We really need Jack Bauer.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Libraries, police stations, fire stations, labor unions, social security are all products of a socialist system.

Communism is so terrible, isn't it.

1984 was such a beautiful story.

Edit: Well put delta, Now define trolling for me Charla. Posting on an internet forum...?

[Khamsin]

Libraries, police stations, fire stations, labor unions, social security are all products of a socialist system.

Communism is so terrible, isn't it.

With that logic, any public service paid by taxpayers is a socialist system and advocate of communism.

[Charla]

Libraries, police stations, and fire stations are social programs. Socialist not so much. Not going to even tackle the last two; that's a whole other can of worms.

Charla: While socialized medicine might make you all warm and fuzzy on the inside, the medical industry would not be what it is today without being privatized to an extent. As for it not being socialized medicine, if the citizen does not get a choice to even pay in or not, it is indeed socialism. At its heart socialism is a redistribution of wealth, and if there is no choice and the government decides it knows what is best to do with YOUR money then I'm afraid that's socialism.

That's a good point, but unfortunately that criterion doesn't draw a distinction between public works, social programs, a standing military, etc. and "socialist" ideas such as compulsory insurance. What's more, the definition I quoted earlier included several other aspects in addition to collective desicision making, which are unrelated to compulsory taxation or spending.

Look at it this way: We already engage in compulsory public education, with the rationale that educated people are more functional and productive members of society (and less inclined to engage in criminal or otherwise destructive activities). By the same logic, it would be even more desirable for all members of a population to be relatively healthy. Cuts down on diseases for the rest of us, you know.

And trolling is usually defined as "posting controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Libraries, police stations, and fire stations are social programs. Socialist not so much. Not going to even tackle the last two; that's a whole other can of worms.

Charla: While socialized medicine might make you all warm and fuzzy on the inside, the medical industry would not be what it is today without being privatized to an extent. As for it not being socialized medicine, if the citizen does not get a choice to even pay in or not, it is indeed socialism. At its heart socialism is a redistribution of wealth, and if there is no choice and the government decides it knows what is best to do with YOUR money then I'm afraid that's socialism.

That's a good point, but unfortunately that criterion doesn't draw a distinction between public works, social programs, a standing military, etc. and "socialist" ideas such as compulsory insurance. What's more, the definition I quoted earlier included several other aspects in addition to collective desicision making, which are unrelated to compulsory taxation or spending.

Look at it this way: We already engage in compulsory public education, with the rationale that educated people are more functional and productive members of society (and less inclined to engage in criminal or otherwise destructive activities). By the same logic, it would be even more desirable for all members of a population to be relatively healthy. Cuts down on diseases for the rest of us, you know.

And trolling is usually defined as "posting controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

Correct. But where in the constitution does it say the federal government has the right to take my tax dollars to pay someone else's medical bills?

And by that definition I guess you just wanted to single someone out who has an opposing view point.

[Delta_9]

That's a good point, but unfortunately that criterion doesn't draw a distinction between public works, social programs, a standing military, etc. and "socialist" ideas such as compulsory insurance. What's more, the definition I quoted earlier included several other aspects in addition to collective desicision making, which are unrelated to compulsory taxation or spending.

Look at it this way: We already engage in compulsory public education, with the rationale that educated people are more functional and productive members of society (and less inclined to engage in criminal or otherwise destructive activities). By the same logic, it would be even more desirable for all members of a population to be relatively healthy. Cuts down on diseases for the rest of us, you know.

Even though I view many of those things as a social contract between a government and its people to protect well being and civil liberties, I will concede that point a tad. Government can't function without a certain amount of taxation, but does this make every program a socialist movement? Not sure how taxation and spending are unrelated to collective decision making seeing as how I'd like a voice in what they spend my money on(maybe I read that wrong?).

Education compulsory? The tax for it sure, but you can drop out anytime you like. Like I said before, warm and fuzzies. If you socialized medicine we would not have the innovative drive that we have today. I'm not completely opposed to a health care system, but I've not seen or heard of a bill yet that isn't just flat out socialist in nature. Not sure what to think of that last little quip of yours. I'm not high and mighty here; I would like to discuss any and all ideas, hence a forum.

