Would Socialism really be that bad?

[Knight Gil]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The US has plenty of problems. Every country does.

The US is still one of the best nations in the world to live.

You dismiss my entire post as "you have no idea what you're talking about" and then come up with something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I talked about. That's called "trying too damn hard".

Everyone is equal == no matter how hard you work, it doesn't make a difference, so people will be less driven to succeed.

This high-school student argument again?

[cyqu]

Socialism infringes on our basic human right on the pursuit of happiness. We do need an overhaul of the system but not a replacement of the system imo. The problem with your post is that it's based entirely off of theory. And in theory it would be great. Just like in Theory our system is great. The problem in both is corruption. From minor corruption to major, our politicians who are supposed to be representatives of their area have become representatives of their area's 1%. Understandably so too because that 1% is where they will get the funding to be reelected into their well paying public office. To fix this I think career politicians need go out of the legislative branch. Also some middle class politicians would be nice as well.

in theory your system right now works well, but in actuality it doesn't work

[BLCalliente]

Why does (almost) nobody know what Socialism is?

[ElAmigo]

people coming from old money would lose that money,
ingenious people with good new idea's and technologies wouldn't bother working as hard (why work your butt off day in day out developing something, but your life never improves?)
i mean, that same person can just go for a low stress job and live just a little bit worse off, but no stress in their lives at all.
(not all people who enjoy their job completely, are also REALLY good at it)
this would mean people who DON'T enjoy their jobs, but are seriously amazing at it, would just say "screw this i can just flip burgers and live just as well"

i mean, there are seriously inherent flaws in the system.

communism would be better if there was literally an utter lack of corruption / leader believed utterly in human rights.

but who cares, i'm not political at all, i vote based off which of the candidates are more believable / which one lies less.

i'm a decent judge of character, and i've dealt with liars my entire life, it doesn't matter what their stances are in political debates, unless it is inhumane(my definition / opinion of inhumane) as long as they aren't outright lying, or throwing blame at another candidate.

i don't like either of the candidates this time... both of them are lying and saying "ohh he's outsourcing to other countries" and so on.
i could care less about outsourcing, but blaming other people to try and make them look worse than yourself is childish.

we don't need a child as a president

Do you really think that innovators and inventors did what they did so they could become rich? (and I'm talking about the ones that did meaningful things, not "as seen on tv" shit like the slip and slide)

[BLCalliente]

Do you really think that innovators and inventors did what they did so they could become rich? (and I'm talking about the ones that did meaningful things, not "as seen on tv" shit like the slip and slide)

Of course. Hardcore capitalists would have everyone believe that money is the only motivator.

[hughh]

It's not the only motivator, but it is a major motivator.

---------- Post added 2012-07-16 at 09:25 PM ----------

You dismiss my entire post as "you have no idea what you're talking about" and then come up with something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I talked about. That's called "trying too damn hard".




This high-school student argument again?

Why would anyone work hard if all they need is provided to them? If people can't have luxuries, then why even put in an effort?

[Knight Gil]

Why would anyone work hard if all they need is provided to them? If people can't have luxuries, then why even put in an effort?

First of all, because it's capitalism that creates the lazy mentality that work is supposed to be a bore and that money is the only motivation for someone to work. When money is promoted as the only reason to work, as it is done in such a society, you don't find any self gratification in your work, which leads to depression and a lot of other shit (not surprisingly, USA is one of the countries where people take more anti depressants).


Second, because what you need =/= luxuries. People who stand up for socialism are asking for basic things, like free healthcare and education, not free iPods or HD TVs

[hughh]

First of all, because it's capitalism that creates the lazy mentality that work is supposed to be a bore and that money is the only motivation for someone to work. When money is promoted as the only reason to work, as it is done in such a society, you don't find any self gratification in your work, which leads to depression and a lot of other shit (not surprisingly, USA is one of the countries where people take more anti depressants).


Second, because what you need =/= luxuries. People who stand up for socialism are asking for basic things, like free healthcare and education, not free iPods or HD TVs

No amount of revamping a governing body will change the mindset (or goals) of a person. A person in the United States decides where they work, not the other way around. I am choosing to go into photography as a career. It's something I enjoy. But I can't just sit here and say "I'm going to be a photographer!" and it magically happens. I have to weigh the pros and cons. I have to make list of what I will need to do. I have to understand that probably, I won't make a lot, but still, it makes me happy. I have goals for my life, and I try not to inflate them to disproportionate sizes. The joy of capitalism is the freedom. Sadly, most people don't understand that freedom doesn't mean their life will be filled with milk and honey.

[Rukentuts]

First of all, because it's capitalism that creates the lazy mentality that work is supposed to be a bore and that money is the only motivation for someone to work. When money is promoted as the only reason to work, as it is done in such a society, you don't find any self gratification in your work, which leads to depression and a lot of other shit (not surprisingly, USA is one of the countries where people take more anti depressants).


