corporation.

EvilMoo, I'm going to go ahead and say that a steel mill worker is more important than a preshcool teacher. No offense (because I know mentioned that your wife is one or something), but most people I know who never went to a preschool are perfectly fine and lead successful careers.
Preschools are generally less important than the steel used to provide support for its foundation and hundreds of thousands of other use. :/
I agree with what he's trying to get to, but how he's saying it makes no sense, nor does it make for a reasonable argument.

I agree with Graf, you need to elaborate.

And here we hit the essence of a debate on socialist views; if each was given according to their need and gave according to ability, this nonsense categorization of which job is more important would not be taking place. Neither one is more important. Besides, I didn't say you couldn't funtion as an adult if you didn't go to preschool, I just meant that in the above scenario the millwright would be unable to go to his job without the teacher doing his. If the teacher's job makes the millwright's job possible, why such a pay difference?

But damn fine argument, Sir JR, and I would like to hear BE7's reasoning from him as well.

Well, in this particular instance, I think school teachers (of all grades including preschool) are more important than a guy that presses a button. I think wage should be set on how much labor goes into the job. Pressing a button doesn't labor anything but your thumb and maybe your brain if you get bored easy.

I think the architect example was a horrible example because when you pay an architect you don't just pay for his labor of design, you pay him for the supplies that he uses which pays for the services of the people that made the supplies that he uses and so on. The janitor example was bad because of what Rex stated. I think Moo's example was a better example to make his point. I understand, but is there truly that much of a difference? I'd like to think that the guy that presses the button does other things other than just pressing a button. Perhaps he spends 3 hours doing that and 5 hours doing hard labor around the factory or something. However, I'm not saying this is the case because I know that some people are hired to do just a simple job, or seemingly simple job. Some jobs may just sound easier than you think and take a great deal of skill. Like the dude that sits in a chair all day and picks up metal scraps with those magnet doohickey things and drops it else where. That shit takes some skill to become efficient at. Time is money. Anyone could probably pick up those controls and do it but you need the skill and experience to get it done right and fast.

Very interesting points graf. In the news today, getting more on topic:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-07-house-health-care-vote_N.htm

Courtesy of USA Today. Whatcha think?

Courtesy of USA Today. Whatcha think?

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

I think it sounds great, but the more I look into the second paragraph quoted, the more I can see how it could destroy private insurances companies. Which is exactly what they're trying to not do.

I need to get going, so I'll have to edit this later.

I fail to see how businesses aren't paying the 'true' worth for the services people provide for other people. You need to elaborate or give better examples.

Day Care workers who look after and nurture children are among the lowest paid in the country.

Just because Janitors are easily replaced doesn't mean they are worth less, it just means they have lesser bargaining power. If all the people who compete for Janitor jobs got their qualifications (assuming they could afford it) then there would be an oversupply of architects, bringing down the salary of every architect (except the few elite best), but there would still be unemployed architects who would then compete for janitor positions. So unless you want unemployed architect/janitors revolting in the streets the government should put things in place to help out those who can't get the best paying jobs or create better paying jobs.

I suppose its the job of a capitalist government to do all they can to encourage hard work and entrepeneurism while protecting those who haven't been able to succeed, either due to unforeseen crisis, lack of education, being born into poverty or disability.

I think it sounds great, but the more I look into the second paragraph quoted, the more I can see how it could destroy private insurances companies. Which is exactly what they're trying to not do.

You know, as much as I am a proponent of federal HC, I really don't know how I feel about what is being done right now. On one hand, go ahead and destroy the evil insurance companies. On the other, waht about those left jobless? I don't want to see anyone unemployed, it sucks.

The Socialist in me says take the jobs from insurance and put them in clean energy or education or public works or something like that, but at the same time, I thing a person's job is something they should choose for themselves. I guess I have to realize that for a society I wnt to see, we 'd have to restructure a lot of things from the ground up. It's really frustrating that what I think is good for the many in our country also impinges on our personal freedoms, but again, if something isn't done soon, there's just gonna be more troubles ahead. I wish I could say.