[pohibaba]

Libraries, police stations, and fire stations are social programs. Socialist not so much. Not going to even tackle the last two; that's a whole other can of worms.

Charla: While socialized medicine might make you all warm and fuzzy on the inside, the medical industry would not be what it is today without being privatized to an extent. As for it not being socialized medicine, if the citizen does not get a choice to even pay in or not, it is indeed socialism. At its heart socialism is a redistribution of wealth, and if there is no choice and the government decides it knows what is best to do with YOUR money then I'm afraid that's socialism.

That's a good point, but unfortunately that criterion doesn't draw a distinction between public works, social programs, a standing military, etc. and "socialist" ideas such as compulsory insurance. What's more, the definition I quoted earlier included several other aspects in addition to collective desicision making, which are unrelated to compulsory taxation or spending.

Look at it this way: We already engage in compulsory public education, with the rationale that educated people are more functional and productive members of society (and less inclined to engage in criminal or otherwise destructive activities). By the same logic, it would be even more desirable for all members of a population to be relatively healthy. Cuts down on diseases for the rest of us, you know.

And trolling is usually defined as "posting controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

If you actually advocate universal healthcare the last thing you want to do is compare it to public education. Any rational person can see that our education system is horrible.

[Maxxthepenguin]

With socialized medicine we might get things like preventative medicine, which is good for health and saving costs but bad for businesses that rely on repeat customers.

That's my biggest issue with our medical system. It has a vested interest in not keeping us as healthy as possible.

If you actually advocate universal healthcare the last thing you want to do is compare it to public education. Any rational person can see that our education system is horrible.

Compared to what?

[Rhinox]

Dammit, now there's just gonna be more sympathy for this communist bitch.

Not this again

"Al Gore won the Noble prize" ~ "WTF!, Noble prize sux!".
"There is a man with a bomb at Clinton Office" ~"That bitch!"

Seriously, is there anything that doesnt poor sand in conservative's vaginas?

I'd rather have a sandy vagina than support communism.

Edit: And I think people say the Noble prize sucks, not because Gore recieved it, but because Arial Sharon (sp?) received it lol.

Wrong Semite. I believe the guy you're thinking of is Yassar Arafat.

[Charla]

Even though I view many of those things as a social contract between a government and its people to protect well being and civil liberties, I will concede that point a tad. Government can't function without a certain amount of taxation, but does this make every program a socialist movement? Not sure how taxation and spending are unrelated to collective decision making seeing as how I'd like a voice in what they spend my money on(maybe I read that wrong?).

I was saying that the other aspects of socialism (economic and social equality and public control of productive capital and natural resources) are unrelated to taxation. Therefore issues of taxation and spending are not sufficient to deem something socialist, regardless of whether or not they constitute collective decision making.

Education compulsory? The tax for it sure, but you can drop out anytime you like. Like I said before, warm and fuzzies. If you socialized medicine we would not have the innovative drive that we have today. I'm not completely opposed to a health care system, but I've not seen or heard of a bill yet that isn't just flat out socialist in nature. Not sure what to think of that last little quip of yours. I'm not high and mighty here; I would like to discuss any and all ideas, hence a forum.

My understanding was that it is illegal to drop out of school before completing 10th grade. According to this, the age varies by state, but they all appear to be over 15 or so. This doesn't mean that people don't drop out all the time of course, it just means it's technically illegal, and your parents will probably get in trouble if you don't move out too.

The aspects of "socializing medicine" that would discourage competition would be those that mandate a specific medical provider or providers, discouraging competition between doctors and hospitals. Medical research and innovation is carried out by universities and research institutions, not insurance providers. I see no reason why discouraging competition between providers by mandating or subsidizing participation in a health care system would discourage competition between, for instance, doctors, hospitals or university researchers. The "innovative drive" is usually held to be generated by competition. This can be competition for market share and therefore profits, or in the case of science, competition for grants and marketable patents. I would hold that scientific innovation and progress is driven by scientific curiosity, but in any case, it is well outside the scope of the payment system for a health care system.

