Understanding Socialism

[midcan5]

Another meaningless jibber japper of words from JPP poet of the absurd, the southern Wonder.

I have often wondered at the meeting of the far right and far left in a sort of ideological circle. One side starts with the premise that the natural world will create nirvana; the other side starts with the premise that an unnatural world will create nirvana. How is that final fait accompli possible?

In the end both extreme world views are the same as both posit what I would define as magic. Of course one has to consider history in this thought exercise, but for the sake of debate let's assume social and economic evolution has arrived somewhere in the twentieth century.

So what do we see then. We see the communists (there have never been any genuine socialist societies) imposing a world of control that has as its final goal the removal of all constraints, utopia in other words. And we see on the other side a removal of all constraints, freedom in other words leading to utopia. One starts from total control and the other no control, but both somehow arrive at the same place. Throw in a few totalitarians and you pretty much have all the extreme ideologues.

But what is this utopia they arrive at? Ah, there's the rub for the goal remains illusive, how would we know we arrived?

But here is where Dixie and other reactionaries are lost - they keep beating an imaginary foe for what else can they do. Today in America we have only reactionaries and progressives, throw out all the old labels or keep them, doesn't really matter. We move forward, and no amount of labeling changes anything. Oh, and it is a slow progression but obvious from Monday mornings.

 

[DamnYankee]

Another meaningless jibber japper of words from JPP poet of the absurd, the southern Wonder.....

How ironic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It sounds like you're saying the only reason people work is to have health care? Perhaps you'd like to clarify your post?

That's not what I said, my post doesn't need clarification, you just need to learn to comprehend what you read.

Since you raise that point, it is interesting to note, that is precisely why many people DO work in the private sector, for the benefits of insurance, pension, vacation, etc. In many cases, they could probably make more money working under the table, but the security factor wouldn't be there.

My point is not talking about people working for health care, it is talking about people being motivated to find solutions to problems in health care. When you have a capitalist system, you can develop motivations for finding solutions to problems through capitalist means. One insurance company might want to provide a service the others don't, in order to secure more business and profits. If they have the motivation of profit, they will strive to deliver a better product than their competition, and the consumer benefits from this. With a single-payer Socialist system, where is the motivation to provide the consumer with anything more? It simply doesn't exist, there is no motivation! You will get what everybody else gets, and you'll be happy with it, because you don't have any other choice.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Apple... case in point....

When I was a young boy, we often visited my great-aunt who lived in rural Alabama. She was old and disabled, and on government assistance. One of the things she got, was 'commodities' from a government truck which would deliver once per month, cheese, peanut butter, cereal, etc. These products were the staples of life for most recipients, and they did not complain one bit! However, the 'quality' of the products was anything BUT top drawer. The peanut butter had to be 'mixed' because it had natural oils on top, and it was gritty and bland. Nothing like the commercial products in the store. Same with the cheese and cereal, very sub-par compared to their commercial counterparts.

This is a good example of what I am talking about. When government controls the monopoly, there is no competition, and no motivation to provide anything more than basic need. The government didn't have to worry about a competitor giving the 'customer' a better product, because no one could compete with the government price of 'free' and they knew it. Without the motivation of competition, the capitalist market, the government didn't have to worry about the quality of the peanut butter.... it didn't matter, and the government didn't care. Such will be the case with your health care.

 

[apple0154]

I understand you have to stretch my point into something absurd that I didn't say. This is becoming a common tactic from the left, who have no basis for their arguments. We are talking about Socialism vs. Capitalism. Nationalized health care is just one tiny part of an overall socialist system. The same socialist principles can be applied to anything, if we can apply them to our health care, the most intimate aspect of our lives!

My point is not that we would have nothing to strive for, it is that we wouldn't have a reason to strive for anything, government controls it! What would be the purpose of developing a capitalist solution to the health care problem, once a socialist solution is in place? Both systems can't work together, they don't work together in any other aspect, and it's ridiculous to presume they would in this case. You are effectively killing the capitalist system, and replacing it with a socialist system, which will eventually be rife with corruption and fail, but in the interim, will destroy the quality of health care and availability in America.

"Eventually be rife with corruption and fail?" What is "eventually"?

While France's health care has undergone many changes it was first established in 1945. Canada....1968. England.....1948. Australia....1975. Germany....1948. Scotland.....1948.

We keep hearing doomsayers talking about failure, meanwhile, 40 or 50 or 60 years have passed. So, what is "eventually"? Or, asked another way, can you point to one country where universal health did fail and the country reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system?

