Socialism: Pros and Cons

[Deathtoall 28]

My two cents

While not meaning to be bashing the US, i quite frankly find the condition of public health in America to be terrible. Some of the things i have heard and seen are a direct violation of human rights. I think that a fear of "communism" is not seperated from socialism and is preventing people(like Hilary Clinton, who was told to shut up by Bill during his presidency on universal health-care) solving it .

Communism is to me where the government controls everything and his the "Bad" one. Socialism is simply where the governement is responsible to the people, has elections, is open but it is a central planned economy but people incredible freedoms. Similar to what i believe Sweden is(feel free to prove right/wrong). Hows does governments getting invloved in things mean that they taking down freedoms? when it is actually helping them. People can't always see the difference in my opinion. I like socialist ideas but i know that as so cleary pointed out is people are greedy, greedy, greedy with a little bit of greed sprinkled on top for extra taste. But irrespective of wether your a Socialist/Communisnt/Capitalist/Democratic governemnent or whatever your ideoligy is, Health Care should be Universal but people should have an option to opt out for private but still, from your taxes, pay for the general. (My government actualy gives an incentive to take private cover). I think that just because your may have socialist ideals doesn't mean that there is no room for money motivation. It is the simplest way to get things done. Here people on the dole will have it confiscated if they don't regulary turn up to job interviews etc and similar plans are in place for other welfare payments and the dole is barely enough to live on but we still have Publc health care and some socialist ideals while still being capitalist. Mixed Market economies are the best, goes back to what your mumma told you, everything in moderation = balance. Which i know is hard to get.

Duke, you may not care about Joe from Town X but what about when your friend Billy down the street parents can't afford his Asthma treatment? Or your teacher gets paralysed in an acccident where they weren't at fault and can't pay thier medical bills? Or your parents can't get kemotherapy (i know my spelling is atrocious) or whatever. To me, Joe from X is a random with a problem, not your problem but the nation's problem. Do you

A) Leave Joe to sort it out?

B) Help Joe?

C) Use Universal health care?

What would your answer actually be? I know i would pick C)

I would like to add that people i know who are the biggest conservatives support Universal Healthcare.

Utopia? ridicoulus. Impossible. But we can still have some working for the greater good.

The UK system of Social-Democrat is one that i think works well. Universal health-care etc and all that Jazz. I don't see how people could complain about it being better.

I know people won't agree. But simply to me "Socialism" has no connection to personal freedoms. "Communism" does.

Enough said.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: City2TheMax hmm... personally I support democratic socialism as can be seen in a lot of European countries. There needs to be more government intervention in some areas b/c some people just can't help themselves - think of the people living on minimum wage.quote>

What about those of us, who because of the increases in minimum wage to "help people out," are literally priced out of being employable?  For those who don't know, I am a college student who is presently spending his summer earning as much money as realistically possible to help with college expenses.  Roughly 2/3 employers that I spoke with during the months leading up to the summer said something along the lines of the following: "I would love to higher you; you're more than qualified for the job.  However, I cannot justify the costs of training you to work for me for just the summer.  I would have to pay you minimum wage, and that is too high for me to hire you just for the summer."  The hike in minimum wage has basically left me with three choices: get a job and put my college education on hold, put the college education first and don't get the job, or work a part-time job and be a full-time student at the same time (which isn't realistically doable).  Does society, in the name of "improving the condition of the lowest classes," realize that for some of us, increasing minimum wage is hurting us?

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: NMUSpidey  and when you look at how the "poor" live in the US, or any other democratic, capitalist, industrialized society, you'll see that the "poor" largely have luxuries such as air conditioning, cars, tvs, iPods, and any number of advances that previously were only available to the very rich or were not even available at all. quote>

I think those living in poverty may beg to differ.quote>

I know people who live on the poverty line in the US and they are able to obtain those items.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I don't understand how people say that in a classless society there is no motivation to work. What? Are you people so driven by momentary gain? What ever happened to working because it satisfies you and you enjoy it?quote>

I don't know about people elsewhere in the world, but most Americans hate their jobs.  I'm one of them.  At the end of the day, all I care about is what I can translate into money or useful life experience. 

What ever happened to the ethos that you work for the betterment of mankind and the continued advancement of the human race?quote>

As I understand it, that is the basic premise of charitable works, donations, etc.  As I also understand it, "mandated charity," which, imo, is what taxes to support social programs are, is a logical contradiction and not charity at all. 

And the idea that collectively paying for healthcare somehow takes away our 'freedoms', is quite absurd. Isn't it a great thing that we all, no matter how poor or rich, pitch in together for a higher quality of life for everyone.quote>

I don't consider it absurd.  I don't feel I should have to pay for the lung cancer treatment of someone who knew damn well they were giving themselves lung cancer by smoking.  If you're knocked flat on your back, I'm not against helping get you back on your feet.  If you willfully got yourself knocked flat on your back, you have to get up on your own power 'cause I'm not helping you.

[DocRorlach 25]

..earning as much money as realistically possible to help with college expenses.quote>

Therein, and in similar post by others here, lies the central misconception: universal health care and free education are not, never have been, socialist - or as the late Jesse Helms would have it "communist" tenets.

They are social maxims. And social means nothing more than the way you live, 24/7/365 until you are buried. hymn should not have to work to pay for his education. And patriots_1228 should not have to spend all night waiting in a hospital just to get a checkup. And neither should anyone in any other country, regardless of the political structure.

The ideas of socialism where first and foremost about equality - and that each of us is entitled, because of their contribution to society, to good health and good education and unhampered beliefs.

[Boggy1 45]

I am pretty shocked and saddened by your attitudes, duke and hym. What on earth every happened to Christian love?

I know I, for one, am not going to work just for the sake of "bettering mankind" If there's nothing in it for me, I'm wasting my time and effort.quote>

That's the thing thought isn't it? If we all had that attitude then the world would never get anywhere, we would never advance; as there would be absolutely no motivation for people to. And yet again; you are looking short term. You want instant gratification. I seem to be the only person who is capable of looking long term and realising that most of what all I do now won't have an effect until after I am dead. But you know what? That perfectly satisfies me; as I realise that the world is far bigger than me, and if I help people down the line; then it can only be a good thing. Even if I am not there to see it. Rarely does anything come for you in your life time; but surely the satisfaction of knowing that your actions will help people is enough?

How, then, do your parents manage to pay their bills and put food on the table? quote>

 Because we save. We never buy anything that we do not need. We absolutely live by the ethos that you should never live beyond your means. That's something Americans seem to have forgotten if we look at the current state of the credit crisis. Most, if not all, of our possessions come from charity shop, the local recycling dump, or are second hand. You have no idea how much less money we spend because of it. We don't go on holidays every year, we don't buy a new car every five years because the other one is out of fashion (good god haven't you people heard of depreciation). Our car runs both on LPG and petrol. We very very rarely use gas heating - most of the time we just light the fire. We grow our own food, and heat our own water with a solar panel. Therefore, our bills are hardly that expensive.

