Why do people think Socialism is Evil

[ZZ-Tops89]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

 

[Thanatos34]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

I'll say it again. Where do you get the money?

Our economy is broken at the moment, that's why we put off going to the doctor. I don't think you can turn that on the healthcare system.

And please, quit bringing up the highest infant mortality rate thing, it's hypocritical, really. I don't see how someone can't see that.

How is it hypocritical other then you can't deal with the facts and want to put your head in the sand. If you want to use abortion which is perfectly legal in America as some kind of tool to defend yourself. Then how do you possibly defend your position that you say it is ok to turn away people and to charge them out the nose for medical emergencies? How is supporting that ok but having a high infant mortality rate not?

Abortion may be legal, I am merely remarking on the hypocrisy of complaining about the deaths of 8 people a day, while being fine with the deaths of 3500 a day.

What exactly do you expect the doctors to do, accept cuts in pay in order to treat people for free? They need money, as well, you cannot run an economy on free handouts. I already stated that I don't think someone will be turned away if they are dying, but they cannot simply go handing out drugs and treatments to every person who comes in and says they cannot afford to pay. We simply do not have the money. To believe otherwise is cute, but it is also extremely naive.

You can't even count those abortions as actual people most of them are barely even fetuses. That is just wonky Christian Fundamentalism with no basis in reality. I fail to see how punishing the poor who are dying because they know they can't afford the bills is better then abortion. Your position is untenable and completely elitist. For you defy the murder of so called children but approve of the deaths of the Poor and Destitute because they can't afford medical procedures. You sir are the hypocrite. Don't even bother trying to defend the position unless you are telling me a fetus deserves more of a chance to live then an actual human being.

*sigh* I get the feeling this is pointless. But whatever, I shall try, in any case.

First, most abortions that are performed are not medically required, the pregnancies are merely inconvenient to the mother. It would take no additional money from the government to prevent a mother from aborting the fetus, (except in cases of the mother's life being in danger, and possibly rape or incest). The fetus' rights are the same as that of a human being, for they are a human being in every sense of the word, EXCEPT it's right to life does not trump that of the mother's. It would not take money to prevent abortions, merely a law. As a matter of fact, it would save money. So I don't see how your argument, which seems to imply that it is one or the other, is logically functional. Should we not err on the side of it's being a human being, unless it can be proven decisively that it is not? What are the risks/gains for each side? Seems to be a hell of a lot more of a risk to abort fetuses if you are unsure of their humanity, than to not do so.

Second, please quit using the argument that I would let the poor and destitute die for lack of medical care. I have said it at least three times, that no one will turn away someone who is dying because they cannot pay. What I said, was that they will not treat every boo-boo that someone has, if they cannot pay for it.

Third, you once again fail to explain where you are going to get this money to give everyone who comes in medical treatment no matter what the issue is that they have. In a perfect world, one could say, all right, everyone can get treatment, but we have to actually go by an economic system where doctors need money, too. Unless you want to simply print more money off, you are going to need either a) huge tax increase, which means basically that the government is taking my money to pay for someone else's medical bills, or b) a huge salary cut of the doctors and nurses, which I am sure they will love, or c) some combination of the two. Which do you want to have happen?

Deflecting and your whole view on life revolves around money which is more pathetic then I can even describe in words. That you care more about a useless fetus then about putting people into financial bondage is disgusting but typical elitist. There is nothing to discuss you are a typical Classist who believes that a fetus who does nothing for society should be sacred while the poor should be put into financial bondage for a medical emergency. I see you continue to dance around the subject because you know the answer doesn't look good. Yes they won't be turned away but they will be stuck with a $1,000+ bill that they can't afford to pay so instead they will die because they won't put their family into deeper poverty. What a fuckin' brilliant solution destroy the Lower and Middle Class by telling them it is either put food on the table while you are able to live or put them in debt so you can remain in financial bondage. Bravo.

Yeah, it's pointless. All you can is ridicule my position, with no answer for the numerous times I've asked you a simple question, and instead cling to the naive view that all the ills can be solved by giving the government more power and more money, though you neglect to ever say where exactly they are going to get this money.

I could come right back and say that it disgusts me that you care more for the lives of 8 people a day, and want to bankrupt the American economy in order to fix this, than the lives of 3500 people a day, who are never even given a chance to become citizens, when it would cost little in comparison to do so... but it doesn't really. It just makes me sad that we have come to such a point.

