Understanding Socialism

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.
But the doctors are already unavailable, you are describing a hypothetical worrying scenario with the involvement of private clinics, when that exact scenario happens right now with ONLY the public system. Look at the case I wrote with the surgery needed and the man waiting a year.
Your theory falls apart with private clinics because allowing them means a chance for doctors to make profit and thus an enticement for more to enter the practice. You are banking on their being a static amount of doctors while healthcare demands dynamically change, in reality they will both dynamically change - and in a largely corollary fashion.

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.
One could make the same argument against Medicaid right now and it's a valid one. The object is not to save universal healthcare anyway, it is to allow people the freedom to NOT pay for it or pay for it if they wish.

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.
I don't need to imagine it, I lived it being in high tech years ago when employees did exactly that. That phenomenon is really only going to happen under 2 circumstances - when demand is not instant (ie: the product or service you are delivering is not needed right away) and with a very favorable labor market (where companies need to offer very flexible hours because they need the work force that badly).
In any case this again does not fit with the real world because more would enter the health profession.
If this theory were true, why have we never heard of a shortage of public school teachers with the existance of private schools?

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.
This is a bit like saying that someone who is serving you in a restaurant will stop serving you the moment a better tipper or bigger customer comes in. In reality they will finish up what they have before they move on to the preferred customer. They still don't want to lose you and making a bigger customer wait a little is preferably to pissing off a smaller customer by forgetting them after already starting serving them.

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.
Some who are successful may want to pay for healthcare directly rather than bother with insurance, they should not be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want - either in the form of taxes or by legislation forced to buy privately.

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.
That's their free choice isn't it? I disagree, the next generation are still doing much better in terms of actual lifestyle and what they can afford compared to their parents. I would argue that by far the biggest influence on why each succeeding generation doesn't feel the need to save for either healthcare or retirement is because the left has created programs that make people feel that it is the state's responsbility rather than their own or their family to take care of themselves when they get older.
If there was no SS or Medicare, younger people would save a lot more because they really would realize that no system will 100% be there to help them. And in the long term that makes for a much stronger and more self-satisfied people.
 
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!

:rofl: You must have been a class act in school.

Yes, there are desperate people. I mentioned this before. People who travel to foreign countries and eat fried bugs, rub plants on their body, drink some vile concoctions, chant to Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin.....you get the idea.

It's like organ donations. Why do you think we have laws against the buying and selling of organs? Why can't the guy with the most money buy the kidney or liver or heart he wants? Why are people put on lists and wait their turn?

Free enterprise. Why can't we buy someone's kidney? Most people have two. Why can't they sell one?

Darn government always interfering with a guy trying to make a buck. It's a crying shame!
 
:rofl: You must have been a class act in school.

Yes, there are desperate people. I mentioned this before. People who travel to foreign countries and eat fried bugs, rub plants on their body, drink some vile concoctions, chant to Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin.....you get the idea.

It's like organ donations. Why do you think we have laws against the buying and selling of organs? Why can't the guy with the most money buy the kidney or liver or heart he wants? Why are people put on lists and wait their turn?

Free enterprise. Why can't we buy someone's kidney? Most people have two. Why can't they sell one?

Darn government always interfering with a guy trying to make a buck. It's a crying shame!

That's right little pinhead, spin away into your little cocoon of platitudes and lame examples! Ignore the facts as they slap you upside your goofy liberal head! Pretend you have bested us all in the arena of debate, even though you've not contradicted a single point made here, nor offered any evidence to support your views, and what little evidence you did put forth, proved your point invalid and ours legitimate.

Government-run health care is a disaster... everywhere it is tried, it is a disaster! People are literally going to court to try and alleviate the suffering put upon them by socialized medicine! People are literally begging their government to allow some capitalism in the system, because it is FAILING without it! Every example we have in this country, of government-run ANYTHING, shows it is inefficient, costly, and inadequate to meet the demands or standards of most Americans! The People have resoundingly spoken out against this... Yet... you and your pinhead moron idiot buddies, plan to force this massive government entitlement program down our throats against our will, even if you have to commit political suicide to do it!
 