Second, because what you need =/= luxuries. People who stand up for socialism are asking for basic things, like free healthcare and education, not free iPods or HD TVs

There is no such thing as free healthcare and education. The vast majority of those asking for socialism are those that refuse to buy healthcare insurance but don't hesitate to upgrade their computers every year.

Just the other day we had a poster talking about how he doesn't buy insurance because he is 26 and healthy and doesn't 'need' it. This lack of understanding of what insurance is, is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

[exochaft]

Just the other day we had a poster talking about how he doesn't buy insurance because he is 26 and healthy and doesn't 'need' it. This lack of understanding of what insurance is, is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

Very true, many people do not know what insurance really is.

A super simplified version is that it's two parties making a bet against each other: the insurance company is betting on the insured person will not get sick, and the insured person is making a bet that they will get sick. The insurance premium you pay to the insurance company is a reflection of how much trust the company has that you will not get sick... the more likely you are to get sick, the higher your premium will be. The terms of your insurance policy dictate what you get in return if you get sick. There's a reason why insurance companies do not insure some preexisting conditions... in a horse race, would you bet on a horse that you know will collapse before reaching the finish line?

No, insurance companies are not around for humanitarian reasons, sorry to say. It's just an over-glorified version of gambling. The insurance company wins if you never get sick, or the costs associated with your care via your policy are less than the sum of your premiums. You win if you get sick (...sorry, I don't like winning like this, personally) and your costs are greater than the sum of your premiums. If the insurance company has too many sick people covered under its policies, they will likely go out of business in the long run.

If you want to relate this to a nationalized healthcare system, I'll be happy to.

There are two angles to look at this: the government forces insurance companies to cover people, or there's a separate government agency that is an "insurance company."

First, let's start with the government forcing private companies to cover people. Likely, if you're forcing an insurance company to cover people, it's people they normally wouldn't cover (i.e. the government forces a private insurance company to make a bad bet... sound familiar to the 2008 housing loans situation in the US?). The best result is that the insurance company begins taking losses, and in order to break even (have to pay the bills, make sure you don't lay off employees, and have capital to improve existing services) they must raise the cost of their health insurance. The worst result is that the insurance company cannot make up the losses by being force to take on "bad bets," and the company goes out of business... and everyone insured by the company is suddenly uninsured, regardless of their health status.

Secondly, let's tackle a separate government agency that acts as a health insurance company. I have an issue with the government making bets of any kind with my tax dollars, and since we've established that healthcare insurance is really just gambling (didn't know gambling was a basic "need" of people)... enough said. However, let's continue!

This government insurance agency would likely be required to cover anyone that applies, I mean it's the nice thing to do, right? While it may be labeled as free, you still pay a premium... it's your taxes. If you still are privately insured, you may still be paying for government insurance since you don't personally direct where your taxes go. You can't make a government program out of nothing, in order to start such a program, taxes go up or funds are taken away from other government programs. However, since governments tend to grow and really don't like removing programs, the likeliest outcome is that taxes increase.

Regardless, since everyone's potentially covered, this government agency is already starting out by making a worse bet than the private companies (since it will take on those with preexisting conditions not allows by private insurance companies). Just by this act alone, the government insurance costs more than private insurance, assuming the exact same quality/quantity of care in both cases.... moving on. If enough people get sick or use services under their government policy, the revenue stream must be increased at the very least to break even... guess what, taxes go up or funds are taken away from other government programs. Again, the natural tendency of a government will be to tax instead of letting go of "necessary" programs.

I'm sure there are those that will say that the government will not increase their taxes because the politicians have sworn not to! Sure, it's possible to not increase people taxes (since that would be pretty unpopular, no one likes higher taxes on themselves). Can you suddenly stop covering people that are "bad bets"? Well... you could in a way, but you can't directly drop coverage. The only method is to reduce the quality and quantity of the care given. That means non-optimal procedures/treatment if it's cheaper to do so, longer waits to receive treatment, stopping treatment after a certain milestone (such as being terminally ill, too old, pick your flavor), etc. Remember, this all assumes that the government is just as efficient as a private insurance company, otherwise things will innately cost more to execute... yes, I'm certain most people would agree that's likely a bad assumption.

Now... combine both scenarios where the government forms its own insurance agency while forcing private insurance companies to accept everyone who applies (and everyone must be covered by health insurance under pain of tax- er, I mean, penalty... maybe it's a tax... whatever)! From the first scenario, the premiums of the private insurance companies will go up. If people cannot afford the higher premiums, they'll have to join the government insurance program (which is "free"). However, since the number of people covered by the government increased, their "premiums" have to go up, resulting in worse care and/or tax increases. If you increase taxes, less people will be able to afford private insurance (whose premiums already went up from lost membership due to just being force to take on people), who will have to join the government healthcare.... see the self-defeating cycle?

