Socialist Government fitted for America

[Johnny_Storm]

Well whenever I watch a news show or take a government class I hear about the socialist government's of Europe. So I wondered how would socialisim work here in the United States, it would probably be adjusted for us, kind of like in Germany. How do you think a socialist United States would operate? Also would we see a large dropp in the price of products and cheapper airfare, thought about airfare because of Airbus?

[Grant]

Well whenever I watch a news show or take a government class I hear about the socialist government's of Europe. So I wondered how would socialisim work here in the United States, it would probably be adjusted for us, kind of like in Germany. How do you think a socialist United States would operate? Also would we see a large dropp in the price of products and cheapper airfare, thought about airfare because of Airbus?

Well we sort of had one when FDR was in charge. Generally I'm kind of wary of giving the government too much power even if it gives corporations less chances to screw us over. Plus having nearly every form of service resemble the DMV doesn't appeal to me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

A strongly socialist government would be, frankly, a bad thing for the US. It's also pretty much contrary to the political philosophy of this nation. This nation was founded on the principle that the only proper role of government is to handle those things which private citizens cannot handle for themselves. This POV respects rights to private property and self-determination, and makes the individual take responsibility for himself. Socialist systems assume that it is better for lots of things to be handled by the government, in the name of efficiency, fairness or whatever, and tend to hold the government responsible for individual welfare.

Things like national defense are obviously the role of government. For those people who can't manage for themselves - the disabled, the severely impoverished - one can also make some argument for the government having a role there. But the idea of the government taking over large sectors of the economy for us - ugh. Bad idea. The government can't do what it does now with much efficiency, adding more to its duties just asks for trouble.

One thing worth noting is that the socialist systems which work best tend to be quite small. Even then, there's no guarantee, and lots of communal societies and small socialist governments have crashed and burned. Still, one can make some arguments that some of the Scandinavian nations have managed okay with socialism (I'd personally argue that the high rate of taxation is an argument to the contrary, but that gets into another argument entirely). Try putting systems in place on a larger scale, though, and the problems magnify... and this will likely lead to a collapse of the system.

For every socialist system which works more or less - the Canadian and British medical systems, the Scandinavian nations - there are lots more which have failed badly.

[Dennis K]

Well, given the long and succesful history of socialist governments :rolleyes: , I'm sure it would work here just as well :rolleyes: .

[Sam A. Robrin]

I have no objection to socialism, when practiced between and among consenting adults. . . .

[BlairH]

Socialism is an assault on the principles of individual freedoms.

[Pól Rua]

Yes, yes and capitalism is a heartless system which grinds the poor beneath the bloodstained wheels of industry...

Now that we have the absolutist hyperbole out of the way.

There are elements of socialism which I'm quite keen on, however, I couldn't advocate a wholesale adoption of absolute socialism.

A working healthcare and welfare system is good.
Trade Unionism on the whole isn't a bad idea.
Minimum award wages are generally good.

If I've learned one thing from reading superhero comics, it's that it's nice when someone who is big and tough and powerful helps people who are less fortunate than themselves. With great power, apparently, comes great responsibility.
Go figure.
The way I see it, a representative government which doesn't act to help its constituents can get knotted.

But then, what would I know?
I'm just a munky.

[BlairH]

If I've learned one thing from reading superhero comics, it's that it's nice when someone who is big and tough and powerful helps people who are less fortunate than themselves. With great power, apparently, comes great responsibility.


Which is why Socialism is such a bad idea. It doesn't "help" the little guy. It kills the little guy.

[Pól Rua]

Which is why Socialism is such a bad idea. It doesn't "help" the little guy. It kills the little guy.

Yeah.
Just like in Pre-Revolutionary France.
Oh no, waitasec, that wasn't Socialism, that was unrestricted capitalism!
Oops.
My bad.

Just because you're a fan of one side doesn't mean it's perfect, or that it doesn't have anything to learn from the other.

Just because I don't like Ayn Rand doesn't mean I like Josef Stalin.

[BlairH]

Yeah.
Just like in Pre-Revolutionary France.
Oh no, waitasec, that wasn't Socialism, that was unrestricted capitalism!


Tianamen Square.
"One child rule" (forced killing of unborn babies)
Millions starving in North Korea so that Kim Jong Il can laugh and grow fat
Cuba backing itself into a corner

and then there's the so-called "moderate" socialists in Europe:
Winter of discontent anyone?
Forgive my reccolection, but there was a European Socialist government that -after WWII- steralised 1% of it's population. I can not remember what country it was (perhaps Gaz can tell me, he saw the documentary as well)

Socialism only exists to serve the interests of those who create said socialist system. Even if a genuine altruistic person does attempt to install a socialist system, he/she must be stopped because we can't let the reigns of power and control be handed to the government.

State controll can not be trusted. Period.

State control takes power AWAY from the littgle guy and places it in the hands of an often unscrupulous and usually unaccountable gov't.

[Mike Smash!]

I don't believe that a pure Socialist system is plausible in the United States. We have a lot to thank Socialists for, however.

It was their (and Progressive) movement's pressure that fought for food safety laws, anti-trust laws, legitimate labor unions, public education, welfare, the 40 hour work week (with weekends) and Social Security (and much of the New Deal).

The candidacy of Norman Thomas is really what pressured to Roosevelt to take up much of his platform, personalize it and create many of the programs that a majority of Americans support today, though he never came close to winning the Presidency himself.

Both major parties fought these reforms vigourously until the socialist and labor movements built up enough steam to force them get on board or lose their seat.

Socialist Upton Sinclair's writing are what Teddy Roosevelt usually credit with inspiring his famous trust busting and much of the regulations on food safety that he fought for with the Bull Moosers in 1912. It's this time where capitalism started to get reigned in with regulations and contrary to Marx's predictions, the business leaders surrendered to them and gave up some of their power, because the alternative was losing all of their power with a socialist government.

And if you were familiar with the sort of unregulated capitalism and corruption around the Beef and Railroad trusts of the early 20th Century and the treatment of workers as essentially cattle, then you can see why a lot of people were socialists back then.

People were regularly and immediately fired for being injured on the job or for missing work for an illness -- even an illness that could contaminate food products they worked on. People drank milk that was typically watered down and had small amounts of formandhyde in it to keep it "fresh" longer. If you even gave the impression you wanted to organize your fellow workers or criticized your boss, you would find yourself on the street and blacklisted everywhere else. Labor leaders were regularly shot as well.

I'm talking completely unregulated and predatory capitalism. And it's a system that, IMO, is just as predatory as anything Stalinism had to offer.

I think we do need more socialism in our government -- universal single-payer healthcare, publicly funded elections, publically funded public education through college.

There are others -- the abolition of public property -- that I strongly oppose.

I probably know more actual socialist than most of you do, having met many of them at left-leaning rallies or among the socialist third parties in my area and I believe that they're good people and I share many of their values. There are other things they have to say -- like a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism -- that make me hold them at arm's length.

They're good people and I enjoy debating them, because if nothing else, it's the only time that I can feel like a moderate. :)

I myself believe in a strong mixed economy and a balance between regulated capitalism and socialism. Each has their strengths and I believe if you give either of them unrestricted power, you'll run into much of the same oppressive results-- concentrated powers in the hands of few people, rampant corruption, fixed elections, corrupt law enforcement and the "disappearance" of dissidents.

[Pól Rua]

Tianamen Square.
"One child rule" (forced killing of unborn babies)
Millions starving in North Korea so that Kim Jong Il can laugh and grow fat
Cuba backing itself into a corner

Okay, sorry.
I thought this was a discussion where we both talk AND listen.
Oops.

silly me.

[MushMouth]

"Socialism" is not wholey evil. Public education, 8 hour work day, work place safety regulations, FDA, etc. have had a positive impact on society. What is a problem is when a gov't becomes absolutely socialist or absolutely capitalist - what we should do is find a healthy middle road.

[BlairH]

Okay, sorry.
I thought this was a discussion where we both talk AND listen.
Oops.

silly me.

Just because I have a different point of view from you doesn't mean that I'm not listening.

[Mike Smash!]

Just because I have a different point of view from you doesn't mean that I'm not listening.But you don't really answer. You just wait for your turn to talk and rant.

I will add that the public fire department is a socialist program. Fire battalions used to be private companies that you subscribed to and wore that company's metal emblem on your house.

If a different fire company you were not subscribed to drove by and saw your house on fire, they'd keep driving and you'd have to call your company for help and hoped they got there in time.

This was changed however, after they saw that this was something that potentially destroyed lives -- and the houses of neighbors and funded one fire department for everyone publically.

It's socialism.

Can you take a break from your "Tailgunner Joe" routine to at least acknowledge that some limited socialism isn't completely evil?

[BlairH]

It's socialism.



It's not really the type of socialism that we;re talking about here tho. The Fire Services are not a creative enterprise, they are an emergency service and hence should be provided by the state.

[Mike Smash!]

It's not really the type of socialism that we;re talking about here tho. The Fire Services are not a creative enterprise, they are an emergency service and hence should be provided by the state.They are now, but at one time, they were a private enterprise with subscribers.

It was a private service that was nationalized and publically funded. So yes, it is socialism.

[BlairH]

They are now, but at one time, they were a private enterprise with subscribers.

It was a private service that was nationalized and publically funded. So yes, it is socialism.

Socialism is where Government assumes control of the wealth and the means of production.

Socialism is not where the Government merely provides a service. If this were the case, every government could be described as being "Socialist"

[Mike Smash!]

Socialism is where Government assumes control of the wealth and the means of production.

Socialism is not where the Government merely provides a service. If this were the case, every government could be described as being "Socialist"You seem to have a very black and white take on this... something is either completely or absolutely not socialist/capitalist.