Your worldview is adorable, but it's time for you to grow up. Money doesn't grow on trees, and the government is not the answer to every ill that society possesses.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? You are just dogmatic and pathetic using abortion which had nothing to do with the conversation to defend your indefensible position. Typically the sign of a fanatic is someone who won't shut up and refuses to change the subject. Abortion had has much to do with anything I said as Martians invading Planet X did. You wanted me to comment on a legal practice in America that has nothing to do with our inability to keep infants healthy. You tried to use a red herring and constantly used it to draw me off on some kind of random tangent. You failed at it and now whine about it. Typical of the Right-Wing Uncouth Masses. Oh and the American Economy is already bankrupt thanks to our free market economics you might want to crawl out of your hole.

Wonderful! Way to pick up on that, that was exactly what I was hoping for. Now maybe we can get some answers out of you.

I'll ignore the ridiculous amount of ad-hominem attacks, except to say, by all means, call me more names. It proves your argument ever so much better than actually answering my points. Typical liberal debate philosophy; when you can't think of a way to beat the other guy, ridicule him.

I'm going to ignore abortion, because you are clearly incapable of following the line of logic from -infant mortality rate- to -killing babies-, and because you keep using it as an excuse not to answer my query.

So, now that we have gotten you to say that the American economy is bankrupt, (even though the reason you say it is is entirely wrong, it is bankrupt because of the unnecessary War in Iraq, coupled with the loan industry collapse, very little to do with free market economics, but still, baby steps), how exactly do you propose to pay for this health-care? Sorry that I like to be realistic in my views, I just happen to live in Reality, so I need to be a realist.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

I'll say it again. Where do you get the money?

Our economy is broken at the moment, that's why we put off going to the doctor. I don't think you can turn that on the healthcare system.

And please, quit bringing up the highest infant mortality rate thing, it's hypocritical, really. I don't see how someone can't see that.

How is it hypocritical other then you can't deal with the facts and want to put your head in the sand. If you want to use abortion which is perfectly legal in America as some kind of tool to defend yourself. Then how do you possibly defend your position that you say it is ok to turn away people and to charge them out the nose for medical emergencies? How is supporting that ok but having a high infant mortality rate not?

Abortion may be legal, I am merely remarking on the hypocrisy of complaining about the deaths of 8 people a day, while being fine with the deaths of 3500 a day.

What exactly do you expect the doctors to do, accept cuts in pay in order to treat people for free? They need money, as well, you cannot run an economy on free handouts. I already stated that I don't think someone will be turned away if they are dying, but they cannot simply go handing out drugs and treatments to every person who comes in and says they cannot afford to pay. We simply do not have the money. To believe otherwise is cute, but it is also extremely naive.

You can't even count those abortions as actual people most of them are barely even fetuses. That is just wonky Christian Fundamentalism with no basis in reality. I fail to see how punishing the poor who are dying because they know they can't afford the bills is better then abortion. Your position is untenable and completely elitist. For you defy the murder of so called children but approve of the deaths of the Poor and Destitute because they can't afford medical procedures. You sir are the hypocrite. Don't even bother trying to defend the position unless you are telling me a fetus deserves more of a chance to live then an actual human being.

*sigh* I get the feeling this is pointless. But whatever, I shall try, in any case.

First, most abortions that are performed are not medically required, the pregnancies are merely inconvenient to the mother. It would take no additional money from the government to prevent a mother from aborting the fetus, (except in cases of the mother's life being in danger, and possibly rape or incest). The fetus' rights are the same as that of a human being, for they are a human being in every sense of the word, EXCEPT it's right to life does not trump that of the mother's. It would not take money to prevent abortions, merely a law. As a matter of fact, it would save money. So I don't see how your argument, which seems to imply that it is one or the other, is logically functional. Should we not err on the side of it's being a human being, unless it can be proven decisively that it is not? What are the risks/gains for each side? Seems to be a hell of a lot more of a risk to abort fetuses if you are unsure of their humanity, than to not do so.

Second, please quit using the argument that I would let the poor and destitute die for lack of medical care. I have said it at least three times, that no one will turn away someone who is dying because they cannot pay. What I said, was that they will not treat every boo-boo that someone has, if they cannot pay for it.

