A Lesson on Socialism

ZappasGuitar said:
Before a Doctor can become liscenced he must take the Hippocratic Oath.

To help the sick.

Not to help the sick who can afford it.

Do I believe Doctors should be rewarded handsomly for what they do?

ABSOLUTELY!

They are highly trained and have very special skills.

That does not mean that those with no money don't deserve the benefit of those skills.
Click to expand...

Then I challange you to walk into a Doctor's office, that you haven't dealt with before.
Tell them you don't have any insurance, don't pay them, and then go back in two weeks and get another appointment, don't pay them again, and see how long you can continue this.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then I challange you to walk into a Doctor's office, that you haven't dealt with before.
Tell them you don't have any insurance, don't pay them, and then go back in two weeks and get another appointment, don't pay them again, and see how long you can continue this.
Click to expand...

And yet people still wonder why some take minor problems to the emergency room.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
AH, BELME; you appear to be a littl out of sorts.
Maybe you should try a little more fiber in your diet.

I'll give you a perfect example.
Where I work, we used to get yearly performance based reviews and these reviews determned where you fit in for the pay raises.
They still do the reviews; but they no longer have any bearing on pay raises; because everyone gets the same percentage.
I've seen the work effort go down; because what's the purpose of acheiving more then the weakest link, if everyone gets the same percentae of increase.


Now you tell me what the incentive is for Doctor's to work within your great socialistic plan, if someone else gets to decide what they get paid??
You really need to take off those rose colored glasses and join the rest of the world in reality.
By the way, anyone can say that they've done as you say; but I've seen no proof, other then some written words.

Now how about addressing my original post, instead of running away and showing the yellow stripe that runs down your spine?
Click to expand...


So you are saying that your experience and thus your opinion of Socialism is based on your experience at the office? (Who is it that decides how YOU get paid now? Could it be a mysterious "someone else"? I'm sure it's not you.)
I gave you examples of instances in the world where the system is other than ours and works better, and all you come back in reply is your place of work?
The US ranks 26th in the world in healthcare stats, there isn't a country in the civilised world where the people would trade their healthcare system for ours. At the same time, a far greater portion of our GDP is going for healthcare than anywhere else. In other words, more cost for less product. Without the cost of healthcare on their backs, our companies wouldn't be going bankrupt or running overseas. I wonder if your employer wasn't paying for your healthcare insurance, how you would stand on a national plan.
Now, let's get to nitty gritty. I'm out of sorts? Read your own posts and say it is me acting as you do. You must be aware by now that you cannot insult me so why bother? You are but a flyspeck on my screen, part of a game, a pastime, one press of a button and you are gone. If the tone of your posts is a reflection of the quality of your life, you truly have my sympathy, and I honestly wish you better. Have a nice life
 
"Now you tell me what the incentive is for Doctor's to work within your great socialistic plan, if someone else gets to decide what they get paid??"

I can answer that as I've seen my doctor every three months for the past eleven years. Every time I see him he gets paid and it's not by me.

Now, if I had chosen another doctor he may have decided to see me every six months. So, which doctor would make more money?

The doctor gets paid each and every time. He doesn't require a secretary to bill each patient individually. It's somewhat similar to going to a store and using a credit card. The store doesn't have to bill you. The credit card company gets an electronic imprint of your CC and sends the amount to the merchant. The only difference is the doctor sends along an explanation of what he did. Regular check-up. Yearly physical. Etc. He is then paid for what he did. The more he does, the more he gets paid.

If/when a patient requires an expensive operation/procedure there is no discussion regarding cost. The doctor performs the procedure and gets paid. This way the patient gets the treatment necessary regardless of cost. Cost is not a factor when considering treatment. The decision rests solely with the doctor and other doctors he may wish to consult. The government does not interfere with the decision.

If you don't agree with your doctor's decision you are free to consult another doctor and that's free, also. How can anyone disagree with that?

Finally, as to the doctor's incentive to work the same applies to any other job. All the plumbers in a certain area will charge the same rate, otherwise, people would not call the plumber who charges outrageous fees. Similarly, all doctors in the same area charge the same, or at least should, in a non-universal plan.

Most people visiting a doctor do so for "regular" things. Appendicitis, broken bones, cuts, colds/infections.....and there are established procedures for dealing with those things. What is so terrible about having a fee scale?

Do you really want to visit a doctor whose main reason for being a doctor is to get as rich as he can as quick as he can?



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


USFREEDOM911 said:
AH, BELME; you appear to be a littl out of sorts.
Maybe you should try a little more fiber in your diet.

