American Socialism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

Well, equality is one of the central ideas of socialism.

But I didn't mean it as a serious comparison. I was just giving a silly counterexample to the usual silly "well Stalin was a socialist, so all socialists are like Stalin" argument.

---

Aha. I just never thought of it as any endorsement of socialism, more likely the opposite. Since all men are created equal, they should all have equal opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Aha. I just never thought of it as any endorsement of socialism, more likely the opposite. Since all men are created equal, they should all have equal opportunities.

---

Tell that to are govt.! I wonder what they would argue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Socialized medicine is the hallmark of a civilized society and would well befit a nation as inherently great as the US of A.

As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?

---

The Canadian Supreme Court found that citizens died while on waiting lists for treatments. How is that civilized?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The Canadian Supreme Court found that citizens died while on waiting lists for treatments. How is that civilized?

CR

---

And that doesnt happen in your system?

Hey buddy, here in America we can choose between bankrupting our families or dying of a disease we can't afford to treat. That's freedom, you unwashed foreigner. Don't you dare question our freedom.

Not as such. People die on waiting lists for organs, but that's due to a shortage of organs, not doctors and treatment. No one dies because the government says other people must have the treatment first. But then, since we don't have socialist health care, we don't have great shortages of doctors. Socialist fiddling with markets will inevitably create shortages when a good's cost is kept below market levels.

We need more consumer control over their health care dollars; the opposite of socialism, and tort reform like that in Texas which has decreased insurance premiums. Look at how Wal-Mart has provided very low cost medicines.

Socialism in general I despise. Now, I think workers should be able to unionize (though it rarely helps) but that the government should stay out of business and not favor any side.

But socialism is simply a drag on the economy that negatively hurts everyone even if it does help a select few (like the unemployed - why should they get benefits for not being able to find a job?). Though that is different from helping out those who can't find work due to illness, injury, etc.

@Lemur - would you like to answer my question to Beirut or set up strawmen?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.

However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly

• Bonding contracts
• Equality of information
• Property rights
• Competition

... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.

Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.

There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.

Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...

So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.

On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.

So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.

---

Great post, Lemur

I was thinking this the other day. My father hurt his knee while outside. He had to see a specialized doctor, get an MRI, and most likely get his knee cut open by a specialized surgeon.

All of this is going to cost in the thousands of dollars. Luckily for our family we have good health insurance and we pay a small deductible and the insurance company covers 80% of the costs.

Although 80% is covered, we are still on the hook for a couple grand. Now my family inst fabulously wealthy, but we are fairly well off. If this is a pain in the ass for us, I'm wondering how the average American gets this done without such good health insurance.

Health care really is a tricky business. On one hand I really don't want government run medicine, but on the other hand the current situation is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hey buddy, here in America we can choose between bankrupting our families or dying of a disease we can't afford to treat. That's freedom, you unwashed foreigner. Don't you dare question our freedom.

---

Here in Euro Socializtan we can only wait for death in home,park or local pub since the line to treatment is so long. Thank God a at least the funeral services are private owned, otherwise we might be rotting in line waiting to get buried.:laugh4:
EDIT: With all seriousness CR things are not as black and white you make them look. For example here in cold Northern swamp called Finland, you have public healthcare, but also private clinics, if you want and can afford to get private health services. The public services cover all the basic needs, but if you dislike the public services you can have a private insurance and use private services. Weirdly enough our public healthcare isnt known for its lack of efficiency and by your standard of thinking should have been overrun by the private services, which has not happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

@Lemur - would you like to answer my question to Beirut or set up strawmen?

---

I make a silly joke, and this is your humorless response? Geez, Rabbit, either respond in kind or stay off the green. You've gotten so dour lately. What's wrong, dude?

-edit-

Remember that silly Dunkin' Donuts scarf thread? I get the feeling you went all the way through that without cracking a smile. Let the silly in again, Rabbit. Look to your namesake! How can a Crazed Rabbit be sour-mouthed and sober all the time?

The problem with socialism in America is that we just aren't wired for it. Long ago, people came to this country to do their own thing, be left alone, and to generally extend their middle fingers across the water when they got off the boat. It will take a long time for this individualistic mentality to transform to something more suited to a large national community.

And the fact that we can't trust our government to do anything right doesn't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I make a silly joke, and this is your humorless response? Geez, Rabbit, either respond in kind or stay off the green. You've gotten so dour lately. What's wrong, dude?