I need to finish the video Roph posted and watch the one on the USA today link...

Private Insurance doesn't have to be bad, if it's properly regulated and offers affordable good policies. It just has been poorly run, and I'd like to assume there's a lot more to it than "Those greedy insurance executives". I dunno, there seems to be substantial amount of evidence that says that is exactly what it is (Greedy or bad management).
If they (the government) can get the price cut, and if they can make it so the private insurance companies can't deny most claims it could be really great.

If anybody is interested, this is quite good:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=391, and here's a download.
I was listening to this when it aired but I was going in and out, so I don't recall much. I'll have to listen to it again.

Day Care workers who look after and nurture children are among the lowest paid in the country.

Because what' smore american than throwing your problems off to someone else?  jk.
I'd also like to say preschools aren't that important to the overall education, in fact I had read a study that shows it stunts abstract thinking to put young children in a daycare/preschool. If anything the parents should be homeschooling at that age instead of preschooling to develop a good relationship with their child as well as teach it the parent's morals.
It's the parents responsibility to look after and nurture the child, not a teacher. That's probably why students are so misbehaved, I'm not saying it's the teacher's fault, I'm saying it's the parent's for passing their child onto another person to raise and expecting them to raise it.

And what really makes you think the millwright needs to send its kid to a preschool for it to go to work? I'm going to assume more often than not the millwright is married or at least the child has an additional parent, and if the millwright's getting paid 30$ an hour I'm sure the millwright can afford a baby sitter (and that is not to say there aren't problems with those either).

The point I was trying to make was that without each other, our society falls apart. Going off of that, how can it be said that one individual is more or less important than the next?

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Vote Socialist.

The point I was trying to make was that without each other, our society falls apart. Going off of that, how can it be said that one individual is more or less important than the next?

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Vote Socialist.

Spoiler for Old stufff:

Oh definitely the person itself, but I wasn't thinking outside the (literally) millright and preschool...but I can see what you're getting at.

If you're looking within the same field, the more qualified person is probably going to be the first choice for many.
But, when you get to something like scientists who develop for the business and the businessmen who run the company, I see what you're saying.

EDIT:
Okay, the reason why I think your argument(s) aren't very good is because Socialism cannot work on a mass scale. I'd like to argue that it can't even work in a town with the population of 500.

Can they honestly say those who do not work shall not eat, how is that saying that every individual is just as important as the other?
If it means that based on your contribution to society, you'll be rewarded, but if you don't contribute anything of meaning to society, you'll be left to...?


In a Socialist working environment, how can the Government keep track of over 200 million citizens that go to work (200 million = wild guess) every day, and offer them equal compensation for their work?  The Government would certainly need to implement a system to police that aspect, and how wouldn't that impose upon privacy, freedom and individual needs? Without it though, it could be easily cheated.

Not being able to raise or lower the price of your product depending on the demand...the State did not make your product, why should they dictate how much it's worth and how supply and demand affect the amount of labor put into producing said product, as well as means to produce said product. It creates little to no incentive to work harder.
For that matter, why should the government tell me what kind of car I can buy? I should have the right to determine my own needs and what is truly compensation for my labor. How is this more free than working towards what you want, if you honestly want that 30 days of WoW over Health Insurance (again the Public HC option is something I want) then go for it, at least it's you choice.


That is the problem with socialism, we are not equal, in any way shape or form; mentally or physically.
What's more, if the state determines what we need most, how are they actually going to fairly determine this? The way I'd see it is that it'd be entirely up to their own personal biased opinions.

Even animals fight over superiority. The rams and bulls will fight over a female, the cow that protects its heard. How about with a strong bull that provides more protection than the losing bull? The last part is just an assumption because I don't know if bulls and rams actually stay to protect their young.


