I love you for giving me that video, i havent been following the debate and had no Idea why eveyone was getting all mad a bout it. Now I've been brought up to speed and now I can say I know something.Sovvolf said:
Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism
- Thread starter Sovvolf
- Start date
Well we have universal health care here in Canada, you know that thing every anti-Obama person has been freaking out about because "Today it's health crae tommorrow it communism"...Hope that helps your questions about CanadaSovvolf said:
The problem is not with socialism, it's with socialism in America. We have too large of a population for it to feasibly work. It works fine in smaller countries.
I think you are blatantly prejudiced against against government control. That's why so many conservatives in the U.S. are attacking Canada and Europe right now. They are emotionally against public health-care and government programs. You probably want the figures on Canadian health-care to be as bad a s possible to back up your argument. Well sorry buddy, but Canada is going to kick some serious ass this century and eventually you will make a fool out of yourself when you try to make fun of Canadian and UK and E.U. healthcare.jman737 said:
Also, while this is a bit presumtuous, I'm going to assume that you just asked me to try to find negative things about Universal Health Care to make you're emotions happy. Well, I decline. As much as I respect your passion for what you believe in, I respectfully ask you to find somethiing more worthy of your passion. Perhaps global warming, which will put the world's most impoverished into even more poverty. I highly doubt that what your president (do you recognise him as you're president, if you don't mind?) is really going to create some sort of evil world where elderly are killed off to increase the efficiency of the system. I understand that Canada is just another country to you, and you are using it as an example of what you don't want, but I hope you understand when I get offended by you making lies about it. And also, despite what I think you seem to think, Canada is NOT an example of what should not be done. Work needs to be done on the system, but that hardly means it's an example of what shouldn't be done. I don't think there's anything in this world that couldn't do with some improvement, and certainly not something as bit as the health care system when looked at as a whole.
I will not offer my opinions on what you should do in the U.S., but I will tell you what I heard my mom saying. She roughly said "Why don't they look at places where it does work, like in Europe?" the answer, to me, is because they want to victimise the whole idea of free health care. Canada has only had free health care for a few decades, while in Europe they have had it for much longer. For something only a few decades old, it works pretty well (In Canada).
Socialism is a slippery slop toward communism. People are already VERY lazy, if we didn't have the free market to drive people to improve their situation we would have the most stagnant population on the globe.
Just look at what welfare and government hand-out do to majority of people that use them. The average person who is put in a place where they can't do anything to better themselves will do the bare minimum to get by.
Think of it this way: In some socialist and all communistic systems there is NO monetary reward for good performance and hard work, without monetary reward people just do the smallest amount they have too. How would you like to know that your doctor only has to fill his surgery quote for the month then he can go on auto-pilot? I feel bad for the people who have socialized health care.
Pushing yourself to succeed is one of the most noble aspects of the human spirit. Socialism, at times, and Communism hinder that noble pursuit greatly.
Just look at what welfare and government hand-out do to majority of people that use them. The average person who is put in a place where they can't do anything to better themselves will do the bare minimum to get by.
Think of it this way: In some socialist and all communistic systems there is NO monetary reward for good performance and hard work, without monetary reward people just do the smallest amount they have too. How would you like to know that your doctor only has to fill his surgery quote for the month then he can go on auto-pilot? I feel bad for the people who have socialized health care.
Pushing yourself to succeed is one of the most noble aspects of the human spirit. Socialism, at times, and Communism hinder that noble pursuit greatly.
Canada has 1/10th the pop of the US, national health care will not work here. It just won't, and if you can't see that, too bad, and the ratio of population for European countries is just as bad or worse.Lonan said:
Also, if you look at the article from CBS that was brought up earlier, it does back up his statement to a degree- it says the average wait time is 18.3 weeks.
Below:
Last Updated: Monday, October 15, 2007 | 4:09 PM ET
CBC News
The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.
That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.
A patient undergoes MRI screening. The median wait for an MRI across Canada is 10.1 weeks, according to the report.
(CBC)
"Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British," it reads. "Economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient."