Even so; our annual income is possibly about £400/$800 per year. And yet we survive! How? Because we don't spend needlessly. What we could have spent; we put it ALL into savings account. We live off the interest in the banks. If you look at how much money we are getting through interest; then it is way over the £30,000/$60,000 a year mark. We can easily afford bills.

For another, I am completely incapable of giving a damn how Joe Blow in Town X halfway across the country is doing. He can go and die a slow horrible death for all I care. I don't know him. He's not my family or my friend. What's it to me? Nothing. Not my problem. I have absolutely no reason to help him unless there's something in it for me.quote>

How utterly selfish of you. Again; here you are thinking short term. As deathtoall said, Joe is the nations problem; and therefore will affect the country in the long term; economically, socially, and even politically.

And there are a lot of ways in which things are cruel and unfair.quote>

They are unfair because you make them unfair.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

That's the thing thought isn't it? If we all had that attitude then the world would never get anywhere, we would never advance; as there would be absolutely no motivation for people to. And yet again; you are looking short term. You want instant gratification. I seem to be the only person who is capable of looking long term and realising that most of what all I do now won't have an effect until after I am dead. But you know what? That perfectly satisfies me; as I realise that the world is far bigger than me, and if I help people down the line; then it can only be a good thing. Even if I am not there to see it. Rarely does anything come for you in your life time; but surely the satisfaction of knowing that your actions will help people is enough?quote>

Your altruism is admirable, but most others are not.

Yes, we want short term gratification. But not for no reason. Most humans, when they work, want to get something out of it for themselves. You may call this selfish.

In my view, there is a difference between serving your own interests and being selfish.

If humans worked at their jobs and got no compensation of any kind, there would be no incentive to work, since they would be, in effect, working for nothing. 

It is a human instinct to stop an exertion if nothing comes out of it. Not only is working for nothing pointless, it wastes time and energy.

Most humans are not purely altruistic or overly selfish, most are somewhere in between on the spectrum. Most are willing to help a greater cause, but they ask the question: What will I get out of it? If the answer is in the affirmiative, they, as you put it, pitch in for the community.

If all had your attitudes and altruism, then communism would work better. The problem I see with communism is that it attempts to fight base human instincts, and most are not willing to fight them.

Because we save. We never buy anything that we do not need. We absolutely live by the ethos that you should never live beyond your means. That's something Americans seem to have forgotten if we look at the current state of the credit crisis.quote>

There I agree with you. If your expenses surpass income, then assets go down. However, most Americans charge up a lot of debt and they have no means to pay for it.

Having a debt and credit card is good, as long as you can pay the monthly payment. It is a way to afford things you could not buy in one lump sum. Example -- a $20,000 car. Very few could buy it all at once, so the payment is spread out monthly over a period of 3-8 years. That is the basic principal in the 1920's "installment plan" for vehicles and other consumer goods.

It is kind of like consuming alchohol. If you go on a binge, you'll harm yourself. If you use it responsibly, much less harm comes out of it.

It's all in how you use it.

What on earth every happened to Christian love?quote>

1. How can I love someone I haven't even met?

2. I am not a Christian, and most people on Earth are not.

[DocRorlach 25]

It is a human instinct to stop an exertion if nothing comes out of it. Not only is working for nothing pointless, it wastes time and energy.quote>

It's actually more than that - it is part of everyone's survivl instinct. And true enough, absolute altruism neither exists nor works. Like all absolutes. But altruism, again, is not a socilaist concept but part of the natural selection process: altruism towards kin and kid ensures the survival of whatever herd one belongs to. In that it actually works against social concepts, because it ensures that "us vs. them" mentality.

But what happens to the "Joe" in Texas or Timbuktu will affect what happens to, say, patriot or hym or belfastinguy or me: for no there reason than if the government "gets away" with mistreating Joe, it'll sooner rather than later will try those methods on you.

Which is why we do indeed need "socially concious" governments - not socialist or even democratic socialist - on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific). But to get to that, you first need socially concious citizens. And in that, our world is in terribly short supply, as some posts here suggest.

[saltandsauce 0]

There I agree with you. If your expenses surpass income, then assets go down. However, most Americans charge up a lot of debt and they have no means to pay for it.

Having a debt and credit card is good, as long as you can pay the monthly payment. It is a way to afford things you could not buy in one lump sum. Example -- a $20,000 car. Very few could buy it all at once, so the payment is spread out monthly over a period of 3-8 years. That is the basic principal in the 1920's "installment plan" for vehicles and other consumer goods.quote>

unfortunatley in this situation there are two things that seem to be swapped around and that is luxuries and neccessities. luxuries are $20,000 cars. if you couldn't afford it you would either save the money that would go on the credit card bill until you had enough money where you would save on the interest OR go for a cheaper car. The problem is that value for money is a lot harder to find. poor people oringinally had to either have old, good quality furniture or newer bad, quality furniture (you couldn't buy good quality furniture often) you could not have both. In other words, before easy credit, people HAD to live within their means

oh and the UK does have a classed society it is just as rigid as the 60s it's almost on par with the Indian caste system. so if you are born poor you will die poor and stay poor in between and if you are born rich you will either stay rich or lose your money but you will retain your upper classness

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

How utterly selfish of you. Again; here you are thinking short term. As deathtoall said, Joe is the nations problem; and therefore will affect the country in the long term; economically, socially, and even politically.

And there are a lot of ways in which things are cruel and unfair.quote>

They are unfair because you make them unfair.quote>

Uh, for all your being upset about how Americans are all selfish and that we're all only in it for ourselves, you really should pay more attention to facts and figures.  For example, in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami, Americans generously donated more time and more money than any other nation on earth, the vast majority of it was donated voluntarily.  When given the choice, Americans voluntarily give wholeheartedly to charity.  Americans give higher percentages of their time and money to charity.  American corporations spend vast amounts of their profits on charitable works.  What is unfair is talking about Americans as though we were all heartless capitalists who care not a bit about our neighbors. 

As per an earlier question posed about Joe X and your neighbor, these afformentioned charities do an admirable job of giving supplies to the needy.  When talking about socialism, the government simply dictates people give, and they either give or go to prison.  In the US, where so much of people's income isn't taken from them by force and people have greater freedom as to what to do with their money, people give generously to charities. 

One more thing to keep in mind, is that even with all the money that is added up, Americans still devote untold resources in the form of toys, clothing, food, and (perhaps most importantly) time.  A socialist "paradise' may mandate these things and perhaps even get them done in an efficient manner, but it works far better when these things are done by choice.  Far from being a country full of meanies who would steal your lunch money so much as look at you, the capitalists are more than willing to share that which they reap. 

Do not imply Americans are selfish and short sighted.  It is simply not true, not even a little.