---

:shrug: It seemed like more than simply a joke. I mean, I'm all for 'why do you hate freedom' jokes, but I took a bit of umbrage at the suggestion people have to choose between bankruptcy and health. Meh. Probably shouldn't have, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Remember that silly Dunkin' Donuts scarf thread? I get the feeling you went all the way through that without cracking a smile. Let the silly in again, Rabbit. Look to your namesake! How can a Crazed Rabbit be sour-mouthed and sober all the time?

---

I guess I'm just a bit crazy. :beam:

But I shall try to be more crazy-funny instead of crazy-somber.

Quote:

---

EDIT: With all seriousness CR things are not as black and white you make them look. For example here in cold Northern swamp called Finland, you have public healthcare, but also private clinics, if you want and can afford to get private health services. The public services cover all the basic needs, but if you dislike the public services you can have a private insurance and use private services. Weirdly enough our public healthcare isnt known for its lack of efficiency and by your standard of thinking should have been overrun by the private services, which has not happened.

---

That's nice, but in Canada private hospitals aren't allowed (though that might be changing in some recent court cases). I recall Beirut vigorously defending not letting anyone purchase private medical care.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The Canadian Supreme Court found that citizens died while on waiting lists for treatments. How is that civilized?

CR

---

And Americans have died for lack of money to buy insurance and have died because their insurance, even when paid for, cut them off when they needed it most.

At least with socialized medicine the basic tenet of caring for all people equally is intact. What a marvelous statement of principle for a country to live by. For a country not to live by this principle is quite simply ghastly and socially backwards.

I'm with the canadian here.



Canada! The country of big forests, snow and medical treatment for everyone!! :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

And Americans have died for lack of money to buy insurance and have died because their insurance, even when paid for, cut them off when they needed it most.

At least with socialized medicine the basic tenet of caring for all people equally is intact. What a marvelous statement of principle for a country to live by. For a country not to live by this principle is quite simply ghastly and socially backwards.

---

So the principles triumph over the actual results, then?

Huh.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So the principles triumph over the actual results, then?

Huh.

CR

---

For the results to triumph would require that the results on average are better in the US... :juggle:

Isn't the original point with medicare and medicaid to correct the lack of insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So the principles triumph over the actual results, then?

Huh.

CR

---

Principles are the foundations of civilized nations and where social programs begin. If a plan is merely a common base for changes, then one should start with a good plan. Socialized medicine is a sound principle and a good plan.

As for results, Canada has a higher life expectancy for women and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Our cancer death rates are within a percentage point of each other as far as I can tell. So it's not like we're living in Outer Oogabooga where the doctor comes to town once a month on a donkey.

In Canada the sick are sometimes told, "Come back later." In the US the sick are sometimes told, "Don't come back at all."

I'll stick with my system.

If one looks at the passages of these two remarkable documents, they say a lot about principles, the common good, and even about the people being happy. Looks like sound socialism to me. :sunny:

Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

US Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


God Bless America :unitedstates:

If you're so keen on the idea, you can pay the taxes for it, too. We don't fund Social Security nor Medicare, we have a ballooning debt and McCain won't leave Iraq for a hundred years. Ultimately we will, of course, when our economy collapses, of course. And Bush's tax cuts aren't going to change it one way or another.

I've gotta ask - Why do some of you people even care?
I mean think about it, how the heck will it affect you in the long run if your not in America? It all seems pretty stupid to me.

Is it just good gossip or something?:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Principles are the foundations of civilized nations and where social programs begin. If a plan is merely a common base for changes, then one should start with a good plan. Socialized medicine is a sound principle and a good plan.

As for results, Canada has a higher life expectancy for women and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Our cancer death rates are within a percentage point of each other as far as I can tell. So it's not like we're living in Outer Oogabooga where the doctor comes to town once a month on a donkey.

In Canada the sick are sometimes told, "Come back later." In the US the sick are sometimes told, "Don't come back at all."

I'll stick with my system.

---

Correlation doesn't equal causation, Beirut. I'll it at that.

Quote:

---

If one looks at the passages of these two remarkable documents, they say a lot about principles, the common good, and even about the people being happy. Looks like sound socialism to me.

Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

US Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


God Bless America

---

It's funny you mention these two documents. The declaration holds no legal weight, and the ironic thing about your post is, I find no where in the US Constitution that allows the government to regulate health care. The preamble doesn't do a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I make a silly joke, and this is your humorless response? Geez, Rabbit, either respond in kind or stay off the green. You've gotten so dour lately. What's wrong, dude?