But the doctors are already unavailable, you are describing a hypothetical worrying scenario with the involvement of private clinics, when that exact scenario happens right now with ONLY the public system. Look at the case I wrote with the surgery needed and the man waiting a year.
Your theory falls apart with private clinics because allowing them means a chance for doctors to make profit and thus an enticement for more to enter the practice. You are banking on their being a static amount of doctors while healthcare demands dynamically change, in reality they will both dynamically change - and in a largely corollary fashion.

Most wait times are due to people insisting on being treated where they live. A while back there was an article in the local paper about an elderly man bitching about being unable to receive cancer treatments at the hospital close to his home. The same old “I’m entitled to government medical so where is it” attitude.

He was offered treatment at a hospital that was an hour’s drive but he didn’t want to go there because…….are you ready for this……he wanted the government to pay for the extra gas it would take to drive to the hospital further away. His treatments were twice a week. Two trips of approximately 35 miles one way.

That is not an isolated incident. I have read similar stories from other Provinces. What those folks can’t understand is even if there was a “pay or suffer” system in place the number of potential “clients” wouldn’t make it profitable. It wouldn’t pay an entrepreneur to buy a machine worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for the limited number of patients.

Furthermore, immigrants coming here who want to practice medicine are obliged to take a rural position for a few years after doing their refresher courses. Under a “free enterprise” system doctors would not go to those places for two reasons. First, they are isolated and, second, the people in those communities are mostly natives and don’t have the money to pay.

One could make the same argument against Medicaid right now and it's a valid one. The object is not to save universal healthcare anyway, it is to allow people the freedom to NOT pay for it or pay for it if they wish.

The object is to ensure everyone has access to medical care. In a civilized society medical care is no different than ensuring one has food and shelter. Food, shelter and medical care all have a direct bearing on ones life and something I just can’t reconcile is when I hear the same people who talk about the sanctity of life object to social programs. Something is askew.

I don't need to imagine it, I lived it being in high tech years ago when employees did exactly that. That phenomenon is really only going to happen under 2 circumstances - when demand is not instant (ie: the product or service you are delivering is not needed right away) and with a very favorable labor market (where companies need to offer very flexible hours because they need the work force that badly).
In any case this again does not fit with the real world because more would enter the health profession.
If this theory were true, why have we never heard of a shortage of public school teachers with the existance of private schools?

More can’t enter the medical field because of what I explained earlier. Let’s say a town has one doctor who works under the government program. Then two more doctors show up. The population, thus the doctor’s income, is split between three doctors.

Cold/flu season arises and people want immediate access so they go to one of the two new doctors who also have a “cash on demand” practice. They pad their income and when the “crisis” is over they go back on the government system. That results in the doctor who stayed full time on the government system getting short changed.

It’s no different than companies having designated territories for affiliates. See what happened to one of those coffee franchises? (Starbucks?) They gave out so many franchises a lot of them went bust because the territory couldn’t support that many.

This is a bit like saying that someone who is serving you in a restaurant will stop serving you the moment a better tipper or bigger customer comes in. In reality they will finish up what they have before they move on to the preferred customer. They still don't want to lose you and making a bigger customer wait a little is preferably to pissing off a smaller customer by forgetting them after already starting serving them.

It’s not the same thing, at all. Many people require ongoing supervision. Also, most illnesses require a period of time to adjust the medication, at least if one has a decent doctor. Diabetes, hypertension, etc requires fine tuning the meds. There are instances when a doctor will prescribe the “average” dosage and the patient will suffer unnecessary side effects. While not life threatening the patient would benefit if the medication was adjusted over time. In other words there is an ongoing relationship which is not the case with ones waiter.

Finally, a doctor working both in the system and in a “cash on demand” clinic will, in all likelihood, put his cash paying patients first.

Some who are successful may want to pay for healthcare directly rather than bother with insurance, they should not be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want - either in the form of taxes or by legislation forced to buy privately.

The same can be said of any social program. Why pay into Unemployment Insurance? Why pay taxes towards welfare?

As we progress the minimum standard of living of all citizens must rise. Contrary to some arguments it’s not a case of pulling the wealthy down.

For example, when one looks at roach-infested buildings the government demands the landlord rectify the problem. If, as a society, we were extremely poor then roach-infested buildings would be preferable to sleeping on the street.