Public government seized public fire fighting companies and nationalized the service. I'm not sure how you don't understand why that isn't socialist.

Public education is another example of socialism in America. Once provided either privately or through churches, it uses tax payer money to provide a service that most people consider necessary.

It doesn't have to be Castro to be a socialist program. The United States today has a mixed economy, as do 95% of the countries in the world.

[BlairH]

The object of this discussion was the nature of a "European type" socialist system made to operate in America.

I don't believe the provision of a fire service is a socialist or a capitalist policy. It's neither. It's common sense.

[Rob Allen]

I don't believe the provision of a fire service is a socialist or a capitalist policy. It's neither. It's common sense.So, socialist policies that you like aren't "really" socialist, because you don't like socialism?

[BlairH]

So, socialist policies that you like aren't "really" socialist, because you don't like socialism?

Not any more so than being able to own your own home is a capitalist policy. It's not. Again it's just common sense. It's just a given. I accept that for the fire service to function, the goverment appropriates funds from the public and distributes them to the fire service. This is just a given.

[Fenris]

The first thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that a socialist system fitted to American politics would never call itself socialist. Because that's a political buzzword that raises most people's hackles.

Aside from that: large government programs are needed to address large problems. If I were trying to develop a socialist program for America, I would focus on the large problems that Americans care about and try to find governmental solutions for all of them.

Health care is a large problem- it's complex, very expensive, and it affects everyone in deeply personal ways that we'd like to keep outside the bounds of normal economics. (Or politics.) If you say that the state should pay for your healthcare, most people will at least listen to you, in a way that they wouldn't listen to an argument about the state controlling the auto industry.

So is domestic security. It involves classified information (which muddles the question of which activities are and aren't necessary: normal citizens simply don't know enough to judge most cases, and have to trust their politicians. Horrid as that thought is.) And it justifies a wide range of regulations that we otherwise wouldn't tolerate. (Is there anyplace in America less free than an airline terminal?) And, like health care, it involves life and death- which seems to place it on a different level than most issues, and makes reasonable argument more difficult.

I don't know if you could really build American socialism out of things like this. I doubt it. But it would be the rational place to start.

[Mike Smash!]

Not any more so than being able to own your own home is a capitalist policy. It's not. Again it's just common sense. It's just a given. I accept that for the fire service to function, the goverment appropriates funds from the public and distributes them to the fire service. This is just a given.Actually, private property is a capitalist policy.

A socialist government would abolish and redistribute it.

Just because you happen to agree with it doesn't mean that it doesn't count.

[Mike Smash!]

The first thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that a socialist system fitted to American politics would never call itself socialist. Because that's a political buzzword that raises most people's hackles.

Aside from that: large government programs are needed to address large problems. If I were trying to develop a socialist program for America, I would focus on the large problems that Americans care about and try to find governmental solutions for all of them.

Health care is a large problem- it's complex, very expensive, and it affects everyone in deeply personal ways that we'd like to keep outside the bounds of normal economics. (Or politics.) If you say that the state should pay for your healthcare, most people will at least listen to you, in a way that they wouldn't listen to an argument about the state controlling the auto industry.

So is domestic security. It involves classified information (which muddles the question of which activities are and aren't necessary: normal citizens simply don't know enough to judge most cases, and have to trust their politicians. Horrid as that thought is.) And it justifies a wide range of regulations that we otherwise wouldn't tolerate. (Is there anyplace in America less free than an airline terminal?) And, like health care, it involves life and death- which seems to place it on a different level than most issues, and makes reasonable argument more difficult.

I don't know if you could really build American socialism out of things like this. I doubt it. But it would be the rational place to start.This is a place where we agree.

I don't believe a completely socialist system in America is possible. Americans will however accept socialist programs for particular problems, but you'd have to look very hard to find even lefties who want to abolish private property.

When Marx talked about revolution, he predicted that capitalists would never accept regulation and that fight against any restriction would cause people to rise up.

Only problem is, they did surrender to regulation for pretty much the purpose of avoiding what Marx predicted. They knew that there were two movements fighting to reign in capitalism: the socialist movement and the progressive movement.

One wanted to regulate and "tame" capitalism and the other wanted to abolish it. Those movements grew exponentially in the early 20th century, enough so that both major political parties had to take up their banner to some extent to remain relevant.

Business leaders and the trusts had to choose between opposing reform at any level and risk turning progressives into socialists after they realized that capitalism couldn't be reformed and lose all of their power....or they could surrender just some of their power, but keep their factories.

They chose the latter against all of Marx's predictions.

But what Fenris says is true... the word "socialist" is such a negative buzzword these days that it has little mainstream meaning. Most don't really understand what socialism is and just use it to tar liberals -- many of which aren't even vaguely socialist.

Which, IMO, is why the most successful socialist third party candidate for President in my state was the nominee of the "Workers World Party", which is the only without "Socialist" in their name.

[BlairH]

Actually, private property is a capitalist policy.

A socialist government would abolish and redistribute it.

Just because you happen to agree with it doesn't mean that it doesn't count.

Very well then.We'll have it your way: "having a publically funded fire service. Heck having a publically funded anything is a type of socialist public policy"

[Mike Smash!]

Very well then.We'll have it your way: "having a publically funded fire service. Heck having a publically funded anything is a type of socialist public policy"That's not what I said.

Socialism is basically the government funding a service with tax payer money and providing it to all people without any charge other than those taxes, particularly a service that is historically performed privately or independently of the government.

Schools and fire stations apply.

[Adam Crocker]

Socialism is where Government assumes control of the wealth and the means of production.

Socialism is not where the Government merely provides a service. If this were the case, every government could be described as being "Socialist"

That's debatable actually. The above you describe is an absolute application of socialism where the government assumes control of the wealth and means of production, in theory for the common good. (Just as certain as absolute capitalism would be commerce operating unfettered and without regulation.) Mike is describing an example of socialization of an emergency service, so he's correct insofar he's describing an application of the principal if not the system itself.

Then again I'm coming at this from the perspective where I've found that the meaning of the term "socialism" gets increasingly vague and muddled the more I look at the history of it. It's been applied to describe everything from the command economies of the old Soviet Bloc, to the moderate democratic socialism as practiced in Western Europe (especially by Lenin in order to derisively refer to the socialist parties that did not fall in line with the more revolutionary Communists), to small-scale, localized forms of socialism favoured by Anarchists and like -- and all the little sub-genres within them and inbetween.

(Man, it's like the rock of political ideologies isn't it? No definite form anymore and somehow especially appealing to young men ages 18-25.)

The object of this discussion was the nature of a "European type" socialist system made to operate in America.

Which isn't exactly the kind of system you described above, since those are still mixed economies as well.

Not any more so than being able to own your own home is a capitalist policy. It's not. Again it's just common sense. It's just a given. I accept that for the fire service to function, the goverment appropriates funds from the public and distributes them to the fire service. This is just a given.

Except it wasn't a given as Mike Smash! described, nor for that matter was being able to own your own home a given as in Stalin's Russia, or under slavery for that matter.

[Fenris]

This is a place where we agree.

One teeny spot. But it's there!


I don't believe a completely socialist system in America is possible. Americans will however accept socialist programs for particular problems, but you'd have to look very hard to find even lefties who want to abolish private property.

Well, yeah. The abolition of private property is the Absolute Zero of socialism: you can't get more socialist than a state that owns every last product and service in the country. But then, by that standard there are no European socialist governments; and the thread mentions European socialism as the standard.

What about state ownership of industries? Do you think that Americans would ever support direct government control of most businesses, provided that they left people's houses and cars alone?

(Well, left them alone except for controlling the industries that make them, which ultimately doesn't leave them alone at all. But you know what I mean.)


But what Fenris says is true...

Ah, what a wonderful thing to hear!


the word "socialist" is such a negative buzzword these days that it has little mainstream meaning. Most don't really understand what socialism is and just use it to tar liberals -- many of which aren't even vaguely socialist.

Well, maybe vaguely. After all, you're arguing to Blair that public education and firefighting are forms of mild socialism, right? And virtually all liberals believe in these things. (Virtually all Americans, for that matter.)


Which, IMO, is why the most successful socialist third party candidate for President in my state was the nominee of the "Workers World Party", which is the only without "Socialist" in their name.

Ha!

[Adam Crocker]

As for the topic itself, I doubt a European-style socialist regime could be applied in America, in no small part due to the cultural issues mentioned by Kramer and Fenris above. Americans seem to have a far greater suspicion of big government than say France or Canada. (If they always aren't consistent in opposing it.)

My high school teacher's favourite way of illustrating this point was comparing a line from the Declaration of Independence with a line from Canada's constitution. The Declaration reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Meanwhile, the Constitution Act of 1871 (we got ours in 1867, but there were other acts amending it), in section 91 reads:"4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order, and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any Province." Note the contrast? It's unlikely I'd see Americans favouring this en-masse, especially at the federal level.


When Marx talked about revolution, he predicted that capitalists would never accept regulation and that fight against any restriction would cause people to rise up.

Marx also didn't predict plumbers making forty dollars an hour.

[Wesley Dodds]

For every socialist system which works more or less - the Canadian and British medical systems, the Scandinavian nations - there are lots more which have failed badly.

Don't forget Australia, Comrade!

What I want to know is how socialists are going to simultaneously abolish private property and redistribute it. You can't redistribute it if you abolish it!

Marx also didn't predict plumbers making forty dollars an hour.

But it is interesting to see how many demands of the Communist Manifesto have already been met (or half-met):

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

[Mike Smash!]

