Why do people think Socialism is Evil

[n64link]

You know what, before I get boread and forget about this thread, I'm gonna post the example/ true story.

This was from a conversation my boss had with a custumer who was ranting and disturbeing other people about capitalism and socialism.

Boss: So you're a socialist?
Man: yes.
Boss: So if I was homeless and you had 2 houses, you would give me one?
Man: Offcourse I would, why would I need 2 houses?
Boss: And If I had no car, and you had two, would you give me one?
Man: Sure, I can't drive two cars.
Boss: And If was broke and you had $10,000,000, would you give me $100,000?
Man: Sure, I would glady give you that.
Boss: Will you give me $50, now.
Man: No!
Boss: Why?
Man: because I have $50.

True event, BTW.

 

[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.

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.

Are you confusing yourself? Peasants and Workers are two different classes and Marx considred the Peasants as a non-factor and thus ruled them out of being effective in the part of a Communist Movement. One must remember that Peasant and Worker are two different things and were not synonyms especially in Marx's time. Also Marx never said the Worker's were not able to organize that is anathema to what Marxism is about. What you are more closely referring to is Lenin's theory on the Vanguard which would be made up of Proletariat and members of the Petit-Bourgeoise.

 

[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.

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?

Yes.
As I stated earlier, the Chinese are capitalists, BUT, they SAY that they are communist.
When Kevin Rudd said that the economic crisis was the result of extreme capitalism he was mearily jumping on the band wagon.

Now I will use the association logical fallacy.
Politicians have been calling capitalism evil, and denouncing it.
Politicians have also been known as liers, and or idiots.
Now put those facts together, and whulla. You should do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

 

[sonidraw]

A good idea implemented by corrupt individuals is dangerous <- That's basically the summation of my attitude towards socialism. It's good until power is concentrated in a few individuals or a single group, then the shit hits the fan.

Unfortunately, every other idea also leads to the same problem. We just suck at administering ourselves.

 

[n64link]

A good idea implemented by corrupt individuals is dangerous <- That's basically the summation of my attitude towards socialism. It's good until power is concentrated in a few individuals or a single group, then the shit hits the fan.

Unfortunately, every other idea also leads to the same problem. We just suck at administering ourselves.

Not when everybody pays attention and wants to do better. It's when people become coplaciant with what they have that they stop careing what the government does. Then curuption spreads, rights and possesions are taken away.

 

[Wyatt]

well im converted for the most part. to socialism that is. i started out fresh from high school believing in truth justice and the American way, where hard work and a free market economy will save the world.

take a look around, 20 years after graduation im not impressed. im not sure that we need to rob the rich to fund the poor, but im no longer that convinced we SHOULDNT either.

i think capitalism is great in theory, socialism is great in theory, hell COMMUNISM is great ... in theory. in practice ive come to favor more and more a capitalist basis with socialist controlls in place. and YES in place by the government, who else can have the power to do it?

anyone that can look around America and see poor starving homless people in the richest nation in history and think this is a good policy to continue to support no questions asked is wrong.

and dont talk to me about work either, my mother worked in a factory for 35 years making medical equipment, my father pounded rocks to make slate roofing tiles for damn near 45 years. they are ONE serious illness away from being bankrupt and homeless. and i challange ANYONE too show me two people who have worked harder in their life for what little they have. my mothers health is very poor due to years of exposure to chemicals used in making those medical goods, the owners of the factory she worked in didnt even know her name and spent 3 years fighting her disability clame, they lost but whats that matter? she still had to fight the very people she worked all her life for making THEM rich when she was poisoned by doing a job they couldnt EVER do for most of her life.

my father worked for a small company whos owners actualy came onto the shop floor and picked up a hammer now and then, they treated him pretty well, paid well, gave great bonusus, he had vacation time and sick time wich is unusual in that industry atleast localy anyhow. they were still a pretty good place to work, but he never had a dime of medical insurance, if it wasnt for my mothers medical insurance hed be dead now. so even though they treated him pretty good, what kind of a reward is it to work 45 years , and i mean WORK 45 years pounding rocks just too end up literaly killing yourself in the process of making someone else rich?

does that seem at all fair to anyone? does the idea of a free market mean we allow things like this to continue for ever? do we just accept that a few people are 'entitled' to be rich and call it 'hard work' and that the majority of our population the world over who actualy do work hard are treated as disposable parts used and tossed aside when they can no longer make those at the top richer?

