Why do people think Socialism is Evil

[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.

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree, because the alternative is to leave to our wonderfully inept and corrupt government to handle it, and I think that if you want that, you're insane.

They would probably pay for the tremendous cost of nationalized health care by printing more money. "Oh, we're out of money? That's okay, let's just make more. That will fix everything."

That you believe paper currency is real is humorous but it isn't that odd since everyone has been duped by the whole Capitalist idea of using nothing to buy something. I mean that the Gov't can print more of it just proves it is based on nothing but a made up number. Also that you accept a government must be corrupt is sad but so stereotypically American. Government can and does work if the people actually pay attention to what they are doing and stay involved in the political process.

 

[Anomynous 167]

Me personally, Because I bust my ass every day for just enough money to pay my bills and eat. **** giveing to the "needy" I've lived around "needy" people all of my life, They don't work, don't want to work, wait for that govrnmet check, spend it on booze or drugs, oh wait. does begging cout as work? Now there are some exceptions, very few, that I've seen. But most are lazy and become complaciant in their poverty.

To those who support socilism, If you had 2 houses and I was homeless would you give me one?

Since I'm a capitalist, I guess that question doesn't apply to me. But I'll answer anyways.

I'd give you a third of a house. On the condition that you get a job in six months, and pay a little fee, (About a fifth of the house's value.) and stay away from my anti commy barracks.

Aww, but I want to man the harpoons.

Thank you though, at least sombody answered. I was hoping of somebody to say yes So I could contunie my exaple the main flaw with socilaist. Should I continue on my own, evrey body will say "I'd never say that."

Looking back at what I said, except for the anti commy barracks. That's pretty much what China does when dealing with the unemployed.
Give them postal stamps (Or food stamps, but I think a food stamp is the same as a postal stamp since I've never actually seen a food stamp) for six months, and if the person on the wealth fair has not gotten a job in the six months, the Govna is like, "Screw him, he is a lost cause".

 

[tmnnerd]

i dont hate socialism as a political ideal, i just hate Tommy Sheridan and every other preachy ball-licker that supports it. i am an ex socialist and all there is to say is that socialists ruined socialism for me.

 

[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. Not to mention there are numerous reasons why this could be that have nothing to do with the health-care system, such as the genetic health of Americans.

 

[Thanatos34]

Me personally, Because I bust my ass every day for just enough money to pay my bills and eat. **** giveing to the "needy" I've lived around "needy" people all of my life, They don't work, don't want to work, wait for that govrnmet check, spend it on booze or drugs, oh wait. does begging cout as work? Now there are some exceptions, very few, that I've seen. But most are lazy and become complaciant in their poverty.

To those who support socilism, If you had 2 houses and I was homeless would you give me one?

Since I'm a capitalist, I guess that question doesn't apply to me. But I'll answer anyways.

I'd give you a third of a house. On the condition that you get a job in six months, and pay a little fee, (About a fifth of the house's value.) and stay away from my anti commy barracks.

Aww, but I want to man the harpoons.

Thank you though, at least sombody answered. I was hoping of somebody to say yes So I could contunie my exaple the main flaw with socilaist. Should I continue on my own, evrey body will say "I'd never say that."

Looking back at what I said, except for the anti commy barracks. That's pretty much what China does when dealing with the unemployed.
Give them postal stamps (Or food stamps, but I think a food stamp is the same as a postal stamp since I've never actually seen a food stamp) for six months, and if the person on the wealth fair has not gotten a job in the six months, the Govna is like, "Screw him, he is a lost cause".

I don't think China is something we want to hold up as an ideal country.

 

[Asehujiko]

The problem I have with socialism is its tendency to take away individual freedom for "the common good"

Since I believe people are entitled to keep most of what they earn, it bothers me to see socialist governments take so much money from productive people and hand it to unproductive people which effectively rewards them for whatever bad decisions they made. The socialists believe its unfair that some people can have more stuff than other people, buying into the idea that money = happiness. They seem to aspire to some kind of Utopia where everyone is equal and happy.

There's hate speech laws that can be used to prosecute you for criticizing certain groups of people.

Some socialists realize that the war on drugs is a bad idea, but think a war on guns will work. So they pass gun control laws that are ineffective at preventing crime, but reduce our ability to protect ourselves.

Socialists want to ban large cars and limit us to driving tiny "death trap" cars.

Recently some leftist cities have banned trans fats which shows a desire to control what we
can eat, possibly the beginning of a "war on food"

Also they claim that they care about poor people but then enact regressive taxes such as
sales, tobacco and gasoline taxes

You are confusing political decisions with a form of economy. None of the things you mentions is inherently socialist but is related to a government with too much time on it's hands. Don't blame the system for who uses it.