Third, you once again fail to explain where you are going to get this money to give everyone who comes in medical treatment no matter what the issue is that they have. In a perfect world, one could say, all right, everyone can get treatment, but we have to actually go by an economic system where doctors need money, too. Unless you want to simply print more money off, you are going to need either a) huge tax increase, which means basically that the government is taking my money to pay for someone else's medical bills, or b) a huge salary cut of the doctors and nurses, which I am sure they will love, or c) some combination of the two. Which do you want to have happen?

Deflecting and your whole view on life revolves around money which is more pathetic then I can even describe in words. That you care more about a useless fetus then about putting people into financial bondage is disgusting but typical elitist. There is nothing to discuss you are a typical Classist who believes that a fetus who does nothing for society should be sacred while the poor should be put into financial bondage for a medical emergency. I see you continue to dance around the subject because you know the answer doesn't look good. Yes they won't be turned away but they will be stuck with a $1,000+ bill that they can't afford to pay so instead they will die because they won't put their family into deeper poverty. What a fuckin' brilliant solution destroy the Lower and Middle Class by telling them it is either put food on the table while you are able to live or put them in debt so you can remain in financial bondage. Bravo.

Yeah, it's pointless. All you can is ridicule my position, with no answer for the numerous times I've asked you a simple question, and instead cling to the naive view that all the ills can be solved by giving the government more power and more money, though you neglect to ever say where exactly they are going to get this money.

I could come right back and say that it disgusts me that you care more for the lives of 8 people a day, and want to bankrupt the American economy in order to fix this, than the lives of 3500 people a day, who are never even given a chance to become citizens, when it would cost little in comparison to do so... but it doesn't really. It just makes me sad that we have come to such a point.

Your worldview is adorable, but it's time for you to grow up. Money doesn't grow on trees, and the government is not the answer to every ill that society possesses.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? You are just dogmatic and pathetic using abortion which had nothing to do with the conversation to defend your indefensible position. Typically the sign of a fanatic is someone who won't shut up and refuses to change the subject. Abortion had has much to do with anything I said as Martians invading Planet X did. You wanted me to comment on a legal practice in America that has nothing to do with our inability to keep infants healthy. You tried to use a red herring and constantly used it to draw me off on some kind of random tangent. You failed at it and now whine about it. Typical of the Right-Wing Uncouth Masses. Oh and the American Economy is already bankrupt thanks to our free market economics you might want to crawl out of your hole.

Wonderful! Way to pick up on that, that was exactly what I was hoping for. Now maybe we can get some answers out of you.

By the way, by all means, call me more names. It proves your argument ever so much better than actually answering my points. Typical liberal debate philosophy; when you can't think of a way to beat the other guy, ridicule him.

I'm going to ignore abortion, because you are clearly incapable of following the line of logic from -infant mortality rate- to -killing babies-, and because you keep using it as an excuse not to answer my query.

So, now that we have gotten you to say that the American economy is bankrupt, (even though the reason you say it is is entirely wrong, it is bankrupt because of the unnecessary War in Iraq, coupled with the loan industry collapse, but still, baby steps, very little to do with free market economics), how exactly do you propose to pay for this health-care? Sorry that I like to be realistic in my views, I just happen to live in Reality, so I need to be a realist.

Welcome to being ignored. I'm not a Liberal and that your white trash parents were too illiterate to help you learn the ability to read I'm not going to bother stating my views ad nauseam for you. Honestly when did becoming a Liberal became slanderous? I personally don't like Liberalism especially American Liberalism though I don't mind the Classical School too much but you haven't a clue what your talking about and reek of the uneducated paleo-conservative that plagues America.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

 

[Wyatt]

I guess America should stop sending money to other countries to help them fight homelessness and starvation so we can keep it for ourselves. Or perhaps the international funding (albeit minor contributions) of abortion?

i dont know that id agree with this all that much either. after all most of the richest people in America are getting atleast part of their cash by TOTALY exploiting most of the nations we are sending aid too. id like to see a side by side set of numbers that shows how much we TAKE from these nations compaird to how much aid we send to them. i dont know the numbers but id expect it too be alot. (and by 'we' i mean the entire 1st world)

I only read about half of your post, but that sucks about your parents. I, myself, got injured on the job, and if it wasn't for workers comp, I could have died. And my mother is in a wheelchair after a botched brain surgery. I do have to inquire though, if your parents' jobs were so bad, why didn't they find some place else to work? Seems like they were quite content not demanding better severance. They could have always joined a union.

