Socialism: Pros and Cons

[DocRorlach 25]

Where in the blazes do some folks here get the notion that universal health coverage equals dictatorship, requiring that you give up your basic freedoms in order to obtain in it? Or that it only exists as a government monopoly? In most western European countries the government coverage competes directly with that offered by the private sector because apart from the basic required plan ( from which you can opt out if you prefer free market coverage) you can select & pay for higher coverage.

As for killing off all those losers out there, as has been suggested: you are veering dangerously close to some ideas sprouted first in the UK in the 1840's, and later incorporated by a certain German in Munich.

Let's hope that whatever happened to Joe X never comes your way - although it might - sooner than you think. Because by then you might just have the kind of government that will grand you what you now wish on Joe. (I might be wrong there - you might already have that kind of government)

[6underground 11]

page flip bug!

[GMT 389]

Idk...

socialism, alongside with communism, as a whole results in what the former soviet republic and all it's fellow members, remnants and emulators made. for whatever reason. and this is what made socialism a very bad situation because the borders to exploitation where pretty blurry, and the governements will to force their people to accept the politics was ridiculously strong so in fact it was a dictatorship going on.

so tthe result was that the 3 pillars of socialism (if you wanna call it that way), equality, fairness and solidarity only counted as long as you where with the regime.

there was something that went terribly wrong in worlds history concerning socialism because those who introduced it as their political direction automatically combined it with communism and screwed it up

[tepodon 29]

Socialism is just the natural flow of things after an industrialized capitalist society runs itself out, at least that how Marx might think. That just seems like the way things are going in industrialized societies, people begin to want more than just the vote and rights, they want the right to equal health care and they want more and more social welfare, its a natural change, and of course people will resist change but change can also be inevitable.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

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>

On the contrary, a large part of the problem is strings-attached aid which requires countries to privatize vital services, such as water, which are then exploited by western private companies.  Of course corrupt governments in Africa are a huge problem, but the answer isn't to privatize services where they a exploited by the same countries which provide the Aid.

Of course, the best solution to poverty in Africa would be a world government supported by a world tax, thus eliminating tax havens, which can run 'internationalized' services in those countries which are not able provide vital services such as water and healthcare.

This also brings me onto the point of charity. Charity is a very ineffective means of dealing with world problems, certain events and problems attract huge charitable donations whereas others receive very little. It all depends on media exposure and a specific country's ties with certain areas. A prime example of this, in my opinion, would the charity 'The Smile Train'. It does deal with a serious issue, but one at would be far better solved if these countries were able to establish a decent, free at the point of delivery, healthcare systems with the help of a world government. A World government it would also have ready a fund required to deal with natural disasters, rather than rely on individual's charitable donations, which aren't exactly reliable in terms of the amount of money attracted and if the money falls short, taxes can be raised.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: 6underground

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.quote>

OK, my apologies.  I've been short on sleep lately.

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.quote>

Yes, it works both ways, but if you're in a state-run system, your choices tend to be more limited.  Look at state-run education.  I won't speak of how it's done in the UK because I really don't know, but in the US, if you go to a public school, you don't decide which one you go to.  You go to the one you're in the district for, and if you don't like it and the school sucks, well, too bad for you.  You could go private and have your choice.  If you think the private school you're going to sucks, you can probably transfer to another one fairly easily.

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.quote>

No, I didn't forget them.   I didn't say that the UK was going to turn into a totalitarian regime, but we know from recent history that it does happen, and all the laws on the books can be quite powerless to stop it at times.

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! LOLquote>

I stand by the comment that state-run programs can be a veritable monopoly (depends on if there's a private version of the service).  I retract the comparison to Microsoft because I'm not sure where the hell I was headed on that one.   Like I said, I've been short on sleep.

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.quote>

Nevertheless, the UN saw problems with the system.  And yes, they haven't come back and said anything about it, but look at something you said there.  You said "or that its just not happening on a scale the UN expected."  If their fears were ungrounded, the issue is a moot point, but if it's not happening on a scale that the UN expected, that would mean that it's happening on some scale, and having a person's doctor try to pressure them to do most anything, especially something irreversible, is unacceptable, IMHO.

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.quote>

A).  I never said we were perfect either.

B).  As you said, another discussion.

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.quote>

I don't believe that we all run around thinking that the our respective governments are out to get us.  For example, I don't trust Congress to be able to spend money wisely (don't even get me started on so-called "pork barrel" funding) but I'm not lying awake at night thinking that the Department of Defense is plotting how to take me out.

