Communism/Socialism and Capitalism/Corporatism?

[Foosha]

I don't get where this "can't afford it" is coming into play. Sure the incredibly poor wont be able to afford it, but anyone with an above starting wage job can afford insurance with the right amount of managing your funds. It's what insurance is FOR. I dont feel pity for the foo's that don't want to buy insurance, than when x disease comes in they didn't save up or didnt manage their money right so they can't get the operation.

Also, look at it for the doctors point of view. If they went through all this trouble to be...lets say a neurovascular surgeon (thats operations on the blood vessels in the brain) which is extremely difficult, I want to reap the benefits of my endeavors. With socialized health care, there are going to be cuts in the budget, you won't receive the best of the best, but it gets the job done. However, if you have a rare disease, or complications, and have insurance, the best bet is the USA.

If we were in a socialized system, I strongly doubt my grandpa would be alive today. 75 with 6 major heart surgeries, pacemaker and severe parkinsons?

[Deleted]

Ideologically, I like Marxism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Practically, I prefer Centre-Leftism.

Pure Anarchism/Socialism and Capitalism work great, in theory, because bad human behaviour is never accounted for, in practice, they're all bad in extremes. That's why the Centre is good, you can take the best of both and attempt to ensure a level of fairness and relative liberty. Communism in practice tends to lend itself to have the reins of power snatched away by bureaucratic careerists and sociopaths and freedom is stifled by authoritarian brutality when Marx really called for the "whithering away of the State", and pure capitalism would lend itself to some equally horrific social-Darwinian nightmare, because greedy people will always weasel there way to the top and seek to exploit others.
So yeah, a mixed economy reduces state power (even if it means more power to corporate fat cats) and, if relatively uncorrupt, seeks to increase equality and prosperity for all. Ain't perfect but it's too risky to try anything more extreme, I believe.

[Slappers]

By the time Norway isn't being funded by oil, we're being funded by something else. We are strong in the business of shipping, we are working towards the worlds best windmillfields for water and we have technology within the oilbusiness that we can sell, even when we're done with the oil. Have oil helped us into our position, no doubt, but we are in a position to invest into the future, which we are doing.

On topic: I've always concidered USA to be the best country if you're above average wealthy, as there is no doubt some of the best offers are there, but they cost. In Norway medical care and education isn't an economical burden, which I like, because those two things shouldn't be that.

[Atrea]

If you don't like Norway as an example, use Switzerland. Granted, we don't have high taxes but our health and education system can be described as leaning to the socialist side too. And we have zero natural ressources to rely on. I like a more socialist approach where education, medical and infrastructural problems are concerned, but dislike them when they interfere with the economoy too much.

Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism will work in a reallife scenario, because man and by that extent markets, will act perfectly rational. As so often the mixture of both is where it's at.

Or, if trying to look for a "close to home" example, look at Canada. We have much the same system of social services as European nations.

[Endus]

Okay. Time for basic definitions.

"Communism" as an economic system is defined as state ownership of the means of production; factories and such are all state-run at state-controlled values.

"Socialism" as an economic system is defined as the popular ownership of the means of production; factories and such are owned by then workers who run them.

"Capitalism" as an economic system is defined as the private ownership of the means of production; owned by private citizens who may or may not be employed in the work force.


"Socialism" as applied to any Western nation in the world refers not to economic policy, but to a focus on government programs designed for the benefit and protection of its citizens. Every first-world capitalist nation in the world is socialist to some degree, under this definition. Even the US. Medicare, unemployment insurance, publicly funded transit systems, welfare programs, all these are socialist in nature.


Socialism, under either definition, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with communism, nor fascism (since someone inevitably brings up the National Socialists, who weren't socialist by any definition that matters).

[Deleted]

there are going to be cuts in the budget, you won't receive the best of the best

Bullshit. They may not get the insane amounts of money that Doctors in the US are paid; but they certainly aren't left high-and-dry; they are paid a lot better than most people.

However, if you have a rare disease, or complications, and have insurance, the best bet is the USA.

If we were in a socialized system, I strongly doubt my grandpa would be alive today. 75 with 6 major heart surgeries, pacemaker and severe parkinsons?