The report, the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, is published by the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization.
"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.
The total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks in 2006, according to the report.
"The small increase in waiting time between 2006 and 2007 is primarily the result of an increase in the first wait ? the wait between visiting a general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist," the report says.
The report also found that total wait times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island lowered their wait times.
Waiting times best in Ontario
Ontario recorded the shortest wait time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment) at 15.0 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19.0 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.
Despite have one of the shorter waits among the provinces, Quebec's 19.4-week wait shows that despite more money directed at fixing the problem, there hasn't been any improvement, Tasha Kheiriddin, the Quebec director of the Fraser Institute, told CBC News Monday.
She says Quebec has invested millions of dollars over the past few years in efforts to reduce wait times, but that inefficiencies in the public system are proving to be obstacles.
"What this tells us is spending more money in the system does not decrease wait times. In fact it's the opposite result, so we have to look at other solutions," she said.
Across Canada, the wait time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks) and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland and Labrador (13.5 weeks) and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).
The wait time between a specialist consultation and treatment ? the second stage of waiting ? increased to 9.1 weeks from 9.0 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks) and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks) and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).
The shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks).
Patients endured the longest waits between a GP referral and orthopedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks) and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).
Nova Scotia best for CT scans
Patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic tests across Canada, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans.
The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had the shortest waits for CT scans (4.0 weeks), with Manitoba experiencing the highest wait (8.0 weeks).
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland and Labrador residents waited the longest (20.0 weeks).
CBC News
The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.
That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.
A patient undergoes MRI screening. The median wait for an MRI across Canada is 10.1 weeks, according to the report.
(CBC)
"Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British," it reads. "Economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient."
The report, the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, is published by the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization.
"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.
The total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks in 2006, according to the report.
"The small increase in waiting time between 2006 and 2007 is primarily the result of an increase in the first wait ? the wait between visiting a general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist," the report says.
The report also found that total wait times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island lowered their wait times.
Waiting times best in Ontario
Ontario recorded the shortest wait time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment) at 15.0 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19.0 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.
Despite have one of the shorter waits among the provinces, Quebec's 19.4-week wait shows that despite more money directed at fixing the problem, there hasn't been any improvement, Tasha Kheiriddin, the Quebec director of the Fraser Institute, told CBC News Monday.
She says Quebec has invested millions of dollars over the past few years in efforts to reduce wait times, but that inefficiencies in the public system are proving to be obstacles.
"What this tells us is spending more money in the system does not decrease wait times. In fact it's the opposite result, so we have to look at other solutions," she said.
Across Canada, the wait time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks) and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland and Labrador (13.5 weeks) and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).
The wait time between a specialist consultation and treatment ? the second stage of waiting ? increased to 9.1 weeks from 9.0 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks) and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks) and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).
The shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks).
Patients endured the longest waits between a GP referral and orthopedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks) and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).
Nova Scotia best for CT scans
Patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic tests across Canada, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans.
The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had the shortest waits for CT scans (4.0 weeks), with Manitoba experiencing the highest wait (8.0 weeks).
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland and Labrador residents waited the longest (20.0 weeks).
The problem with socialism is that the American government spent 60 years deomonising it, to the point that nobody can reap any benefits from even a combined capitalist/socialist government. They put so much time, effort, and money into creating a stigma for the word that it is now a big no-no for anyone to mention it and can be flung as an insult. The truth is, Socialism is dying, and capitalism is dying. They will meet in the middle.
It is any leader at all that fucks it up.MurderousToaster said:
Communism is closer in ideals to anarchy than Socialism.