However, I don't subscribe to the belief of "oh, it'll never happen because we've set up XYZ to prevent it."  We have a set of checks and balances too, and the odds of anyone becoming an imperial dictator over here are as slim as they are over there in Europe.  However, history has repetitively shown that it still can and does happen.

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.quote>

This is one of those things that's a difference of opinion.  You think that a corporation would be worse off because they would only care about the profit.  I say that, yes, they would care about the profit, but the profitable ones would soon realize that they have to treat the customer with dignity and respect, or the person will go find another doctor.  I say that a state-run program would cause the doctors to become indifferent because they won't get paid anymore or less regardless of how many patients they see.  So, financially speaking, it makes sense to load the doctor up with patients so they get the most people treated for the least amount of money, which will most likely cause the doctor to eventually get tired of dealing with people.  You say that the state-run system will do it better because there's no incentive for profit.  It's basically the potato - potahto scenario.

The chief difference in our beliefs is that you believe a system based off of people's good-will will lead to better results while I believe that a system that caters more to people's greed will work better.  History has shown that given the option, people tend to default to the greed side of most everything.  It's more lucrative.

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.quote>

First off, it's not the crux, and second, while the state of "You Suck" is hypothetical, the reality that it was based off of was real.

Secondly, I don't think I called it socialist medicine.  There's no such thing.

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.quote>

Regardless of where I go, the level of care I will get in a hospital in the US is comparable in all but the most remote areas of the country.  On top of that, if they can't treat my problem, they'll do something to get me to some place where I can be treated. 

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. quote>

Yes, a definition was posted.  Here's the Webster's online definition:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a

: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work donequote>

Even dictionary definition says that the system advocates control by the government, which, not to coincidentally, happens to be the way it usually works.

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?quote>

Notice the use of the word "part"?  What does that mean?  I never said that a corrupt government that controls everything was the reason why Africa never gets out of poverty.  Please read what I wrote and not what you might think I wrote.

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!quote>

Again, please read what I actually wrote and not what it might look like between the lines.

[JanYpe 17]

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.quote>

Because this is obviously a dystopia where every doctor is a socialist sponsored Mengele. Whatever the doctor says goes, and none of the next of kin will ever object. Since we don't have fancy inventions like "laws" or "ethical codes" in this third world country, anyone who looks a bit sickly will just have to grin and bear it.

I'm sure the experiences of your granny's friend's cousin's neighbour with the eager to kill doctor were harrowing, but that is a damn big claim to make without providing any kind of facts or numbers behind it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Where in the blazes do some folks here get the notion that universal health coverage equals dictatorship, requiring that you give up your basic freedoms in order to obtain in it? quote>

Because many people think that paying taxes for anything is considered to be oppressive.  Paying taxes for things you don't believe in is considered to be unacceptable.

It has to do with the philosophy of government.  As I understand it, many Europeans believe that the first job of government is to take care of everyone. 

Some Americans would strongly disagree with that.  They believe the first -- and only -- job of government is to protect the country from outside attack and any further action on the government's part is overstepping it's bounds.

That is, of course, a rather extreme view.  Many Americans do not want to give up things like the regulation of the meat packing industry and return to the illnesses of a century ago.

As the saying goes:  Democrats want the government to put controls on the board room (make sure companies are not doing things that are harmful) while Republicans want the government to put controls on the bed room (make sure people are not sleeping with someone they "shouldn't".)

As for killing off all those losers out there, as has been suggested: you are veering dangerously close to some ideas sprouted first in the UK in the 1840's, and later incorporated by a certain German in Munich. quote>

I believe they were being sarcastic.

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

Of course, the best solution to poverty in Africa would be a world government supported by a world tax, thus eliminating tax havens, which can run 'internationalized' services in those countries which are not able provide vital services such as water and healthcare.  quote>

Well, that will be an unpopular idea.  Many people do not want their taxes going to support a corrupt government that hordes aid and won't let it get to their own people.

Who pays taxes for what is taken very seriously.   As an example of that, check out California Ponders Who Should Pay Firefighting Bill.

A World government it would also have ready a fund required to deal with natural disasters, rather than rely on individual's charitable donations, which aren't exactly reliable in terms of the amount of money attracted and if the money falls short, taxes can be raised.quote>

um . . . who would make the decisions on how this "world government" money is spent?