 

[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?

 

[n64link]

AS much as I dislike comunism, I think has china done ok, they have lasted longer than I thought they would have. But since they were smart enough to leave hong kong alone, the people aree really digging this "working for my self" thing.

 

[Spinozaad]

Originally socialism and communism were pretty much the same thing. The communists considered themselves to be the true socialists, with the 'fake' socialists being traitors to the revolutionary cause.

Why is socialism hated? I suppose there are multiple answers for this question.

The first would be the historical impact had by socialists of all sorts. Whenever you mention socialism, the idea of 'revolution' is not far away. Revolution is tied to socialism like a bungee-cord to a bridge. All socialists want some sort of revolution, they want change (yes, they can!) of the current system. Here's the point where socialism becomes hated by so many. For all those who want changes, there are probably as much -and likely more- who don't want any change at all.

Another reason why socialism is somewhat hated because of its stance on property. Some want a redistribution of property, some want to completely destroy the idea of property. Whatever the socialist wants, chances are it'll involve taking -something- away from *you*. That's not a prospect a lot of people like.

The third reason... I guess this is one of those things that look good on paper, but don't really work in practice. Marx' idea of the classless society sounds nice, but human nature tends to stick at the Dictatorship of the Proletariat-phase. Nobody likes to live in a dictatorship, unless you're the dictator or one of his henchmen.

 

[n64link]

I'm gonna write in "Ronald Regans corpse" on the next presidentail elction.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Originally socialism and communism were pretty much the same thing. The communists considered themselves to be the true socialists, with the 'fake' socialists being traitors to the revolutionary cause.

Why is socialism hated? I suppose there are multiple answers for this question.

The first would be the historical impact had by socialists of all sorts. Whenever you mention socialism, the idea of 'revolution' is not far away. Revolution is tied to socialism like a bungee-cord to a bridge. All socialists want some sort of revolution, they want change (yes, they can!) of the current system. Here's the point where socialism becomes hated by so many. For all those who want changes, there are probably as much -and likely more- who don't want any change at all.

Another reason why socialism is somewhat hated because of its stance on property. Some want a redistribution of property, some want to completely destroy the idea of property. Whatever the socialist wants, chances are it'll involve taking -something- away from *you*. That's not a prospect a lot of people like.

The third reason... I guess this is one of those things that look good on paper, but don't really work in practice. Marx' idea of the classless society sounds nice, but human nature tends to stick at the Dictatorship of the Proletariat-phase. Nobody likes to live in a dictatorship, unless you're the dictator or one of his henchmen.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a fancy way to say a Democracy Ruled and Controlled by the Workers not an actual dictatorship in the traditional sense but rather a reversal of the role of Bourgeoise and Proletariat.

 

[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.

EDIT: Continuing from that last sentence - the point is that government in America is not suited for managing industries. We have a very ingrained adverserial relationship between the public and private sectors that would cause any attempts at socialized health care to break down. I'm not saying socialized health care lacks benefits, or that it's always a bad idea, but that you do have to take the society in question into account. As I see it any person who sought to defend socialized health care IN AMERICA would have to prove that it would work IN AMERICA.

 

[Spinozaad]

Originally socialism and communism were pretty much the same thing. The communists considered themselves to be the true socialists, with the 'fake' socialists being traitors to the revolutionary cause.

Why is socialism hated? I suppose there are multiple answers for this question.

The first would be the historical impact had by socialists of all sorts. Whenever you mention socialism, the idea of 'revolution' is not far away. Revolution is tied to socialism like a bungee-cord to a bridge. All socialists want some sort of revolution, they want change (yes, they can!) of the current system. Here's the point where socialism becomes hated by so many. For all those who want changes, there are probably as much -and likely more- who don't want any change at all.

Another reason why socialism is somewhat hated because of its stance on property. Some want a redistribution of property, some want to completely destroy the idea of property. Whatever the socialist wants, chances are it'll involve taking -something- away from *you*. That's not a prospect a lot of people like.

The third reason... I guess this is one of those things that look good on paper, but don't really work in practice. Marx' idea of the classless society sounds nice, but human nature tends to stick at the Dictatorship of the Proletariat-phase. Nobody likes to live in a dictatorship, unless you're the dictator or one of his henchmen.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a fancy way to say a Democracy Ruled and Controlled by the Workers not an actual dictatorship in the traditional sense but rather a reversal of the role of Bourgeoise and Proletariat.

