is america embracing socialsim

[Kylyssa]

If you haven't been in their shoes, it is very easy to get upset with medical personnel. They fight a losing battle every single day. And despite your opinion that you expect incompetence, I've been in a hospital or physician's office every single working day for the past 19 years, and I can tell you with complete confidence that as a whole, in general, we expect and demand near perfection from health care professionals.  

You are angry with medicine, it seems. I'm sorry that you are. You have suffered a lot and had to deal with things most people never do. I'm not minimizing your suffering. What I don't understand is why you seem to blame the entire health care field for it though. You cannot make a wide assumption that the entire field is incompetent from a study of one person (you). And to be perfectly clear, I am not saying our medical system is perfect. I never did. In fact it is breaking down and does not work properly. But what I said was that we expect it to be perfect. We expect all doctors and nurses to be perfect...to diagnose everything correctly all the time. That is impossible.

That is all I'm trying to say. Please don't misinterpret that.

No offense intended, but I'm tired of hearing how sorry everybody is.  Sorry doesn't fix anything.  I have no medical care, no money, no insurance and I get sicker and sicker with seizures closer and closer together.  I'm in chronic pain and have been for a long time.  I can't hold down a regular job, I get let go the first time I fall over and bleed on their floor or fall asleep on the job.  That and the constant, grinding pain makes it impossible to concentrate or even to give a shit what someone's flowers look like.

I expect doctors to be human and make mistakes but I also expect doctors to at least try to help.  I think I deserved to find one doctor over the course of a year who didn't decide that wait and see was the best approach.  I deserved to get better care than a suggestion to exercise more and to take Aleve.

[Wraitchel]

If anyone here is in any doubt that Kylyssa and her family represent the norm for American medicine, rather than the exception, watch "Sicko." I loved it.

Kylyssa, I have seen much the same ineptitude you have. My hubby's sister had to get as sick as you did to get her hypothyroid disorder diagnosed in California. I had to go into full respiratory distress and septic shock to get pneumonia diagnosed, though the doctor who diagnosed it used the same x-ray which had been taken earlier in the day. I had come in four hours previously with all the symptoms of pneumonia and was told, "It's just your asthma." and, "You're just trying to get attention because your husband has pneumonia." I delayed going back in because of what they had said, and because when I called to tell them that it hurt to breathe or to move, they said I had just strained a muscle in my ribs. I almost died because they just couldn't seem to take me seriously until I passed out on their floor in full blown shock. In both SIL's case and in mine, we had insurance. My mother, on medicare, died of a MRSA infection she got during a heart cath. They didn't use quarantine procedures with her even once they knew she had MRSA!

Also, the USA is at the bottom of the list of developed nations for neonatal survival!ref: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

[Wechtlein Uns]

One of the worst things that can happen to America is a socialized health care system.

Sadly, stupid people don't realize that the current situation can be solved by doing three things:

1)allow health care plans to be bought under a voucher system, and allow them to be transferable from company to company.

Vouchers? Can you elaborate?

2)Allow health care plan recipients to only purchase health insurance according to their particular risks.(for example, someone who doesn't have anything to do with cigarette smoking might not want to by lung insurance.)

How many illnesses or accidents do you think are foreseeable?

3)break up big pharma into smaller companies that automatically recieve funding to develop cure drugs. This enables competition and keeps the prices for drugs down. Also, get rid of drug patents.

If several big pharmaceutical companies can all, simultaneously have high prices, what's to prevent that with a few more companies?

These three things would instantly reduce the cost of healthcare by at least 70% Why? Most people who have taken an economics course and passed could see why. Unfortunately, america is filled with stupid people who are taken in by the democrats who use nice phrases like "help the poor" and "the rich need to pay their fare share." These same people voted for obama. and I should know. I used to be one of them.

I'm going to have to ask for some evidence to support that 70% figure. So far all we might have are vouchers, and quite frankly current medical voucher systems aren't saving even a fraction of that.

*note* I realize this could be insulting to people who might think I am referring to them. First of all, there's nothing in the bill of rights that says people have the right to not be insulted.

There are forum rules. And the social contract probably applies, too.

1) How does the minimum wage, and rise thereof affect the american economy?