[Boggy1 45]

NMUSpidey: Full apologies; I never meant to imply that all Americans are selfish and short sighted. Sorry that I didn't make it clear. (though I only mentioned America once, and that was to do with the credit crisis - so I'm not entirely sure how you could have actually misunderstood what I was saying)

If all had your attitudes and altruism, then communism would work better. The problem I see with communism is that it attempts to fight base human instincts, and most are not willing to fight them.quote>

Very true; even though I entirely support the ideals of communism; I know that it can't work in our society. That, I think, is very sad.

1. How can I love someone I haven't even met?

2. I am not a Christian, and most people on Earth are not.

quote>

Christian love; in the sense of agape. Love thy neighbour and all that. I too am not a Christian; and yet I think that Christianity has some very good (mostly common sense) teachings.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

There I agree with you. If your expenses surpass income, then assets go down. However, most Americans charge up a lot of debt and they have no means to pay for it.

Having a debt and credit card is good, as long as you can pay the monthly payment. It is a way to afford things you could not buy in one lump sum. Example -- a $20,000 car. Very few could buy it all at once, so the payment is spread out monthly over a period of 3-8 years. That is the basic principal in the 1920's "installment plan" for vehicles and other consumer goods.quote>

unfortunatley in this situation there are two things that seem to be swapped around and that is luxuries and neccessities. luxuries are $20,000 cars. if you couldn't afford it you would either save the money that would go on the credit card bill until you had enough money where you would save on the interest OR go for a cheaper car. The problem is that value for money is a lot harder to find. poor people oringinally had to either have old, good quality furniture or newer bad, quality furniture (you couldn't buy good quality furniture often) you could not have both. In other words, before easy credit, people HAD to live within their means

oh and the UK does have a classed society it is just as rigid as the 60s it's almost on par with the Indian caste system. so if you are born poor you will die poor and stay poor in between and if you are born rich you will either stay rich or lose your money but you will retain your upper classnessquote>

Sorry but thats a load of crap, my own mother was born to not the most well off family in the world yet she now runs the largest school in Hampshire and has a decent income. My family was never very rich when I was young yet we have managed to progress (despite my parents divorce) to a decent wealth. We aren't rich, but we aren't poor.

I am also doing very well at university and am looking at a good 50k p/a income if I keep it up, hardly peanuts is it?

[belfastuniguy 18]

oh and the UK does have a classed society it is just as rigid as the 60s it's almost on par with the Indian caste system. so if you are born poor you will die poor and stay poor in between and if you are born rich you will either stay rich or lose your money but you will retain your upper classnessquote>

What a pile of absolute crap. My parents weren't born to incredibly wealthy families but through hard work they have achieved a great deal of wealth and my brothers and I have had the privilege of growing up in a comfortable lifestyle where everything was taken care of. I had friends at school that did well in their 11+ and got the chance to attend the kind of school that would otherwise have been off-limits, they came from poor backgrounds, yet they worked damn hard and many are now in or just graduated from some of the finest universities in the United Kingdom and they now have a secure and hopefully successful future. It happens, and is still happening. The Indian Caste system, I suggest you go and actually read something about then system. Then maybe you won't come out with such crap and we'll take your opinion more seriously.

[Deleted...discuss the topic, not each other! Thanks-91]

The ideas of socialism where first and foremost about equality - and that each of us is entitled, because of their contribution to society, to good health and good education and unhampered beliefs.quote>

Indeed

But what happens to the "Joe" in Texas or Timbuktu will affect what happens to, say, patriot or hym or belfastinguy or me: for no there reason than if the government "gets away" with mistreating Joe, it'll sooner rather than later will try those methods on you.quote>

Interesting point, did not think of that kind of viewpoint, but perfectly valid and true.

Don't get me wrong, I love money, I love making it and I love spending it. I enjoy my job which I do part-time while at university. However I understand that not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to fully experience society and so they will need help. I am a very strong supporter of free education and universal healthcare. In the long run it benefits the country both socially and economically. Yes it has problems and yes its expensive but it allows for a degree of equality in a country. Otherwise over time the poor, as history has shown, will possibly get poorer and more marginalised and end up resenting the people that have purposefully ignored them and they will react.

That sounds dramatic, but it has and will continue to happen.

Also...one more point.

If you don't get any water, you'll die in a few days. If you don't get any professional healthcare you can perfectly well live a long and happy life. The ancients managed without doctors. And wild animals still do. As do a lot of people in third world countries. Healthcare is not a basic need that's vital to survival. Water is.

No, I would not deny water to a community. But healthcare is hardly the same thing. Don't treat it like it is. quote>

Yes water and healthcare are very different. However, a modern nation can not survive without healthcare and its people being sick, it will cause social and economic collapse.

The Third World....well there's a perfect example of a place doing well. One of the reasons the third world is so poor is becuase its people are sick, have low life expectancy, high degrees of disease both treatable and non-curable. Higher levels of birth defects, infant mortality and countless others. Yes lets have a modern nation like France or America with the health infrastructure an African nation has and lets see just how many people live past 45. Lets see just successful and wealthy those nations remain. That was a very bad example Duke.

[DocRorlach 25]

As so often before - I agree with El Burro: the idea that socialism and communism are identical, or even remotely similar, shows that the person who wrote that did not complete his/her required reading on the subject.

Quite apart from that: there never, ever has been a communist society! Only countries who claimed that their idiology  was communist, see Russia then, China now. But that is merely a government claim, no more valid than, say, Gordon Brown or Gerog W. Bush or Monsieur Sarkozy claiming that they want their citizens to be voting for the opposition.

And to respond to Patrius Maximus: socialism does not need to stifle ambition - like communism we do not know its true effects since it has yet to be tried within a free society. Some countries in Western Europe have pretended to try; just as some countries in Eastern Europe have pretended to be communist. That's all we have so far. The closest any country has ever come to socialism - as indicated by the various manifests and thinkers of the 19th century who started modern socialistic thinking - is perhaps Finnland. Adn there it works to a point because that country has the advantage of a sparse but socially active population. Health care and education have reached levels far beyond those achieved elsewhere.

It might be a good case study for those who would like to flaunt the cold war maxims of McCarthy.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Deathtoall Duke, you may not care about Joe from Town X but what about when your friend Billy down the street parents can't afford his Asthma treatment? Or your teacher gets paralysed in an acccident where they weren't at fault and can't pay thier medical bills?quote>

Well now that's different, since those are people I know and thus you would get some sympathy out of me. Fact remains, though, that as mature adults it's their responsibility to handle their problems, not mine.

I do actually have a friend who lacks health insurance and is thus not getting medical treatment like she probably should be. And I can tell you as a matter of fact (without going into personal details) that she is in that situation directly because of her actions.

And thusly my take on the matter is "you dug your own grave. Now go lay in it."

Or your parents can't get kemotherapy (i know my spelling is atrocious) or whatever.quote>

Bad example, since my parents have health insurance.