What do you consider "Complicated" then, considering Stephen Hawkins was treated on the NHS. He was a poor student at the time of his accident; I bet if he was an American he would be dead. This whole idea that socialised medicine is 'Sub-standard' is so ignorant.

[Deleted]

Okay. Time for basic definitions.

"Communism" as an economic system is defined as state ownership of the means of production; factories and such are all state-run at state-controlled values.

I would say that is a pretty unfair definition because that only covers the very first stages of Communism. The pre-cursor system to establish the breaking down of the state apparatus. Communism in the final stages seems to actually be very close to Left-Anarchism.

[Likfarer]

What do you consider "Complicated" then, considering Stephen Hawkins was treated on the NHS. He was a poor student at the time of his accident; I bet if he was an American he would be dead. This whole idea that socialised medicine is 'Sub-standard' is so ignorant.

Fox News used him as an argument against Obama's healthcare reform (or as they call it: "Obamacare"), saying that he said he would be dead if he was in England. The problem with this is that he actually said he'd be dead if he was an American.

[Endus]

I would say that is a pretty unfair definition because that only covers the very first stages of Communism. The pre-cursor system to establish the breaking down of the state apparatus. Communism in the final stages seems to actually be very close to Left-Anarchism.

You're confusing communism, the economic system, with the end results of totalitarianism, the governmental system.

Capitalism/Communism/Socialism are economic, not political, systems. If you're talking about a government, and you use any of the three, you're incorrect, or at the very least focusing on a secondary aspect rather than the much more important descriptor.

The world has never seen a parliamentary or republican communism, so it's not really possible to say how that would work out. The issues with the old USSR and with states like modern China or Cuba have less to do with communism, and more to do with their totalitarian governments. See also; China's move to "special economic zones" which are more specifically capitalist, but with the same totalitarian government running things.

[Deleted]

True communism is an utopia of some people. It can never be achieved because of greed and lust for power.
Corporatism is a horrible system, as companies care more about being on top and making money then actually about the people.
Capitalism, slightly better, as there are some regulations.
Socialism is the best out of them as wealth is redistributed. However even it has problems because the people who are lazy are supported by the state, this is the case of immigrants mostly.

So best system is a mash of socialism and capitalism for now, and that can be encountered in northern europe. Northern Europe is doing great, so good for them.

[Palli]

The reason our wait times are long is that people can actually use it, while in the USA it is so expensive that people can't afford it. Furthermore you are not guaranteed to get insurance because they have to make money, so they will only have clients who are young and healthy so their chances of getting sick are low. And if you do get sick and have insurace they will fight as hard as they can to not pay for the care you need. Having incentives to refuse people medical care on monetary grounds is so immoral I can't believe the american population is not fighting to get better health care.



Even if we do run out of oil/coal we still have a lot of other renewable resources, and we get a lot of tourism becuse of the midnight sun and northern lights/our nature.

I'd like to ask that you provide some examples of this. I have a chronic illness that insurance covers over $6,000 a month for in medicine. I would be unable to get this medicine in other countries with NHS (I already checked) because they would require me to use other drugs for a long period of time, then I'd have to meet a certain score in order to qualify for NHS to cover this drug. I cannot imagine having to be put on less effective medicine then wait until I get "bad" enough in their eyes to get the coverage I need. I am in no way saying the Insurance companies are the best way to go but NHS is not all sunshine either.

Again I'd like to reiterate that Insurance is not the same as Health Care. Insurance allows people in the USA to afford health care. We do provide other avenues for people to obtain Medicad or walk in clinics. I believe Health Care as a whole needs a substantial amount of work. People are fighting for better health care.

[Larynx]

Can someone explain this to me, Socialism is an economical system like Capitalism. Is communism a political system like democracy?

And what's the different between communism and facism?

[Merendel]

I believe the reason that "socialized medicine" is one of the catagories is that it matters fuck all if you can give the best surgeries if only 200 people in the country can afford it

Its not any better if everybody gets it for free but there's a 3 month waiting list and you've only got a month to live without the surgery. Not saying the system in the US is perfect but there are reasons its so expensive and none of the politicians want to confront the root cause so they try to throw money at it and hope that fixes it.

[Deleted]

I would be unable to get this medicine in other countries with NHS (I already checked)

Yeah; sorry, but I don't buy that in the slightest. I sincerely doubt the NHS wouldn't be able to treat you for it.