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

I won't speak of how it's done in the UK because I really don't know, but in the US, if you go to a public school, you don't decide which one you go to.  You go to the one you're in the district for, and if you don't like it and the school sucks, well, too bad for you.  quote>

Not necessarily.  Various jurisdictions have various ways of providing school choice.   Taking the local DC area:

Many counties have "magnet schools" where different subjects are emphasized. A math and science magnet school, for instance, or an arts magnet school.  Any student in the county can apply for these schools.  (They are on their own for transportation, though.)

The county I live in has two "Centers for Applied Technology" where students can chose to spend part of their day studying subjects that aren't available in the regular schools.

Washington, DC has a transfer program where students in "under performing" schools can transfer to a better school.

Calvert county has a program that allows elementary school children to transfer to a school near their day care center.

and so forth.

I don't believe that we all run around thinking that the our respective governments are out to get us.  For example, I don't trust Congress to be able to spend money wisely (don't even get me started on so-called "pork barrel" funding) but I'm not lying awake at night thinking that the Department of Defense is plotting how to take me out. quote>

I don't want to get you started on pork barrel funding.  But I will provide a link for those who don't know what you are talking about, especially since the term means different things on different sides of the pond.

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.quote>

The issue here is efficiency.  The perception is that for-profit companies are going to be more efficient because they are concerned about their bottom line while state-run programs are going to be less efficient because they think they have an unlimited source of funds to draw upon.

The chief difference in our beliefs is that you believe a system based off of people's good-will will lead to better results while I believe that a system that caters more to people's greed will work better.  History has shown that given the option, people tend to default to the greed side of most everything.  It's more lucrative. quote>

That a good way of putting it.  One system is based on the assumption that people are altruistic while the other is based on the assumption that people are greedy and out for their own self interest. 

Yes, one sounds better than the other but which assumption is more accurate?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Because many people think that paying taxes for anything is considered to be oppressive. Paying taxes for things you don't believe in is considered to be unacceptable.quote>

People in all countries will have that view. However those 'oppressed' people will always face taxes becuase they will a some point in their lives need the use of tax funded infrastructure and services, ranging from education for their children, the roads they drive to work on, the assistance from their government if they get so incredibly sick their insurance company will refuse to cover them any longer and his/her massive hospital bills. The list could go on and on, but you see my point. Interesting note to add is the fact while Americans may detest the use of taxes to support the sick and poor, they seem not to object too strongly to billions being used to support a private company, as recent news has shown.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

 Interesting note to add is the fact while Americans may detest the use of taxes to support the sick and poor, they seem not to object too strongly to billions being used to support a private company, as recent news has shown.quote>

If you are referring to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, those aren't exactly private companies, more like quasi-government.  (We do have a few of those around.)

If you are referring to IndyMac, that is a private bank.  It was failing so the government insurance policy kicked in to protect the depositors.   The shareholders there will take a big hit.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Yeah I know they're government sponsored. But they are publicly owned and listed on the stock exchange.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

 Interesting note to add is the fact while Americans may detest the use of taxes to support the sick and poor, they seem not to object too strongly to billions being used to support a private company, as recent news has shown.quote>

If you are referring to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, those aren't exactly private companies, more like quasi-government.  (We do have a few of those around.)

If you are referring to IndyMac, that is a private bank.  It was failing so the government insurance policy kicked in to protect the depositors.   The shareholders there will take a big hit.

quote>

too big to fail

[pnorrell 4]

SkiGeek makes an important point about Americans' aversion to taxes. Yes, reducing the role of the federal government to national defense only is a little extreme, but it is not really that much of a leap from the point of view of many (maybe most?) people in the US. Of course, nobody likes to pay taxes. However, Americans for the most part are conscious of the trade-off of taxes for benefits and have, throughout history, been willing to consciously give up the benefits in exchange for low taxes. In fact, given the diversity of race, religion, politics and even language among Americans, I would venture to say that the belief in retaining their own income to provide for themselves as they are able and also in the infallibility of free market competition are about the clearest defining characteristics of an American 'national identity.'

It is a fundamental difference in world view that I find many Europeans cannot accept as valid or reasonable, in much the same way that many Americans cannot understand or accept the European willingness to extend broad social protections at taxpayer expense.

Really, it's irrelevant to debate what true socialism is and whether or not it exists, or how what does exist differs from the academic definition of socialism. We have, in reality, two clearly distinguishable systems that we can compare. On the one hand, we have one that provides extensive social benefits to all, funded by taxation. In effect, this is a means of redistributing wealth from those who pay taxes to those who depend on the benefits they fund. On the other hand, we have a system that remains today clearly linked to the independent, self-reliant nature of colonists who settled a wild continent - each does for himself and reaps the benefits of his own labor, however great or small that may be.