As it stands now your assertion is purely hypothetical. There isn't one instance where universal health care has collapsed. Not one in over 60 years.

So, while technology and innovation and education and better nutrition and the general wealth of the planet has increased the voice of doom continues to bellow. Hmmmmm.

 

[apple0154]

People already have a minimum of necessities, you can't give me one single solitary example to the contrary. We provide free medical care for the elderly and the poor through Medicare and Medicaid. We provide (on the state level) free health clinics for anyone who can't afford medical care. We are currently paying (on average) 25% or more of our pay in taxes, to pay for programs to benefit the needy. All of this knee-jerk emotionalism about the poor and needy who don't have minimal care, is preposterous! You keep repeating it as if it's a proven fact, and you've offered absolutely NOTHING to support it. I keep bringing up facts that clearly contradict this, but you just keep ignoring them.

I am not following what you are saying about corruption, but I can tell you this.... When the GOVERNMENT is in control of everything related to health care, there will be no transparency, nothing will be public except what they want to be public. If you believe there is no corruption in government programs, you are a fool.

You have been given links to bankruptcy cases due to medical bills. Do a Google if you can't remember them.

 

[apple0154]

That's not what I said, my post doesn't need clarification, you just need to learn to comprehend what you read.

Since you raise that point, it is interesting to note, that is precisely why many people DO work in the private sector, for the benefits of insurance, pension, vacation, etc. In many cases, they could probably make more money working under the table, but the security factor wouldn't be there.

My point is not talking about people working for health care, it is talking about people being motivated to find solutions to problems in health care. When you have a capitalist system, you can develop motivations for finding solutions to problems through capitalist means. One insurance company might want to provide a service the others don't, in order to secure more business and profits. If they have the motivation of profit, they will strive to deliver a better product than their competition, and the consumer benefits from this. With a single-payer Socialist system, where is the motivation to provide the consumer with anything more? It simply doesn't exist, there is no motivation! You will get what everybody else gets, and you'll be happy with it, because you don't have any other choice.

Where is the motivation to improve the armed forces and security? Are they not government controlled?

Where was the motivation to improve the universal medical plans in dozens of countries? Why has almost every country adjusted their plans over time?

Why do people who work for the government come up with new ideas, be it the mail room boy who figures out a more efficient system to the head of a department?

Just because the government runs something does not mean it stays stagnant.

The motivation is the people. When the people decide they require a service or an improvement in a service they vote in people who will change it. It happens all the time.

 

[apple0154]

Apple... case in point....

When I was a young boy, we often visited my great-aunt who lived in rural Alabama. She was old and disabled, and on government assistance. One of the things she got, was 'commodities' from a government truck which would deliver once per month, cheese, peanut butter, cereal, etc. These products were the staples of life for most recipients, and they did not complain one bit! However, the 'quality' of the products was anything BUT top drawer. The peanut butter had to be 'mixed' because it had natural oils on top, and it was gritty and bland. Nothing like the commercial products in the store. Same with the cheese and cereal, very sub-par compared to their commercial counterparts.

This is a good example of what I am talking about. When government controls the monopoly, there is no competition, and no motivation to provide anything more than basic need. The government didn't have to worry about a competitor giving the 'customer' a better product, because no one could compete with the government price of 'free' and they knew it. Without the motivation of competition, the capitalist market, the government didn't have to worry about the quality of the peanut butter.... it didn't matter, and the government didn't care. Such will be the case with your health care.

Health care doesn't work that way. The poor are not the majority. If the majority of citizens are receiving what they consider sub-par "anything" they vote out the government.

The motivation is the guy with the government job will be out of work if he/she doesn't come up with a better idea and there is no shortage of people offering ideas. Sort of like "opinions".

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I did say "perhaps".

So basically you have no idea (as usual) and just decided that you had to see your words in print.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You really do have a comprehension problem.

Not any more of a problem, then your inability to think rationally.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Apple... case in point....

When I was a young boy, we often visited my great-aunt who lived in rural Alabama. She was old and disabled, and on government assistance. One of the things she got, was 'commodities' from a government truck which would deliver once per month, cheese, peanut butter, cereal, etc. These products were the staples of life for most recipients, and they did not complain one bit! However, the 'quality' of the products was anything BUT top drawer. The peanut butter had to be 'mixed' because it had natural oils on top, and it was gritty and bland. Nothing like the commercial products in the store. Same with the cheese and cereal, very sub-par compared to their commercial counterparts.