im not sure that i can say we need to start ripping down the capitolist system whole sale, but im put to mind of the quote about democracy by Churchill when he said its a horrible system but its still better than anything else. capitolism is a horrible system, but its better than anything else at the moment.

im just not certian that we cant do better still. so no socialism doesnt scare me anymore. if nothing else maybe its time for a bit of a shake up and let the 'rich' feel what its like to be used, abused and tossed aside. after all misery loves company and if we common people have to face poverty than im ready to take as many as we can down with us.

just ONCE in my life id like to see the playing field level even if it means we all are poor, hungry, and homeless. after all ive had experiance with all those things, not much certianly but i know hunger, and i certianly know poverty, ive even been homeless in my life once and while. ive tryed to play on the field that is ballanced totaly to the side of those with the cash to buy anything they want only to end up losing time and again, to see my friends and family lose time and again, to see most everyone i know one missed paycheck away from losing everything they have worked their entire lives for, id have to say id enjoy taking a few down with me if it comes to it.

lets see a few of those rich fuckers have to pick up a hammer and pound a rock for a living, or to have to be forced to actualy grow their food, or have to live their entire old age in fear of getting sick because they will have to chose between food and medicen.

im not all that fond of a system that rewards a select few at the expence of the majority and while one could argue that a free market society has made America the great nation it is all it takes is a look around my community too see that its not trickling down very far and in truth we arent all that much better off, the majority of us, than some 3rd world nations. our richest ARE the marvel of the world, but our majority is still fighting day to day just to get the most basic things in life. that 'shine' that , 'glow' that we like to think America has is tarnished once you get a good look at it, when you turn over the rock of our large ballance sheets and take a good look at how those numbers are actualy produced. look at the misery that is the foundation that our wealth is built on. if socialism can chagne taht even a little than im for giving it a try at this point. because capitolism hasent help ME all that much, nor anyone i know for that matter. i and most like me have almost literaly nothing too lose and everything to gain.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Rajin Cajun]

well im converted for the most part. to socialism that is. i started out fresh from high school believing in truth justice and the American way, where hard work and a free market economy will save the world.

take a look around, 20 years after graduation im not impressed. im not sure that we need to rob the rich to fund the poor, but im no longer that convinced we SHOULDNT either.

i think capitalism is great in theory, socialism is great in theory, hell COMMUNISM is great ... in theory. in practice ive come to favor more and more a capitalist basis with socialist controlls in place. and YES in place by the government, who else can have the power to do it?

anyone that can look around America and see poor starving homless people in the richest nation in history and think this is a good policy to continue to support no questions asked is wrong.

and dont talk to me about work either, my mother worked in a factory for 35 years making medical equipment, my father pounded rocks to make slate roofing tiles for damn near 45 years. they are ONE serious illness away from being bankrupt and homeless. and i challange ANYONE too show me two people who have worked harder in their life for what little they have. my mothers health is very poor due to years of exposure to chemicals used in making those medical goods, the owners of the factory she worked in didnt even know her name and spent 3 years fighting her disability clame, they lost but whats that matter? she still had to fight the very people she worked all her life for making THEM rich when she was poisoned by doing a job they couldnt EVER do for most of her life.

my father worked for a small company whos owners actualy came onto the shop floor and picked up a hammer now and then, they treated him pretty well, paid well, gave great bonusus, he had vacation time and sick time wich is unusual in that industry atleast localy anyhow. they were still a pretty good place to work, but he never had a dime of medical insurance, if it wasnt for my mothers medical insurance hed be dead now. so even though they treated him pretty good, what kind of a reward is it to work 45 years , and i mean WORK 45 years pounding rocks just too end up literaly killing yourself in the process of making someone else rich?

does that seem at all fair to anyone? does the idea of a free market mean we allow things like this to continue for ever? do we just accept that a few people are 'entitled' to be rich and call it 'hard work' and that the majority of our population the world over who actualy do work hard are treated as disposable parts used and tossed aside when they can no longer make those at the top richer?

im not sure that i can say we need to start ripping down the capitolist system whole sale, but im put to mind of the quote about democracy by Churchill when he said its a horrible system but its still better than anything else. capitolism is a horrible system, but its better than anything else at the moment.

im just not certian that we cant do better still. so no socialism doesnt scare me anymore. if nothing else maybe its time for a bit of a shake up and let the 'rich' feel what its like to be used, abused and tossed aside. after all misery loves company and if we common people have to face poverty than im ready to take as many as we can down with us.