Regardless of what some people might say, it effectively ended slavery by proxy. No longer can people be paid ludacrisly low amounts because they can't find work elsewhere. There's a reasonable limit put on the lowest wages to ensure that people aren't taken advantage of.

2)Why did america get off the silver standard?

This is way too long to get into.

3)What would be the effects of privatization of the american school system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

4) Who or what major groups are opposed to the privatization of the american school system and WHY?

This is also too long to get into.

5)Precisely how much does your vote count when determining the next u.s. president, as opposed to your vote when determining a local offical?

A lot less. California has one vote per 627,253 residents in the electoral college.

I doubt anyone on this forum would call me stupid, and I think that universal health care would do a great deal to eliminate wasteful industry and would help a great deal of people in need. 1/6 people being uninsured isn't going to be solved by minor tweaks in the system. It needs an overhaul.

/threadjack

All right. First, let me apologize for the cold and uncaring tone in the previous post, as well as for calling people who supported universal healthcare stupid. That was wrong of me and I should have known better.

As for defending my argument, let's see:
The voucher system: I believe it might work something like this. The government would use tax revenue to set up a private healthcare account for each citizen should they request it through their tax forms. Then a digital voucher would be held by the citizen, sort of like an empty netscape card. The citizen could shop for either a government run healthcare plan or a private healthcare plan. Once chosen, the digital voucher would be filled out with the proper information, and that citizen would have a healthcare plan. The voucher should have a limit of paying 70% of healthcare costs.

Some illnesses and accidents are very foreseeable. Others are not. This is where personal responsibility, as well as research undertaken by the individual comes in. It's important to keep the government out of dictating what policies we buy or don't buy, as that would keep prices down low. Besides, do you really think that the government should be called in to tell the poor little children what they need? People are capable of figuring things out for themselves.

The basic idea with big pharma is to enable competition. If they all have high prices, that implies collusion. Still, they wouldn't want people to go to other companies rather than theirs. The result would be drugs sold at their market value, instead of inflated values. It can't get much better than that. This would also reduce costs by very much.

Finally, the 70% figure: I pulled it out of my butt. My bad.  

Look, you're not an idiot, willravel, but I think history has shown that competition has trumped socialism in efficiency, production, and quality every time. Socialism doesn't work very well, because there is no incentive for people to work harder and get ahead. After all, if someone else is successful, then why not demand that they share their wealth with you? That's the basic principle. Of corse, those that get ahead won't like that one bit. So they stop making wealth. When that happens...you get the idea.

[Big Mac]

Ironic that the Repubs tried to paint Obama with the Socialist label in order to smear him, yet...

Yet nothing, child. Obama and Bush are the same kind of asshole. The same shit spews from them. Obama is no better than Bush. the 4 years under him (a freedom loving candidate will rise against him in 2011 to knock him out in 2012, if there is any semblance of a god) will be simple socialism. Obama is nothing but a politician. His race is irrelevant. He will say and do whatever it takes to get votes.

A person like that is scary.

He will not have a backbone to risk some things to help us. A big hardship of true leadership is taking a gamble at times to help your people. It has helped humanity survive for so long.

I'm sorry but we had two big losers this election year. I'm glad I voted for McCain over Obama because he  at least suffered greatly for his country in the military while Obama never served a day in his short life.

Is that the end all and be all? Hardly! But Obama has done much to show me he is unworthy of serving his country as POTUS. He snubbed wounded soldiers in Germany because he couldn't bring press cameras to witness the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. That disgusts me. I hear news of friends that I cared deeply dying or suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan who would be willing to die a million deaths for America. They do not get bitter and cling to their "guns and religion" to fight for the land they love.

Obama is not a bad person. He is just not fit to serve as the President. Neither is Bush. WIthout Bush Obama would not have been elected. They are just a couple of worhtless drunk frat boys who got elected due to what they are, not who they are.

I'm sorry, but I cannot drink the Obama Kool-Aid. He only has roughly half a year of Senate experience and has yet to have a real job. Why not propose a flat tax where we all pay 10 percent? No loop holes, no bullshit. YOU (that means all of us) cannot wiggle out of it.