This is a good example of what I am talking about. When government controls the monopoly, there is no competition, and no motivation to provide anything more than basic need. The government didn't have to worry about a competitor giving the 'customer' a better product, because no one could compete with the government price of 'free' and they knew it. Without the motivation of competition, the capitalist market, the government didn't have to worry about the quality of the peanut butter.... it didn't matter, and the government didn't care. Such will be the case with your health care.

I'll never forget that damn canned beef.
At least Spam could be tasted.

 

[apple0154]

Not any more of a problem, then your inability to think rationally.

You talking about being rational?

Name one country that reverted to the "pay or suffer" system. Just one.

Do you know why they don't include premature births in the statistics? Do you know the difference between a premature birth and a miscarriage? Or are you just writing to see your words in print?

Well, I suppose being accused of not including miscarriages in statistics is not as serious as being accused of wanting to kill Grandpa, huh?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You talking about being rational?

Name one country that reverted to the "pay or suffer" system. Just one.

Do you know why they don't include premature births in the statistics? Do you know the difference between a premature birth and a miscarriage? Or are you just writing to see your words in print?

Well, I suppose being accused of not including miscarriages in statistics is not as serious as being accused of wanting to kill Grandpa, huh?

That's it apple, keep flogging that agenda.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Eventually be rife with corruption and fail?" What is "eventually"?

While France's health care has undergone many changes it was first established in 1945. Canada....1968. England.....1948. Australia....1975. Germany....1948. Scotland.....1948.

We keep hearing doomsayers talking about failure, meanwhile, 40 or 50 or 60 years have passed. So, what is "eventually"? Or, asked another way, can you point to one country where universal health did fail and the country reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system?

As it stands now your assertion is purely hypothetical. There isn't one instance where universal health care has collapsed. Not one in over 60 years.

So, while technology and innovation and education and better nutrition and the general wealth of the planet has increased the voice of doom continues to bellow. Hmmmmm.

You keep making the same absurd argument. It's like saying, homeless people must prefer being homeless, none of them have moved back into homes! Surely, if homeless people didn't like being homeless, they would go find a home to live in, wouldn't they???? That's the ABSURD point you keep making with socialized health care! These countries who have abandoned a capitalist system for a socialist system, have no home to return to! It's GONE! What part of that do you not understand, moron? Once we destroy the insurance companies and the capitalist health care industry, it is GONE... never will return! We will have no choice but to stay with a socialized government-controlled system then! You act like these insurance companies and health care providers are just going to sit around for a few decades, waiting for the American people to come back! Do you not comprehend, they will not be able to pay their bills without customers? They can't stay in business and hope that people come back to the capitalist system one day, it doesn't work like that. When we socialize medicine, the capitalist system dies, and it will never be revived again. THAT is why these countries never go back, they CAN'T!

There is no hypothetical, it is a proven fact that Socialist systems are inferior to Capitalist systems, across the board, in every aspect of human endeavor, without exception. I presented the reason for this, it's not just coincidence, there is a tangible reason Socialist systems fail and Capitalist systems prosper. It is the human spirit! Capitalism enables humans to achieve, innovate, create, improve... the motive is profit! Socialist systems have no motivation of human spirit, they stifle creativity, innovation, and achievement, and eventually fail. It has happened over and over again in history, and you can look at the socialist systems we've put in place in our own country, for prime examples... the postal service.... VA Hospitals... social services... all inferior at providing the best product to the consumer, because there is no profit motive, there is no incentive for achievement.

 

[apple0154]

You keep making the same absurd argument. It's like saying, homeless people must prefer being homeless, none of them have moved back into homes! Surely, if homeless people didn't like being homeless, they would go find a home to live in, wouldn't they???? That's the ABSURD point you keep making with socialized health care! These countries who have abandoned a capitalist system for a socialist system, have no home to return to! It's GONE! What part of that do you not understand, moron?

What part of "there are always people ready and willing to make a living off the suffering of others" don't you understand? Countries with universal medical have doctors and investors just waiting to jump on the "pay or suffer" wagon. In some countries they have top lawyers fighting in court to regain the privilege of benefiting off the suffering of others so it is your argument that is absurd.

Once we destroy the insurance companies and the capitalist health care industry, it is GONE... never will return! We will have no choice but to stay with a socialized government-controlled system then! You act like these insurance companies and health care providers are just going to sit around for a few decades, waiting for the American people to come back! Do you not comprehend, they will not be able to pay their bills without customers? They can't stay in business and hope that people come back to the capitalist system one day, it doesn't work like that. When we socialize medicine, the capitalist system dies, and it will never be revived again. THAT is why these countries never go back, they CAN'T!

That is craziness! For the love of God do some research. Doctors and insurance companies and investors are fighting and scrambling to get a piece of the action.