One teeny spot. But it's there!Gotta appreciate it when it pops up! :)

Well, yeah. The abolition of private property is the Absolute Zero of socialism: you can't get more socialist than a state that owns every last product and service in the country. But then, by that standard there are no European socialist governments; and the thread mentions European socialism as the standard.Absolutely. But I'm talking in terms of socialism as an ideology. Many of the values I have match up with socialists', but my ultimate goal differs from say, the Socialist Workers Party, who do indeed want to abolish private property as a long term goal.

Despite the rhetoric by many -- mostly on the right -- there are no purely socialist governments in Europe. Most of the world have mixed economies, many more than others...

What about state ownership of industries? Do you think that Americans would ever support direct government control of most businesses, provided that they left people's houses and cars alone? Of most businesses? Not really. I could see Americans supporting government programs working alongside or in competition with private companies in an industry -- like say, the way that the Postal Service is in competition with UPS and other delivery services, to some extent.

I wouldn't mind a government run and subsidized car company in the U.S. alongside the other brands. These things already exist in other countries. The one advantage of a government run program or company is that it can run at a loss even in a recession and it's profits go into basic services. With a private company, in a recession, the first thing to be cut is the workforce (not the executive salaries, which are usually inflated anyways) and the public company though running at a loss, could help pull that industry out of recession and it has less incentive to move its activities to other countries for cheap labor and lax safety and worker regulations.

However, I don't think that the government should seize industries, but rather work alongside them. Though this is not a priority by a long shot.

I'd much rather worry about things like healthcare, rather than government subsidized auto companies.

I think people could become used to that.. Hell, they got used to Social Security, which is deeply entrenched in the American way of life.

Well, maybe vaguely. After all, you're arguing to Blair that public education and firefighting are forms of mild socialism, right? And virtually all liberals believe in these things. (Virtually all Americans, for that matter.)They're socialist programs and services, though most people including Blair don't think of them as such.

He seems to define socialism in only the Absolute Zero definition that you've given.

I just argued that socialism -- even small pieces of it -- do exist in even countries that constantly preach the gospel of capitalism.

I myself like a little from column A and a little from column B.




Ha![/QUOTE]

[Wesley Dodds]

I myself like a little from column A and a little from column B.

Yeah, a mixed economy. I don't like a strong government but, frankly, I'm just as scared of strong private power. The strong would eat the weak. And if we're going to do that, frankly, we should just have anarchy, because then we'd get to kill the people who piss us off.

[Mike Smash!]

For every socialist system which works more or less - the Canadian and British medical systems, the Scandinavian nations - there are lots more which have failed badly.

Don't forget Australia, Comrade!

What I want to know is how socialists are going to simultaneously abolish private property and redistribute it. You can't redistribute it if you abolish it!

Marx also didn't predict plumbers making forty dollars an hour.

But it is interesting to see how many demands of the Communist Manifesto have already been met (or half-met):

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.I only agree with #2 and most of #10.

But then I'm not a socialist (or a communist).

[Adam Crocker]

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

No, but confiscating the property of rebels was actually pretty common practice before even Marx's time. What do you think they did with the lands of rebellious noblemen?

[Wesley Dodds]

I only agree with #2 and most of #10.

I think most people wouldn't agree with them -- but with public transport, the estate tax etc., some of them have been partially fulfilled.

[Wesley Dodds]

What do you think they did with the lands of rebellious noblemen?

Or rebellious priests! Like Mr. Knightley's house.

So, Henry VIII is the ultimate cause of Emma's future happiness! Yay!

[Loren]

They are now, but at one time, they were a private enterprise with subscribers.

It was a private service that was nationalized and publically funded. So yes, it is socialism.

Since when were fire departments nationalized? 'Round these parts, I'm pretty sure they're operated on a county level.

And as for being publicly funded, according to the US Fire Administration, 88% of American fire departments are still volunteer or mostly volunteer.

Loren

[Mike Smash!]

Since when were fire departments nationalized? 'Round these parts, I'm pretty sure they're operated on a county level.

And as for being publicly funded, according to the US Fire Administration, 88% of American fire departments are still volunteer or mostly volunteer.

LorenBut their equipment and training are publically funded.

I misspoke on the "nationalized" part, though. I meant "publically funded".

[Loren]

The first thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that a socialist system fitted to American politics would never call itself socialist. Because that's a political buzzword that raises most people's hackles.

This reminds me of a Huey Long quote I read recently. When asked if he thought facism could ever come to America, Long replied "Sure--but when it comes it'll be called Anti-Fascism."

Loren

[Pól Rua]

I am not interested in exchanging political speeches from people only capable of seeing in Black and White absolutes.
I am out of this discussion.

[Mike Smash!]

I am not interested in political speeches from people only capable of seeing in Black and White absolutes.
I am out of this discussion.You dare question this thread? Guards! Seize him!

[Johnny_Storm]

Interesting insight guys, although some people seem to have confused socialisim with communisim a bit. That idea of a socialist system in the U.S. that would probably involve government competing alongside private companies in industry got my attention. This would be interesting, anyone been to Europe or live there to tell how this has worked out?

[Loren]

My high school teacher's favourite way of illustrating this point was comparing a line from the Declaration of Independence with a line from Canada's constitution. The Declaration reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Meanwhile, the Constitution Act of 1871 (we got ours in 1867, but there were other acts amending it), in section 91 reads:"4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order, and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any Province." Note the contrast? It's unlikely I'd see Americans favouring this en-masse, especially at the federal level.

Now that's interesting. I took a look at the English translation of the French Declarations of the Rights of Man (http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html):

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

And then the latest French constitution (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp) to see what it had to offer:

institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity

Not quite as striking as the Canadian text, though.

Loren

[Loren]

Then again I'm coming at this from the perspective where I've found that the meaning of the term "socialism" gets increasingly vague and muddled the more I look at the history of it. It's been applied to describe everything from the command economies of the old Soviet Bloc, to the moderate democratic socialism as practiced in Western Europe (especially by Lenin in order to derisively refer to the socialist parties that did not fall in line with the more revolutionary Communists), to small-scale, localized forms of socialism favoured by Anarchists and like -- and all the little sub-genres within them and inbetween.

(Man, it's like the rock of political ideologies isn't it? No definite form anymore and somehow especially appealing to young men ages 18-25.)

Yeah, I've noticed that 'socialism' is getting treated pretty broadly too. It's no longer an economic system that's the antithesis of the free market. Even in this thread it seems that virtually any sort of tax-funded gov't action (outside of law enforcement and military) gets labelled 'socialist.'

Loren

[Noah Johnson]

Yeah, I think one of the big obstacles here is an inability to distinguish between socialism and communism.

I would argue that in some ways, the United States already has some forms of socialism in place, but many of them are in half-assed, deeply stupid versions that have arisen more or less by accident.

Take unemployment. Proponents of the U.S. as an economic wonderland love to point to the unemployment levels in Europe as proof that their economies are failing their people. And yeah, Europe has a lot more people out of work and on the dole than America does. But let's look at another wee factoid: that America has far, far more people in prison than any other country on Earth.

So, Europe is keeping a lot of desperately poor people on the dole, and America is keeping a lot of desperately poor people in prison. Is anyone going to pretend that these aren't, to a great degree, many of the same people? Thus, the state is supporting legions of the destitute either way. I personally am of the opinion that being on the dole screws up your life less, and allows for an easier transition to having a good productive job, than being in prison. But that philosophy doesn't sound "tough on crime" and thus won't fly in America's fantasy-based political system.

Likewise, let's take America's health-care system, which provides less coverage at greater cost than those crazy, evil socialist systems. Why is this, you ask? The reasons are brain-freezingly complicated and I don't pretend to fully understand all aspects of the issue. But let me point out one or two things.

One question someone who's used to universal health care might ask is "So what do these uninsured people do when they get sick?" Several things. They ignore it and hope it will go away, sometimes continuing to spread a disease to others, and often letting it get worse. They miss work, cutting their own and others' economic productivity. And, finally, when it reaches the crisis point, they go to the emergency room, where they are charged thousands of dollars for something that twenty bucks' worth of prevention six months ago would have rendered moot. Can they pay these thousands? Hell no, they're poor. Can't get blood from a turnip. The hospital winds up eating the costs, and having to diffuse them to its other patients, stockholders, and staff.

The end result? All of us wind up paying for health care for the poor, we just wind up there through a hideously inefficient process notable for its waste, inhumanity, and unnecessary disease and death. It's like socialism run by orcs.

Then there's the business philosophy of "socialize the costs, privatize the profits," which is like socialism run by Lex Luthor. One common way to do this is to do increase your profits by not bothering to be careful about poisoning the local environment, then have the government declare it a Superfund site and clean up your mess on the taxpayer's time. Cutting your employee's health and retirement benefits and just keeping the money is another way to run the same game, but there's lots more.

Bottom line: The needs of the needy are going to get met one way or another. We can look for the most humane, efficient, decent ways of meeting them, or we can let these horrible accidents of economics just kind of fall together. The difference lies in whether we want to find solutions to problems, or congratulate ourselves on how tough and principled we are, while stepping over people in the streets.

[heretic]

Tianamen Square.
"One child rule" (forced killing of unborn babies)
Millions starving in North Korea so that Kim Jong Il can laugh and grow fat
Cuba backing itself into a cornerI am curious. Do you consider Tyranny and Socialism mutually inclusive?

and then there's the so-called "moderate" socialists in Europe:
Winter of discontent anyone?
Forgive my reccolection, but there was a European Socialist government that -after WWII- steralised 1% of it's population. I can not remember what country it was (perhaps Gaz can tell me, he saw the documentary as well)As opposed to the capitalist government of the U.S., which also indulged in Euginics....

Socialism only exists to serve the interests of those who create said socialist system. Even if a genuine altruistic person does attempt to install a socialist system, he/she must be stopped because we can't let the reigns of power and control be handed to the government.