Better than waiting forever because you can't afford insurance. And why the bitching about wait times? You get it eventually don't you? If it's not going to kill you or cause long term damage to you, suck it up. It'll make you stronger. Or perhaps rich people deserve better than that? I'm willing to wait to make sure no one gets left behind. I recognise that teh U.S. is a different country, and that leaving people behind is acceptable with some people, but I'll stick with my wait times.Thanatos34 said:
The U.S. is too big for free health care. You've just written that off with one broad stroke. I don't want to spend to much time arguing with you about your country, but I must ask, what about the people who aren't insured? Is it their fault? Do you or do you not think they should have health care if they ever needed it? Give me a yes or no answer. It seems fitting since you completely wrote off national health care on account of population. I don't know the complexities of the U.S., but I'm SURE it's not that simple. I always considered the U.S. to be a barbaric survival of the fittest country at heart after seeing Dr. Q or whatever, but I was 12, and backed off of that later. I'm sure that movie was an exxageration to try to get people on one side. I'm sure not THAT many people are allowed to just die. Some, but I doubt it's that bad. My understanding is that there is already some level of government health care but not much because of fear of interfering with the market. I don't know too much, but I doubt insuring those people is a simple as a "public option." I think you are trying to make it as simple as possible, to cut out dialogue which goes against your emotions.
18.3 weeks? For a struggling American single mother working two jobs for the children she has because she was from and underpriveledged family and couldn't get an abortion, 18.3 weeks sounds better than not ever getting it. I'm sure there's plenty of cases where people can't afford it at all. Again, what would you tell those people? Should they get treatment or not?
Pure socialism does not work.
Partial socialism does. Look at America. Ignoring that Bush couldn't do shit anyways.
The postal service (what with the mail always getting delivered and whatnot, so as to become the one thing the government usually does quite well), veterans' healthcare, SOCIAL security (arguably), public works (paving roads, maintaining sewers, etc. If this bit were capitalist-only run, the roads would be paved if they led to a factory where the company could make profit off the road), federal funding of education and the retarded bit where states all decide their own curricula for classes, and all that loverly jazz.
Partial socialism does. Look at America. Ignoring that Bush couldn't do shit anyways.
The postal service (what with the mail always getting delivered and whatnot, so as to become the one thing the government usually does quite well), veterans' healthcare, SOCIAL security (arguably), public works (paving roads, maintaining sewers, etc. If this bit were capitalist-only run, the roads would be paved if they led to a factory where the company could make profit off the road), federal funding of education and the retarded bit where states all decide their own curricula for classes, and all that loverly jazz.
The short answer is that economic calculation becomes difficult to impossible under a socialist system, where Capitalist style competition performs economic calculation automatically.
Socialism stems from a belief that capitalism concentrates money (capital) within a small percentage of the total population. Part of the reason that socialism is so stigmatized is because capitalism was the default economic principle of pretty much the entire world for the history of forever, until Marx and Engels came along. Now, being a misanthrope, I believe that most of the government is pretty rich (read: the small percentage that controls most of the capital). When Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto, you can imagine how scary that must have been. All the money, mostly their money, stripped from them and given out to the masses, IE, a totally egalitarian society, which is the essence of socialism.
Socialism differs from communism because communism is an ideology that states that in a perfect society, a government isn't required because the people can govern themselves. You can see the massive flaws in this argument. Socialism is an economic principle that relies on a government to carry it out. I think the reason socialism breeds fear is because Lenin once said that socialism is a stepping stone from pure capitalism to pure communism.
Social democracy, which is the policy that several European countries have, allows the government to control key necessities, such as transportation and health care, while maintaining capitalistic business principles.
Personally, I think pure socialism will fail harder than pure capitalism, but at least under capitalism, we have rich people to pour all our hate on.
Socialism differs from communism because communism is an ideology that states that in a perfect society, a government isn't required because the people can govern themselves. You can see the massive flaws in this argument. Socialism is an economic principle that relies on a government to carry it out. I think the reason socialism breeds fear is because Lenin once said that socialism is a stepping stone from pure capitalism to pure communism.
Social democracy, which is the policy that several European countries have, allows the government to control key necessities, such as transportation and health care, while maintaining capitalistic business principles.
Personally, I think pure socialism will fail harder than pure capitalism, but at least under capitalism, we have rich people to pour all our hate on.