It's been over forty (40) years since Canada implemented universal medical and there are still people in court trying to get their hands on the health care dollars. Forty years later and doctors and investors are fighting for the right to set up shop. Forty years!

Do you understand? There are doctors who were not even born when universal medical started and they are spending money on lawyers to be able to open a shop. Why? Because they know a sick person will try anything to get well. It is nature that all living creatures fight to keep living and they know some people will spend their last dime on any thread of hope.

There is no hypothetical, it is a proven fact that Socialist systems are inferior to Capitalist systems, across the board, in every aspect of human endeavor, without exception. I presented the reason for this, it's not just coincidence, there is a tangible reason Socialist systems fail and Capitalist systems prosper. It is the human spirit! Capitalism enables humans to achieve, innovate, create, improve... the motive is profit! Socialist systems have no motivation of human spirit, they stifle creativity, innovation, and achievement, and eventually fail. It has happened over and over again in history, and you can look at the socialist systems we've put in place in our own country, for prime examples... the postal service.... VA Hospitals... social services... all inferior at providing the best product to the consumer, because there is no profit motive, there is no incentive for achievement.

You have a very low opinion of humanity.

People do get rewarded for their work under a universal medical system. The difference is one person is not outrageously compensated for nothing more than having a persuasive personality. When a physician’s “value” is judged not by their medical prowess but by their salesmanship something is terribly wrong. When the bulk of a physician’s income is derived from recruiting patients for an institution as opposed to the actual medical services he/she performs they are in the wrong line of work.

You confuse social programs with political Socialism. It is possible and, indeed, preferable to have a capitalist political system with social programs.

Do some research. There are numerous opinion polls taken in countries with universal plans. The vast majority of people like them and want them. Is it so difficult to figure out why?


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

You keep making the same absurd argument. It's like saying, homeless people must prefer being homeless, none of them have moved back into homes! Surely, if homeless people didn't like being homeless, they would go find a home to live in, wouldn't they???? That's the ABSURD point you keep making with socialized health care! These countries who have abandoned a capitalist system for a socialist system, have no home to return to! It's GONE! What part of that do you not understand, moron? Once we destroy the insurance companies and the capitalist health care industry, it is GONE... never will return! We will have no choice but to stay with a socialized government-controlled system then! You act like these insurance companies and health care providers are just going to sit around for a few decades, waiting for the American people to come back! Do you not comprehend, they will not be able to pay their bills without customers? They can't stay in business and hope that people come back to the capitalist system one day, it doesn't work like that. When we socialize medicine, the capitalist system dies, and it will never be revived again. THAT is why these countries never go back, they CAN'T!

There is no hypothetical, it is a proven fact that Socialist systems are inferior to Capitalist systems, across the board, in every aspect of human endeavor, without exception. I presented the reason for this, it's not just coincidence, there is a tangible reason Socialist systems fail and Capitalist systems prosper. It is the human spirit! Capitalism enables humans to achieve, innovate, create, improve... the motive is profit! Socialist systems have no motivation of human spirit, they stifle creativity, innovation, and achievement, and eventually fail. It has happened over and over again in history, and you can look at the socialist systems we've put in place in our own country, for prime examples... the postal service.... VA Hospitals... social services... all inferior at providing the best product to the consumer, because there is no profit motive, there is no incentive for achievement.

 

[KingCondanomation]

What part of "there are always people ready and willing to make a living off the suffering of others" don't you understand? Countries with universal medical have doctors and investors just waiting to jump on the "pay or suffer" wagon. In some countries they have top lawyers fighting in court to regain the privilege of benefiting off the suffering of others so it is your argument that is absurd.



That is craziness! For the love of God do some research. Doctors and insurance companies and investors are fighting and scrambling to get a piece of the action.

It's been over forty (40) years since Canada implemented universal medical and there are still people in court trying to get their hands on the health care dollars. Forty years later and doctors and investors are fighting for the right to set up shop. Forty years!

Do you understand? There are doctors who were not even born when universal medical started and they are spending money on lawyers to be able to open a shop. Why? Because they know a sick person will try anything to get well. It is nature that all living creatures fight to keep living and they know some people will spend their last dime on any thread of hope.



You have a very low opinion of humanity.

People do get rewarded for their work under a universal medical system. The difference is one person is not outrageously compensated for nothing more than having a persuasive personality. When a physician’s “value” is judged not by their medical prowess but by their salesmanship something is terribly wrong. When the bulk of a physician’s income is derived from recruiting patients for an institution as opposed to the actual medical services he/she performs they are in the wrong line of work.