To me, Joe from X is a random with a problem, not your problem but the nation's problem. Do you

A) Leave Joe to sort it out?

B) Help Joe?

C) Use Universal health care?

What would your answer actually be? I know i would pick C)quote>

And mine would be A. He's a big boy. He can deal with his own problems.

I would like to add that people i know who are the biggest conservatives support Universal Healthcare. quote>

Well... you don't live in the US. Your "conservatives" would be liberals by our standards.

hym

I don't consider it absurd.  I don't feel I should have to pay for the lung cancer treatment of someone who knew damn well they were giving themselves lung cancer by smoking.  If you're knocked flat on your back, I'm not against helping get you back on your feet.  If you willfully got yourself knocked flat on your back, you have to get up on your own power 'cause I'm not helping you.quote>

And that's another inherent problem with social healthcare. Having to help people fix things that are their own damn fault. There are two ways to solve this problem: either you don't have social healthcare, or you ban people from smoking or doing other things which are detrimental to their health. The former might not be entirely "fair" to people but it works well enough.The latter, on the other hand, is completely opressive and tramples on people's rights and freedoms.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I am pretty shocked and saddened by your attitudes, duke and hym. What on earth every happened to Christian love? quote>

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the whole "love your fellow man just because they're your fellow man" concept. Nobody gets my unconditional caring or respect. They need to earn it, like with everything in life. No free rides.

That's the thing thought isn't it? If we all had that attitude then the world would never get anywhere, we would never advance; as there would be absolutely no motivation for people to.quote>

Not at all. After all, when people do work, no matter what purpose they're doing that work for, they are working to advance things. What reason would James Watt have had to develop his steam engine if he couldn't sell it and make money off of it?

Money is the second most powerful possible motivator in this world. The first is power. An awful lot of the technology we now have was originally developed for military purposes. But of all the possible motivators, "for the betterment of mankind" is way down the bottom of the list in terms of effectiveness. Because people are inherintly selfish, and most will do things for their own benefit much more readily than they will for the betterment of others. And so the way to handle this is to make it so that it benefits you to work for the betterment of others. You work, you earn money. You work harder, you earn more money. You don't work, you earn nothing. It's very effective. It's quite the opposite of "absolutely no motivation". It's socialism where you have "absolutely no motivation".

Because we save. We never buy anything that we do not need. We absolutely live by the ethos that you should never live beyond your means.quote>

In other words, you're being completely altruistic and not ever doing anything to indulge yourself. Which is no fun. Pass.

How utterly selfish of you.quote>

Thank you.

Again; here you are thinking short term. As deathtoall said, Joe is the nations problem; and therefore will affect the country in the long term; economically, socially, and even politically.quote>

Consider this: if Joe needs the assistance of charity (be it from private charities of from government forced "charity") to survive, he is a net burden on society, not a net contributor. Meaning that it's actually for the better of the country economically if he drops dead and stops sucking oxygen and wasting resources.

That might be a soulless and heartless way of looking at it, but it's completely true.

And there are a lot of ways in which things are cruel and unfair.quote>

They are unfair because you make them unfair.quote>

No, they are unfair because that is the way it works naturally. It takes work and effort to try and force them to be fair when they're not. And it's futile work and effort, at that, since so long as humans remain imperfect creatures, you can't make everything fair. It's impossible.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

DocRorlach:

Good way of putting it. True Communism has never been tried on a large scale. Communism is where the property is owned collectively. Not owned by the government.

Despite the fact that I am more of a liberal than a communist, and as such strongly believe in personal property rights. However, I do not go around calling totalitarianism or socialism communism.

Also, I have studied Finland, mostly about their educational system, and I do agree that they are more socialist than the rest of Europe.

The popular identity of socialism and communism has been marred by self-described socialist and communist governments turning into totalitarian or stalinist ones, and the Cold War.

However, I still maintain my positions that communism and pure socialism do not work becuase it goes against base human instincts. To name a few, competition, acquistion, and serving self-interest.

Duke87:

To me, Joe from X is a random with a problem, not your problem but the nation's problem. Do you

A) Leave Joe to sort it out?
B) Help Joe?
C) Use Universal health care?
What would your answer actually be? I know i would pick C)quote>

And mine would be A. He's a big boy. He can deal with his own problems.quote>

quote>

I'd choose A as well.
If there is universal healthcare, it is his responsibility to use it, not mine. I do not know him, so he gets no aid from me.

It is his responsibility to do something about it or not.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the whole "love your fellow man just because they're your fellow man" concept. Nobody gets my unconditional caring or respect. They need to earn it, like with everything in life. No free rides.quote>

I don't either. If I do not know the person, or have been insulting or otherwise heinous to me, they recieve no aid from me.

I do practice non-agression to people I do not know or just met, since there is no rationality to insult or hurt them.

Again; here you are thinking short term. As deathtoall said, Joe is the nations problem; and therefore will affect the country in the long term; economically, socially, and even politically.quote>

Consider this: if Joe needs the assistance of charity (be it from private charities of from government forced "charity") to survive, he is a net burden on society, not a net contributor. Meaning that it's actually for the better of the country economically if he drops dead and stops sucking oxygen and wasting resources.

That might be a soulless and heartless way of looking at it, but it's completely true.quote>

He is not a burden if the money he gets are from volunteers, and therefore they have chosen to waste their resources on him. 

Also, I have no interest in Joe as the nation's problem. Unless he's my problem, I don't care.

They are unfair because you make them unfair.quote>

No, they are unfair because that is the way it works naturally. It takes work and effort to try and force them to be fair when they're not. And it's futile work and effort, at that, since so long as humans remain imperfect creatures, you can't make everything fair. It's impossible.quote>

It is futile to try to make everything completely fair. However, it is not futile if we try and make it as fair as possible.


[edited to fix quote problem]

[Callbat 8]

I don't understand how people say that in a classless society there is no motivation to work. What? Are you people so driven by momentary gain? What ever happened to working because it satisfies you and you enjoy it?quote>

Life lesson: Become a musician

[DocRorlach 25]

As for our now famous Joe X (wasn't he the same guy as Joe Blow a while ago?) if he is, as a lot here seem to think, indeed the "nation's problem" where do you live? In a limbo above or beside the nation? You are - whereever you call home, an integral part of that nation. You cannot escape that until you found that remote island of which you are the sole inhabitant and owner! Can't remember who said it: abstaining from a vote is a vote. Just because you may choose not to participate directly or indirectly in governmental actions at any level does not mean you remain innocent of whatever that government does, locally, regionally, nationally. If you pay taxes, you vote. If you in as much as fill in a single official form, you vote. Heck, you vote by just going to the post office.