I pay 20 percent of my paycheck to taxes. If we were to lower it to ten percent with not loopholes, we'd need to get rid of a few agencies and pork barrel spending.

Do we really need a DEA? The DEA targets Latinos and Blacks regarding a Victimless crime. You want to smoke pot/snort coke/etc. in your home? Your business. You like to shoot up a certain drug, until you do something bad to others, you are free to do as you wish. You want to spend half your day high on Herion/Weed/Hashish/Etc. it's your own body.

[Big Mac]

No offense, Kryslla, but maybe you should provide for yourself. The government is not meant to bail you out. What is your chronic pain? You can't play the whiny sympathy card because I've heard that shit already.

What is so bad about your condition. Please expand. I'd love to hear a self-pity party about this.

Go on about how bad you have it. I bet I can top it.

[Ihateyoumike]

Here's the dilemma I face when thinking about healthcare worldwide as a whole:
I am a firm believer that human overpopulation is racing out of control, and is going to be a more noticeable problem as years go on.
The average age of humans goes up with better healthcare.
Advances in fertilization will lead to the increase in births.
We're at about 6 billion on Earth right now, where will that be in 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Will it spiral out of control? Will we overload and overburden the only planet we know we can live on because of it?

Is better, or more accessible healthcare good for our planet?
Ethical dilemma if the answer to that question is no: Who shouldn't get it? Should it be more accessible to some, and less to others?

Until I can answer all those questions for myself, I'm not sure I can have a true opinion on it concerning everyone else. This is one problem that I'm not sure has a solution. Perhaps even a bit of a catch-22.

[Kylyssa]

No offense, Kryslla, but maybe you should provide for yourself. The government is not meant to bail you out. What is your chronic pain? You can't play the whiny sympathy card because I've heard that shit already.

What is so bad about your condition. Please expand. I'd love to hear a self-pity party about this.

Go on about how bad you have it. I bet I can top it.

What is Social Security Disability Insurance for if not to provide you with your own money paid in when  you are too sick to work?

So, you have a brain tumor, too?  I'll list it off for you.

A brain tumor, 3 cm.  Causing neurological issues.
Lupus.  Because you are probably too stupid to know what lupus is here's a link.
Fibromyalgia.  
Fevers, of unknown origin though one neurologist theorized the 3 cm mass in my brain might be the cause, frequently reaching above 105 degrees.
Seizures.
Blackouts, fainting, loss of consciousness.
Some of the neurological symptoms may be due to the skull fracture I experience years ago which left me in a coma for almost 9 days.  The repeated falls and concussions caused by seizures, etc. probably haven't helped.  A trip to the grocery store can be enough to wipe me out - I have to sit down or pass out - though the not passing out isn't even a sure thing then.

I didn't stop working due to pain, I kept working until I had so many losses of consciousness at work that I kept getting 'let go' then I lived on my savings a few months, went back to work and lost that job after my liver swelled up and I had to go to the ER in the first week.  I waited a few weeks, again living on savings, then got another job which I lost because my employer saw me taking vicodin on break - vicodin I was prescribed to allow me to work at a standing job.  She said that anyone who needed narcotics to stand all day shouldn't have a job standing all day and she said that she was sorry but that I couldn't work there.  I went through seven jobs. Apparently, employers prefer dependably conscious employees who don't need drugs to stand and don't have organs that suddenly swell up.

I even lost one job because I fell, broke my hand, and got a concussion.

By the way, I have five screws in my knee, a plate in my lower leg, and a plate in my head.  I worked six months standing in a full leg brace while waiting to get ACL and ML repair.  I'm no pussy.

I am trying to support myself on my writing because, since the last job I lost, I haven't found anywhere else willing to hire me.

I lose consciousness in at least two different ways, at least once a week, sometimes as many as twelve times.  If the loss of consciousness is a seizure, I often vomit all over afterward or lose bodily control in other ways.  I get high fevers from one to seven times a week which make me lose time and talk like I'm drunk (hmm, I actually got accused of that by a co-worker), usually right before I fall over.  I won't mention the pain in relation to a job because you don't believe in the existence of pain too severe to work.  I've worked 18 years as a florist and have won awards in my field.  I have published in a number of international print magazines.  I can operate a radio board and edit film.  I have twenty years of customer service experience and three years of college with a major in biochemistry and physics and a minor in radio and television journalism (no degree).  I have taught classes to special needs adults and conducted seminars on design.  I have eight years of management experience.  I have aqua-cultured and sold marine life including coral, starfish, detritivores, and fish.  Would you hire me?  Other than my physical issues, I will be a model employee.