You confuse social programs with political Socialism. It is possible and, indeed, preferable to have a capitalist political system with social programs.

Do some research. There are numerous opinion polls taken in countries with universal plans. The vast majority of people like them and want them. Is it so difficult to figure out why?


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

Shouldn't a sick person be allowed to do anything to get well, including spending on private healthcare if public healthcare isn't going to be there in time for them?
Those private entities that are fighting for a right to do business in healthcare are looking to make money of course but the end result is they are performing healthcare and bettering people's lives.
The Supreme Court of Canada even recently struck down Quebec's ban on using private insurance for services covered under medicare.

""Four of the court's seven judges involved in the decision wrote that the ban was in violation of the province's Chart of Rights:

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."

"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."

But the country's top court was divided on whether the Canadian Charter of Rights has been violated. One judge abstained so the vote was split 3-3.

The ruling means that Quebecers can essentially begin paying for health services immediately. "
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118315110253_28/?hub=TopStories

 

[Jarod]

You label it socialism, that is just silly.

Compared to what?

It would be like me calling Reganonomics Facism merely because it was closer on the spectrum toward that extreem.....

 

[KingCondanomation]

You label it socialism, that is just silly.

Compared to what?

It would be like me calling Reganonomics Facism merely because it was closer on the spectrum toward that extreem.....

I have never heard a single criticism from left or right about supply side economics being fascist, greedy sure, fascist never.
The government taking over a sector of the economy or regulating it to the point where it is more run by the government is socialistic.

 

[apple0154]

Shouldn't a sick person be allowed to do anything to get well, including spending on private healthcare if public healthcare isn't going to be there in time for them?
Those private entities that are fighting for a right to do business in healthcare are looking to make money of course but the end result is they are performing healthcare and bettering people's lives.
The Supreme Court of Canada even recently struck down Quebec's ban on using private insurance for services covered under medicare.

""Four of the court's seven judges involved in the decision wrote that the ban was in violation of the province's Chart of Rights:

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."

"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."

But the country's top court was divided on whether the Canadian Charter of Rights has been violated. One judge abstained so the vote was split 3-3.

The ruling means that Quebecers can essentially begin paying for health services immediately. "
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118315110253_28/?hub=TopStories

Here's the problem. In Canada, one chooses their own doctor and the government pays a set price for treatments. Should private clinics arise a doctor may work for one and charge whatever they feel like charging. When things are slow, lack of paying patients, the doctor will once again treat patients under the government pay guidelines.

When the situation changes, paying patients increase, the doctor will no longer want to work under the government guidelines so that doctor will no longer be available for people under the universal plan.

Obviously, the universal plan will fail because the time when doctors are needed they will not be available.

There has been talk of restricting doctors to either the universal plan or private practice. (Actually, all doctors have a private practice. It's just that most agree to work under the government guidelines.)

Also, if one purchases their own insurance or pays a doctor directly naturally they are going to complain about their tax dollars going to the universal plan as they won't be using it. Thus, another hit to the universal plan.

It's not a clear cut case of someone having the right to pay for medical services. The doctors will abuse the system by claiming they have the right to work under the universal plan when times are slow resulting in what I previously mentioned.

Imagine a company trying to operate where employees would work at times convenient to them.

Also, what happens to the patient under the universal plan? Half way through treatment or having scheduled an operation they find out the doctor isn't available because he's attending to someone who is paying him more.

A universal plan can't operate that way.

If push comes to shove the government can invoke the "Notwithstanding Clause" meaning they can override the courts. That clause requires renewal every five years.

As I mentioned on other occasions many boomers have become financially successful so medical expenses are not a major concern to them. They have money and want service.

The following generations have not been so successful. In fact, it's been noted the children of boomers may be the first generation to not surpass the previous generation, financially speaking. That means the healthy, young people of today are going to run into problems when they reach an age requiring medical attention. Simply put, they will not have the money for medical care and we'll be right back to square one.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do you understand? There are doctors who were not even born when universal medical started and they are spending money on lawyers to be able to open a shop. Why? Because they know a sick person will try anything to get well. It is nature that all living creatures fight to keep living and they know some people will spend their last dime on any thread of hope.

So... We can conclude, in a government-run health care system, forty years later, there are people this desperate to receive medical care? In other words, it will NOT solve the availability problems, and people will still lack medical care? And this will be so widespread and in demand, it will prompt lawyers and doctors to lobby the courts for the right to practice medicine to treat the sick?

Thank you very much for providing proof positive of why we do not need or want a socialized health care system!