Which means, "sod poor Joe" does not work. Which means you have to elect - literally - whether or not you want a social system of any kind. And that is where this debate started and where it should go back to: defining what you consider an acceptable form of social responsibility of said government - ergo, the level of socialism you consider acceptable. And I do not believe anyone with an ounce of common sense would elect a system where, by the time he or she has reached the age of consent, such common decencies as one's health and one's education - both absolutely necessary not just to survive but to achieve one's ideas and goals - including the idea of becoming a musician, would be unaffordable.

Don't get sidetracked by those who have given differnt political and social ideas a bad name. Predidents, chancellors, and other political illuminaries around the world have given politics and social conduct a bad name. That does not mean that the underlying ideas are bad - it just means we all were stupid enough to let morons dictate how we can live.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87Fact remains, though, that as mature adults it's their responsibility to handle their problems, not mine. quote>

How about when they aren't able to handle their problems, since their health insurance won't pay for it?

Bad example, since my parents have health insurance. quote>

How about when the health insurance company refuses to pay for them, because when they don't do that, they make money. It is capitalism, after all...

And that's another inherent problem with social healthcare. Having to help people fix things that are their own damn fault. There are two ways to solve this problem: either you don't have social healthcare, or you ban people from smoking or doing other things which are detrimental to their health. The former might not be entirely "fair" to people but it works well enough.The latter, on the other hand, is completely oppressive and tramples on people's rights and freedoms. quote>

People may need help sometimes, for reasons I already mentioned, would you like to shell out  $600,000 for lung cancer treatment, the health insurance company would deny you payment, and thus deny you care, for the same reasons. Although smoking is a bad example, because when the tobacco companies were getting people hooked en masse, they didn't exactly tell them what was in those cigarettes they were smoking

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the whole "love your fellow man just because they're your fellow man" concept. quote>

I'm also an atheist, but I have no problems accepting traditional morale values, if someone is in trouble, you help them, as they would do the same for you...

Money is the second most powerful possible motivator in this world. The first is power. quote>

No, the first is someone getting an idea, don't tell my that you haven't ever done something just to satisfy your own curiosity...

Thank you.quote>

? That is so completely disgusting that I won't even discuss it.

That might be a soulless and heartless way of looking at it, but it's completely true. quote>

you mean like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-yTFZUolg

Edit: BTW, for anyone who doesn't think that there is a problem with HMOs, put "My health insurance sucks" (with quotes) into google.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I fail to see why some people believe that some 'socialist' countries restrict freedoms. quote>

Because high taxes are considered to be oppressive.

However the USA is most certainly not the symbol of freedom and equality they would like us to believe. quote>

We do fall short of our ideals.  But we still like those ideals and want to strive to achieve them.

Originally posted by: beebs

As well, America at its beginnings was as close to pure capitalism as there could be. There's a reason it was moved away from: it doesn't work. Laws needed to be created to protect the consumer.quote>

I believe that no system works in its pure form.  As to the laws you refer too, the meat packing laws from a century ago come to mind.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Now, granted, I will completely agree with you that it's oppressive to not permit same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples.

But here in the US there is a lot of religious conservatism and thus a lot of people who believe a homosexual lifestyle to be morally wrong and don't want to see the government sanction it.

It is a shortcoming we have.

But I don't see what it has to do with the US not being socialist. quote>

I believe his point was it has to do with freedom.  He has the freedom to get married over there.  Over here, in most places, he would not.

To conclude this post, I'll lieave you with a line that bears repeating:

Nobody has ever found a way to provide everything to everyone for free. quote>

Very true.   The issue here seems to be who is willing to pay for what.  and at what point.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

And the idea that collectively paying for healthcare somehow takes away our 'freedoms', is quite absurd. Isn't it a great thing that we all, no matter how poor or rich, pitch in together for a higher quality of life for everyone. Isn't that one of the better philosophies the world has? Where everyone works together for the community?quote>

It's a fine philosophy.  Problem is, it doesn't take human nature into account.   You seem to believe that human beings are inherently altruistic.    It would be nice if we were but I don't see much evidence to support that view.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Democratic Socialism seems to work well for Europe. Not sure how it'd do in North America.

Also, since there is not equal economic status and salaries in a democratic socialist system, it works better in my opinion than pure socialism. quote>

Government works better when it is afraid of the people, not the other way around. After all, a democracy is supposed to serve the interests of the people.quote>

Agreed.  on all three counts

Originally posted by: crazyyaya

Like most things in life. Balance is good. It is important to have elements of socialism to provide a social-economic safety net while at the same time keeping certian economic factors of capitalism.quote>

Like most things, a balanced midpoint is most effective.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

I seem to be the only person who is capable of looking long term and realising that most of what all I do now won't have an effect until after I am dead. But you know what? That perfectly satisfies me; as I realise that the world is far bigger than me, and if I help people down the line; then it can only be a good thing. Even if I am not there to see it. Rarely does anything come for you in your life time; but surely the satisfaction of knowing that your actions will help people is enough? quote>

I applaud your approach, Boggy, but for most people, it just doesn't work that way.

How, then, do your parents manage to pay their bills and put food on the table? quote>

 Because we save. We never buy anything that we do not need. We absolutely live by the ethos that you should never live beyond your means. That's something Americans seem to have forgotten if we look at the current state of the credit crisis. Most, if not all, of our possessions come from charity shop, the local recycling dump, or are second hand. You have no idea how much less money we spend because of it. We don't go on holidays every year, we don't buy a new car every five years because the other one is out of fashion (good god haven't you people heard of depreciation). Our car runs both on LPG and petrol. We very very rarely use gas heating - most of the time we just light the fire. We grow our own food, and heat our own water with a solar panel. Therefore, our bills are hardly that expensive.

Even so; our annual income is possibly about £400/$800 per year. And yet we survive! How? Because we don't spend needlessly. What we could have spent; we put it ALL into savings account. We live off the interest in the banks. If you look at how much money we are getting through interest; then it is way over the £30,000/$60,000 a year mark. We can easily afford bills.quote>

That's kinda cool. Kind of a cross between the 60's drop-out philosophy and "The Millionaire Next Door".    There must be quite a chunk of change to generate that kind of interest.   I'm all for living below your means (I do it myself).   Problem is, it takes a bit of leap to get from where most people are to where your family is.  For instance, most people live in a place where they can not grow food.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Most humans are not purely altruistic or overly selfish, most are somewhere in between on the spectrum. Most are willing to help a greater cause, but they ask the question: What will I get out of it? If the answer is in the affirmiative, they, as you put it, pitch in for the community. quote>

Sometimes it's just for the warm fuzzy feeling of helping.  Other times, it's just to channel a need to do something.

If all had your attitudes and altruism, then communism would work better. The problem I see with communism is that it attempts to fight base human instincts, and most are not willing to fight them.  quote>

Exactly.

Having a debt and credit card is good, as long as you can pay the monthly payment. It is a way to afford things you could not buy in one lump sum. Example -- a $20,000 car. Very few could buy it all at once, so the payment is spread out monthly over a period of 3-8 years. That is the basic principal in the 1920's "installment plan" for vehicles and other consumer goods.  quote>

A car loan is one thing but having a credit card debt is not good.  With the interest they charge, you wind up paying a lot more for whatever you buy.  (I'll leave the math to someone with a good calculator.)