I'll give you a perfect example.
Where I work, we used to get yearly performance based reviews and these reviews determned where you fit in for the pay raises.
They still do the reviews; but they no longer have any bearing on pay raises; because everyone gets the same percentage.
I've seen the work effort go down; because what's the purpose of acheiving more then the weakest link, if everyone gets the same percentae of increase.


Now you tell me what the incentive is for Doctor's to work within your great socialistic plan, if someone else gets to decide what they get paid??
You really need to take off those rose colored glasses and join the rest of the world in reality.
By the way, anyone can say that they've done as you say; but I've seen no proof, other then some written words.

Now how about addressing my original post, instead of running away and showing the yellow stripe that runs down your spine?
Click to expand...
 
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

The trouble here is that no system works perfectly. Ideally all would be fine as they are theories which posit imaginary worlds peopled by ideas - not people. People lie and steal and some even do good honest things - consider only Bernie Madoff as an example. The naive assume capitalism exists is some pure form.

Socialism is clearly integrated in all major economic systems today, as workers in many areas own the means of production or own the assets of particular businesses in which they invest. Government has always entered into the market, without government there would be no market. But corporate tools like most of the wingnuts above simply worship ideas that have no relevance in reality. It makes them feel good but it is in the end meaningless blather.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

The Idolatry of Ideology Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Reagan raised taxes.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/
 
midcan5 said:
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

The trouble here is that no system works perfectly. Ideally all would be fine as they are theories which posit imaginary worlds peopled by ideas - not people. People lie and steal and some even do good honest things - consider only Bernie Madoff as an example. The naive assume capitalism exists is some pure form.

Socialism is clearly integrated in all major economic systems today, as workers in many areas own the means of production or own the assets of particular businesses in which they invest. Government has always entered into the market, without government there would be no market. But corporate tools like most of the wingnuts above simply worship ideas that have no relevance in reality. It makes them feel good but it is in the end meaningless blather.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

The Idolatry of Ideology Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Reagan raised taxes.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/
Click to expand...

Do you ever have your own thoughts or are you just a useless quote database?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Before a Doctor can become liscenced he must take the Hippocratic Oath.

To help the sick.

Not to help the sick who can afford it.

Do I believe Doctors should be rewarded handsomly for what they do?

ABSOLUTELY!

They are highly trained and have very special skills.

That does not mean that those with no money don't deserve the benefit of those skills.
Click to expand...

This doesn't absolve the people with no money the responsibility to pay their bills.
 
Trade is perverted by the totalitarian effect of fiat currency, and the favoritism shown to some corporations over others, due to corruption.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Which has nothing to do with what Zappa was professing and why are they going to the ER with a "minor problem"?
Click to expand...


Because they don't have the insurance necessary to allow them to see a Doctor for the preventative care that is helpful in avoiding something more serious.

The emergency room HAS to treat anyone who is sick.

With national health care, the ER's would stop getting flooded with people looking for a remedy for their minor problem.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked - and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer for all, for society. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

He said that all grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone was given a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who hadn't studied much for the first test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren't motivated to study hard again, and they decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed .... and the professor told them that the socialism they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed.
Click to expand...
How lame. Socialism as a stand alone economic principle does not and has not ever worked. But socialism is not just an economic system, it is a socio-economic system. It is disengenious to say the lest that socialism fails in such "all or nothing" economic sense, of course it does but socialism can and is used quite effectively by many nations, including ours, to manage very large problems regarding social contracts. These contracts are ones we agree upon as a society to serve the common good and our own best interest by sharing our common resources and in these cases it works more affectively than capitalism does. Some glaring examples;

Our system of national defense is socialized. The means of production are provided by the government (i.e. the tax payers) and within the military the needs of the many trump the needs of the individual. The military will sacrifice the individual to acheive a collective goal. Having demonstrated that point, is there anyone here in their right mind that would exchange our military system for the mercenaries of a purely capitalist military? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Our System of education is socialized. Private capitalist systems for education are all or nothing. You either have the capital to receive an education or you are figuratively in the dark. Since no capitalist entity has the capital or the profit incentive to create an educational system of sufficient quality to educate the masses of citizenry in this nation we agree to a social contract to share our collective resources to benefit the public good by socializing our educational system to educate the masses to meet the puplic good and the needs of our society. Our socialized educational systems has it's flaws and individual public schools may not be of the same quality as a single private school but in terms of educating massive numbers of the public the private capitlised school utterly fail to meet the needs of our society as a whole, only the privelaged few.

So in this light arguing socialism is a failure is not only wrong, it's a stupid argument. We have always in the history of our nation socialized certain institutions to serve the vast needs of a huge citizenry in area in which capitalist systems either are not competitive or fail completely to meet our needs.