-edit-

Remember that silly Dunkin' Donuts scarf thread? I get the feeling you went all the way through that without cracking a smile. Let the silly in again, Rabbit. Look to your namesake! How can a Crazed Rabbit be sour-mouthed and sober all the time?

---

Will the "funny bone" be covered under the new socialized system? Funny bone, hu, get it!!! Yuk, yuk, yuk, OK, I'll go back to my drinking now....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Principles are the foundations of civilized nations and where social programs begin. If a plan is merely a common base for changes, then one should start with a good plan. Socialized medicine is a sound principle and a good plan.

As for results, Canada has a higher life expectancy for women and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Our cancer death rates are within a percentage point of each other as far as I can tell. So it's not like we're living in Outer Oogabooga where the doctor comes to town once a month on a donkey.

In Canada the sick are sometimes told, "Come back later." In the US the sick are sometimes told, "Don't come back at all."

I'll stick with my system.

---

You still haven't explained how having people die while on waiting lists is 'civilized'. Imagine a nation, a wealthy, industrialized western nation that claims to take care of its citizens' medical needs, but lets some die as they wait for medical treatments. That doesn't sound very civilized. Indeed, it sounds like a huge problem; a huge failure of the state in the duties it has assumed.

You know the original draft for the DoI included the right of property? Something socialism tramples over with abandon.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You know the original draft for the DoI included the right of property? Something socialism tramples over with abandon.

CR

---

Hmm? Please explain how socialism in of itself tramples this right. We've got socialism now, yet people aren't getting kicked out of their houses or having their actual property stolen.:inquisitive: Btw, nice red herring anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Correlation doesn't equal causation, Beirut. I'll it at that.

---

Cor-a-who doesn't cause a what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

IThe declaration holds no legal weight,

---

I never said it did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

...and the ironic thing about your post is, I find no where in the US Constitution that allows the government to regulate health care. The preamble doesn't do a thing.

---

Neither does the Constitution allow the government to regulate airplanes and nuclear reactors, but they do anyway. Also, the Constitution is a working document, open to amendments. There is nothing in the Constititution that forbids either the regulation of health care nor the future inclusion of a health care amendment in the Constitution itself.

The premable, regardless, is a thing of literary beauty and meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Hmm? Please explain how socialism in of itself tramples this right. We've got socialism now, yet people aren't getting kicked out of their houses or having their actual property stolen.:inquisitive: Btw, nice red herring anyways.

---

The government takes your property for "the greater good" - wealth redistribution. The point is the founding fathers were not socialists.

Quote:

---

Cor-a-who doesn't cause a what?

---

The correlation between longer lives and socialist medicine in Canada does not mean socialized medicine causes longer lives (causation).

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If one looks at the passages of these two remarkable documents, they say a lot about principles, the common good, and even about the people being happy. Looks like sound socialism to me. :sunny:

---

Funny- I don't see anything of the sort in those excerpts. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The government takes your property for "the greater good" - wealth redistribution. The point is the founding fathers were not socialists.

---

:inquisitive: That implies that there should be NO government whatsoever; how else it it supposed to fund anything other than through taxes or sale of goods? The founding fathers realized that NO taxation whatsoever didn't work when the Articles of Confederation left the government totally impotent; why do you think they scrapped it 6 years after it was signed into legislation?

You don't understand, it does not imply that. Redistribution of wealth is different from taxes to build roads and the like.

CR

Why are taxes to build roads so fundamentally different from taxes to build hospitals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The correlation between longer lives and socialist medicine in Canada does not mean socialized medicine causes longer lives (causation).

CR

---

Actually, I know what he meant, but that kind of talk makes me dizzy.

It's a combination of factors, obviously, that lead to a longer life span and lower infant mortality rate, but the state of one's access to a good health service should be counted as one of those factors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Funny- I don't see anything of the sort in those excerpts.

---

Perhaps because you're not a roaring left-leaning sentimentalist like me. But I see lots in there that goes beyond the "every-man-for-himself" tenet that some read into the American Dream.

This line for example: laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Beauty! Twice in the DoI they mention the word happiness. How cool is that! How does a conservative (which I feel I may tag you as without worry of insult) interpret that word and its use in a document such as this?