my mother WAS in a union, VP of the local united steel workers, when she got done. im in a union myself right now, chief shop steward in fact, united paperworkers internationel. once she was done at her factory the union basicaly told her she was on her own fighting for her disability since she was no longer a dues paying member. her union (much like mine) was too scared to lose what little they can still hold onto too actualy stand up and fight. too many of our union members have the attitude of 'be thankful you have a job' instead of having the proper idea that those fuckers should be thankful we will work for them like it used to be.

truth is there ARE no real choices for them (or my generation either for that matter) they both had 'good jobs' for the area, and moving wasnt ever an option for them. move too were and do what with what money? they both started working right out of high school and spent their entire lives just getting buy, there was never any 'getting ahead' there is only the forever of 'getting by'. our entire local community is this way. what choice DO you have when your married with children to support? you shut up. keep your head down, kiss what ass you need to kiss and, eat what ever shit you have too and just ....... get by.

no sir, the American dream is fucking GREAT, but its the american reality that i take exception too.

 

[Thanatos34]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

I'll say it again. Where do you get the money?

Our economy is broken at the moment, that's why we put off going to the doctor. I don't think you can turn that on the healthcare system.

And please, quit bringing up the highest infant mortality rate thing, it's hypocritical, really. I don't see how someone can't see that.

How is it hypocritical other then you can't deal with the facts and want to put your head in the sand. If you want to use abortion which is perfectly legal in America as some kind of tool to defend yourself. Then how do you possibly defend your position that you say it is ok to turn away people and to charge them out the nose for medical emergencies? How is supporting that ok but having a high infant mortality rate not?

Abortion may be legal, I am merely remarking on the hypocrisy of complaining about the deaths of 8 people a day, while being fine with the deaths of 3500 a day.

What exactly do you expect the doctors to do, accept cuts in pay in order to treat people for free? They need money, as well, you cannot run an economy on free handouts. I already stated that I don't think someone will be turned away if they are dying, but they cannot simply go handing out drugs and treatments to every person who comes in and says they cannot afford to pay. We simply do not have the money. To believe otherwise is cute, but it is also extremely naive.

You can't even count those abortions as actual people most of them are barely even fetuses. That is just wonky Christian Fundamentalism with no basis in reality. I fail to see how punishing the poor who are dying because they know they can't afford the bills is better then abortion. Your position is untenable and completely elitist. For you defy the murder of so called children but approve of the deaths of the Poor and Destitute because they can't afford medical procedures. You sir are the hypocrite. Don't even bother trying to defend the position unless you are telling me a fetus deserves more of a chance to live then an actual human being.

*sigh* I get the feeling this is pointless. But whatever, I shall try, in any case.

First, most abortions that are performed are not medically required, the pregnancies are merely inconvenient to the mother. It would take no additional money from the government to prevent a mother from aborting the fetus, (except in cases of the mother's life being in danger, and possibly rape or incest). The fetus' rights are the same as that of a human being, for they are a human being in every sense of the word, EXCEPT it's right to life does not trump that of the mother's. It would not take money to prevent abortions, merely a law. As a matter of fact, it would save money. So I don't see how your argument, which seems to imply that it is one or the other, is logically functional. Should we not err on the side of it's being a human being, unless it can be proven decisively that it is not? What are the risks/gains for each side? Seems to be a hell of a lot more of a risk to abort fetuses if you are unsure of their humanity, than to not do so.

Second, please quit using the argument that I would let the poor and destitute die for lack of medical care. I have said it at least three times, that no one will turn away someone who is dying because they cannot pay. What I said, was that they will not treat every boo-boo that someone has, if they cannot pay for it.

Third, you once again fail to explain where you are going to get this money to give everyone who comes in medical treatment no matter what the issue is that they have. In a perfect world, one could say, all right, everyone can get treatment, but we have to actually go by an economic system where doctors need money, too. Unless you want to simply print more money off, you are going to need either a) huge tax increase, which means basically that the government is taking my money to pay for someone else's medical bills, or b) a huge salary cut of the doctors and nurses, which I am sure they will love, or c) some combination of the two. Which do you want to have happen?