And, I don't know too much about socialism so when I say this I'm not saying it like I'm Mr. Right, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT2: I rearranged the post to make it easier to read than the CF of its former self. It was definitely all over the place.
And Moo(master), thanks, as well as Holk, for convincing me actually going back to reread this and fix the general arrangement issue.

And to elaborate, a socialist state would require a total and complete rational thought process or not only its managers but also its citizens.

Humans are entirely irrational, we're far more emotionally driven than logically driven. This poses this first big flaw of socialism.
We can be empathetic towards one and apathetic towards another; how does this work in an equal, fair community? It doesn't. Jealousy, hatred, envy, empathy, apathy, fear, etc...they can't exist exist for socialism to work, but they clearly do.

What purpose does a thief or a liar serve in a community? A burglar, a rapist, a murderer, even a solider, for that matter.

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

Okay, I realize that and agree with it, and I had mentioned it but it's now in the spoilers. Which I guess wasn't clear because of my edit's first sentence.

I was talking about the job to begin with though, because I was confused about what he originally said about the preschooler and the millwright. I never retracted my spoilered statement...

EDIT:
However, it is my understanding that part of socialism is that you get what you give. Never having lived in a socialist country puts me in the position to not exactly know how that works, but to me it seems that if you do not contribute (who dictates a good contribution?) to society you are not just as important.
If you are good friends with a high ranking official, does this make you more likely to have a good contribution? I don't know, that's what I'm wondering.

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

The way I understood it is that M00s says people are equally important, and SJR says that a person's innate worth is not based on the job they do but the quality. I mean, if you have two farmers and one does nothing and one works, obviously the worker is the better one. But idk where SJR's point went.

Better workers are more important than the bad workers. I feel as if I"m pointing out the obvious there.

Don't worry; humans have a tendency to restate the obvious. Beyond that, humans tend to forget about the obvious, too.

Aha. Thanks Moo, I've edited it for easy reading. I was at one point actually using the same analogy, but it was using office workers.

I will accept that Socialism takes a WHOLE lot of regulation to make it work, and I will further concede that the larger the scale, the more difficult this task becomes. Bravo, SJR.

I hope for a Socialist state in which this behaviour is at an absolute minimum; how this can be done, as I have stated before, I have no answer to. I do think, though, that if the US gets fed up enough with the current system, the pendulum will swing the other way and Socialist ideals will rise in this country- but only if we can provide for personal freedoms at the same time. I will reiterate that I admittedly have a tough time figuring out how this can be done.

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

Presicely what I had in mind, Holk. Thanks for the nod.

I will accept that Socialism takes a WHOLE lot of regulation to make it work, and I will further concede that the larger the scale, the more difficult this task becomes. Bravo, SJR.

And that my good sir, is my problem with it. Regulation leads to Newspeak. 


I'm just rambling here, so excuse me...
My thought is that we seem to be so focused on the shit thing that the last president did, we totally disregard the the good thing(s) they did (Nixon anyone?), making us want the other party, so we vote the Democrat or Republican depending on the last president's party into the majority, automatically assuming that their plans will cure the country of its taint for the opposite party.
Which is why I think this healthcare bill is being passed far to quickly. It's definitely a push while we're still in the after effect (and I think it's fair to say that they, The Democrats, are definitely aware of it and using it to its fullest; you can't blame, it's them smart move!) of Bush's shit storm methinks, considering how little bush did with healthcare companies. Which is when I believe they made their great reform to be to the current Decline motto. Correct me if I'm wrong there, I had heard that that is when one of the big Insurance Companies did their reform, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume the others followed around that time too.
I think if it were to be thrown around a few more terms, more drafts between different parties, it could be much better.
It seems to be quite popular, so I don't think it'd go away all of the sudden if a Republican got voted in next term.

An interesting thing though, I read that when the Constitution was written, it was written in mind that the president wouldn't exercise their power as often as they do nowadays. I heard the example that they (the Presidents) are the Fire Extinguisher behind the Glass.
It seems like the individual states' power has been fleeting over the years in favor of the President's.