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

oh and the UK does have a classed society it is just as rigid as the 60s it's almost on par with the Indian caste system. so if you are born poor you will die poor and stay poor in between and if you are born rich you will either stay rich or lose your money but you will retain your upper classnessquote>

I had friends at school that did well in their 11+ and got the chance to attend the kind of school that would otherwise have been off-limits, they came from poor backgrounds, yet they worked damn hard and many are now in or just graduated from some of the finest universities in the United Kingdom and they now have a secure and hopefully successful future.  quote>

I'm glad to hear that is how things work now.   I have friends my age over there.  They have different views of the 11+ exam.   Like one friend told me, she "wasn't supposed to" pass her 11+ exam but did.  So they steered her away from the "off-limits" school since they "knew" she wouldn't fit in.  If things have changed since that time, that's great.

(Note:  the 11+ exam is taken at age 11 and determines what kind of school you will attend after that.  If you don't pass your 11+ exam, there are some classes you will never have an opportunity to take.)

Originally posted by: Duke87

I would like to add that people i know who are the biggest conservatives support Universal Healthcare. quote>

Well... you don't live in the US. Your "conservatives" would be liberals by our standards. quote>

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

And that's another inherent problem with social healthcare. Having to help people fix things that are their own damn fault. There are two ways to solve this problem: either you don't have social healthcare, or you ban people from smoking or doing other things which are detrimental to their health. The former might not be entirely "fair" to people but it works well enough.The latter, on the other hand, is completely opressive and tramples on people's rights and freedoms. quote>

Which goes to another point that hasn't been stated in those terms:  "Freedom" can include the freedom to engage in self-destructive behavior.

Because we save. We never buy anything that we do not need. We absolutely live by the ethos that you should never live beyond your means.quote>

In other words, you're being completely altruistic and not ever doing anything to indulge yourself. Which is no fun. Pass. quote>

I disagree.  I live below my means and I have lots of fun.  But I have no need to indulge in conspicuous consumption.

Consider this: if Joe needs the assistance of charity (be it from private charities of from government forced "charity") to survive, he is a net burden on society, not a net contributor. Meaning that it's actually for the better of the country economically if he drops dead and stops sucking oxygen and wasting resources.

That might be a soulless and heartless way of looking at it, but it's completely true. quote>

That is a bit harsh.

What about the many people with health issues that still make worthwhile contributions?

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Edit: BTW, for anyone who doesn't think that there is a problem with HMOs, put "My health insurance sucks" (with quotes) into google.quote>

and many Americans believe, rightly or wrongly, that having universal health care is like having a mandated HMO.   Any HMO is a bad thing; a mandated one is worse.

{edited to try to fix unnecessary contagious bolding}

[Patricius Maximus 236]

As for our now famous Joe X (wasn't he the same guy as Joe Blow a while ago?) quote>

Yes, he was.

indeed the "nation's problem" where do you live? In a limbo above or beside the nation? You are - whereever you call home, an integral part of that nation.quote>

My statement is that Joe X is of no interest to me if he is not my problem. If he is the nation's problem, and that turns into my problem, then it is of interest.

---

My response to multiple posts about governmental health insurance is this:

In situations when someone (let's say Joe X) needs to be treated, and Joe X cannot afford either insurance or direct payment. He either has to get the treatment, and go bankrupt later; or he can sit and die.

If there was a government program for people like Joe X, who need to be treated for illnesses and can't afford them, then Joe X and his comrades would be alive, well, and not bankrupt.

I am against full socialized medicine, as it deprives people of a choice, and deprives quality of the insurance and care. If there were a two-tier system, with the government insurance for the uninsured people, and private companies providing the rest, then the best of both would be in the system.

Also, the added advantage would be retention of quality, and more affordability, since private insurers would have to lower prices to prevent more from flocking to the government program.

In the United States, John Edwards had a good plan. From what I have seen, a two-tier system would be established at first, and if the people flocked to the government program, then it'd turn into a single-payer system. The importance of this is that a single-payer system would be established by choice, not by government mandate.

This was in contrast to Hillary's plan, which is full socialized medicine mandated by the government. I half-jokingly called it "HillaryCare" (no offense to supporters ).

Those are my thoughts on socialized medicine.

---

I'm also an atheist, but I have no problems accepting traditional morale values, if someone is in trouble, you help them, as they would do the same for you...quote>

I do accept traditional 'moral values' if they are rational. Such as not commiting murder, rape, stealing or destroying property, etc.

Don't get sidetracked by those who have given differnt political and social ideas a bad name.quote>

Ah, such as communism, socialism, liberalism, and pacifism (to name a few). 

Life lesson: Become a musician quote>

Yes. Most people work to serve their self-interest. Even musicians. What the musician gets out of it is satisfaction, enjoyment, and some pay.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek What about the many people with health issues that still make worthwhile contributions?quote>

We should do the math, and kill those who come out in the red. In fact, I'm pretty sure all should be killed. We'd save a lot.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Having a debt and credit card is good, as long as you can pay the monthly payment. It is a way to afford things you could not buy in one lump sum. Example -- a $20,000 car. Very few could buy it all at once, so the payment is spread out monthly over a period of 3-8 years. That is the basic principal in the 1920's "installment plan" for vehicles and other consumer goods.  quote>

A car loan is one thing but having a credit card debt is not good.  With the interest they charge, you wind up paying a lot more for whatever you buy.  (I'll leave the math to someone with a good calculator.)quote>

Well, it works kind of like this.  The average credit card comes with approximately a 20% APR on it (and higher).  Let's assume you have a $5,000 balance on it and you are in month zero.  (These are approximations because I'm not using a calculator).  Below are break downs of approximately how much it'll cost you for each six month increment you take to pay it back over.

0	6 mo.	12 mo.	18 mo.	24 mo.	30 mo.	36 mo.	42 mo.	48 mo.	54 mo.	60 mo.
5000	6000	7000	8000	9000	10000	11000	12000	13000	14000	15000

And so on.  Basically, the easiest way to figure out how much something is going to cost you to finance is to take the APR on your loan (or your credit card), divide it by twelve, multiply that by the total cost of what your financing, and multiply that answer by the number of months you intend to pay it off over.  For example, a $1000 computer purchased on a credit card with an APR or 24% would cost $2000 in total if paid off over the traditional 3 year plan.

Because we save. We never buy anything that we do not need. We absolutely live by the ethos that you should never live beyond your means.quote>

In other words, you're being completely altruistic and not ever doing anything to indulge yourself. Which is no fun. Pass. quote>

I disagree.  I live below my means and I have lots of fun.  But I have no need to indulge in conspicuous consumption.quote>

I think Duke was looking at that statement from the strict interpretation.  Not buying anything you don't need means spending no money on recreational activities.  Can you live without them?  Yes, although your life is going to suck.  So, in all legality, you don't need recreational stuff.  At least that's what it sounded like he meant.