Deflecting and your whole view on life revolves around money which is more pathetic then I can even describe in words. That you care more about a useless fetus then about putting people into financial bondage is disgusting but typical elitist. There is nothing to discuss you are a typical Classist who believes that a fetus who does nothing for society should be sacred while the poor should be put into financial bondage for a medical emergency. I see you continue to dance around the subject because you know the answer doesn't look good. Yes they won't be turned away but they will be stuck with a $1,000+ bill that they can't afford to pay so instead they will die because they won't put their family into deeper poverty. What a fuckin' brilliant solution destroy the Lower and Middle Class by telling them it is either put food on the table while you are able to live or put them in debt so you can remain in financial bondage. Bravo.

Yeah, it's pointless. All you can is ridicule my position, with no answer for the numerous times I've asked you a simple question, and instead cling to the naive view that all the ills can be solved by giving the government more power and more money, though you neglect to ever say where exactly they are going to get this money.

I could come right back and say that it disgusts me that you care more for the lives of 8 people a day, and want to bankrupt the American economy in order to fix this, than the lives of 3500 people a day, who are never even given a chance to become citizens, when it would cost little in comparison to do so... but it doesn't really. It just makes me sad that we have come to such a point.

Your worldview is adorable, but it's time for you to grow up. Money doesn't grow on trees, and the government is not the answer to every ill that society possesses.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? You are just dogmatic and pathetic using abortion which had nothing to do with the conversation to defend your indefensible position. Typically the sign of a fanatic is someone who won't shut up and refuses to change the subject. Abortion had has much to do with anything I said as Martians invading Planet X did. You wanted me to comment on a legal practice in America that has nothing to do with our inability to keep infants healthy. You tried to use a red herring and constantly used it to draw me off on some kind of random tangent. You failed at it and now whine about it. Typical of the Right-Wing Uncouth Masses. Oh and the American Economy is already bankrupt thanks to our free market economics you might want to crawl out of your hole.

Wonderful! Way to pick up on that, that was exactly what I was hoping for. Now maybe we can get some answers out of you.

By the way, by all means, call me more names. It proves your argument ever so much better than actually answering my points. Typical liberal debate philosophy; when you can't think of a way to beat the other guy, ridicule him.

I'm going to ignore abortion, because you are clearly incapable of following the line of logic from -infant mortality rate- to -killing babies-, and because you keep using it as an excuse not to answer my query.

So, now that we have gotten you to say that the American economy is bankrupt, (even though the reason you say it is is entirely wrong, it is bankrupt because of the unnecessary War in Iraq, coupled with the loan industry collapse, but still, baby steps, very little to do with free market economics), how exactly do you propose to pay for this health-care? Sorry that I like to be realistic in my views, I just happen to live in Reality, so I need to be a realist.

Welcome to being ignored. I'm not a Liberal and that your white trash parents were too illiterate to help you learn the ability to read I'm not going to bother stating my views ad nauseam for you. Honestly when did becoming a Liberal became slanderous? I personally don't like Liberalism especially American Liberalism though I don't mind the Classical School too much but you haven't a clue what your talking about and reek of the uneducated paleo-conservative that plagues America.

You may deny being a liberal, but you sure talk like one, and hold the same views, at least in some manner, as one. Perhaps leftist is a term you are more happy with? Please note that you are the one who started the insults about one's political position in the previous message.

I'm not asking you to state your views entirely for me, I'm merely asking you to answer a question that I have asked you five or six times, which instead of doing so, you have consistently ridiculed my position, and continually mocked my views, while I have tried to be polite, merely to get an answer out of you. But I'm done. You obviously don't have an answer, or you have one that you are afraid of posting, and your continued descent into the realm of ridicule is going to make me lose my cool.

So, have a nice life, and I hope your naive philosophy isn't changed the hard way sometime in the future.

Edit: Considering that my dad is a professor at the Naval Academy, with several degrees in engineering, you calling him white trash is hilarious, (as well as offensive and over the line, of course- reported).

 

[Wyatt]

I half way feel you.

But most poor people are so because of things that happend to there family before they were born. Same with the rich. I wish hard work and dedication was all that it took to end poverty but you have to have wits, konwledge, and the drive to start something not just follow. It's not easy running a small bussnes or a giant bussniess. I bust my arse dooing manual labor because I could never crucnch numbers and handle the pressure of running a buissnes. What is easy for me, moveing 200lbs objects and building structures, impossible for many others. Yeah you've had a bum wrap so far but YOU have to change that. Period, YOU are the deciding factor in your life. Will you become rich? more than likely not, but you can establish a foundation for your children to build on.(I'm coming back aroud to the family thing here) did your parents instill a good work ethic in you? Do you have the drive to try and make your life better? Doing so will give your kids a better chance than you, and they do the same for their kids, untill you great grand kids are rich.