The comparison between health care and public education was a comparison of their motivations, not their current implementations in any given nation. It would be a bad comparison for a politician to make, but I think it illustrates the public benefit of every citizen having reasonably obtainable access to preventative medicine.

Swamp, that definition of trolling was quoted verbatim from Wikipedia. I linked to the page I got it from too, in case you don't believe me

[Remyo]

meanwhile back at the ranch:
turns out the guy just duct taped some road flares to himself a la Chris Farley bit in Tommy Boy.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

[quote=Charla]

Even though I view many of those things as a social contract between a government and its people to protect well being and civil liberties, I will concede that point a tad. Government can't function without a certain amount of taxation, but does this make every program a socialist movement? Not sure how taxation and spending are unrelated to collective decision making seeing as how I'd like a voice in what they spend my money on(maybe I read that wrong?).

I was saying that the other aspects of socialism (economic and social equality and public control of productive capital and natural resources) are unrelated to taxation. Therefore issues of taxation and spending are not sufficient to deem something socialist, regardless of whether or not they constitute collective decision making.

Education compulsory? The tax for it sure, but you can drop out anytime you like. Like I said before, warm and fuzzies. If you socialized medicine we would not have the innovative drive that we have today. I'm not completely opposed to a health care system, but I've not seen or heard of a bill yet that isn't just flat out socialist in nature. Not sure what to think of that last little quip of yours. I'm not high and mighty here; I would like to discuss any and all ideas, hence a forum.

My understanding was that it is illegal to drop out of school before completing 10th grade. According to this, the age varies by state, but they all appear to be over 15 or so. This doesn't mean that people don't drop out all the time of course, it just means it's technically illegal, and your parents will probably get in trouble if you don't move out too.

The aspects of "socializing medicine" that would discourage competition would be those that mandate a specific medical provider or providers, discouraging competition between doctors and hospitals. Medical research and innovation is carried out by universities and research institutions, not insurance providers. I see no reason why discouraging competition between providers by mandating or subsidizing participation in a health care system would discourage competition between, for instance, doctors, hospitals or university researchers. The "innovative drive" is usually held to be generated by competition. This can be competition for market share and therefore profits, or in the case of science, competition for grants and marketable patents. I would hold that scientific innovation and progress is driven by scientific curiosity, but in any case, it is well outside the scope of the payment system for a health care system.

The comparison between health care and public education was a comparison of their motivations, not their current implementations in any given nation. It would be a bad comparison for a politician to make, but I think it illustrates the public benefit of every citizen having reasonably obtainable access to preventative medicine.

Swamp, that definition of trolling was quoted verbatim from Wikipedia. I linked to the page I got it from too, in case you don't believe me[/quote:379dbesv]

The biggest problem with socialist medicine isn't innovation and competition and the rest of the things you defended. Its that your forcing people to pay for other peoples medical problems. Thats what makes it socialist. I have no problem with socialism, I only have a problem when I'm forced to participate in it.

[Neosutra]

Nevermind the current system that assrapes everyone lower middle class and below, or the free market propaganda to keep the system the way it is because "its good for econonmy". Last time I checked me being 15k in debt for medical bills didnt help the economy. Also, not everyone using the "free healthcare" is a jobless hobo that wont contribute back to it. Everyone gets sick. Applying a standard to medicine and moving into the mindset that allowing people to die of poverty (indirectly) or place themselves in massive amounts of debt is utterly rediculous for the richest country in the world.

Or are you saying all social medicine programs are horrible and every country that does them have unhappy citizens that are dying in the streets due to their horrible inefficiency.

Go ahead, play the health care lotto, hope you are either born into a wealthy family and can always afford the expensive health insurance, or that you never get sick. And if you do get sick, hope to hell its covered.