That's the theory.
Look at the practice, my friend.

Whatever fancy philosophical idea was ment by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it ended as a Dictatorship, no more, no less. That's really something that puts people off.

 

[Anomynous 167]

I don't think China is something we want to hold up as an ideal country.

The Chinease have the same political identity as Rudd.
They claim to be capitalist haters, and communist. But end up being closet capitalist.
Besides. Here is one word, for the ideal currency. Want me to spell it out to you in simple english or simple chinease?
For chinease it's 人民币
For english it's called Renminbi.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Thanatos34]

I don't think China is something we want to hold up as an ideal country.

The Chinease have the same political identity as Rudd.
They claim to be capitalist haters, and communist. But end up being closet capitalist.
Besides. Here is one word, for the ideal currency. Want me to spell it out to you in simple english or simple chinease?
For chinease it's 人民币
For english it's called Renminbi.

That would be Chinese*.

I don't really see want your argument is trying to prove. China is not a capitalist country, they are a communist country. Are you actually saying they aren't communist, but capitalist?

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Originally socialism and communism were pretty much the same thing. The communists considered themselves to be the true socialists, with the 'fake' socialists being traitors to the revolutionary cause.

Why is socialism hated? I suppose there are multiple answers for this question.

The first would be the historical impact had by socialists of all sorts. Whenever you mention socialism, the idea of 'revolution' is not far away. Revolution is tied to socialism like a bungee-cord to a bridge. All socialists want some sort of revolution, they want change (yes, they can!) of the current system. Here's the point where socialism becomes hated by so many. For all those who want changes, there are probably as much -and likely more- who don't want any change at all.

Another reason why socialism is somewhat hated because of its stance on property. Some want a redistribution of property, some want to completely destroy the idea of property. Whatever the socialist wants, chances are it'll involve taking -something- away from *you*. That's not a prospect a lot of people like.

The third reason... I guess this is one of those things that look good on paper, but don't really work in practice. Marx' idea of the classless society sounds nice, but human nature tends to stick at the Dictatorship of the Proletariat-phase. Nobody likes to live in a dictatorship, unless you're the dictator or one of his henchmen.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a fancy way to say a Democracy Ruled and Controlled by the Workers not an actual dictatorship in the traditional sense but rather a reversal of the role of Bourgeoise and Proletariat.

No, even a basic reading of Marx would tell you that Marx thought the workers were unable of organizing themselves and managing society. They're just stupid peasants as far as Marx was concerned. The goal is that the workers get the surplus that they generate, not that they run society. Marx's whole problem is that the proletariat generates a surplus through his labor but the bourgeoisie gains the profits from it, which is essentially a market failure.

 

[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.

 

[Spinozaad]

Originally socialism and communism were pretty much the same thing. The communists considered themselves to be the true socialists, with the 'fake' socialists being traitors to the revolutionary cause.

Why is socialism hated? I suppose there are multiple answers for this question.

The first would be the historical impact had by socialists of all sorts. Whenever you mention socialism, the idea of 'revolution' is not far away. Revolution is tied to socialism like a bungee-cord to a bridge. All socialists want some sort of revolution, they want change (yes, they can!) of the current system. Here's the point where socialism becomes hated by so many. For all those who want changes, there are probably as much -and likely more- who don't want any change at all.

Another reason why socialism is somewhat hated because of its stance on property. Some want a redistribution of property, some want to completely destroy the idea of property. Whatever the socialist wants, chances are it'll involve taking -something- away from *you*. That's not a prospect a lot of people like.

The third reason... I guess this is one of those things that look good on paper, but don't really work in practice. Marx' idea of the classless society sounds nice, but human nature tends to stick at the Dictatorship of the Proletariat-phase. Nobody likes to live in a dictatorship, unless you're the dictator or one of his henchmen.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a fancy way to say a Democracy Ruled and Controlled by the Workers not an actual dictatorship in the traditional sense but rather a reversal of the role of Bourgeoise and Proletariat.

No, even a basic reading of Marx would tell you that Marx thought the workers were unable of organizing themselves and managing society. They're just stupid peasants as far as Marx was concerned. The goal is that the workers get the surplus that they generate, not that they run society. Marx's whole problem is that the proletariat generates a surplus through his labor but the bourgeoisie gains the profits from it, which is essentially a market failure.

A basic reading of Marx would also tell you that the revolution (as in: the destruction of capitalism and the emergence of the classless society) was inevitable. It never happened.

I guess that's another reason to not like socialism. Its most famous architect was just a false prophet.