In contrast, the rich kids who dick around will die rich, but their kids will dick around too, until their family is down to less than trialer trash. Your current possition in life is affected by many things, But you are the "X" factor for your kids. Telling the government to do it for you is not just giving up on yourself.

i mean no offence when i say this too you at ALL, but your argument is the biggest load of shit that we have been telling ourselves in America almost since we became a nation.

for example this notion of someone 'pulling themselves' up by their boot straps is a lie. there is entire generations of people who cant, not WONT, but literaly CANT do it. we tell ourselves that our society is built on the American dream of hard work and you can do anything, its bullshit, i work hard, my parents work hard, well .......... were is my 'anything'? when does MY ship come in? when does all this wonderious wealth and high living start too arrive?

our society is the biggest example of a mouse on a wheel in history, we ALL work hard as fuck to accomplish exactly NOTHING of any use to those of us working. we get by. we dont starve, we dont live in caves, and we generaly have enough cash to afford a pizza and beer atleast once a week, but i could have all that and then some in any 3rd world nation on the planet, this is *said in tones of awe* AMERICA *polishes the shine* arent we supposed to have the 'dream' if we only work hard enough?

i been busting my ass for damn near 20 years now and im still wondering when that dream starts? cause it seems like that 1 trillion of bonus ....... erm excuse me bail-out ...... erm ..... economic recovery? .... fuck i dont know that welfare cash that we gave to wall-street could have made a pretty good start on funding that dream or maybe doing something like .... fixing social security, or maybe establishing a nationel health care system?

funny how we just CANT afford to do anything that will help lower income people (accorind to most republicans anyhow), we have had whole elections based on the fait of things like social security or health care that would help ALL Americans, but we can come up with a fucking TRILLION dollers to bail out a select few wall-street companys in less than 6 months time?

your ideal of America is a great one. but as i said in my last post the American dream is grand, its the REALITY i take exception too.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

 

[n64link]

I half way feel you.

But most poor people are so because of things that happend to there family before they were born. Same with the rich. I wish hard work and dedication was all that it took to end poverty but you have to have wits, konwledge, and the drive to start something not just follow. It's not easy running a small bussnes or a giant bussniess. I bust my arse dooing manual labor because I could never crucnch numbers and handle the pressure of running a buissnes. What is easy for me, moveing 200lbs objects and building structures, impossible for many others. Yeah you've had a bum wrap so far but YOU have to change that. Period, YOU are the deciding factor in your life. Will you become rich? more than likely not, but you can establish a foundation for your children to build on.(I'm coming back aroud to the family thing here) did your parents instill a good work ethic in you? Do you have the drive to try and make your life better? Doing so will give your kids a better chance than you, and they do the same for their kids, untill you great grand kids are rich.

In contrast, the rich kids who dick around will die rich, but their kids will dick around too, until their family is down to less than trialer trash. Your current possition in life is affected by many things, But you are the "X" factor for your kids. Telling the government to do it for you is not just giving up on yourself.

i mean no offence when i say this too you at ALL, but your argument is the biggest load of shit that we have been telling ourselves in America almost since we became a nation.

for ever example of someone 'pulling themselves' up by their boot straps there is entire generations of people who cant, not WONT, but literaly CANT do it. we tell ourselves that our society is built on the American dream of hard work and you can do anything, its bull shit, i work hard, my parents work hard, well .......... were is my 'anything'? when does MY ship come in? when does all this wonderious wealth and high living start too arrive?

our society is the biggest example of a mouse on a wheel in history, we ALL work hard as fuck to accomplish exactly NOTHING of any use to those of us working. we get by. we dont starve, we dont live in caves, and we generaly have enough cash to afford a pizza and beer atleast once a week, but i could have all that and then some in any 3rd world nation on the planet, this is *said in tones of awe* AMERICA *polishes the shine* arent we supposed to have the 'dream' if we only work hard enough?

i been busting my ass for damn near 20 years now and im still wondering when that dream starts? cause it seems like that 1 trillion on bonus cash that could have made a pretty good start on funding that dream (or maybe doing something like .... fixing social security, or maybe establishing a nationel health care system) kinda got diverted to wall-street.

your ideal of America is a great one. but as i said in my last post the American deam is grand, its the REALITY i take exception too.