Consider this: if Joe needs the assistance of charity (be it from private charities of from government forced "charity") to survive, he is a net burden on society, not a net contributor. Meaning that it's actually for the better of the country economically if he drops dead and stops sucking oxygen and wasting resources.

That might be a soulless and heartless way of looking at it, but it's completely true. quote>

That is a bit harsh.

What about the many people with health issues that still make worthwhile contributions?quote>

It is harsh, but it is true.  Under a system where you're a product of the state and the state takes care of you, once you reach the point where you're putting less into the system than you're taking out, you're a burden to the state, and the state would better off if you were to jump off a bridge or something.  And as what to do with people who have health issues who still make worthwhile contributions, their contributions to society would be weighed against their drain on society's resources, and if they were taking out more than they were putting it, they'd probably be put in a chair one day, given a needle, and never wake up again.

The point in this is that this is not at all altruistic, but then again, the state really doesn't care about individual people.

Note: I do not at all condone the concept of eliminating people who cannot provide for themselves.  Personally, I consider it to be barbaric and a crime.

Now, I'd like to point something else out.  I'm not at all implying that socialist countries are just going to run out and start euthanizing the elderly, but it has happened before.  And before we go and think that it's just relegated to people like Hitler and Stalin, this does actually happen in our "civilized" culture.  They might have changed this within the past decade or so (and my apologies for being out-of-date if they have) but The Netherlands practice euthanasia and it has been estimated that as many as one quarter of the euthanizations performed were done against the patient's will.  In other words, the patient was not of the opinion that their quality of life wasn't worth living, but their doctor did, and the doctor euthanized them anyway.

Now, that can happen on a limited scale in any system, but as Hitlar and Stalin both proved, if the state ran everything and ever decided that the elderly, chronicly diseased, and crippled were too much of a drain on the system, there's very little that would be able to stop them.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

[hamsterTK 93]

Sometimes I think if we could go back and experience say the 1930s it would all put it all in perspective.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok [...] The Netherlands practice euthanasia [...]quote>

The Netherlands don't practice euthanasia. You're free to request a medically assisted end to your own life, instead of not having the option under other repressive regimes.quote>

So you say.  However, it is legal, and one of my grandmother's relatives would beg to differ.  She lives in Amsterdam and ended up having to go to her doctor for something or other.  Long story short, the doctor wanted to euthanize her, and he didn't quit pushing for it until he found out that she wasn't a citizen.

[6underground 11]

So you say. However, it is legal, and one of my grandmother's relatives would beg to differ. She lives in Amsterdam and ended up having to go to her doctor for something or other. Long story short, the doctor wanted to euthanize her, and he didn't quit pushing for it until he found out that she wasn't a citizen.

LOL, sorry Voar. But I cannot possibly believe that, no more than I would believe that the current U.S administration was responsible for 9/11.

More likely, she was confused and the doctor recommended the most humane option available. You dress it up as a European Totalitarian state, that forces citizens into euthanasia, while clearly not the case. Occams Razor and all that.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I am pretty shocked and saddened by your attitudes, duke and hym. What on earth every happened to Christian love?quote>

I don't recall ever saying anything against charity, or "Christian love" as you called it.  Rather, I said I'm in favor of it.  What I detest is the idea that I'm obligated to be charitable.  I have been the recipient of charity on several occasions, and I owe some of those individuals debts I can't ever hope to repay.  I'll offer a scenario:  Shortly before leaving college for the winter break, I ran out of cash to buy food.  The local grocery store wouldn't take my check because the manager couldn't be sure he'd be paid.  I told the man he had my word that the check was good.  He said he still couldn't take it.  Did I like that?  No, I didn't as it greatly complicated my problem.  Was he within his right to refuse to accept my word and check as valid?  Yes, he was.  I went to a local fast food restaurant knowing full well my check was no more a guarantee of payment to him than it was to the first manager.  He agreed to take my check knowing he was risking his money on the truthfulness of my word.  Was he obligated to do that?  No, he wasn't.  I still appreciate his kindness, and I would be upset if someone walked in and said he was obligated to show me that kindness.  Arguing that either manager was obligated to help is literally arguing that the manager shouldn't have the right to manage his property as he sees fit.

I know I, for one, am not going to work just for the sake of "bettering mankind" If there's nothing in it for me, I'm wasting my time and effort.quote>

That's the thing thought isn't it? If we all had that attitude then the world would never get anywhere, we would never advance; as there would be absolutely no motivation for people to. And yet again; you are looking short term. You want instant gratification. I seem to be the only person who is capable of looking long term and realising that most of what all I do now won't have an effect until after I am dead.quote>

No, you're not the only one.  I don't anticipate ever receiving any material benefit from the charity/volunteer work I've done, yet I plan on doing more.  I can help, I want to help, and I see no reason why I shouldn't help.  Thing is, I don't believe I'm obligated to help.

surely the satisfaction of knowing that your actions will help people is enough?quote>

For some, yes.  For others, no.  For some, knowing that they helped a kid with cancer is all the satisfaction they need in life.  Still others don't care about the kid, but rather care about XYZ other issue and find that to be their satisfaction.  It varies widely with the person.

And there are a lot of ways in which things are cruel and unfair.quote>

They are unfair because you make them unfair.quote>

Not necessarily.  It isn't fair that Kid A is born healthy and Kid B is born with significant brain damage that will prevent him from ever being able to achieve the same things that he could have with a normal brain.  It isn't fair that a high school student with a promising future in music is killed by a drunk driver before she is able to graduate to college.  It isn't fair that Employee A gets his hand severed because of the stupidity of Employee B.  As the saying goes:  Life sucks.  Deal with it.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: 6underground

So you say. However, it is legal, and one of my grandmother's relatives would beg to differ. She lives in Amsterdam and ended up having to go to her doctor for something or other. Long story short, the doctor wanted to euthanize her, and he didn't quit pushing for it until he found out that she wasn't a citizen.

LOL, sorry Voar. But I cannot possibly believe that, no more than I would believe that the current U.S administration was responsible for 9/11.

More likely, she was confused and the doctor recommended the most humane option available. You dress it up as a European Totalitarian state, that forces citizens into euthanasia, while clearly not the case. Occams Razor and all that. quote>

No, I'm really trying to paint it as anything. I didn't say that The Netherlands endorses that. I didn't say that their doctors were trained to bump off their sick patients. I'm pointing out that A) the potential is there for people in state-run programs to not truly care about their clients, in this case patients, and B) it's much easier for the state to take that kind of opinion and force it on you when they control the service. State-run anything is, in reality, a monopoly, and no one needs to look past Microsoft to see where that can get the world.