just ONCE in my life id like to see the playing field level even if it means we all are poor, hungry, and homeless. after all ive had experiance with all those things, not much certianly but i know hunger, and i certianly know poverty, ive even been homeless in my life once and while. ive tryed to play on the field that is ballanced totaly to the side of those with the cash to buy anything they want only to end up losing time and again, to see my friends and family lose time and again, to see most everyone i know one missed paycheck away from losing everything they have worked their entire lives for, id have to say id enjoy taking a few down with me if it comes to it.

lets see a few of those rich fuckers have to pick up a hammer and pound a rock for a living, or to have to be forced to actualy grow their food, or have to live their entire old age in fear of getting sick because they will have to chose between food and medicen.

im not all that fond of a system that rewards a select few at the expence of the majority and while one could argue that a free market society has made America the great nation it is all it takes is a look around my community too see that its not trickling down very far and in truth we arent all that much better off, the majority of us, than some 3rd world nations. our richest ARE the marvel of the world, but our majority is still fighting day to day just to get the most basic things in life. that 'shine' that , 'glow' that we like to think America has is tarnished once you get a good look at it, when you turn over the rock of our large ballance sheets and take a good look at how those numbers are actualy produced. look at the misery that is the foundation that our wealth is built on. if socialism can chagne taht even a little than im for giving it a try at this point. because capitolism hasent help ME all that much, nor anyone i know for that matter. i and most like me have almost literaly nothing too lose and everything to gain.

I hear that sticking it to the rich is my prime goal in life. ;-) Having busted my ass moving Lavarock for a shitty amount of money I would love to see the Capitalists bust their asses doing it. All I had was some gloves, a sledge and a wheelbarrow and I had to move a massive amount of lavarock so this guy could get his foundation in for his house. Hard work especially in 100+ heat and honestly not worth the pay but I would like to see some suit bust their balls doing something similar. Would definitely shut up all those talking heads who like to say they do real work and complain that a hard day of work is not getting the exact type of coffee you want. Bunch of fuckin' Prima donnas I say.

 

[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.

Are you confusing yourself? Peasants and Workers are two different classes and Marx considred the Peasants as a non-factor and thus ruled them out of being effective in the part of a Communist Movement. One must remember that Peasant and Worker are two different things and were not synonyms especially in Marx's time. Also Marx never said the Worker's were not able to organize that is anathema to what Marxism is about. What you are more closely referring to is Lenin's theory on the Vanguard which would be made up of Proletariat and members of the Petit-Bourgeoise.

You're probably right. I read the Communist Manifesto way back during 1st semester so my recollection is on the hazy side. I do remember in one lecture we talked about Lenin's petit-bourgeoisie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're the lower-level owners who sympathize with the proletariat and end up lending support to the proletariat, right?

My main problem with Marxism is that it has huge Hegelian overtones, and Hegel is a tough sell to say the least. A huge overtone in Marx's works isn't that the rise of the proletariat "should" happen, but that it "will" happen, which is borrowed from Hegel's thesis/antithesis/synthesis model that eventually leads to the whole unification of spirit and humanity at some point away off into the future. It's essentially 19th century neo-conservatism.

 

[Low Key]

anyone that can look around America and see poor starving homless people in the richest nation in history and think this is a good policy to continue to support no questions asked is wrong.

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 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.

 

[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.

 

[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).

 

[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.

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.

Are you confusing yourself? Peasants and Workers are two different classes and Marx considred the Peasants as a non-factor and thus ruled them out of being effective in the part of a Communist Movement. One must remember that Peasant and Worker are two different things and were not synonyms especially in Marx's time. Also Marx never said the Worker's were not able to organize that is anathema to what Marxism is about. What you are more closely referring to is Lenin's theory on the Vanguard which would be made up of Proletariat and members of the Petit-Bourgeoise.

You're probably right. I read the Communist Manifesto way back during 1st semester so my recollection is on the hazy side. I do remember in one lecture we talked about Lenin's petit-bourgeoisie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're the lower-level owners who sympathize with the proletariat and end up lending support to the proletariat, right?

My main problem with Marxism is that it has huge Hegelian overtones, and Hegel is a tough sell to say the least. A huge overtone in Marx's works isn't that the rise of the proletariat "should" happen, but that it "will" happen, which is borrowed from Hegel's thesis/antithesis/synthesis model that eventually leads to the whole unification of spirit and humanity at some point away off into the future. It's essentially 19th century neo-conservatism.