Like I said I feel ya. but It's porbably not gonna happen to YOU. It's the future generatrions that your're doing it for. I ask, do you have more than your parents did? The obvious is, yes the standard of liveing is higher all over the place since then. But you have to work your ass off untill you need a cushin to sit down, then you can rest. It's a very long procces but it will change.

I've study famliy histories, And they rise and fall. Some more than other but they always rise and fall. Hell almost every american can find atleast one member of there family that was roaltiy at some point in history. Iknow it's sounds like **** after you've heard it and lived it for so many years but you have to do what you can for your kids.

PLanning is also needed. I have never planned anything and stood still/go backwards since I've been on my own. But I have a plan, If I do it right, my kids will never know what hunger is or homlessnes and there kids will have a futre where they don't have to worrry about anything but their coffe.

As I said, You have to believe. It sounds annyoing and yanked out of kids book but thats the truth. It will never change if every body says **** it and doesn't try harder. My family used to run a small town now I have to pay for my bills and my parents debt. but I wll see light! I will not let life kick me in the nuts and runaway! I will grab It's leg, break it then slam it to the mat! I will say "vinnie vidi castropohe illigitimos"!(My latin is not good) I will not fail my imaginarey grandkids!

 

[Barciad]

I would argue that poor regulation rather than de-regulation played a role in the financial crisis. Further, I would agree with you entirely in terms of the financial sector. The financial sector differs from other parts of the economy in that transactions occur much faster and much more money is involved in each transaction. For any other type of good, production time and shipping are all issues that limit volatility. Major retailers have to begin planning for the Christmas shopping season as early as May or June. These delays limit volatility since usually we can figure out where the problems are before they become crises. Even huge advocates for globalization like Jagdish Bhagwati out at Columbia recognize the financial sector is volatile and needs some regulation at both a national and international level. My opinion is that outside of the financial sector, regulation is usually unnecessary.

My concern is that regulation is often misguided and inefficient at doing what it's supposed to do, as well that the individual rights aspect I explained earlier. As for your second paragraph "answer me this...", I would argue that yes, mistakes were made. I would say that the high capital gains tax in the USA, among a slew of other bad ideas, made people less willing to pursue conservative, prudent investment strategies. High-risk, high-reward investments became popular since conservative investments usually ended up being taxed to the point that they ended up being losses. But there was also an aspect of under-regulation as well, and I concede that. The point is that the issue isn't so clear cut. I'm not so much a laissez faire capitalist as I am a pragmatist; if regulation will lead to a better outcome than non-regulation, I'm in favor of it.

Thanks for your reply ZZ, I to would prefer to see myself as a pragmatist. I follow the old mantra of 'As much state intervention as necessary, as much private initiative as possible'.
In an ideal world we could be left to our own devices. However, as I am sure you accept, that things are never that simple.
Group cooperation is essential for many things, as ultimately people working with each other, rather than against each other leads to better things. I am sure also that you have heard of Nash's Game Theorem and the limits it entails. Though you might argue that this theory proves that aggresive competition is healthy, I would argue that there have been enough holes poked through this arguement to suggest otherwise. For further information on this I would recommend watching Adam Curtis's 'The Trap'. Just to say that it was seen that there were only two types of people who could be said to be living according to Nash's mathematica formulae. One was Economics Professors, the other was pyschopaths.
Anyway, back to more realistic notions, and I wonder as to your views on the provision of health and education. Should it be according to need or personal wealth? As for public transport - what are your views on that?
I will not lie, I am a British Democratic Socialist who admires the likes of Benn, Attlee, Orwell, and Bevan. This means that I believe in a state and a capitalist economy that works for the social welfare of the greater society. That is the state exists to serve society and should be accountable to it. The economy exists to serve society and should be accountable to it. I believe that people to not exist to serve the economy, but the other way round. What are your views?
Finally, you never answered my question regarding the massive bail-out. Clearly there is a paradox here. Either banks can generate income without government support, or they can't. Rights and responsibilities, that is the very key to any functioning society.

 

[Rigs83]

Now I am using hyperbole but the failure of Regan Era capitalism is dumbfounding.

As Regan doubled tax revenue from 80 to 90'

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

Psst..I heard a rumor that were in a recession and just about everything that was gained has been lost since the start of deregulation.