There was talk of people who think they may have the flu to stay home and the employer pay them. While on the surface that may seem unjust to the employer and, granted, it would be difficult to put into practice unless the employee produced a doctor’s letter, it would reduce the cost to society by preventing others from becoming ill.

That's their free choice isn't it? I disagree, the next generation are still doing much better in terms of actual lifestyle and what they can afford compared to their parents. I would argue that by far the biggest influence on why each succeeding generation doesn't feel the need to save for either healthcare or retirement is because the left has created programs that make people feel that it is the state's responsbility rather than their own or their family to take care of themselves when they get older.
If there was no SS or Medicare, younger people would save a lot more because they really would realize that no system will 100% be there to help them. And in the long term that makes for a much stronger and more self-satisfied people.

Regarding the younger generation considering the inflated housing prices, unemployment and the current financial mess it’s definitely arguable how well they are doing. More and more are opting to live with their parents well past the “normal” age of branching out on their own.

As for government programs, from medical to retirement to welfare, etc., we have to remember we started out without government programs and they were instituted out of need.

Just consider the money tied up in “medical nest eggs”. We can’t blame someone for saving in case of a medical emergency but in many cases the money won’t be required. Ideally, it could go towards education and/or a down payment on a home for their children or grandchildren. Then their children/grandchildren will be in a position to help them if the need arises.

While there are times one can not count on their family even of they did help them their better educated children will be paying taxes to the government which, in turn, will help them.

What it does is it frees up the money. The extremes are stimulating the economy on one end and hoarding on the other. You see it as producing stronger, more self-satisfied people whereas I see it as producing people with the attitude, “No one helped me so why should I help anyone else.”

I’m for a gentler society where hard work is rewarded but life’s necessities (food, shelter, medical care, old age care, etc.) do not hang in the balance. I don’t feel the threat of abject poverty should be a motivating factor. If we treat people like animals they will act as such.
 
That's right little pinhead, spin away into your little cocoon of platitudes and lame examples! Ignore the facts as they slap you upside your goofy liberal head! Pretend you have bested us all in the arena of debate, even though you've not contradicted a single point made here, nor offered any evidence to support your views, and what little evidence you did put forth, proved your point invalid and ours legitimate.

Government-run health care is a disaster... everywhere it is tried, it is a disaster! People are literally going to court to try and alleviate the suffering put upon them by socialized medicine! People are literally begging their government to allow some capitalism in the system, because it is FAILING without it! Every example we have in this country, of government-run ANYTHING, shows it is inefficient, costly, and inadequate to meet the demands or standards of most Americans! The People have resoundingly spoken out against this... Yet... you and your pinhead moron idiot buddies, plan to force this massive government entitlement program down our throats against our will, even if you have to commit political suicide to do it!

Show me one country that reverted to the old system. Show me one politician in any country with a universal plan that is or has campaigned on dismantling the system.

Give me something to work with.

You have dozens of countries to choose from. Capitalist countries, socialist countries, communist countries, rich countries, poor countries, big countries, small countries..........name just one country where the people decided to switch back to the "pay or suffer" system and, don't forget, all countries started out that way.

The citizens in all those countries know the alternative to a universal system. They lived it before they changed.

Have you? Do you have any idea, the slightest clue, what you're talking about?

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. You poor, misguided soul.
 
Show me one country that reverted to the old system. Show me one politician in any country with a universal plan that is or has campaigned on dismantling the system.

Give me something to work with.

Here we go yet again! We've already been through this! Once you have dismantled and destroyed the capitalist system, there is nothing to "revert back" to! What part of that do you not comprehend? You are setting fire to it and destroying it forever, it won't be there in three to five years for you to "revert back" to! No one in their right mind would dare to ever invest in a capitalist 'health care' business again... who would say you wouldn't again decide to destroy it if they did?

You have dozens of countries to choose from. Capitalist countries, socialist countries, communist countries, rich countries, poor countries, big countries, small countries..........name just one country where the people decided to switch back to the "pay or suffer" system and, don't forget, all countries started out that way.

First of all, most countries don't "get to decide" a goddamn thing! It is decided for them by the RULER! But countries who have a democratic society, who have adopted a socialist health care system, have doctors and lawyers suing the government to let them open commercial practices... this by your own admission!