I'd have to meet a certain score in order to qualify for NHS to cover this drug.

I know for a fact that that is utter bollocks. You don't have to meet any criteria to receive medication for illness under the NHS; if the Doctor deems it as something that would help, you'll be prescribed to it.

I cannot imagine having to be put on less effective medicine then wait until I get "bad" enough in their eyes to get the coverage I need. I am in no way saying the Insurance companies are the best way to go but NHS is not all sunshine either.

Really; that doesn't happen. Pre-emptive medicine is one of the NHS's major policies; they cut it off at it's source before it gets any worse.

Its not any better if everybody gets it for free but there's a 3 month waiting list

No such thing exists. If you have a life threatening illness, you will be seen within days, if not hours. It is INCREDIBLY rare for a waiting list to be longer than a week since the Labour NHS reforms.

[Paranoid Android]

When your country runs out of the ability to fund itself with the North sea Oil reserves I imagine things will change.

Also the wait time for surgeries can be up to 3 months in Norway.

You can get surgery next day in the USA. One of the reasons the USA rated so low on the WHO Health care was because three of the categories dealt with socialized medicine. Obviously the USA will fail these categories.

Also, Socialized Medicine and Free Health care is not being implemented in the USA. The current approach, even through Obama is not through the Medical providers but through the insurance. This will fail because insurance companies have to make a profit and be able to choose who they cover. That is the whole point of insurance. Insurance is not the same as Health Care. If they want to fix Health Care they need to focus on Health Care not the Insurance companies.

If you need immediate attention and care the USA is the place to be. If you need free routine check ups and general health care and are unable to afford it the USA is extremely hard to live in.

It's the general health care that the USA has problems with. Public emergency rooms have to take everyone, even people with out insurance. We also have free health clinics. But living without insurance is extremely difficult in the USA.

Ignorance is bliss.

As far as waiting 3 months for surgery..yes but its elective or surgery that is not life threating. You get a gunshot wound they not going to make you wait 3 months or terminal cancer if not operated on in 2 months you will die.

Your reason that insurance companies need to make money is the biggest fail of our health system in the US. The insurance companies dicate to doctors, hosptials and the medical profession how treatments, medicine are treated. Previous health problem? Sorry we won't let you get insurance with our company. Insurance companies want to make money thus they are only going to pick from the healthiest pool of people. Again they don't want to pay out..That's how they make money.

If you have insurance and then come down with medical problems all the insurance company is going to do is raise your premiums. Again so goodness forbid you get sick, you may get priced out of your insurance. So to people who want to make the claim of "freeloaders", those people are not freeloading they are hard-working people who get priced out of insurance.

Its funny how people get brainwashed mainly by conservative right that health care should not be for everyone. They fill with the idea that people are going to have to sit for long periods of time and die while waiting in the operating room because it will take X amount months to get something done. Also the convervative right talks about jobs, jobs, jobs. Well what is one of the biggest cost to businesses? Health Insurance.

[Endus]

I'd like to ask that you provide some examples of this. I have a chronic illness that insurance covers over $6,000 a month for in medicine. I would be unable to get this medicine in other countries with NHS (I already checked) because they would require me to use other drugs for a long period of time, then I'd have to meet a certain score in order to qualify for NHS to cover this drug. I cannot imagine having to be put on less effective medicine then wait until I get "bad" enough in their eyes to get the coverage I need. I am in no way saying the Insurance companies are the best way to go but NHS is not all sunshine either.

The other side is, if you lost your insurance somehow (like, say, quit or were fired from the job that provides it), any future provider would look at your records and say "whoah, pre-existing condition, we're not covering that".

And now you're forced to pay $6,000/month for your drugs, or go without entirely.

I'm Canadian. Our health care system is basically a triage system. The reason some people get "lesser" drugs is because that's what their condition warrants. If it gets bad enough to warrant the more expensive drugs, we up the treatment. But everyone gets the health care they need, based on that need, not on how much they pay to their insurance company.

Yes, I had to wait a couple hours when I partially amputated my finger. But my finger was stable, and there were three people who came in right after me who'd been in a horrible car crash, so I had no issue with being bumped down the list while they dealt with the sucking chest wound and similar lifethreatening injuries first. That's Canadian health care.