 

[UpSkirtDistress]

I'm not a socialist but i do agree with alot of socialist ideas and for the most part vote socialist. I think intergrating some socialist ideas into public services, government and economics would be productive. What I don't understand is why so many people fear socialism and automatically label it communism, it has its roots in communism and shares some ideas but the two are entirely different. Why is it so many people hate and fear socialism. What are your views about government adapting some socialist policies and why people hate the idea of Socialism.

Edit: Communism has its roots in Socialism (Communism is extreme socialism and as a rule extreme anything is never good)

I assume you are from USA... So... yeah.

Look at your whole culture. You've been fed anti-communist propoganda since before Cold War...And many people generally confuse those two things, and quite often these people are politicians which many people listen to.

Ireland actually

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Anyway, back to more realistic notions, and I wonder as to your views on the provision of health and education. Should it be according to need or personal wealth? As for public transport - what are your views on that?
I will not lie, I am a British Democratic Socialist who admires the likes of Benn, Attlee, Orwell, and Bevan. This means that I believe in a state and a capitalist economy that works for the social welfare of the greater society. That is the state exists to serve society and should be accountable to it. The economy exists to serve society and should be accountable to it. I believe that people to not exist to serve the economy, but the other way round. What are your views?
Finally, you never answered my question regarding the massive bail-out. Clearly there is a paradox here. Either banks can generate income without government support, or they can't. Rights and responsibilities, that is the very key to any functioning society.

My views on education and health care:
On education I believe in a meritocracy. Wealth shouldn't be able to buy someone a better education for the sake of itself. But neither should poverty. I feel that public education is useful, but there also needs to be openness not only to private education, but also new approaches. I especially feel that giving students choices about what they want to learn is critical to a successful education. Students in college are allowed to specialize in one area, so why shouldn't high school students be able to? Some of my opinion is influenced by Richard Florida's works in this area. Basically he's an economist and sociologist who makes an argument about how the creative economy is going to dominate the world soon (that's a tad bit of an oversimplification, but the full argument is rather complex). I think education is just about the most important goal for a society and it's one of the areas where I think the public sector plays a vital and positive role.

As for health care, my opinion is that there needs to be a balance between privatization and public service. Privatization helps create high-quality, high-tech health care by creating better incentives for R&D. Patents, for example, though they do raise prices, are also necessary to create an incentive for research into new ideas. On the other hand, public health care tends to be better at working on the "front lines" in providing the health care to a larger portion of the population (the poor). I feel that too much of the health care debate is viewed as "private OR public" when there are obviously different parts that could work well in combination (private research and government-run hospitals would be one such combination).

You say the economy exists to serve society and I think that there are some interesting questions that raises. First, arguably capitalism leads to long-term benefits. Even many of its proponents admit that in the short term it looks less than desirable. Over time, however, it has the capability to raise everyone up. Think about today's poorest in America or Britain versus their quality of life 100 or even 200 years ago. I would argue that generally, free markets tend to promote broad societal interests. Yes, there are flaws, but so long as we look out for them and react to them effectively (as opposed to acting based on principles), we can create a balance of a more leftist and a more laissez faire approach. It shouldn't just be about "meeting in the middle", I'm talking about "meeting at the best location", which varies on an issue-by-issue basis. With manufacturing and international trade, I feel that the ideal point is pretty far to the right. For some other issues (education, as I pointed out, for example), that balance is farther left.

As for your point about the bail out, I feel that a range of factors contributed to the financial crisis and it's not a clear-cut "banks were bad" issue. Yes, that is a part of it (no doubt a large part of the issue), but it is important to recognize that a large range of people with a whole slew of motivations helped create the situation. Simplifying it down and claiming only one group of people was responsible is nothing short of pointing fingers and playing the blame game. The primary goal right now should be to fix the situation, not place blame.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Fox. News.

BLAME EVERYTHING ON FOX NEWS

It's true, those kaniving bastards. On a separate note: how the fuck does one spell kaniving?

 

[sneakypenguin]

Now I am using hyperbole but the failure of Regan Era capitalism is dumbfounding.

As Regan doubled tax revenue from 80 to 90'

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

Psst..I heard a rumor that were in a recession and just about everything that was gained has been lost since the start of deregulation.

Just depends how you look at it, I mean as far as GDP in 2008 it was 14,264,600,000,000 in 1980 it was 2,768,900,000,000 So we have a 6x increase in GDP, to about 47,000 dollars per person, compared to a GDP of 12,251 per person. adjust for inflation of 171% and your still way ahead per person.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

 

[Low Key]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.