The citizens in all those countries know the alternative to a universal system. They lived it before they changed.

Yes, and they are suing the government to let them return to the alternative, so that people can get medical care! You posted this yourself, it's not something I came up with... it's your own words!

Have you? Do you have any idea, the slightest clue, what you're talking about?

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. You poor, misguided soul.

Yes, you seem to be the one with a problem knowing what you're talking about! You just got through posting about how doctors and lawyers are suing the Canadian government, trying to get them to let the doctors open commercial practices... then you want 'just one example' of where the people wanted the old system back! Well, there ya go, Apple... CANADA, where they are suing the government to try and get the old system back! People are DYING waiting for health care! Do you not care that people are DYING? Does it not bother you that this socialist health care system will set our quality of health care back a century or more? If some nitwit socialist told you to go blow your brains out, there is no doubt in my mind, you would be looking for a gun!

You are THAT foolish!
 
Here we go yet again! We've already been through this! Once you have dismantled and destroyed the capitalist system, there is nothing to "revert back" to! What part of that do you not comprehend? You are setting fire to it and destroying it forever, it won't be there in three to five years for you to "revert back" to! No one in their right mind would dare to ever invest in a capitalist 'health care' business again... who would say you wouldn't again decide to destroy it if they did?

First of all, most countries don't "get to decide" a goddamn thing! It is decided for them by the RULER! But countries who have a democratic society, who have adopted a socialist health care system, have doctors and lawyers suing the government to let them open commercial practices... this by your own admission!

Yes, and they are suing the government to let them return to the alternative, so that people can get medical care! You posted this yourself, it's not something I came up with... it's your own words!

Yes, you seem to be the one with a problem knowing what you're talking about! You just got through posting about how doctors and lawyers are suing the Canadian government, trying to get them to let the doctors open commercial practices... then you want 'just one example' of where the people wanted the old system back! Well, there ya go, Apple... CANADA, where they are suing the government to try and get the old system back! People are DYING waiting for health care! Do you not care that people are DYING? Does it not bother you that this socialist health care system will set our quality of health care back a century or more? If some nitwit socialist told you to go blow your brains out, there is no doubt in my mind, you would be looking for a gun!

You are THAT foolish!

Do you know what the word "contradiction" means?

You wrote, “Once you have dismantled and destroyed the capitalist system, there is nothing to "revert back" to!……….. No one in their right mind would dare to ever invest in a capitalist 'health care' business again.”

Then you followed that with “But countries who have a democratic society, who have adopted a socialist health care system, have doctors and lawyers suing the government to let them open commercial practices………Yes, and they are suing the government to let them return to the alternative….”

That, Dixie, is the perfect example of a contradiction unless you are implying the people who are suing the government are not in their right mind.

You wrote, “…..you want 'just one example' of where the people wanted the old system back! Well, there ya go, Apple... CANADA, where they are suing the government to try and get the old system back!”

If it was so popular, if any sizable group of people wanted the old system back, there would be a politician campaigning on that very thing.

There is always someone out there wanting to make a name for themselves. Politicians search high and low looking for a platform on which to run just like the Democrats ran on changing health care. So, in Canada there are the Conservatives and the Liberals and the NDP and the Green Party.

Let’s take a look at their platforms.

Conservatives: The Conservative Party remains committed to Canada’s system of public health care.

Liberals: The Liberal Party has promised to maintain and improve Canada’s public health care system.

NDP: Central to the NDP’s renewal strategy for health care is a commitment to maintaining and improving the public health care system.

Green party: The Green Party is committed to protecting Canada’s universal, single-payer public health care system.
(http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/2008-election-campaign-political-party-platforms)

Why, Dixie, why are all the national political parties committed to maintaining the public health care system if the majority of people don’t want it?

Don’t listen to the lies. As I said before do a little research. Do your homework. It is a few greedy people hoping to make $$$ off the misery of others along with a few “nouveau riche” who think they are more important than everyone else.

As I’ve said before show me ONE country where a politician or political party has or is campaigning on dismantling universal medical. Just one. That’s all I’m asking. ONE country. If you can’t produce ONE country then your arguments have absolutely no foundation. Nothing but gossip and rumors and loud mouth, greedy people.
 