People like to mention 6 month waits for MRIs and the like, too. I walked into the ER with some weird symptoms at 11pm one night, and they had me in the MRI within an hour, despite about 30 people being in the ER waiting room when I got there. Because it might have been a tumor that could kill me in 24 hours, and the MRI was the only way to diagnose it. The diagnosis couldn't wait, so I got the treatment I needed right away.

That's Canadian health care. The people you hear who wait 6 months for an MRI don't really need one, so they keep getting bumped down the list by people like me, who might die without the test.

[Likfarer]

I'd like to ask that you provide some examples of this. I have a chronic illness that insurance covers over $6,000 a month for in medicine. I would be unable to get this medicine in other countries with NHS (I already checked) because they would require me to use other drugs for a long period of time, then I'd have to meet a certain score in order to qualify for NHS to cover this drug. I cannot imagine having to be put on less effective medicine then wait until I get "bad" enough in their eyes to get the coverage I need. I am in no way saying the Insurance companies are the best way to go but NHS is not all sunshine either.

Again I'd like to reiterate that Insurance is not the same as Health Care. Insurance allows people in the USA to afford health care. We do provide other avenues for people to obtain Medicad or walk in clinics. I believe Health Care as a whole needs a substantial amount of work. People are fighting for better health care.

I would like to see where you got your information about the NHS not giving the proper medicine. I also want you to read this article on people denied health insurance.

[Catta]

Its not any better if everybody gets it for free but there's a 3 month waiting list and you've only got a month to live without the surgery. Not saying the system in the US is perfect but there are reasons its so expensive and none of the politicians want to confront the root cause so they try to throw money at it and hope that fixes it.

the 3 month thing was pulled out of the darkest part of his ass... In my country its often within a few weeks and - government will even pay a private hospital if the waitlist is too long...
Furthermore nothing is stopping people in countries with universal healthcare to go to a private hospital

[Deleted]

I cannot imagine having to be put on less effective medicine then wait until I get "bad" enough in their eyes to get the coverage I need.

what are you on about ? if you are sick you will get the required meds and if needed weekly treatment without extra costs !

[Palli]

The other side is, if you lost your insurance somehow (like, say, quit or were fired from the job that provides it), any future provider would look at your records and say "whoah, pre-existing condition, we're not covering that".

And now you're forced to pay $6,000/month for your drugs, or go without entirely.

I'm Canadian. Our health care system is basically a triage system. The reason some people get "lesser" drugs is because that's what their condition warrants. If it gets bad enough to warrant the more expensive drugs, we up the treatment. But everyone gets the health care they need, based on that need, not on how much they pay to their insurance company.

Yes, I had to wait a couple hours when I partially amputated my finger. But my finger was stable, and there were three people who came in right after me who'd been in a horrible car crash, so I had no issue with being bumped down the list while they dealt with the sucking chest wound and similar lifethreatening injuries first. That's Canadian health care.

People like to mention 6 month waits for MRIs and the like, too. I walked into the ER with some weird symptoms at 11pm one night, and they had me in the MRI within an hour, despite about 30 people being in the ER waiting room when I got there. Because it might have been a tumor that could kill me in 24 hours, and the MRI was the only way to diagnose it. The diagnosis couldn't wait, so I got the treatment I needed right away.

That's Canadian health care. The people you hear who wait 6 months for an MRI don't really need one, so they keep getting bumped down the list by people like me, who might die without the test.

This is completely untrue and not how "Pre-existing conditions" work. The whole notion of pre-existing conditions is to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to obtain medical insurance. Let's say you didnt have insurance all during your 20's because you were always healthy. Then you get sick in your 30's, go to the hospital call up the insurance company and ask them to cover all your expenses even though you've only been paying for 30 days.

And most of the insurance companies will accept you, they just won't provide treatment for X number of days on any pre-existing condition. I have no ignorance to the matter. I have had to deal with my disease with and without insurance. You are the one that sounds like you are just quoting a journalists rants without any logical basis for your argument.

And of course Insurance companies will do what they can to make money. They are a for-profit business. Whether it is moral for a company to profit from other people's health is another issue. Insurance companies aren't create out of some altruistic need to help sick people.