State controll can not be trusted. Period.

State control takes power AWAY from the littgle guy and places it in the hands of an often unscrupulous and usually unaccountable gov't.As opposed to the honorable and benevolent plutocrats I take it?

Personally I think of it this way. I would sooner trust a government shackled by the electorate and constitution than a business influenced only by the profits of it's stockholders when there is a monopoly involved. However businesses controlled or heavily influenced by the people that are actually involved in the work, in actual competition with one another, provide the best services insofar as consumer goods are concerned.

In addition, many public services do not map well onto free-market/for-profit theory (postal services, medical care to a large extent, education) and privatising them does more harm than good IMO.

OTOH, Central Planning and the abolition of private property are disasters waiting to happen.

HTG

[Mike Smash!]

I am curious. Do you consider Tyranny and Socialism mutually inclusive?You even have to ask?

[leigh_ann1982]

The anti-Socialist sentiment in America is largely due to the lingering effects of the McCarthy era. The fundamental flaw that is the downfall of any economic/political system (that includes Communism, Socialism, and even Capitalism) is not contained within the ideas of the system itself, but rather in the corruptability of a nation's leaders. Socialism is a good idea in theory because it seeks to abolish the social hierarchy by disseminating wealth and private property. In the hands of an overly corrupt and powerful government, this would be largely ineffective in the way that Communism was ineffective in the former Soviet Union.

Capitalism, on the other hand, isn't a much better system as long as it resides in the same corrupt hands. Adam Smith said after publishing his Wealth of Nations something to the effect that Capitalism in the wrong hands could unleash a terrible evil upon the world. What capitalism has done for America is basically create a social hierchy based on socio-economics rather than a master-slave system based on race. In effect, it's the same system, just more subtle. What we now have is a system where 2% of the population controls 90% wealth. The powerful corporations use their financial clout to buy political influence whereby they evade taxes, damage the environment, and exploit their workers (at home and even more so abroad). Health care and higher education are a luxuries of the elite and middle classes.

For any of these systems to be effective in America, widespread reform in campaign financing, voting procedures, and term limits for elected officials (particularly in the legislature) would have to take place first to eliminate some of the corruption. I don't think a purely Socialist system would be desirable for America even then; I'd rather like to see the social hierarchy be transcended through some Socialized programs like publically funded higher education and universal health care. I think industry should be largely left alone by the government except maybe for the creation of laws that promote sustainable, and ethical business practices maybe along the lines of paying their workers a living wage (especially their overseas labor) and maybe increasing taxes on companies that choose to outsource their labor (to compensate for the American jobs that are lost in the process).

[Mike Smash!]

The anti-Socialist sentiment in America is largely due to the lingering effects of the McCarthy era. The fundamental flaw that is the downfall of any economic/political system (that includes Communism, Socialism, and even Capitalism) is not contained within the ideas of the system itself, but rather in the corruptability of a nation's leaders. Socialism is a good idea in theory because it seeks to abolish the social hierarchy by disseminating wealth and private property. In the hands of an overly corrupt and powerful government, this would be largely ineffective in the way that Communism was ineffective in the former Soviet Union.

Capitalism, on the other hand, isn't a much better system as long as it resides in the same corrupt hands. Adam Smith said after publishing his Wealth of Nations something to the effect that Capitalism in the wrong hands could unleash a terrible evil upon the world. What capitalism has done for America is basically create a social hierchy based on socio-economics rather than a master-slave system based on race. In effect, it's the same system, just more subtle. What we now have is a system where 2% of the population controls 90% wealth. The powerful corporations use their financial clout to buy political influence whereby they evade taxes, damage the environment, and exploit their workers (at home and even more so abroad). Health care and higher education are a luxuries of the elite and middle classes.

For any of these systems to be effective in America, widespread reform in campaign financing, voting procedures, and term limits for elected officials (particularly in the legislature) would have to take place first to eliminate some of the corruption. I don't think a purely Socialist system would be desirable for America even then; I'd rather like to see the social hierarchy be transcended through some Socialized programs like publically funded higher education and universal health care. I think industry should be largely left alone by the government except maybe for the creation of laws that promote sustainable, and ethical business practices maybe along the lines of paying their workers a living wage (especially their overseas labor) and maybe increasing taxes on companies that choose to outsource their labor (to compensate for the American jobs that are lost in the process).*sends Leigh Ann flowers for that post*

[leigh_ann1982]

The end result? All of us wind up paying for health care for the poor, we just wind up there through a hideously inefficient process notable for its waste, inhumanity, and unnecessary disease and death. It's like socialism run by orcs.

Haha, not to mention we already pay into a form of socialized medicine through Medicare (and in the state of California we also have MediCal). At one point, I figured out that I, being single and claiming no exemptions, was losing 33% of my wages to the combination of taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Medical, and various other programs PLUS my own managed health care program. Which, in effect, is just like paying into a socialized program, because the money I'm spending when I'm not using it is footing the bill of other patients' costs--the only difference with a private system vs. a socialized system is that profit goes to shareholders and advertising instead of going back into healthcare.

Comapanies like Wal-mart, that make a practice of working their employees just under the number of hours they'd need to be considered full time so they don't have to give them benefits also contribute to the problem of passing along health care costs to tax-payers. The people who suffer most aren't the extremely poor people who are out of work, it's the working poor who can't qualify for programs like Medicare. It effects the single mothers that work two crappy part-time jobs to make ends meet, but can't afford to pay for their own health care. And then like you said these people spread disease and have more sick days lowering productivity. We still pay high taxes, we just get less back for what we pay in.

Some people believe that universal health care would diminish the quality of health care we receive, and I say that's crap. The HMO I was paying into didn't even cover most prescription drugs, and after my company switched to a new plan, I was paying more and getting even less. After that, I just decided to stop paying into it all together because it wasn't cost effective for me to pay so much for a services I still couldn't really afford to use. Now I just pray I don't get really sick or injured, because if I do I hope they let me die; I can't cover the cost of the ambulance ride, let alone the cost of treatment.

[leigh_ann1982]

*sends Leigh Ann flowers for that post*

Aww, at least you're oggling my mind and not my breasts. ;)

[cactusmaac]

Interesting insight guys, although some people seem to have confused socialisim with communisim a bit. That idea of a socialist system in the U.S. that would probably involve government competing alongside private companies in industry got my attention. This would be interesting, anyone been to Europe or live there to tell how this has worked out?

Not very well.

France and Germany are far more socialistic than the US or the UK and they've been suffering from low growth and terrible unemployment for years.

State-owned companies in general simply aren't run as well as private sector companies.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

Why do certain Americans think that Europe is socialist?

We have a combination of systems to create a decent balance, a middle ground on which people can exist and live their lives to the fullest. Duties and rights combined.

I love my country and I wouldn't ever want to see it transform into an American system. I feel comfortable with the knowledge that no hospital will turn me down because of money. Or that the treatment I receive is an abolute minimum of what I require. I feel very uncomfortable to know that I can fall ill and then end up getting into financial troubles because I can't pay for the medical bills.

Spiderman's motto is what socialism is to me.

With great power comes great responsibility.

[Phrozen]

and there is a problem with that.

Many think the government should not have that great power.

[BlairH]

and there is a problem with that.

Many think the government should not have that great power.

Exactly. We the private citizens -whose number far outweighs that of the government- should always posess more power than government.

[Johnny_Storm]

Why do certain Americans think that Europe is socialist?

We have a combination of systems to create a decent balance, a middle ground on which people can exist and live their lives to the fullest. Duties and rights combined.

I love my country and I wouldn't ever want to see it transform into an American system. I feel comfortable with the knowledge that no hospital will turn me down because of money. Or that the treatment I receive is an abolute minimum of what I require. I feel very uncomfortable to know that I can fall ill and then end up getting into financial troubles because I can't pay for the medical bills.

Spiderman's motto is what socialism is to me.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Neat so your country has the government compete in the private market? Does the government general provide good service or product's? I know here the U.S. Postal Service has great benifit's for it's workers and pay's well, they also compete fairly well with UPS and FedEx, they are most of the time cheaper as well.

[Michael P]

Why do certain Americans think that Europe is socialist?
Because compared to us, they are.

[Mike Smash!]

Ideological labels are relative, that's one thing that my Poli Sci professor taught me. That "conservative" to one person can be "liberal" to another.

Are European countries socialist? Not purely, but they are most socialist than the U.S. is, but not nearly as much as other countries.

I believe the proper name for them is "Social Democracy".

[Mike Smash!]

Exactly. We the private citizens -whose number far outweighs that of the government- should always posess more power than government.I agree, but private citizens have more power over government than we do over private business..

If Enron taught us one thing, it's that big business can destroy as many lives and be just as secretive as any government. And they claim to be responsible to none but their stockholders (who they can lie to) and really, under that system, the people they affect -- and with the largest corporations, that's nearly everyone -- cannot have any say in what they do or fire them for misdeeds like we can with public officials or vote them out, and even going through electoral channels can be hard since many legislators are on their payroll through gifts, favors and lobbying.

People should have much more power, which means a strong independent media that isn't afriad to piss people off, a informed public that has higher standards for its elected officials and see through lies and pandering and a government held to those standards and who can keep big business from dwarfing them in power and buying legislation geared at benefitting them yet hurting small business and individual people.

[o1pickleboy]

For every socialist system which works more or less - the Canadian and British medical systems, the Scandinavian nations - there are lots more which have failed badly.

Don't forget Australia, Comrade!

What I want to know is how socialists are going to simultaneously abolish private property and redistribute it. You can't redistribute it if you abolish it!

Marx also didn't predict plumbers making forty dollars an hour.

But it is interesting to see how many demands of the Communist Manifesto have already been met (or half-met):


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.


9.gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


I agree with 2 and 10 like most here. With 3 and 9 I agree with slightly.

On Inheritance it keeps our system how it is. With power families and pleany of weathly people that didn't earn their money or don't understand how the lower classes live. I would elimate inheritance with only excepts of family property and heirloom. The monetry assets would donate to a charity or program of the deceased choice. I think are captailist system would work better if everyone started equal like in Monoply with everyone starting with the same amount of money. I know this wouldn't be a absolute, but I think it would be alot better if everyone in the upperclass had earned their money

On number 9: I wouldn't make any laws to make people move. I would exercise a pollicy to balance population out as much as I could. By that I would mean the all governement agentcies and program would be set up in rural areas to increase population. I would try encorage the movement out of the cities and into the country. The only reason is I can see what big cities do the eco-system. I can smell the waste when I get near a city.

[Phrozen]

On Inheritance it keeps our system how it is. With power families and pleany of weathly people that didn't earn their money or don't understand how the lower classes live. I would elimate inheritance with only excepts of family property and heirloom. The monetry assets would donate to a charity or program of the deceased choice. I think are captailist system would work better if everyone started equal like in Monoply with everyone starting with the same amount of money. I know this wouldn't be a absolute, but I think it would be alot better if everyone in the upperclass had earned their money

You have just returned to the middle ages where land=power. Now instead of rich people leaving money to their offspring they buy up as much land as they can driving up real estate prices. The offspring then sell off this land at a much inflated price to get their money.

On number 9: I wouldn't make any laws to make people move. I would exercise a pollicy to balance population out as much as I could. By that I would mean the all governement agentcies and program would be set up in rural areas to increase population. I would try encorage the movement out of the cities and into the country. The only reason is I can see what big cities do the eco-system. I can smell the waste when I get near a city.

The problem is that some geographical areas are better then others. New York, LA, Houstan, and Chicago all share one thing in common: they are all great ports and where there are great ports there is lots of trade, where there is lots of trade there is lots of jobs available, and where lots of jobs are available that is where people will move to.

[o1pickleboy]

You have just returned to the middle ages where land=power. Now instead of rich people leaving money to their offspring they buy up as much land as they can driving up real estate prices. The offspring then sell off this land at a much inflated price to get their money.



The problem is that some geographical areas are better then others. New York, LA, Houstan, and Chicago all share one thing in common: they are all great ports and where there are great ports there is lots of trade, where there is lots of trade there is lots of jobs available, and where lots of jobs are available that is where people will move to.


Hmm didn't see that one coming ok. I would make a grandfather clause that the property would have to be own by the family for at least 4 generations before it gets family estate exemption.

True most cities are huge for a reason. There location was great for trade. All I was planning to do, when possible and reasonable move government work and encorage private sector to move out of the cities to balance out the population a little better.

[Loren]

On Inheritance it keeps our system how it is. With power families and pleany of weathly people that didn't earn their money or don't understand how the lower classes live. I would elimate inheritance with only excepts of family property and heirloom. The monetry assets would donate to a charity or program of the deceased choice.

You know, this may be the worst proposal in this thread.

One of the most common attitudes in life and family is the desire for your kids and your grandkids to have a better life than you did. And inheritance is one of the key ways to make that happen.

You may not realize that to do away with inheritance would also require a complete overhaul of the state's treatment of gifts. If the state is going to take everything you own after you die, then the rational thing to do is to give it away while you're alive. You'd transfer your assets to your kids, and then let them support you.

Since that would render an asset-confiscation scheme toothless, the state would have to set strict standards on what a person could give away while alive (stricter than we have now, I mean). What if parents want to give their son a car for graduation? What if grandparents want to make a down payment on a house for their newlywed granddaughter? Would it cover parents making tuition payments for their kids' college? What about dorm expenses? For that matter, what about birthday and Christmas presents? 'Cause if I was getting old, I'd start giving $1000 to every person I cared about on every possible occasion. What would you have the state do to stop me?

Heck, I have a good-sized comic book collection. Not as much as some people here, but a few thousand issues and a few hundred tpbs. I paid a lot to assemble my collection, and my will currently says that it is to be given to a certain friend of mine in the event of my death. It's not family property or an heirloom, so what would you say should be done with it? Does the state take away the comic books I paid to own? Does my friend have to pay the state (or some charity) in order to receive my gift of my collection? That puts him in the position of paying for comics that were already paid for, and probably losing money in order to receive a gift.

Debt isn't passed to one's heirs, so if a person isn't allowed to leave assets behind, it'd encourage people to spend their way into debt before they die. If you can't leave your property to anyone, you might as well spend it on yourself while you're alive. Eat expensive food, take expensive vacations, and never bother comparing prices. My grandparents have made a fair bit of money in their day, but they're both about 80 now. They're still thrifty, but if they couldn't leave it to us, I guarantee they'd find ways to spend it before the state started making orders.

Hmm didn't see that one coming ok. I would make a grandfather clause that the property would have to be own by the family for at least 4 generations before it gets family estate exemption.

So you'd allow 'Old Money' to keep the family plantation, but anyone who'd moved in the last six decades would lose their rights to their land? This is the makings of a strong class system, with the families who owned land a century ago being able to retain their property, but anyone who'd come up in the world in more recent decades being stripped of their earnings. After all, who is more likely to move and sell property within four generations: the wealthy landowers or the lower- and middle-class?

Loren

[o1pickleboy]

You know, this may be the worst proposal in this thread.

One of the most common attitudes in life and family is the desire for your kids and your grandkids to have a better life than you did. And inheritance is one of the key ways to make that happen.

You may not realize that to do away with inheritance would also require a complete overhaul of the state's treatment of gifts. If the state is going to take everything you own after you die, then the rational thing to do is to give it away while you're alive. You'd transfer your assets to your kids, and then let them support you.

Since that would render an asset-confiscation scheme toothless, the state would have to set strict standards on what a person could give away while alive (stricter than we have now, I mean). What if parents want to give their son a car for graduation? What if grandparents want to make a down payment on a house for their newlywed granddaughter? Would it cover parents making tuition payments for their kids' college? What about dorm expenses? For that matter, what about birthday and Christmas presents? 'Cause if I was getting old, I'd start giving $1000 to every person I cared about on every possible occasion. What would you have the state do to stop me?

Heck, I have a good-sized comic book collection. Not as much as some people here, but a few thousand issues and a few hundred tpbs. I paid a lot to assemble my collection, and my will currently says that it is to be given to a certain friend of mine in the event of my death. It's not family property or an heirloom, so what would you say should be done with it? Does the state take away the comic books I paid to own? Does my friend have to pay the state (or some charity) in order to receive my gift of my collection? That puts him in the position of paying for comics that were already paid for, and probably losing money in order to receive a gift.

Debt isn't passed to one's heirs, so if a person isn't allowed to leave assets behind, it'd encourage people to spend their way into debt before they die. If you can't leave your property to anyone, you might as well spend it on yourself while you're alive. Eat expensive food, take expensive vacations, and never bother comparing prices. My grandparents have made a fair bit of money in their day, but they're both about 80 now. They're still thrifty, but if they couldn't leave it to us, I guarantee they'd find ways to spend it before the state started making orders.



So you'd allow 'Old Money' to keep the family plantation, but anyone who'd moved in the last six decades would lose their rights to their land? This is the makings of a strong class system, with the families who owned land a century ago being able to retain their property, but anyone who'd come up in the world in more recent decades being stripped of their earnings. After all, who is more likely to move and sell property within four generations: the wealthy landowers or the lower- and middle-class?

Loren

Hmm...ok a bad idea.

I could think it over and find away to prevent the disaster that you say my idea would make. but then their would probably be another loophole that I didn't think of. That would be found by the "upperclass not the lowerclasses. Which would turn my idea into a big mess alot like our current tax system.

I retract my idea. Until I can think of something better that meets the spirit of my thought.

Finally COMIC BOOKS are family heirlooms. They are the most valueable possessions on the planet.

[lonewolf23k]

About the "socialism success in Canada", I'm going to have to disagree on that. Especially for Healthcare. ...As it stands, the State-Run Healthcare system hasn't been a huge success.. ...Our hospitals are run-down and overfilled, waiting periods are increasingly long, and Canada can't keep it's doctors from going to brighter, greener pastures..

...I was actually very thankful when Quebec decided to allow for privatized medical practice, because it would allow for more Doctors to come into the Province to open up their own practices, which may free up some of the Hospitals a bit..

[BlairH]

About the "socialism success in Canada", I'm going to have to disagree on that. Especially for Healthcare. ...As it stands, the State-Run Healthcare system hasn't been a huge success.. ...Our hospitals are run-down and overfilled, waiting periods are increasingly long, and Canada can't keep it's doctors from going to brighter, greener pastures..

...I was actually very thankful when Quebec decided to allow for privatized medical practice, because it would allow for more Doctors to come into the Province to open up their own practices, which may free up some of the Hospitals a bit..

Same situation with the National Health Service here in the UK. Very innefficient and we have MRSA treating NHS hospitals as a breeding ground.

And still the Gov't continues to sink money into the void instead of encouraging privatisation.

[leigh_ann1982]

Same situation with the National Health Service here in the UK. Very innefficient and we have MRSA treating NHS hospitals as a breeding ground.

And still the Gov't continues to sink money into the void instead of encouraging privatisation.

My experience with privatized health hasn't been all that great. Hospitals here are also understaffed because because the health care industry--taking the direction of every other corporation in America--maximizes profits by spreading their staff as thinly as possible. You still have to wait a ridiculous amount of time to be seen here too. And it's insanely expensive, especially if you don't have some form of health insurance. I think a ride in an ambulance costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $500-$900 just for the ride--that's not counting if they give you treatment on the way or when you get to the hospital. We also pay more for medications than any other country in the world.

I don't know much about the prices for other services; I haven't seen a doctor in about three years. Like most other people who don't have health insurance, I can't afford to see a doctor so I won't unless it's an absolute necessity. I don't know what I'd do if I was injured or became seriously ill. I kind of got a taste of what a socialized health care system would be like when my dad was in the military and I got health care free through his benefits. I wouldn't call the care outstanding, but it was there when you needed it and using it wouldn't run you into bankrupcy.

It's hard enough to make it in this world without being weighed down with medical bills. Loren said earlier in the thread that debt isn't passed on to one's heirs. I don't know a whole lot about the laws concerning this, but one of my ex-boyfriends had been married before we started dating; his former wife was diagnosed with a rare form of bone cancer shortly after they were wed. She went to the best cancer specialists around here, but she died less than a year later leaving him in serious debt. His credit was really bad and I didn't have a credit history at the time we started living together. We got turned down by pretty much every apartment complex we tried to get into after they ran a credit check, except for the ones run by slum lords, so we ended up living in some pretty crummy places. That's not so bad compared to how some people have it, though.

I know someone who died waiting for their MediCal claim to be approved for a surgery they needed. He was a fairly young guy, but he died of heart failure and left behind a wife and five kids. Mostly this situation affects the working poor, and that's not right; health care shouldn't be a luxury for the rich. It's not right that I live in the richest country in the world and some people die or don't seek medical treatment because they can't afford it. In my mind, a system of socialized health care operating at a loss is justifiable because I don't see people as being expendable.

As I've said before though, I don't think that a system based purely on Socialism is the answer for America. I think perhaps as far as health care is concerned, that a system of hospitals should exist that are funded by tax-payer dollars that provide equal access to treatment for all people. A private health care industry could exist alongside it for people who want to pay out of pocket to have more alternatives for their health care.

[cactusmaac]

For all those concerned about the lack of healthcare for medical emergencies: isn't that what Medicaid is for?

[Grazzt]

About the "socialism success in Canada", I'm going to have to disagree on that. Especially for Healthcare. ...As it stands, the State-Run Healthcare system hasn't been a huge success.. ...Our hospitals are run-down and overfilled, waiting periods are increasingly long, and Canada can't keep it's doctors from going to brighter, greener pastures..

...I was actually very thankful when Quebec decided to allow for privatized medical practice, because it would allow for more Doctors to come into the Province to open up their own practices, which may free up some of the Hospitals a bit..

A quick comparison, shall we?

Hospital beds in the US: 3.6 per 1000
Hospital beds in Canada: 3.9 per 1000
Hospital beds in the UK: 4.1 per 1000

Canada and the UK also have more acute care beds than the Americans.

So unless Canadians are amazingly sicker than Americans, the crowding in Canadian and American hospitals should be similar. Not only that, but Americans pay $2000 more per capita than Canadians. Not that Canada is any paragon of efficiency, but we still manage to do it better than south of the border (probably thanks to cheaper drug prices.) The UK is the most efficient of the three.

Also, BlairH, you do realise that health care spending in UK is actually less than half that of the States (per capita, of course), and still pretty well superior?

[Michael P]

Aww, at least you're oggling my mind and not my breasts. ;)
What, we can't ogle both?

[cactusmaac]

A quick comparison, shall we?

Hospital beds in the US: 3.6 per 1000
Hospital beds in Canada: 3.9 per 1000
Hospital beds in the UK: 4.1 per 1000

Canada and the UK also have more acute care beds than the Americans.

So unless Canadians are amazingly sicker than Americans, the crowding in Canadian and American hospitals should be similar. Not only that, but Americans pay $2000 more per capita than Canadians. Not that Canada is any paragon of efficiency, but we still manage to do it better than south of the border (probably thanks to cheaper drug prices.) The UK is the most efficient of the three.

Also, BlairH, you do realise that health care spending in UK is actually less than half that of the States (per capita, of course), and still pretty well superior?


The "cheaper" drug prices come via Canadian government controls, controls which ultimately make it harder for drug companies to research and develop new medicines.

Your analysis of the different health systems is somewhat incomplete.

http://www.reason.com/0411/fe.rb.mandatory.shtml

Advocates of a single-payer system often cite the lower medical costs of the completely nationalized health care systems in Canada and Britain, which spend less than 9.6 percent and 7.7 percent of their GDPs on health care, respectively. Despite the lower spending, the average life expectancy at birth is 79.8 years in Canada and 78.2 years in Britain, higher than America’s 77.1. What explains the differential? As University of Iowa health economist Robert Ohsfeldt notes in the fall 2003 issue of The Independent Review, if higher U.S. accident and homicide rates are taken into account, our life expectancy numbers match those of Britain.

[Loren]

I think a ride in an ambulance costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $500-$900 just for the ride--that's not counting if they give you treatment on the way or when you get to the hospital.

I've got an aggravating ambulance story.

About two years ago, my grandma had surgery to replace, I believe, a hip. After several days in the hospital, she was moved to the Emory rehab center for rehabilitation.

The rehab center was/is literally across the street from the hospital. In fact, there is an underground tunnel connecting the two. And Emory used to transport patients through that tunnel. It required nothing more than an employee and a wheelchair, and was probably free.

But at some point, one patient got hurt in the tunnel. I don't know the details, but I was told that the wheelchair got tripped up on a bump in the floor or somesuch, and the patient fell and sued. So wheeled patients are no longer moved through the direct tunnel. Instead, like my grandma, they are loaded into an ambulance, driven *across the street,* and charged $200-300 for the service.

Doggone hospital...

Loren

[SOGG]

Your analysis of the different health systems is somewhat incomplete.

http://www.reason.com/0411/fe.rb.mandatory.shtml

So then the US is getting the same healthcare that the UK and Canada are getting, only more expensive?

[o1pickleboy]

It seems to me that most people that are against National Health Care. Are against because of the government being massively ineffient. I have a few ideas

Idea 1) We keep everything as is, just buying out all bussiness in the medical sector. Keeping the current adminstators and occasionaly hiring eff. experts to keep costs down. We have them treat it the same except the profit part. When they are able to run underbudget. They recieve bonuses like in the real bussiness world. We would of course have to protect the Doctors wages and place a standreds on service to prevent the quality of the health care from going down.

Idea 2) We keep everything as is. Buy out all medical services and make the stock 100% public owned. As in every citzen has 1 share of stock that can't be sold. So all profits and all bussiness decisions are made by and giving to the people.

[Phrozen]

It seems to me that most people that are against National Health Care. Are against because of the government being massively ineffient. I have a few ideas

Idea 1) We keep everything as is, just buying out all bussiness in the medical sector. Keeping the current adminstators and occasionaly hiring eff. experts to keep costs down. We have them treat it the same except the profit part. When they are able to run underbudget. They recieve bonuses like in the real bussiness world. We would of course have to protect the Doctors wages and place a standreds on service to prevent the quality of the health care from going down.

Idea 2) We keep everything as is. Buy out all medical services and make the stock 100% public owned. As in every citzen has 1 share of stock that can't be sold. So all profits and all bussiness decisions are made by and giving to the people.

Neither sounds like a good idea. I don't want the government to be the only provider of healthcare. Being massively inefficent is just one reason another is that I simply don't want the government having that kind of power over my life. They have enough already.

[leigh_ann1982]

The "cheaper" drug prices come via Canadian government controls, controls which ultimately make it harder for drug companies to research and develop new medicines.

Your analysis of the different health systems is somewhat incomplete.

http://www.reason.com/0411/fe.rb.mandatory.shtml

Most drug company profits don't go into research, they go into advertisement, lobbying, and financing their shareholders comfortable lifestyles. There are currently more lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry in Washington than there are members of congress, and between 1997 and 2002 they spent $544 million lobbying congress. They're projected advertising budget for 2005 is $7,800 million. (Figures courtesy of The Oregon Clinic (http://tocmd.com/about/presentations/pharmaceutical.html).) If we were to go to a universal single-payer health care system, then maybe they could take their advertising and lobbying budgets and spend them on research instead.

Most uninsured people don't choose to be uninsured because they are improvident, they simply can't afford to pay for the spiraling cost of medical coverage they may never use. There is no "choice" unless you consider chooising between necessities--paying the rent, keeping the electricity turned on, feeding the kids--or paying for health insurance a viable choice. The majority of the 59 million American who are uninsured at some point during the year aren't haphazard individuals that are spending their disposable income on their fabulous lifestyles, they're people living from paycheck to paycheck who can't afford luxuries like health insurance when they're only other alternatives are homelessness or sitting in the dark.

Laws mandating Americans to purchase insurance would be a boon to the health industry which already rakes in close to $2 trillion annnually--but it would devastate working and middle class people who are barely paying the bills as it is. It would serve to widen the rift between the elite class and the lower class people by forcing those least able to afford it to pay for castastrophe coverage they will probably never use. High deductibles would mean even more individuals would be thrust into the category of not seeking medical attention when they feel they can't afford to pay for it. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and mandatory health care coverage would only succeed in creating more turnips that we attempt to put the squeeze on.

Well, maybe it would succeed in doing two things. When more middle class people are feeling the economic pinch, maybe some real change will be enacted in the U.S. The middle class will be the driving force in any real social revolution that takes place in America because they're educated and more likely to organize. If lawmakers were to basically to tell 82% of people (who according to the 2004 Gallup poll said that health care was their number one concern) they could basically go "eat cake" by thrusting upon them things such as mandatory health insurance which doesn't really solve the health care crisis, then maybe the political landscape in America would finally change. If those in charge won't learn from history, I just hope they're prepared to deal with the consequences of aggravating the bourgeoisie. Maybe the elitests could purchase some "guillotine insurance" and just give the people what they want.

[leigh_ann1982]

What, we can't ogle both?

Umm, does this arrangement involve dinner? :p

[Mike Smash!]

Neither sounds like a good idea. I don't want the government to be the only provider of healthcare. Being massively inefficent is just one reason another is that I simply don't want the government having that kind of power over my life. They have enough already.Myself (and the Greens) are for a national healthcare system that is publically funded and privately delivered, where the patient still has a wide range of choices of doctors and hospitals.

And it's amazing how so many people play the inefficiency card, when private institutions have been proven time and time again to not only be inefficient, but corrupt as well, with the patient, having even less control over their healthcare with a sizable chunk going into executive salaries, drug ads and other drains that a profit-based system creates. In a profit based healthcare system, a provider will always look for a reason to spread out or deny care to maximize those profits.

This system would also be based very heavily in preventive care, where a dime today can save a dollar down the road with the current system. I mean, ask yourself. How many times have you wondered about a rash or a lump under your armpit or a pain in your back and figured you'd rather not know and that if you did, you couldn't afford it, only to have it snowball into something REALLY expensive later on, where it's not only pricier to treat, but more difficult as well...

And when low income people, who do this more often than anyone, can't pay, we end up paying for it anyways.

I very much count healthcare in the same category as fire and police as a necessary service that must be provided -- and is in many countries -- and that basing any healthcare system around profit is not only greedy, but terribly immoral in the worst way.

I think Pickle is wrong. I think a majority of people would favor a national healthcare system if we opened a national dialogue about it. I think most could very easily see how this system would benefit them and immediately recall a situation where they were turned down for care for a ludicrous reason. I know I have.

As for cost, we're already paying for a universal system of care in this country. Enough to cover all healthcare, mental and dental care and all necessary medical procedures....we're just not getting it.

[o1pickleboy]

Myself (and the Greens) are for a national healthcare system that is publically funded and privately delivered, where the patient still has a wide range of choices of doctors and hospitals.

And it's amazing how so many people play the inefficiency card, when private institutions have been proven time and time again to not only be inefficient, but corrupt as well, with the patient, having even less control over their healthcare with a sizable chunk going into executive salaries, drug ads and other drains that a profit-based system creates. In a profit based healthcare system, a provider will always look for a reason to spread out or deny care to maximize those profits.

This system would also be based very heavily in preventive care, where a dime today can save a dollar down the road with the current system. I mean, ask yourself. How many times have you wondered about a rash or a lump under your armpit or a pain in your back and figured you'd rather not know and that if you did, you couldn't afford it, only to have it snowball into something REALLY expensive later on, where it's not only pricier to treat, but more difficult as well...

And when low income people, who do this more often than anyone, can't pay, we end up paying for it anyways.

I very much count healthcare in the same category as fire and police as a necessary service that must be provided -- and is in many countries -- and that basing any healthcare system around profit is not only greedy, but terribly immoral in the worst way.

I think Pickle is wrong. I think a majority of people would favor a national healthcare system if we opened a national dialogue about it. I think most could very easily see how this system would benefit them and immediately recall a situation where they were turned down for care for a ludicrous reason. I know I have.

As for cost, we're already paying for a universal system of care in this country. Enough to cover all healthcare, mental and dental care and all necessary medical procedures....we're just not getting it.


Wrong about what? I wasn't saying most people are against it. I was talking about the people that are against it and why.

[Mike Smash!]

Wrong about what?.I wasn't saying most people are against it. It was talking about the people that are against it and why.My mistake, but you should take that period out of the middle of the sentence I quoted. When split in two, the context is changed.

[o1pickleboy]

No problem, just didn't want anyone to think that I didn't want or believed in National Health Care.

On to corps. being ineffient. I agree that are massive ineffient just like our U.S government(especailly the Auto Industry) I seems in our government we have the democrats that have big ideas and no skills in how to implement them effiently. The republican that our more effient that instead of fixing a program just want to privatize it. That where the problem is. It should be decide on the program and then work on make it effient as possible., but just like everything else in poltics. Neither party can work together. They would rather the other parties program bombed, instead of working together to make it rock.

[leigh_ann1982]

The republican that our more effient that instead of fixing a program just want to privatize it. That where the problem is.

The Republican party is one of the biggest receivers of money from the pharmaceutical lobby. Why would they want to change a system that is so incredibly profitable for them?

[cactusmaac]

Most drug company profits don't go into research, they go into advertisement, lobbying, and financing their shareholders comfortable lifestyles. There are currently more lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry in Washington than there are members of congress, and between 1997 and 2002 they spent $544 million lobbying congress. They're projected advertising budget for 2005 is $7,800 million. (Figures courtesy of The Oregon Clinic (http://tocmd.com/about/presentations/pharmaceutical.html).) If we were to go to a universal single-payer health care system, then maybe they could take their advertising and lobbying budgets and spend them on research instead.


Do a little research into the cost of developing new medicines.

[Grazzt]

Do a little research into the cost of developing new medicines.

Isn't it about $800 million per drug? Or at least, there was a book to that effect I remember seeing. Although, the book in question was critical of that price and thought it could be done more efficiently.

[cactusmaac]

If it could be done more efficiently, drug companies would be doing so.

[Grazzt]

If it could be done more efficiently, drug companies would be doing so.

But going back to leighann's point, if you cut the advertising and lobbying, you'd manage to get about 10 more drugs a year. Every new drug helps.

[leigh_ann1982]

Do a little research into the cost of developing new medicines.

According to the most recent figures I've seen from this (http://www.ifpma.org/Issues/issues_research.aspx) and a couple other sites, the average cost of developing a new drug is in the neighborhood of $800 million dollars. If we combine their projected spending for advertising in 2005 and the money they've spent lobbying politicians between 1997-2002 (roughly $8.34 billion) that could've financed the research and development of 10 new drugs.

Deborah Socolar, MPH, and Alan Sager, PhD (http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/hs/sager/pdfs/020402/Pharmaceutical%20Marketing%20and%20Research%20Spen ding%20APHA%2021%20Oct%2001.pdf#search='pharmaceut ical%20industry%20annual%20spending') of Boston University report that among the six biggest drug makers, spending on R & D was just 11% of revenue, while spending on marketing and administration was nearly three times that. (Information in this report circa 2001.):

"Analyses of drug makers’ financial data often have noted that the share of revenues being spent on R&D is just one-half to one-third the share spent on marketing, advertising and administration combined.

Another way to measure the industry’s priorities is by employment. And that permits not only looking at drug makers’ commitment to R&D, but also separating out administration from marketing. We find that U.S.-based brand name drug companies, by their own data, have fewer employees in R&D than in marketing alone."

And if socializing medecine in this country means I won't have to watch drug company commercials on male impotency, genital herpes, etc. while I'm trying to eat dinner then that's reason enough for me! :rolleyes:

[cactusmaac]

Now do a little work in determining how many of the drugs developed by a ompany actually turn a profit.

[Loren]

Deborah Socolar, MPH, and Alan Sager, PhD (http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/hs/sager/pdfs/020402/Pharmaceutical%20Marketing%20and%20Research%20Spen ding%20APHA%2021%20Oct%2001.pdf#search='pharmaceut ical%20industry%20annual%20spending') of Boston University report that among the six biggest drug makers, spending on R & D was just 11% of revenue, while spending on marketing and administration was nearly three times that. (Information in this report circa 2001.):

"Analyses of drug makers’ financial data often have noted that the share of revenues being spent on R&D is just one-half to one-third the share spent on marketing, advertising and administration combined.

Jane Galt (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/001674.html) has a good piece on these numbers:

The number they are calling "advertising" is actually a number on the balance sheet known to accounting professionals as SG&A: selling, general, and administrative expense.

SG&A is a basket term. It includes everything that happens outside of a factory (things that happen inside a factory are COGS: cost of goods sold) or a lab (things that happen in a lab are R&D: research and development).

So how do they get there from here? Thus: first one consumer group writes a report in which they render that SG&A expense as "Marketing" to make their point a little more punchy. Now, a large component of SG&A is marketing. But it is not the only thing. If you've ever worked in the headquarters of a corporation, think of all the departments. Accounting. IT. Payroll. HR. Mailroom. Reproduction. Marketing. Corporate Finance. Sales. Those are all part of SG&A...

Thus we get the claim that pharmaceutical companies spend 30% of their revenues on advertising, when the real number is much, much lower than that. And thus the belief common among advocates for a single payer health care system that we can force companies to lop of 30% of the price of a drug without touching R&D.

This is wrong in two ways, of course: the number is too big, to start with, and more importantly, it misunderstands the way that companies make decisions. Consumer groups are thinking of pharmaceutical expenditures as budget items -- expenses to be cut. But you have to think of R&D and marketing expenses as an investment. Every budget season, the company allocates its funds by deciding which investment will be more profitable. The assumption is that if you institute price controls, companies will give up marketing to focus on R&D. But the reverse is likely to be the case. R&D is very, very, risky, and very long term. Marketing is perhaps risky, but very short term, and so much less investment is required overall. If you cut the potential profit on a product in half or more, a risky project like R&D has to have a stratospheric potential return to ever get funded.

[BlairH]

The Republican party is one of the biggest receivers of money from the pharmaceutical lobby. Why would they want to change a system that is so incredibly profitable for them?

And the Democrat party recieves the biggest donations from the powerful. You have the likes of Steven Spielberg and co financing them.

The way the drug industry runs at present is probably the best. Patents are neccessary so that companies can recoup development costs and decrease the risks of being in the highly competative business.

Fact is, if you change the system, less work will be put into making drugs because of greater risks and cost of development.

[Phrozen]

Myself (and the Greens) are for a national healthcare system that is publically funded and privately delivered, where the patient still has a wide range of choices of doctors and hospitals.

And it's amazing how so many people play the inefficiency card, when private institutions have been proven time and time again to not only be inefficient, but corrupt as well, with the patient, having even less control over their healthcare with a sizable chunk going into executive salaries, drug ads and other drains that a profit-based system creates. In a profit based healthcare system, a provider will always look for a reason to spread out or deny care to maximize those profits.


You are talking like the government is not corrupt or inefficent. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to the system. It will probably do nothing but suck money down a black hole like most government programs. The only thing Bureaucracy makes is more bureaucracy.

[o1pickleboy]

You are talking like the government is not corrupt or inefficent. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to the system. It will probably do nothing but suck money down a black hole like most government programs. The only thing Bureaucracy makes is more bureaucracy.


and your talking like the corperations aren't corrupt. Enron comes to mind. Like I want to trust my health to a corperation that only cares about profit. Suppose the police force is something you want privatized too.

Edit- (Sorry If I came off harsh, not having a good day.)

[Phrozen]

and your talking like the corperations aren't corrupt. Enron comes to mind. Like I want to trust my health to a corperation that only cares about profit. Suppose the police force is something you want privatized too.

Edit- (Sorry If I came off harsh, not having a good day.)

I am not saying corporations that aren't corrupt. It is just while corporations are corrupt can you actually have a choice with whom you are dealing with, the government doesn't give you that option and most of the time the government is both corrupt and inefficent.

[SOGG]

I am not saying corporations that aren't corrupt. It is just while corporations are corrupt can you actually have a choice with whom you are dealing with, the government doesn't give you that option and most of the time the government is both corrupt and inefficent.


While I agree that this is true for most cases, it's very difficult when the company you're dealing with is a monopoly. Esp when it's a monopoly that's big enough to crush competition while having inferiour products.

The biggest problems though, are companies that have government-enforced monopolies.

I'm pretty sure that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[leigh_ann1982]

While I agree that this is true for most cases, it's very difficult when the company you're dealing with is a monopoly. Esp when it's a monopoly that's big enough to crush competition while having inferiour products.

The biggest problems though, are companies that have government-enforced monopolies.

I'm pretty sure that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

And what's so much better about having a system where big businesses with powerful lobby groups can buy off politicians so they can strong-arm the government into creating legislation favorable to their agendas and detrimental to private citizens? The kind of legislation they lobby the hardest for is to create laws that do crush competition--the big pharmie companies for instance push for patent extensions so that cheaper generic versions of their name-brand drugs can't become available. They also want to outlaw importation of the same drugs from other countries and restrict managed health care formularies so that we in America will have no other option but paying top dollar for their wares.

I personally think that a private system could co-exist with a socialized system by providing alternatives for people who want more options with health care including holistic/alternative medecine, elective surgeries like plastic surgery, and so on. A socialized health care system doesn't mean the end of private businesses profiting; under our current MediCare system, the government pays top dollar to pharmaceutical companies for their drugs. The same companies would still be profiting under a government-run health care program, in fact they'd be increasing their audience, because now people who couldn't previously afford health care would getting the care and medications they need. The only difference would be that they would be getting paid in tax-payer dollars. And it's not as if we're talking about small businesses here that have trouble funding their day-to-day operations; we're talking about multi-billion dollar industries that are increasing profit-margins even during a recession when most other industries are experiencing losses. This isn't an industry that's hurting for cash.

And the Democrat party recieves the biggest donations from the powerful. You have the likes of Steven Spielberg and co financing them.

Who said the Democratic party was any better? The Democratic party is no different than the Republican party in that they pander for corporate dollars while ignoring the needs of their constituents. I'm a little insulted that you haven't noticed I'm much further left than that. :( Possibly the only person further left on this issue that posts here is Mike. I'm advocating real reform, and that's not going to occur under America's currently defunct two-party system. I agree that a socialized system won't function efficiently with this level of corruption--no system will.

The way the drug industry runs at present is probably the best. Patents are neccessary so that companies can recoup development costs and decrease the risks of being in the highly competative business.

Fact is, if you change the system, less work will be put into making drugs because of greater risks and cost of development.

Socializing health care doesn't mean the end of research and development either. Countries that do have socialized health care still have medical research programs. There is still a such thing as government funded research. Currently, California tax-payers are funding stem cell research, the result of which could lead to new drugs and new treatments for diseases. And there's also research being performed at medical schools and universities.

Yes, research and development are expensive processes, but under the current American system the cost is more than dollar amounts, it's also dealt in human lives that suffer and die for want of affordable care. It would be fairer to have equal access to existing treatments for all people than to have new treatments be developed that only the wealthiest among us have access too. I know life isn't fair, but it doesn't have to be this way either.

Social welfare isn't the responsibilty (or even a marginal concern) of big business, I do believe it should belong to a responsible government (is that an oxymoron?). What would you do if tomorrow your country announced it would no longer be instituting any form of social health care? Would you still be able to afford it? What about your relatives, neighbors, and friends?

The average cost of health care in America is over $5,000 per year per person. That figure does take into account people that refrain from medical treatment because they don't have insurance. Do you have the equivalent of $5,000 to spend each year on health care? I sure don't. According to this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html) article in the Washington Post, 1 million people last year declared medical bankruptcy. These aren't just poor people that are uninsured, this a growing concern for the middle class. A debilitating illness in this country not only means that you will probably lose your job, but also that you will lose your insurance. And our government's response to this epidemic? Tougher bankruptcy laws. It's a great system where your only viable alternatives are to be forced to your knees financially or refuse treatment and take your death sentence standing. Blindfold and a cigarette?

[PatrickG]

I would rather be poor, broke, starving and oppressed in a competitive system based on private property than comfortable in a system based on common good.

I want to be hungry at times. I want to lack. I want to desire. I want fuel for my ambition and even if my hopes are false (and I refuse to believe they are) then HOW DARE anyone try to take my ability to advance at a rate disproportionate to other people away. Because the moment I lose that, I lose a good chunk of my reason for living.

[PatrickG]

and your talking like the corperations aren't corrupt. Enron comes to mind. Like I want to trust my health to a corperation that only cares about profit. Suppose the police force is something you want privatized too.

Edit- (Sorry If I came off harsh, not having a good day.)

The corporations may be corrupt but the market is pure.

Socialism requires altruistic administrators.

Capitalism can allow for corruption to exist in a safe manner. Even the corrupt under capitalism are subverted by market forces to act for the public good. The only kind of corruption which is damaging in capitalism is the kind which subverts market forces through litigation. But if you have a capitalistic society in which the government cannot be bribed into participating in bids for market control, a society in which the government is so gridlocked that lobbyists aren't worth hiring... Then you have a workable system.

Any society which is reliant on the absence of corruption is doomed to fail.

Any society which is rooted on conscience cannot stand.

A successful society must allow (and be fed by) the unchecked lusts and desires of humans in a totally free state.

Government shouldn't combat any evil which does not diminish equality of opportunity. Rather, it should convert these vices into virtues.

[Tages]

Sorry, I know this post is two weeks old, but a few things struck me...

I don't believe that a pure Socialist system is plausible in the United States. We have a lot to thank Socialists for, however.

It was their (and Progressive) movement's pressure that fought for food safety laws,
Which to my knowledge have never been proven to significantly effect the safety of food in this country.

anti-trust laws,
Criminalizing success.

legitimate labor unions,
One step above gangsters.

public education,
National indoctrination.

welfare,
Theft.

the 40 hour work week (with weekends)
Coercion.

and Social Security
The world's largest Ponzi scheme.

(and much of the New Deal).
The greatest consolidation of state power in American history that failed to stop the Great Depression.

Gee, where do I address the Hallmark card?

The candidacy of Norman Thomas is really what pressured to Roosevelt to take up much of his platform, personalize it and create many of the programs that a majority of Americans support today, though he never came close to winning the Presidency himself.
So I have a socialist to thank for influencing one of the worst presidents in American history. I'll try and remember that.

I'm talking completely unregulated and predatory capitalism. And it's a system that, IMO, is just as predatory as anything Stalinism had to offer.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my socialist girlfriend the other day, when we saw a giant Pepsi logo out in the middle of a lake where people were hitting golf balls.

Her: "See? Capitalism at its worst."
Me: "Yeah, that's as bad as the Katyn Forest Massacre."

I think we do need more socialism in our government -- universal single-payer healthcare, publicly funded elections, publically funded public education through college.
And the taxpayer's liberty is squeezed some more...

I probably know more actual socialist than most of you do, having met many of them at left-leaning rallies or among the socialist third parties in my area and I believe that they're good people and I share many of their values. There are other things they have to say -- like a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism -- that make me hold them at arm's length.
I'm dating one. Another one is one of my best friends. I've known plenty over the years.

Socialists are just people. No better, no worse, no more or less moral, idealistic or anything else than most people on average.

I myself believe in a strong mixed economy and a balance between regulated capitalism and socialism. Each has their strengths and I believe if you give either of them unrestricted power, you'll run into much of the same oppressive results-- concentrated powers in the hands of few people, rampant corruption, fixed elections, corrupt law enforcement and the "disappearance" of dissidents.
This assessment is simplified, to say the least. Socialism has a bit more to answer for than capitalism does.

[Tages]

and your talking like the corperations aren't corrupt. Enron comes to mind. Like I want to trust my health to a corperation that only cares about profit. Suppose the police force is something you want privatized too.

Edit- (Sorry If I came off harsh, not having a good day.)
'Twill be a glorious day...

[Johnny Morningstar]

Chi