The Dutch have things set up so that in order to be euthanized, the patient must repeated ask over a pretty decent period of time, must be of sound mind, must be aware of their prognosis, the patient's doctor and another doctor have to agree, etc. Now, that's good, but it's not bulletproof. I'm not trying to pick on The Netherlands, but, to cite this article, at the time, even the UN wasn't impressed with what it saw. Now, stepping aside from what they are doing in the Netherlands, the real point of the issue is that abuse happens (in this case, I'm using euthanasia as an example) and it's much easier to ramrod abuse through on to people when the state controls the service. Let's say the hypothetical state of You Suck existed and they had a law saying that anyone over 75 was to be put down. In a government-controlled system like that, there's little that the average citizen can do except to hope to overthrow the government. In a private system where the government doesn't control it, if you have a doctor that decides to kill off patients over 75, all of his patients are going to go somewhere else when they get to that age.

Free enterprise is about choice. Government-controlled services rarely offer choice. (Does anyone here get to choose where their water comes from?) Socialism leans towards the idea of the government controlling everything, and government control tends to cut down on a person's options. (If anyone is thinking that I'm saying that socialism advocates euthanizing people, I'd like to flatly deny that right now before anyone says anything about it). This is part of why Africa never gets out of poverty. Money is sent there by the truckload and because the government controls everything (and they're corrupt), nothing ever gets done.

I'd write more, but I'm out of time to write it in.

Clarification on something: The individual specifics of what happened to my grandmother's relative is, in reality, inconsequential in regards to the discussion at hand. I'm mentioned it because stuff like that can happen, and it'd be naive as to think it hasn't ever happened. It doesn't matter where you live, or what kind of system you live under, there we always be those people who decide that you're not worth it to them, so off you go. It doesn't even have to be a medically related issue - we just happen to be on that thought train right now.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: ----

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I am pretty shocked and saddened by your attitudes, duke and hym. What on earth every happened to Christian love? quote>

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the whole "love your fellow man just because they're your fellow man" concept. Nobody gets my unconditional caring or respect. They need to earn it, like with everything in life. No free rides.

quote>

 

Compassion is a universal trait, you don't have to be a "Christian" just to be loving or caring to other people. Without the motivation to help complete strangers who can't help themselves, how do you expect the world to become a better place?

[Callbat 8]

Compassion is a universal trait, you don't have to be a "Christian" just to be loving or caring to other people. Without the motivation to help complete strangers who can't help themselves, how do you expect the world to become a better place?

quote>

Thomas Hobbes would beg to differ

[6underground 11]

No, I'm really trying to paint it as anything. I didn't say that The Netherlands endorses that. I didn't say that their doctors were trained to bump off their sick patients. quote>

Still Voar, your choice of wording left alot to be desired about neutrality, and not having a dig at the Netherlands for having Euthanasia as part of their universal healthcare.

I'm pointing out that A) the potential is there for people in state-run programs to not truly care about their clients, in this case patientsquote>

and how is that in anyway different to capitalist healthcare systems? We're talking about systems not people or culture within those systems that allow for individuals within those systems to not care about patients. Again, it has nothing to do with state-run or privately run hospitals, it has everything to do with human nature, internal bureaucracy, culture and law. State run hospitals are no more inclined to be oppressive or negative toward their patients than Capitalist hospitals are to not treat the homeless. It's a gross stereotype either way.

B) it's much easier for the state to take that kind of opinion and force it on you when they control the service.quote>

But you're forgetting one tiny detail. LAWS and Rights (both national and international). One's rights in relation cannot be infringed upon without the consent of the people, at least here in the UK and the NHS here, imho does a truly wonderful job.

State-run anything is, in reality, a monopoly, and no one needs to look past Microsoft to see where that can get the world. quote>

That's a gross generalisation if I ever did see one! LOL

at the time, even the UN wasn't impressed with what it saw.quote>

Actually the article said: "The U.N wasn't convinced abuses would not happen", not that "it wasn't impressed", judging that there hasn't been a massive backlash since the date of that article (2002 btw), it seems that their fears were ultimately ungrounded, or that its just not happening on a scale the UN expected.

As for U.N, it wasn't impressed with the U.S.A going into an illegal war against the principles and articles of the U.N charter, but that's a discussion for another time.

Now, stepping aside from what they are doing in the Netherlands, the real point of the issue is that abuse happens (in this case, I'm using euthanasia as an example) and it's much easier to ramrod abuse through on to people when the state controls the service.quote>

But again, no systems is perfect, there will ALWAYS be abuses of the system. but that's not to say the system is at fault, moreso the human beings exploiting it. You seem to believe that there is some difference between the evil controlling government and the poor defenceless people (which is what I am getting from your posts), whereas most Europeans take the stance that the government is composed OF the people. We tend not to differentiate, because our checks and balances (within parliamentary systems at least) tend to protect the people from anyone seeking to exploit them, at least to the degree you seem to be implying.

Second of all, I don't see at all how state-run medical service is any more prone to abuse, than say a corporation solely concerned with profit at the expense of peoples health. In fact, in my eyes, I'd say a corporation, whose sole purpose to survive is profit, is MUCH more of a threat to abuses, if it prioritises economic gain over its consumers. Rather than a nationalised healthservice that provides a service via taxation.

Let's say the hypothetical state of You Suck existed and they had a law saying that anyone over 75 was to be put down. In a government-controlled system like that, there's little that the average citizen can do except to hope to overthrow the government. In a private system where the government doesn't control it, if you have a doctor that decides to kill off patients over 75, all of his patients are going to go somewhere else when they get to that age. quote>

but see that's the crux of your argument, and it's biggest failing, is that it's ALL hypothetical..

Hypothetically more prone to push certain agendas against the people, Hypothetically more prone to abuse than capitalist healthcare, etc... While in reality, I don't see how "socialist medicine" is in anyway more inclined to abuse than capitalist ones.

Free enterprise is about choice. Government-controlled services rarely offer choice.quote>

free Enterprise is also about profit and the accumilation of wealth, as the great fellow welshman Aneurin Bevan woud say if he were still alive: "Profit has no place in Healthcare". I would rather go to any state run hospital that would offer near or equal service ANYWHERE in the UK, than go to "one of my choice" and be slammed with a £4000 bill after whatever. But that's my opinion.

Socialism leans towards the idea of the government controlling everythingquote>

No that's your opinion, I believe someone posted a definition a few posts back. I invite you to scroll up and check it out.

This is part of why Africa never gets out of poverty. Money is sent there by the truckload and because the government controls everything (and they're corrupt), nothing ever gets done. quote>

That's an INCREDIBLY simplistic view to the situation in Africa. It is FAR more complex. How about EU protectionism? drought? Global Warming? Internal War? Exploitation? Slavery? Genocide? Lack of water?

There are a MYRIAD of reasons why Africa is in the position it is is, simply explaining it away because of an evil corrupt government linked with an idea of socialist medicine, is frankly bizarre!