Don't get me wrong - I am one of the minority of Americans that prefer the European system of social protection. I wonder how I will pay for a college education for my children, what I would do if I were unemployed for an extended period of time or what would happen if I or someone in my family ever became seriously ill, not to mention how I can possibly save enough money so I can retire one day. However, being an American, I have to plan carefully and make difficult personal choices to protect myself from these risks - I know it's entirely up to me...

[DocRorlach 25]

Funny, this thing about US taxes. Federal Income Tax, as excercised by the IRS, still has no legal foundation: it is imposed - not a very democratic thing to do. It was imposed several times, first by Lincoln to pay for the war on the South, and later by the respective WWI and WWII presidents. The last one "conviniently forgot" to revoke the imposition. And thus the IRS began to work around the absence of constituional basis by having the states do the collection - because the states (most of them at least) do have the legal foundation to collect.

So, how big is that for government?

As for Europeans believing that government ought to take care of them: I would consider that a myth. Taxes go to the running of services and agencies started by the governments for its citizens - its what the respective consitution demands (except in the UK): defense, running of government, education provisions. 

The difference is that the US is only marginally a federal republic: the individual states hold a large portion of the power concerning its population - thus the differences in education in the inner cities and the countryside. Other than that, the difference between Europe and the US is not that big.

Health Care, old age pensions, etc., do not come out of taxes but out of deductions and are thus linked to those deductions.

In that Europe is very different from the US, where the government has tried and failed repeatedly to create a Health Insurance system that would please both the private sector and the public. Since most US governments since Eisenhower have been largely leaning towards the mislabelled "free enterprise", the private sector, especially pharmaceuticals have always won. To the extend where pensioneers are now heading in droves to Canada, just to be able to afford their medication: the cost of the trip included still makes it cheaper.

If that is free enterprise - you can keep it.

NB: and before anyone says something about just having been a visitor: I've seen that system up close for seven years, right across the entire continent..

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach Funny, this thing about US taxes. Federal Income Tax, as excercised by the IRS, still has no legal foundation: it is imposed - not a very democratic thing to do.quote>

16th Amendment says hi.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: Callbat

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 quote>

 

Thomas Hobbes was a cynic... and in a depressing way.

Originally posted by: 6underground

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?

quote>

 

Kudos, 6underground. As you mentioned, Africa has a VERY unlucky environment, with droughts, diseases, floods, etc etc happening all of the time, which have nothing to do with healthcare. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about the droughts and floods. However, there is something we can do about AIDS and Ebola and starvation, and we can definetally do something about Sudan's genocidal government, but unfortunately Africa doesn't even exist to alot of people, it's like a huge blur on the map that people ignore.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Kudos, 6underground. As you mentioned, Africa has a VERY unlucky environment, with droughts, diseases, floods, etc etc happening all of the time, which have nothing to do with healthcare. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about the droughts and floods. However, there is something we can do about AIDS and Ebola and starvation, and we can definetally do something about Sudan's genocidal government, but unfortunately Africa doesn't even exist to alot of people, it's like a huge blur on the map that people ignore.quote>

Africa sure does have a lot of problems. A group of nations (UN perhaps?) should try to help them. Not by dispensing out bags of money or mushy food, but by helping them develop the continent with agriculture, medical care, and a decent economy. In other words, they should lend assistance for the Africans to develop themselves. The present system of handing out money and food is not working for the Africans, and is a drain on the resources of other peoples.

Funny, this thing about US taxes. Federal Income Tax, as excercised by the IRS, still has no legal foundation: it is imposed - not a very democratic thing to do. It was imposed several times, first by Lincoln to pay for the war on the South, and later by the respective WWI and WWII presidents. The last one "conviniently forgot" to revoke the imposition. And thus the IRS began to work around the absence of constituional basis by having the states do the collection - because the states (most of them at least) do have the legal foundation to collect.quote>

16th Amendment makes collection legal. However, Lincoln's collections were not legalized.

[ILL Tonkso 1,238]

Was just thinking about the free healthcare side of things, it has been said on here several times that social healthcare is often second rate, but I was looking at the report sheet from my car accident 3 weeks back and this startled me.

Call Time (when the witness dialed 999) 23.36

At Scene (when the ambulance arrived) 23.40

4 minutes

Given that Portsmouths narrow twisting mazelike road network makes London's look like a grid system, that ambulance got to the scene bloody quick. The UK has it better than many people think.