I wonder if you ever went a day in your life really wondering how your going to pay your rent, feed your kids, or put gas in your car to get to work because you just had to cut a check for $10,000 for taking your youngest to the emergency room.

Or is this a country of 300 million upper middle class citizens?

[sephir]

If you think universal health insurrance is communist you have no idea what your talking about. Have you ever read the communist manifesto? any of Marx's writings? understand WHY he was advocating those principles?

Being liberal about social spending does not mean that you are advocating communism in any way, shape, or form.

You can have your two tiered healthcare system for all I care. I pay far less for my government sponsored health insurrance for a service which is just as effective. There seems to be a thread about this every week so in hopes of me not repeating myself; I will live longer, have a higher standard of living and save more money over time through government sponsored medicine.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I love how resistant people are to socialized health care but when somebody who has direct experience - AKA lives in a country with it (most 1st world countries, mind you) - says that it works great and makes life much easier and less worrisome and generally happier, that gets ignored. To me, that is the opinion that matters most, the one of direct experience.

So tell us, everyone who isn't American, what do YOU think?

Swampdonkey, I hope you lose all your money due to pure misfortune and get a terminal disease that would be easily treatable if only you had the money, because that is what you seem to want to doom others to... and such occurrences are not uncommon.

Another interesting correlation I've personally thought of is how we are one of the few countries without national health care and we are also the king of fatasses. I personally think there is a correlation there because if the government was responsible for managing the health budget, it would push policy and push attitude towards creating a healthier society overall. Just as making money encourages the health care system to keep us needing doctors, saving money would encourage a government based health care system to make us need less doctors, by being healthy. This is all just a thought that makes sense to me, I have no data to back it up and haven't heard it discussed, really.




And I still find trying to scare people with communism SO outdated. You should be saying "the terrorists want socialized medicine". That's the scare tactic of the now.

[pohibaba]

I love how resistant people are to socialized health care but when somebody who has direct experience - AKA lives in a country with it (most 1st world countries, mind you) - says that it works great and makes life much easier and less worrisome and generally happier, that gets ignored. To me, that is the opinion that matters most, the one of direct experience.

So, if I posted first hand testimonies of people who have experienced socialized health care and don't like it, it'll change your mind? Somehow, I doubt that.

[Vistani]

I agree 100% with Swampdonkey and Pohibaba. Fuck this communist bullshit and fuck that communist bitch Hillary Clinton. Socialist Medicine? SOCIALIST is in the fucking name goddamnit. Police? Useless. Firemen? Useless. In fact who needs the goddamn government at all. What are taxes for anyway? I don't need no goddamn roads, public services, or any civil infrastructure at all! It'd be great, we could just form militias and kill the fuck out of each other! Yeehaw!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You only need to look as far as Walter Reed to know what will happen if the health care becomes government run...and I hate to say it but free health care is not a right. I wish I had as much faith in the federal government as you guys, after Katrina I guess I should have a little more faith. After this sub-prime market BS I should have a little more faith. I should believe that someone who is not making a profit will take better care of me than someone who is. There are also just to many horror stories that come out of England and Canada to make me believe socialized medicine is better. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... icine.html After reading that I can't wait for socialized medicine.

[Vistani]

Just because there is a government health care system doesn't mean you still can't pay for private insurance, lol.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Just because there is a government health care system doesn't mean you still can't pay for private insurance, lol.

You might have private insurance, but the health care will still be shit.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I love how resistant people are to socialized health care but when somebody who has direct experience - AKA lives in a country with it (most 1st world countries, mind you) - says that it works great and makes life much easier and less worrisome and generally happier, that gets ignored. To me, that is the opinion that matters most, the one of direct experience.

So, if I posted first hand testimonies of people who have experienced socialized health care and don't like it, it'll change your mind? Somehow, I doubt that.

We have people from other countries on this forum. I'd rather get personal experiences from people in this forum. If they said "man I wish our healthcare wasn't socialized" then I'd listen. I don't listen to canned testimonials.