Socialism as a stand alone economic system cannot compete with capitalism. That's a fact. But what you fail to mention, observer or consider is the limitations and failure of capitalism to solve really large problems a society may have and how that is often proves much more affective for us as a society to enter into a social contract to share our resources as a society to address these problems in more efficient and cost affective manner that a capitalist system could possibly hope to provide.

When criticizing a socialized approach to managing public policy issues one has to objectively consider the limitations and flaws of capitialism for if a stand alone socialist economic system is unworkable a lassies-faire capitalist system is a represive and brutally exploitative system that is inhumane and only benefits a few as the cost of the many and like a stand alone socialist system can only work at the point of a gun.

When considering public policy solutions to our nations problems it is perfectly valid for the peoples of this nation to determine which system is the better approach to managing problems of this nation. The capitalist approach in which problems are solved by supply and demand economic realities or a socialized system in which we collectively share our resources so that we may collectively share the benefits.
 
Last edited:
Lots of professions require skill. Some professions are target by businesses as those which are subject to commoditization, outsourcing, and degradation, while others are treated with respect and immune from 'market forces'. This kind of thinking is elitist and fascist.

Creating a class of hallowed professionals, immune from the forces of reality, is how the oligarchy perpetuates itself.
 
If the only reason a person becomes a doctor is the big bucks. They are in the wrong profession.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Lots of professions require skill. Some professions are target by businesses as those which are subject to commoditization, outsourcing, and degradation, while others are treated with respect and immune from 'market forces'. This kind of thinking is elitist and fascist.

Creating a class of hallowed professionals, immune from the forces of reality, is how the oligarchy perpetuates itself.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about and do you even know what fascism is?
 
Mottleydude said:
What the hell are you talking about and do you even know what fascism is?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the creation of an elite which is immune from the reality they force on others.

Let's look at bankers. They are supposed to allowed unlimited bonuses from the public coffers, because they are allegedly so rare and important. But yet, they will refuse loans to those corporations who will not commoditize and outsource other even MORE highly skilled professions. I'm sorry, but approving loans and calulating interest is not difficult. And creating bogus securitization schemes and dubious other financial products is actually harmful and abusive.

When the government backs such obvious disparity, it is in defacto fascist collusion with those professions.

Got it?
 
When some businesses are declared to big to fail, it is fascism.

When some professions are declared too important for their practitioners to NOT be rich, it is fascism.
 
apple0154 said:
"Now you tell me what the incentive is for Doctor's to work within your great socialistic plan, if someone else gets to decide what they get paid??"

I can answer that as I've seen my doctor every three months for the past eleven years. Every time I see him he gets paid and it's not by me.

Now, if I had chosen another doctor he may have decided to see me every six months. So, which doctor would make more money?

The doctor gets paid each and every time. He doesn't require a secretary to bill each patient individually. It's somewhat similar to going to a store and using a credit card. The store doesn't have to bill you. The credit card company gets an electronic imprint of your CC and sends the amount to the merchant. The only difference is the doctor sends along an explanation of what he did. Regular check-up. Yearly physical. Etc. He is then paid for what he did. The more he does, the more he gets paid.

If/when a patient requires an expensive operation/procedure there is no discussion regarding cost. The doctor performs the procedure and gets paid. This way the patient gets the treatment necessary regardless of cost. Cost is not a factor when considering treatment. The decision rests solely with the doctor and other doctors he may wish to consult. The government does not interfere with the decision.

If you don't agree with your doctor's decision you are free to consult another doctor and that's free, also. How can anyone disagree with that?

Finally, as to the doctor's incentive to work the same applies to any other job. All the plumbers in a certain area will charge the same rate, otherwise, people would not call the plumber who charges outrageous fees. Similarly, all doctors in the same area charge the same, or at least should, in a non-universal plan.

Most people visiting a doctor do so for "regular" things. Appendicitis, broken bones, cuts, colds/infections.....and there are established procedures for dealing with those things. What is so terrible about having a fee scale?

Do you really want to visit a doctor whose main reason for being a doctor is to get as rich as he can as quick as he can?



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

I'm done with you apple.
You done nothing but show that you are unable to address what anyone else posts and will only discuss things on your terms.
You and the rest of my detractors can pat yourselves on the back; but maybe someday you'll grow up and will see how things truly are and not how you WISH they were.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Because they don't have the insurance necessary to allow them to see a Doctor for the preventative care that is helpful in avoiding something more serious.

The emergency room HAS to treat anyone who is sick.

With national health care, the ER's would stop getting flooded with people looking for a remedy for their minor problem.
Click to expand...

If they can't afford insurance, then how are they going to afford a National Health Care system??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top