[Gridlock 9]

Actualy the Africans seem to have a larger problem than any other mentioned , and thats where they apparently appear to fit in , regarding Globalisation &  World Free Trade.

Dont be so naive guys .

Our goverments ,banks forced all the farmers in these countries out of business , by forcing them to buy cheap food imports , from us .  They are forced to buy as they owe our banks huge amounts of money .

If we realy want to help africans we should start by writing off all outside debt so long as they can prove certain criteria .

I dont think it will ever happen as its profitable to keep them where they are , and the price of gas is high enough .

As a comparison between the cost of the UK and US health systems . Nothings for free, if you work .

Il will chuckle when Tonks y gets whacked for a 100 nicker Ni deductions from his first weekly pay check £1000/week , you be left with just over £600 if your lucky , by the time you get it home it be more like £450 . £1400 a month morgage ,£300 month car , fuel  ,food,life, council tax  ect ect , damn i earn a grand a week and im still in the poor house.

Say one pays a weekly NI contribution of £85 or approx $650 US a month , What level of cover would that buy in the US ? .

[LivingInThePast 364]

OK, now if I try to make sense, my arguments will be picked apart and I'll be flamed. So, I give you my two cents:

Looks good on paper.

That's all I'll say.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well we could debate Africa all year and we wouldn't get an further because the issues afflicting the nations, well most. Are so complex, numerous and entrenched it will take decades to solve the issue of Africa.

I do agree western world trade and protection policies have a lot of blame, as does less honourable governments such as China pouring in the money without a care in the world how the brutal governments spend it. Most likely as in Sudan they use the funds to murder their own people. The problems of Africa are incredibly complicated.

As for the debt issue, already happening. Not at the level it should, but is happening. Do people not watch the news?

[ILL Tonkso 1,238]

Originally posted by: Gridlock Actualy the Africans seem to have a larger problem than any other mentioned , and thats where they apparently appear to fit in , regarding Globalisation &  World Free Trade.

Dont be so naive guys .

Our goverments ,banks forced all the farmers in these countries out of business , by forcing them to buy cheap food imports , from us .  They are forced to buy as they owe our banks huge amounts of money .

If we realy want to help africans we should start by writing off all outside debt so long as they can prove certain criteria .

I dont think it will ever happen as its profitable to keep them where they are , and the price of gas is high enough .

As a comparison between the cost of the UK and US health systems . Nothings for free, if you work .

Il will chuckle when Tonks y gets whacked for a 100 nicker Ni deductions from his first weekly pay check £1000/week , you be left with just over £600 if your lucky , by the time you get it home it be more like £450 . £1400 a month morgage ,£300 month car , fuel  ,food,life, council tax  ect ect , damn i earn a grand a week and im still in the poor house.

Say one pays a weekly NI contribution of £85 or approx $650 US a month , What level of cover would that buy in the US ? .quote>

I don't pay tax, I am a University Student, we aren't taxed.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I don't pay tax, I am a University Student, we aren't taxed.quote>

Actually no...

Depends on how much you earn. I'm a university student, but my job pays very well so I get taxed, a lot.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: pnorrell

SkiGeek makes an important point about Americans' aversion to taxes. Yes, reducing the role of the federal government to national defense only is a little extreme, but it is not really that much of a leap from the point of view of many (maybe most?) people in the US. Of course, nobody likes to pay taxes. However, Americans for the most part are conscious of the trade-off of taxes for benefits and have, throughout history, been willing to consciously give up the benefits in exchange for low taxes. quote>

Thank you.  You stated it better than I did.

In fact, given the diversity of race, religion, politics and even language among Americans, I would venture to say that the belief in retaining their own income to provide for themselves as they are able and also in the infallibility of free market competition are about the clearest defining characteristics of an American 'national identity.' quote>

That is definitely part of our 'national identity', although there are others.  But that is a topic for another thread.

