Socialism

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.