[Kylyssa]

Here's the dilemma I face when thinking about healthcare worldwide as a whole:
I am a firm believer that human overpopulation is racing out of control, and is going to be a more noticeable problem as years go on.
The average age of humans goes up with better healthcare.
Advances in fertilization will lead to the increase in births.
We're at about 6 billion on Earth right now, where will that be in 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Will it spiral out of control? Will we overload and overburden the only planet we know we can live on because of it?

Is better, or more accessible healthcare good for our planet?
Ethical dilemma if the answer to that question is no: Who shouldn't get it? Should it be more accessible to some, and less to others?

Until I can answer all those questions for myself, I'm not sure I can have a true opinion on it concerning everyone else. This is one problem that I'm not sure has a solution. Perhaps even a bit of a catch-22.

You are missing the part about unwanted pregnancies dropping and birthrates dropping as people become more educated.  Birthrates are higher in countries where medical care is scarce.  Look to Germany and Russia - they are having negative population growth.  People are dying later there but fewer people are having children.

You have to ask yourself if it's better to have more death and more births or if it's better to have fewer deaths and fewer births.  Personally, I'm for fewer deaths and fewer births.

[VanReal]

Why not propose a flat tax where we all pay 10 percent? No loop holes, no bullshit. YOU (that means all of us) cannot wiggle out of it.

I pay 20 percent of my paycheck to taxes. If we were to lower it to ten percent with not loopholes, we'd need to get rid of a few agencies and pork barrel spending.

Sorry, this is a capitalist society, a flat tax of 10% is not equitable.  Flat rates are imposed for social security and Medicare, income tax is based on income level.  So, a person making $10 and hour and a person making $100 an hour should pay the same 10% of taxes?  How is that fair? I'm not saying our tax dollars are spent wisely, they are not, but certainly those making six figures have greater disposable income and those at minimum wage and below the poverty line need as much of their income as possible just to make ends meet.

Do we really need a DEA? The DEA targets Latinos and Blacks regarding a Victimless crime. You want to smoke pot/snort coke/etc. in your home? Your business. You like to shoot up a certain drug, until you do something bad to others, you are free to do as you wish. You want to spend half your day high on Herion/Weed/Hashish/Etc. it's your own body.

Yikes, so it's victimless crime?  So you wouldn't mind that your brain surgeon shot some heroin at home a few hours before you go in for surgery?  Brave man.

[Kyuuketsuki]

bail out the banks, in essence semi nationalising them. bail out the car industry. in fact bail out any multi national thats fed on free market capitalism and use tax payers money as a bulwark to stop the collapse. what next? america gets a european health service? now that is pie in the sky. has it occured to anyone else that bush is the most socialist president since f.d.r.

If it is a right-wing variant (at least compared to the UK).

Kyu

[G.ENIGMA]

One of the worst things that can happen to america is a socialized healthcare system.

Sadly, stupid people don't realize that the current situation can be solved by doing three things:

1)allow healthcare plans to be bought under a voucher system, and allow them to be transferrable from company to company.

2)Allow healthcare plan recipients to only purchase health insurance according to their particular risks.(for example, someone who doesn't have anything to do with cigarrette smoking might not want to by lung insurance.)

3)break up big pharma into smaller companies that automatically recieve funding to develop cure drugs. This enables competition and keeps the prices for drugs down. Also, get rid of drug patents.

Thes three things would instantly reduce the cost of healthcare by at least 70% Why? Most people who have taken an economics course and passed could see why. Unfortunately, america is filled with stupid people who are taken in by the democrats who use nice phrases like "help the poor" and "the rich need to pay their fare share." These same people voted for obama. and I should know. I used to be one of them.

