Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism
- Thread starter Sovvolf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
awww snap!Zombie Nixon said:
Seriously though, if socialism is ok with people(which apparently it is according to the poll) then why is imperialism considered a bad thing?
i disagree, how is healthcare not a right? why should only the wealthy be entitled to long and happy lives?
pray tell me sir just as to why healthcare is a privellige
pray tell me sir just as to why healthcare is a privellige
Healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege. It's a good or a service. And like any good or service, it costs something. You have the right to purchase healthcare for yourself, but you don't have the right to demand that the government take money from other people and use it to buy things that you want.wheelchairman2 said:
it seems to work were i live, everyone pays for it, everyone gets it, if you want to spend even more money on private care then thats the individuals look out, but i wouldn't have half the quality of life i have today were it not for the health system in the UK.
I respect the American love of individuality, but there IS a limit, sometimes people have just got to help each other!
I respect the American love of individuality, but there IS a limit, sometimes people have just got to help each other!
See, here's your problem. The implication is that if I don't support nationalized healthcare, I don't support helping people. I like helping people, I've given money to charities before and I will again, but that doesn't mean that I think the government should be able to force people to give charity under the threat of imprisonment.wheelchairman2 said:
The whole concept kind of loses it's wholesomeness, you know?
Well imperialism involves conquering other countries by military force for the sake of glory and power...compensating said:
Socialism is a policy where a number of institutions like education, health, transport and utilities are run by the state..
What's your point?
Btw, a lot of people seem to think the UK is socialist, how is it?
Our transport (trains and buses) is run by private companies, our energy and power is run by French and German companies, granted education and road network i think is state run, i am pretty sure water is a privately controlled, while our health is run by the state. Even Thatcher dare not touch the NHS.
Looking at the post someone linked to me America seems more socalist than the UK o.0
No, you can't have a natural right to a scarce resource. Healthcare is provably not a right.Kwil said:
Since healthcare is not a right, the government is not morally obligated to ensure it for it's citizens, and any meaningful debate about UHC will have to center on practicality.
So really, what I'm looking for is proof that some UHC system is the most efficient course of action for American healthcare. I've never seen it proven, so unless I do I'm not interested in it.
Socialism gives the government more control over peoples lives than people feel comfortable with
The United States is founded upon recognition of natural rights, so the term certainly applies when you're talking about American policy.
People associate Socialism with the inability to gather large wealth. They associate Capitalism with the ability to gather large wealth. While in both cases you have the same likelihood of doing such (that is basically no likelihood) it is the fact that it seems more accessible in a capitalist society that gets people praising it.Sovvolf said:
No governing system works in its pure form. Capitalism is just as poorly thought out as Communism, Socialism, or AnyOtherIsm. We haven't been a truly capitalist country ever. In fact quite a few of our most popular systems are socialist. Does that mean we are "doing it right"? No. But it does help when explaining to people that sucking on the big capitalist wang doesn't really make sense when it is actually more of a hydra wang of many different systems.
Healthcare can and is only scarce if people let it be. Because the more people that are treated before they have a problem (such as treating cancer before it becomes either untreatable or very serious), the less people that have a problem, and the more people that can assist the people who do have a problem.Zombie Nixon said:
Healthcare, Housing (I include clothing here), Food, and Education are the 4 critical pieces to any just nation. If your nation does not properly supply even one of these 4 things you are unjust and need restructuring. Essentially anything outside of those 4 things is likely a luxury and shouldn't be prioritized before these four things.
I tend to view it as 'having a social conscience' rather than a problemZombie Nixon said:
what on earth do you mean by 'wholesome?' surely knowing that people worse off than you are getting much needed healthcare that they could in no other way afford is 'wholesome' enough?Zombie Nixon said:
you sure you wanted to use specious there? facetious seems more appropriate...Zombie Nixon said:
what exactly is wrong about caring for those worse off than me? I don't mind paying for things when EVERYONE benefits...
Honestly, in any of my direct experience with socialism, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. Afterall, I went to a public school, I attend college on taxpayer funds (GI Bill/Pell Grant + academic scholarships) I recieve my healthcare because of the taxpayer. All of these things are examples of socialism in action and I have few complaints about them.
I don't think I could put it any better so I'll just repeat myself: The implication is that if I don't support nationalized healthcare, I don't support helping people. I like helping people, I've given money to charities before and I will again, but that doesn't mean that I think the government should be able to force people to give charity under the threat of imprisonment.wheelchairman2 said: