News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

What's your opinon on Socialism?

Started by KebertX, July 31, 2010, 07:21:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

parrotpirate

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "Businessocks"Many people don't want socialized medicine here because of the cost,
Does this mean vested interests in the USA want to keep the cost of healthcare up?

Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Australia   3,137
Canada     3,895
France      3,601
Germany   3,588
Japan        2,581
Norway     5,910
Sweden     3,323
UK            2,992
USA          7,290

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-coun ... eir-money/

The wiki link has an interesting table.
In a word, yes. Our political system is so damaged here, with lobbyists and special interests putting more pressure on our so-call representatives every election season. Health care and related industries are some of the worst in this, especially big pharmaceutical companies. Unless something serious is done about campaign finance reform and removing the influence of big corporate money, nothing will move forward. So remember all of you here in the states, get out and vote in November. Just because it's a mid-term doesn't mean it is any less important.
The one thing everybody needs to remember is that I never claimed to be sane!

Kylyssa

Quote from: "humblesmurph"If you are sick, you go to the hospital and they treat you, if you can't pay then they write it off (I've been a person that didn't have insurance and was treated for free). If the US is so bad, why hasn't there been a mass exodus to Canada?

Homelessness and poor people dying from curable diseases suck.  I give a significant portion of my income to charity to help.  It seems to me that if everybody who was so concerned about these issues did the same, the problem wouldn't be so bad.  

I think you will find that you are wrong about medical treatment being available to every American.  Emergency rooms only stabilize people, they don't treat most illnesses.  If you have cancer and no insurance you are going to die. If you have no insurance and go through the ER with a trauma injury you are twice as likely to die there as an insured person is according to a University of Buffalo study released earlier this year.  

It's a real great value to hold, that people only deserve to live if someone cares about them.

Let me repeat this: In countries that basically have socialized medicine the costs per capita are cheaper.  That means, you would pay less than you do now and could possibly experience a longer lifespan and see a much lower infant mortality rate just like other countries who have implemented evil socialized medicine.  American infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are barely better than Afghanistan's and far worse than that in any other country considered to be a developed nation.  

So you'd prefer to pay more so you can get denied treatment by an insurance company whose bottom line is profit because some poor people might get treatment as good as you would and you feel they don't deserve it.

Take a look around.  In America, the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.  And over three quarters of people who have gone through medical bankruptcy have had medical insurance at the start of the illness or injury that bankrupted them.  Here's a great little article about it.  Just like me, they were regular, hard-working people who faced an illness and were basically left unprotected even though they had paid into the medical insurance protection racket for years and had taken nothing out.  This isn't a pittance we're talking about, many of these families paid more into the medical insurance protection racket than they paid in rent or mortgage payments.

pinkocommie

Yeah, from my experience they don't treat you in the hospital if you don't have insurance, they do the minimum they have to and then cut you loose.  My dad had a heart attack and they for some reason thought he didn't have insurance, so they stabilized him and were ready to turn him out only after a few hours in the hospital after a pretty major incident, looking like death, without any actual treatment.  Once it was cleared up that we did in fact have insurance, his care completely changed.  I mean, immediately completely changed - he went from being a signature away from discharge to being prepped for surgery.  Without our insurance, he would have literally been sent home to slowly die.  I'd like to say that from what I've read, our experience was somewhat isolated, but that kind of minimalist approach to health care for the uninsured actually seems pretty standard.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Kylyssa

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, from my experience they don't treat you in the hospital if you don't have insurance, they do the minimum they have to and then cut you loose.  My dad had a heart attack and they for some reason thought he didn't have insurance, so they stabilized him and were ready to turn him out only after a few hours in the hospital after a pretty major incident, looking like death, without any actual treatment.  Once it was cleared up that we did in fact have insurance, his care completely changed.  I mean, immediately completely changed - he went from being a signature away from discharge to being prepped for surgery.  Without our insurance, he would have literally been sent home to slowly die.  I'd like to say that from what I've read, our experience was somewhat isolated, but that kind of minimalist approach to health care for the uninsured actually seems pretty standard.


And even with insurance, health care is pretty shabby here.  The best thing about socialized medicine would be that poor people wouldn't be going to the ER for colds and people would be triaged by their physical condition rather than by their wallets.  The last time I went to the ER, it took almost twenty minutes sitting in an intake cubicle before I got set loose to go sit in the ER waiting room and I had insurance.  I saw an elderly man having chest pains go through the same check in procedure only it took longer because he was in so much pain he could barely talk.  Once they were done they whisked him away to a physician.  If everyone had coverage then they could have just whisked him away without sitting there an extra half hour or more while having his heart attack or whatever.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, from my experience they don't treat you in the hospital if you don't have insurance, they do the minimum they have to and then cut you loose.  My dad had a heart attack and they for some reason thought he didn't have insurance, so they stabilized him and were ready to turn him out only after a few hours in the hospital after a pretty major incident, looking like death, without any actual treatment.  Once it was cleared up that we did in fact have insurance, his care completely changed.  I mean, immediately completely changed - he went from being a signature away from discharge to being prepped for surgery.  Without our insurance, he would have literally been sent home to slowly die.  I'd like to say that from what I've read, our experience was somewhat isolated, but that kind of minimalist approach to health care for the uninsured actually seems pretty standard.


And even with insurance, health care is pretty shabby here.  The best thing about socialized medicine would be that poor people wouldn't be going to the ER for colds and people would be triaged by their physical condition rather than by their wallets.  The last time I went to the ER, it took almost twenty minutes sitting in an intake cubicle before I got set loose to go sit in the ER waiting room and I had insurance.  I saw an elderly man having chest pains go through the same check in procedure only it took longer because he was in so much pain he could barely talk.  Once they were done they whisked him away to a physician.  If everyone had coverage then they could have just whisked him away without sitting there an extra half hour or more while having his heart attack or whatever.

That's a really good point.  There are a lot of situations where minutes if not seconds count, and wasting that time making sure someone has the ability to pay for the level of care they receive seems almost barbaric when, if we were to have a socialized system, theoretically health and care really could quite literally come first.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

humblesmurph

Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "humblesmurph"If you are sick, you go to the hospital and they treat you, if you can't pay then they write it off (I've been a person that didn't have insurance and was treated for free). If the US is so bad, why hasn't there been a mass exodus to Canada?

Homelessness and poor people dying from curable diseases suck.  I give a significant portion of my income to charity to help.  It seems to me that if everybody who was so concerned about these issues did the same, the problem wouldn't be so bad.  

I think you will find that you are wrong about medical treatment being available to every American.  Emergency rooms only stabilize people, they don't treat most illnesses.  If you have cancer and no insurance you are going to die. If you have no insurance and go through the ER with a trauma injury you are twice as likely to die there as an insured person is according to a University of Buffalo study released earlier this year.  

It's a real great value to hold,

Let me repeat this: In countries that basically have socialized medicine the costs per capita are cheaper.  That means, you would pay less than you do now and could possibly experience a longer lifespan and see a much lower infant mortality rate just like other countries who have implemented evil socialized medicine.  American infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are barely better than Afghanistan's and far worse than that in any other country considered to be a developed nation.  

So you'd prefer to pay more so you can get denied treatment by an insurance company whose bottom line is profit because some poor people might get treatment as good as you would and you feel they don't deserve it.

Take a look around.  In America, the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.  And over three quarters of people who have gone through medical bankruptcy have had medical insurance at the start of the illness or injury that bankrupted them.  Here's a great little article about it.  Just like me, they were regular, hard-working people who faced an illness and were basically left unprotected even though they had paid into the medical insurance protection racket for years and had taken nothing out.  This isn't a pittance we're talking about, many of these families paid more into the medical insurance protection racket than they paid in rent or mortgage payments.

I never once said that I was against free healthcare. I am very much in favor of it.
Saying I'm against changing from a capitalist country to a socialist one is a far cry from saying that I don't want free healthcare.  My point was that we have socialistic elements already and that we need to augment them by taking money from the very very rich and giving it to the very very poor--not scrap the whole system and become a Socialist Nation.  

Btw, I said that hospitals treat you for free, I didn't say that they cured anything.  When I was treated, I got a chest x-ray, a ct scan, an MRI, blood work, an IV, and I night in the hospital.  They knew I didn't have insurance.  They didn't cure a damn thing. The couldn't even give a diagnosis. I received a bill for $17000 (no there is not an extra zero).  I couldn't pay. They wrote it off.  

My point about charity is that it is something we can do right now to help.  Not  "that people only deserve to live if someone cares about them."

Tank

Well I have a bit of an insight into the UK National Health Service (NHS) as I use it for my diabetes and my daughter is a medical photographer and her partner is a nurse (he is a man). What one tends to find is that one can wait a long time in ER if one is not very serious eg a couple of stitches required. The last time I had to ER in 'anger' as it were was about 20 years ago when I broke my wrist flying a kite (long story, with a snappy ending). I broke it at 17:00 and got to hospital about 17:30 by the time I had been seen and xrayed it was 1:00 the next day and the bone setter had gone home, so I had to come home with it strapped up and go to bed then go back the next day in the morning and have it set. Quite coincidently I had a vasectomy in the afternoon  :D ) but as he is ex-Navy he has a veterans cover which covers her now they are married. They did get married quicker than possibly they would have done had that pressure not been there.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

I don't think one has to be in an economically socialist country to have state funded health care. The UK is essentially a capitalist state with state funded health care that was brought about by WWII and the collectivisation of effort brought about by the war. The US was at war but never under the degree of threat that any of the European allies or Russia faced. The US was never invaded and never attacked effectively by air power. In one sense WWII was a massive great business opportunity to the civilian population with no real physical threat. The war time experiences of the USA and Europe were massively different. In a way the USA has yet to face (and due to geographic considerations) may never face the realities of war where its civilian population actually take casualties. It would appear that the trauma to civilian populations made it all but impossible for a careless government (right or left wing) to be elected after the war. The populations needed to be cared for in equal measure to the sacrifices they had made.

It is also practically impossible to remove public health care once it is in place. Any government that would try to take away the NHS would would be as popular as haemorrhoids!
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Tank"Quite coincidently I had a vasectomy in the afternoon  :eek:

Remind me not to break a bone in Merry Olde.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Thumpalumpacus

Also, although I'm generally a small gov't guy, I think attaching the profit motive to humane health care is obnoxious and should be outlawed.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Businessocks

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, although I'm generally a small gov't guy, I think attaching the profit motive to humane health care is obnoxious and should be outlawed.
:up:
The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.  -Ralph Waldo Emerson

deekayfry

My opinion?

I am not sure.

I think it works and works well.

For those who want to de-regulate government, do away with the Department of Education, or de-regulate everything from environmental protection, to work place safety, think on this for a minute.

Are you willing to give up road maintenance, police and fire protection, public education?

The government is the nation's largest employer.  That is it is the directly the largest employer.

It is ironic that there is a sizable majority that wants government to stay out of their economic business, yet they are employed by the government!

When anyone gets to talking about doing away with Medicare or reforming Social Security, it creates an uproar.  These are social programs.

I think back to a wise South Carolinian who said this, "Keep your government hands of my Medicare!"  :) Wise indeed.
I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.-  Davey Crockett, 1834

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Asmodean

My government is social democratic, which I guess makes this country to one or another degree socialist. I don't mind on the whole, but I don't like the abuse of my tax money on some of those social issues.

As an ideology, I don't think socialism has much of a chance in any society where everyone looks after his own before the societiy's greater good though... Which would be the case in pretty much every society I know of.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Tank

I think socialism is idealistic while capitalism is pragmatic. At the end of the day one has to climb 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' on one's own, but socialism is about acknowledging that it's easier for one to reach the top if the basics at the bottom are met collectively by all in a society. The trouble with a socialist society is that it must always contend with the fact that it will end up being run by selfish 'do gooders' if left to it's own devices. And there is very little worse than living in an unaccountable nanny state, one ends up strangled in risk averse red tape!
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

darkcyd

I have always felt I am very much in favor of the libertarian free trade above all views which are absolutely in conflict with socialism. However, socialism in some aspects, I have found appealing.

FSF and the GNU Public license for software in specific, I hold in very high interest as a contributor and it is very socialistic at its base. I rationalize it though by assuming the free market has failed and allowed too many monopolies go unchecked by controlling standards and patent thresholds. Also, the introduction cost for competition is immeasurably high and almost certain to fail given that even when found guilty of market manipulation, monopoly abuse and in some cases outright code theft or court bullying, the elimination of competition is still worth the effort.

The US has allowed this to go on because software export and movies are our only real exports anymore in the world market. Nobody can compete with our movies or can unseat Microsoft.

For these reasons, I believe the free market has failed and the only recourse is to pursue a destruction of the market through the GNU license.