We have, in reality, two clearly distinguishable systems that we can compare. On the one hand, we have one that provides extensive social benefits to all, funded by taxation. In effect, this is a means of redistributing wealth from those who pay taxes to those who depend on the benefits they fund. On the other hand, we have a system that remains today clearly linked to the independent, self-reliant nature of colonists who settled a wild continent - each does for himself and reaps the benefits of his own labor, however great or small that may be. quote>

Very well said.   One interesting part about it is that link to the colonial point of view happens culturally, not necessarily passed down through the generations.   Many of us who do not have colonial ancestors share that point of view.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Funny, this thing about US taxes. Federal Income Tax, as excercised by the IRS, still has no legal foundation: it is imposed - not a very democratic thing to do. It was imposed several times, first by Lincoln to pay for the war on the South, and later by the respective WWI and WWII presidents. The last one "conviniently forgot" to revoke the imposition. And thus the IRS began to work around the absence of constituional basis by having the states do the collection - because the states (most of them at least) do have the legal foundation to collect.quote>

16th Amendment makes collection legal. However, Lincoln's collections were not legalized.quote>

The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913.  No one "conveniently forgot" to revoke it after WWII.  It was law by then.  The IRS has plenty of constitutional basis for collection.

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Our goverments ,banks forced all the farmers in these countries out of business , by forcing them to buy cheap food imports , from us .  They are forced to buy as they owe our banks huge amounts of money .

If we realy want to help africans we should start by writing off all outside debt so long as they can prove certain criteria .

I dont think it will ever happen as its profitable to keep them where they are , and the price of gas is high enough .  quote>

You totally lost me there.  but that's okay.  I think it's a topic for another thread.

Il will chuckle when Tonks y gets whacked for a 100 nicker Ni deductions from his first weekly pay check £1000/week , you be left with just over £600 if your lucky , by the time you get it home it be more like £450 . £1400 a month morgage ,£300 month car , fuel  ,food,life, council tax  ect ect , damn i earn a grand a week and im still in the poor house.

Say one pays a weekly NI contribution of £85 or approx $650 US a month , What level of cover would that buy in the US ? .quote>

Weekly NI contribution?  That's what taken out of your paycheck for the health service?

As to the what level of coverage does $650 US a month gets, I'll see if I can find a good site to link to.

I do know that I've never spent anything close to that and I have excellent coverage.  But I've always had good group coverage.  (group coverage is cheaper than individual coverage)

[Callbat 8]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Originally posted by: Callbat

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 quote>

 

Thomas Hobbes was a cynic... and in a depressing way. quote>

Well it depends on your point of view, Thomas Hobbes viewed us from our most basic rots upwards, not the other way. Ever since Homo Sapiens appeared on earth one of the core things that distinguished them from homo erectus was their strive for individual gain using their newly acquired knowledge and more strive for personal satisfaction.

But viewing this from the other side of the spectrum one could say it provided with the first necessary communication skills necessary to create a basic functioning society in which one works for the good of his community.

Yes, I know, this is not the place to debate this, I think a thread concerning the matter would be nice. Sorry to have caused any interruption.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Weekly NI contribution? That's what taken out of your paycheck for the health service?quote>

Yes

Il will chuckle when Tonks y gets whacked for a 100 nicker Ni deductions from his first weekly pay check

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Callbat

Yes, I know, this is not the place to debate this, I think a thread concerning the matter would be nice. quote>

Go for it.

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Say one pays a weekly NI contribution of £85 or approx $650 US a month , What level of cover would that buy in the US ? .quote>

Okay, the answer to that isn't simple.  There are deductibles and co-payments and different levels of coverage.

but, to take a stab at it, let's to go  http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

Click on Individual and Family Health Insurance

It's going to ask you for a zip code.  

Go here http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp

and pick some random city and state.

(Chicago, IL is 60603; Memphis, TN is 38103, etc.  or just pick a number at random)

It will ask for gender and birthdate (use some bogus date in your birth year; these people don't need your real birthdate just for a demo)

Click on Get Quotes.

It will give you a list of options.  If you click on plan details, it will give you the specifics of that plan.

As I said, it's not simple but I don't know how else to answer your question.

[pnorrell 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Actually someone earning £1000 a week in the UK if under 65 will be charged £75.45 a week for National Insurance. Tax paid will be £219 a week. So earning £1000 a week you will be actually paid (all taxes automatically removed) roughly £704. That's not that excessive.

quote>

No, it's not. Does the NI deduction also cover unemployment benefits, disability and contribution to whatever national retirement system?

[Deathtoall 28]

One thing Duke, some of my conservative friends idolise Daniel Pipes, now even he's considered an extreme right winger in your country so you go on believe that they are libs by US standards.

If you don't know Daniel Pipes - youtube him, and i warn you, he is scary.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913.  No one "conveniently forgot" to revoke it after WWII.  It was law by then.  The IRS has plenty of constitutional basis for collection.quote>

I neglected to put that in my post. What I was saying was that Lincoln's collections (before 1913) were not legalized by an act or amendment to my knowledge.