Your memory serves you well in regards to the petit-Bourgeois. Well Marx's biggest teacher was Hegel so that has a thing to do with it. I agree though Hegel is the biggest problem with Marx's work and most Marxists if push came to shove would agree with you. I don't think Marx was far off in most of his observations of capitalism but I do believe that he was off that socialism/communism was the next logical step of capitalism. His views weren't necessarily bad but rather just faulty in its reasoning.

 

[Scarecrow38]

It's not evil. it just doesn't work in the real world. Human nature is against 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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[n64link]

well im converted for the most part. to socialism that is. i started out fresh from high school believing in truth justice and the American way, where hard work and a free market economy will save the world.

take a look around, 20 years after graduation im not impressed. im not sure that we need to rob the rich to fund the poor, but im no longer that convinced we SHOULDNT either.

i think capitalism is great in theory, socialism is great in theory, hell COMMUNISM is great ... in theory. in practice ive come to favor more and more a capitalist basis with socialist controlls in place. and YES in place by the government, who else can have the power to do it?

anyone that can look around America and see poor starving homless people in the richest nation in history and think this is a good policy to continue to support no questions asked is wrong.

and dont talk to me about work either, my mother worked in a factory for 35 years making medical equipment, my father pounded rocks to make slate roofing tiles for damn near 45 years. they are ONE serious illness away from being bankrupt and homeless. and i challange ANYONE too show me two people who have worked harder in their life for what little they have. my mothers health is very poor due to years of exposure to chemicals used in making those medical goods, the owners of the factory she worked in didnt even know her name and spent 3 years fighting her disability clame, they lost but whats that matter? she still had to fight the very people she worked all her life for making THEM rich when she was poisoned by doing a job they couldnt EVER do for most of her life.

my father worked for a small company whos owners actualy came onto the shop floor and picked up a hammer now and then, they treated him pretty well, paid well, gave great bonusus, he had vacation time and sick time wich is unusual in that industry atleast localy anyhow. they were still a pretty good place to work, but he never had a dime of medical insurance, if it wasnt for my mothers medical insurance hed be dead now. so even though they treated him pretty good, what kind of a reward is it to work 45 years , and i mean WORK 45 years pounding rocks just too end up literaly killing yourself in the process of making someone else rich?

does that seem at all fair to anyone? does the idea of a free market mean we allow things like this to continue for ever? do we just accept that a few people are 'entitled' to be rich and call it 'hard work' and that the majority of our population the world over who actualy do work hard are treated as disposable parts used and tossed aside when they can no longer make those at the top richer?

im not sure that i can say we need to start ripping down the capitolist system whole sale, but im put to mind of the quote about democracy by Churchill when he said its a horrible system but its still better than anything else. capitolism is a horrible system, but its better than anything else at the moment.

im just not certian that we cant do better still. so no socialism doesnt scare me anymore. if nothing else maybe its time for a bit of a shake up and let the 'rich' feel what its like to be used, abused and tossed aside. after all misery loves company and if we common people have to face poverty than im ready to take as many as we can down with us.

just ONCE in my life id like to see the playing field level even if it means we all are poor, hungry, and homeless. after all ive had experiance with all those things, not much certianly but i know hunger, and i certianly know poverty, ive even been homeless in my life once and while. ive tryed to play on the field that is ballanced totaly to the side of those with the cash to buy anything they want only to end up losing time and again, to see my friends and family lose time and again, to see most everyone i know one missed paycheck away from losing everything they have worked their entire lives for, id have to say id enjoy taking a few down with me if it comes to it.

lets see a few of those rich fuckers have to pick up a hammer and pound a rock for a living, or to have to be forced to actualy grow their food, or have to live their entire old age in fear of getting sick because they will have to chose between food and medicen.

im not all that fond of a system that rewards a select few at the expence of the majority and while one could argue that a free market society has made America the great nation it is all it takes is a look around my community too see that its not trickling down very far and in truth we arent all that much better off, the majority of us, than some 3rd world nations. our richest ARE the marvel of the world, but our majority is still fighting day to day just to get the most basic things in life. that 'shine' that , 'glow' that we like to think America has is tarnished once you get a good look at it, when you turn over the rock of our large ballance sheets and take a good look at how those numbers are actualy produced. look at the misery that is the foundation that our wealth is built on. if socialism can chagne taht even a little than im for giving it a try at this point. because capitolism hasent help ME all that much, nor anyone i know for that matter. i and most like me have almost literaly nothing too lose and everything to gain.

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.