Here we go yet again! We've already been through this! Once you have dismantled and destroyed the capitalist system, there is nothing to "revert back" to! What part of that do you not comprehend? You are setting fire to it and destroying it forever, it won't be there in three to five years for you to "revert back" to! No one in their right mind would dare to ever invest in a capitalist 'health care' business again... who would say you wouldn't again decide to destroy it if they did?

Shorter version: Neither Dixie, nor any other teabagger, can cite one single solitary example of a liberal, social democratic nation that wants to jettison its social welfare state in favor of the southern republican vision of "free markets".


Hey Dixie, I got news for ya: Compared to the rest of the world, the deep South is the least capitalist place in the developed world. The south is barely evolved from its feudal status that they were dragged kicking and screaming out of by FDR and LBJ.

I'm confident I know more danes, germans, and norwegians than you do. And the people of those nations are highly euntrepeneurial. Hello? Nokia? Royal Dutch Shell? Mercedes Benz? Aren't the danes and germans en route to kick our asses in the age of green technology? While teabaggers are whining about "drill baby, drill!". The fact that they prefer to pay for their healthcare and child day care through taxes, rather than out of their own pocket is a deliberate effort by them to make their lives easier, fairer, and more cost efficient. Do you know how much a teabagger has to pay for health insurance and day care, compared to a Dane? It's not a reflection or measure of their alleged allegiance to Joseph Stalin.

You know what the most capitalist states in america are? New York, California, Connecticut, and the other propersous, industrialized areas of educated america.
 
The way I live is da best.

Nuthin dif-rnt is any good.... Everyone should live like me and iffen they dont, well I guess they just dont know no better!
 
The only thing that will hold this thing together is you, the people.

I showed you the Tower of Babel.

I told you the story of this, and I told you that the king, Nimrod, wanted to make everybody into a brick, just make everybody into a brick, make them exactly the same.

Well, we're not the same. But when you put bricks together, you need something, mortar in between, hold it together.

What was the mortar that held the tower together, the bricks together?

Well, Daniel Lapin the rabbi said, in ancient Hebrew, that mortar is materialism.

I've told you before, we've got to get rid of our materialistic viewpoint and change the mortar.

Because if stuff is the only thing that's holding us together , and quite honestly it is, do our values, do our principles, does God hold us together anymore?

How about our common history?

How many people who loved America didn't even know our history two years ago?

What's holding us together?

Four out of 10 Americans now say marriage is outdated and irrelevant.

It's almost gone.

We've got to change the mortar.

If these bricks start flying apart because we lose our materialism, our clothes, our job, our food, if we are focused on the mortar of materialism and that falls apart, we will beg for a strongman to hold it all together.

You've got to get involved and prepare.

I will show you the number one problem coming and its solution.
 
I have better things to do with my time off than slog through eleven pages of dixie pontificating from inside his own rectum and yurt whining non-stop about whatever it is that yurt whines about....

suffice it to say that the repubs and righties and teabaggers have decided that they can redefine the word "socialism" and use it as an epithet against democrats.

Socialism is government control of the means of production...period.

not just some of the means of production - ALL production.... not just tiny slivers of our economy, or even sizeable wedges of our economy..... but ALL of it.

Dixie's argument is tantamount to saying that ever since our government decided that firefighting or water distribution, or garbage collection or sewage treatment was best done by the government, America has been a socialist country and we somehow surrendered our freedom when that happened.

When Obama advocates for government taking control of ALL of the means of production in our economy, folks can start complaining that he is a socialist, but not until.
 
what are you afraid of? his terms were really simple, and if you are right, then they won't require YOU to do anything.... except laugh at him.

shut up maineman

wtf do you involve yourself in onceler's petty bullshit, oh yeah, because you're a petty dishonest hack as well

he already offered to bump the thread, then when i accepted he ran away like a little boy and then later come up with these dishonest demands...yet, he claims i'm the one making demands...do you see the lie...doubt it as you're one the biggest liars stalking the interwebs

if he was telling the truth, he could make me look stupid real quick, instead i had to do his work for him and bump the thread, but oh no, i'm the one making demands, despite his offer and his demands that i agree to HIS terms
 
Back
Top