And ideologically I would have no problem with that. University should be regulated to those that are willing to get student loans, those that are on scholarship or those that work full time to pay for it or those with parents who pay. I'm sorry if your a B-C student and you want a degree in sociology cause thats all you can get why should I pay for that? I'm all for usage taxation if you want social security then pay for it, if you want roads then pay a gas/mileage tax, if you attend public schools then you get hit with the bill on your taxes down the road. I admit to have a functional government (ie judical system and defensive army) would require a small base tax. But other than that if you want something from your government then pay for it. Why should I pay for a retirement I won't use (social security) an education system I don't support. A welfare system that's bloated with waste. A massive military budget, medicade and who knows what else? One could make the emotional argument that the poor need help and I would agree, but I don't feel that the help should come from a forced redistribution of wealth (with politicians voted in by the 50-+% that don't even pay taxes. ( or receive a net benefit greater than tax paid)Cheeze_Pavilion said:
This is the key. The real issue with socialism isn't so much the fundamental ideal behind it but the implication of it. Even if you don't take corruption into account, something which is in all parts of life sadly, we are still faced with the 'too many cooks' situation that our governments have. So many people will want to influence the development and implication of a socialistic system that there is the real possibility that the exact opposite is produced at the end.fluffybacon said:
With the amount fractures we have in society, and in government as well, it is very difficult to envision a system being put in place that won't face committees and boards all slowing the development and implication of said system. We would also face the implication of time consuming and expensive regulations to 'ensure it isn't being abused.' Worse we can expect the implication of loopholes designed to bleed every cent out of the system by some campaign contributor or another.
This isn't saying we can't try and bring a socialistic system around. ALL systems would have this problem after all. So we can't sit with out thumbs up our arses and say 'it is too difficult, there is too much against us' and expect things to get better. Any step towards something better is a step we have to take.
Just being vigilant, and maybe hanging a few politicians, is all we can do.
I've had this thought many times myself in the past, particularly when looking at how MASSIVE the US budget is and how it throws money into dead end projects, pays a massive pork to the MIC to produce weapons it then feels compelled to use just to justify it's budget and not to mention how it throws away good equipment to buy the next shiniest thing off the assembly line. The 'why are people paying for all this crap?' thought structure.sneakypenguin said:
I've never had that with social programs though, I can clearly see a benefit to be had from them unlike all the war spending. Spending that, if withdrawn to a defensive structure, could easily pay for all the socialistic programs anyone can dream of. No change in taxes then at all. Interestingly enough these programs would BENEFIT you without you even realising it. The leading cause of crime is poverty, for example, but if you house and feed the impoverished then they have less reason to commit crime. If you educate them and put them to work then they can afford what luxury items they will want without resorting to crime. By being given a head start in life boosts the self estimate and helps remove people from situations where they will fall into drug abuse and other self-harmful situations.
The benefits of social programs is a reduction in the causes of most of societies ills in this day and age. A benefit we all receive something from, though most of the time we do not even realise we are receiving it.
BUT...
I still wanted to know a way we could reduce taxes and I pondered on it and thought. Well why not allow the government to own and operate businesses? It seems so damn simple when you think on it. If a handful of big businesses can pull in profits larger then many nations, even some developed ones, then why shouldn't government seek to do the same? How much could taxes be reduced if a large developed nation had these companies themselves! It isn't even a new idea, the postal service all but pays for itself so why not use other profit driven businesses to generate a revenue for the state?
In particular, what if we allowed the government to produce for itself services that it is now paying for. Cut out the middle man, if you will. Not only would we reduce the costs of government, but we would have a revenue source at the very same time!
Then if you want to take it the next step we could even lower the cost of production in developed nations by using a form of indentured service. Those who benefit the most from educational programs could easily, as conditions of these education, be required to do a small period of service to the state. Even those on welfare could be used if for nothing more then non-speciality labour positions. Very least they will get the experience of working in factories that could be used to get a better paying job with a non-government business some time down the track.
And to prevent it being slavery there can be a opt out system in place. This system is quite simple: Opt out of the service and your educational costs will be a loan of sorts. You will have to pay it back but being non-profit you won't have to pay back the loan and then some.