*note* I realize this could be insulting to people who might think I am refferring to them. First of all, there's nothing in the bill of rights that says people have the right to not be insulted. However, if you can answer these questions, then rest assured I am not talking about you:

1) How does the minimum wage, and rise thereof affect the american economy?

2)Why did america get off the silver standard?

3)What would be the effects of privatization of the american school system?

4) Who or what major groups are opposed to the privatization of the american school system and WHY?

5)Precisely how much does your vote count when determining the next u.s. president, as opposed to your vote when determining a local offical?

Ok I am taking this from the UK point of view... perhaps I am one of the stupid people your talking about ..but no offence taken )
3. The effects of privatising any state/country school system will inevitably drive up the costs of a good education and therefore make sure that the less well off in any society remain poorly educated.
4. I do not know which groups speciffically are against it but it should be all parent groups  ... For the reason, "why" just read my answer to question no3 again  :brick:  ... even though you did not make it a question ... Listen my friend, I dont understand your reasoning against free care at all.

You Said : Allow healthcare plan recipients to only purchase health insurance according to their particular risks.(for example, someone who doesn't have anything to do with cigarrette smoking might not want to by lung insurance.)

So what would happen if the non smoker then developed lung cancer?

And if the governments of the world can spend trillions on armies "to protect us", bailing out the banks "to protect us" .. then c'mon ...free health care should be a cinch in order "to protect us" ... A NO BRAINER I THINK Cheers

[DennisK]

The Federal Reserve has been the driving force in pushing us toward Socialism.  The constant printing of money without taking money out of circulation is the key to inflation.  Every generation the hard currency is debased.  The true value of the dollar has never been so low.

If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. -Thomas Jefferson

[Wraitchel]

Uh, MigMac, I think you're a sourpuss. That's the nicest thing I could think to say, and if I were Kylyssa, I would not have bothered to defend myself to you. I hope you need medicaid someday soon. Maybe you'll grow a heart.

[Will]

All right. First, let me apologize for the cold and uncaring tone in the previous post, as well as for calling people who supported universal healthcare stupid. That was wrong of me and I should have known better.

No worries.

As for defending my argument, let's see:
The voucher system: I believe it might work something like this. The government would use tax revenue to set up a private healthcare account for each citizen should they request it through their tax forms. Then a digital voucher would be held by the citizen, sort of like an empty netscape card. The citizen could shop for either a government run healthcare plan or a private healthcare plan. Once chosen, the digital voucher would be filled out with the proper information, and that citizen would have a healthcare plan. The voucher should have a limit of paying 70% of healthcare costs.

This makes sense assuming your perspective on the issue is that the government wouldn't be able to run health care. Your voucher idea actually is a bit like the bailout; let the government foot some or most of the bill, but allow the market (that kinda got itself into the bind in the first place) still manage the system. To be honest, I don' see that as a pragmatic approach. If the private management has demonstrated time and again that they are incapable of managing a necessary industry effectively, the government should at least be given a chance. If neither work, it's time for revolution. [/quote]
I've been known to do that myself. 60% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Look, you're not an idiot, willravel, but I think history has shown that competition has trumped socialism in efficiency, production, and quality every time. Socialism doesn't work very well, because there is no incentive for people to work harder and get ahead. After all, if someone else is successful, then why not demand that they share their wealth with you? That's the basic principle. Of corse, those that get ahead won't like that one bit. So they stop making wealth. When that happens...you get the idea.

There's never been a pure socialist government or society (nor a pure capitalist government or society). What I've observed is that some goods and services are better left to the market and other goods and services are left to government. I'm sure you wouldn't want a 100% privatized military. And I wouldn't want government-run telecommunications. You wouldn't want to have to pay insurance for police, firemen, or roads. I wouldn't want to pay taxes for government-run religious organizations.

[curiosityandthecat]

Uh, MigMac, I think you're a sourpuss. That's the nicest thing I could think to say, and if I were Kylyssa, I would not have bothered to defend myself to you. I hope you need medicaid someday soon. Maybe you'll grow a heart.

He just likes to offend people. Go back and read some of his previous posts. He's basically just an ass who likes stirring up shit (not in real life, apparently; the bravery of being out of range just brings out the douche in him).