Oh, wait! We can tax those mean, nasty rich people! God saves a kitten every time you increase taxes on rich people! Who do you think owns those insurance companies? You take away more of their money, as in any business the savings (or cost) gets passed onto the consumer (via insurance premiums) in order to maintain the status quo. You reduce the amount of money they make indirectly since they are going to lose insured people for all the reasons stated previous, reducing the tax revenue received from the nasty, rich people... the only way to keep things at the status quo for the funding of the government program is to continually increase the taxes on the rich, which... alright, another self-defeating cycle.

The end result is likely almost every average person is on the government healthcare system, since only the super rich (assuming they aren't taxed into oblivion) can afford the best private healthcare coverage or treatment out-of-pocket. This means the quality/quantity of care for the average person is worse, taxes are higher and/or the cost of living overall has decreased to do taxes trickling down.

Despite all I have presented, there will still be bleeding hearts about "poor little Timmy" who, due to his lot in life, cannot get private healthcare insurance and cannot afford medical bills, and nationalized healthcare must be the answer. Sorry, I'm not going to bring the quality of life down for my fellow citizens, there are better ways to help little Timmy.

As I've stated in previous posts, I had a very poor upbringing to the point where meals weren't guaranteed every night, but through the charity of friends, neighbors, my church, and even strangers, I was able to come to a better life. No one was forcing them to help us, they did out of the goodness of their hearts. There was no government involvement or aid that helped me and my family. Yes, I'm certain even little Timmy could get enough help for treatment without the government pointing a gun at people's heads demanding they empty their pockets. There are fundraisers, volunteer programs, and non-government funded charity clinics/hospitals that will take little Timmy with little to no costs even today! Yes, even those evil, rich guys donate money to such ventures, and it's not just because they want to lower their tax bracket. Regardless, you don't need the government to force people to do charity (at which point, I believe it ceases to be charity), charity happens naturally when you allow it to.

Sorry, this post got rather long! But to make just one quick note: if you think the reason insurance is necessary because of the cost of treatment, nationalizing the system will only make it worse. There are many different ways to tackle this problem, since government has a big role to play in why these costs are high... but that's another (lengthy) post.

[ishootblanks]

my vote is to roll Exochaft's posts into a single sticky to be referenced at will..

[Wells]

my vote is to roll Exochaft's posts into a single sticky to be referenced at will..

Why? His entire long winded post is predicated on one thing that is observably not true:

The end result is likely almost every average person is on the government healthcare system, since only the super rich (assuming they aren't taxed into oblivion) can afford the best private healthcare coverage or treatment out-of-pocket. This means the quality/quantity of care for the average person is worse, taxes are higher and/or the cost of living overall has decreased to do taxes trickling down.

1) Some of the best performing health care system in the world are fully public.
2) Cost per person (because its horrible dishonest to look at taxes and ignore what we spend here in America out of pocket) is much lower in single payer systems

[ishootblanks]

Why? His entire long winded post is predicated on one thing that is observably not true:

1) Some of the best performing health care system in the world are fully public.
2) Cost per person (because its horrible dishonest to look at taxes and ignore what we spend here in America out of pocket) is much lower in single payer systems

can you back up any of that?

[Wells]

can you back up any of that?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

WHO placed France at number 1. Have to go down to 10 before you hit anything I would call even close to "free market".

And here's spending by nation



So yes, his argument stands in direct and clear conflict with observable reality.

[Deleted]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

WHO placed France at number 1. Have to go down to 10 before you hit anything I would call even close to "free market".

And here's spending by nation
[pic]

So yes, his argument stands in direct and clear conflict with observable reality.

Not saying that you're wrong, but I wouldn't say that 12 year old stats (the WHO ranking) represents the observable reality that well.

[Wells]

Not saying that you're wrong, but I wouldn't say that 12 year old stats (the WHO ranking) represents the observable reality that well.

Fair enough, but it still counters his claim that single payer delivers poor care.

[mittacc]

So we shouldn't reward har work? lol ok... I personally believe that people that work their asses off for a good education should be awarded acordingly, have you seen a lawyers homework?(i haven't, but i bet it is A LOT). I myself am going to study robotics and i think that i damn well deserve some cash after i've gotten A's, B's and C's my entire school time, on our national test on all subjects i only got 3wrong answes total over all subjects. Don't i deserve something for working hard?

[Wells]

So we shouldn't reward har work? lol ok... I personally believe that people that work their asses off for a good education should be awarded acordingly, have you seen a lawyers homework?(i haven't, but i bet it is A LOT). I myself am going to study robotics and i think that i damn well deserve some cash after i've gotten A's, B's and C's my entire school time, on our national test on all subjects i only got 3wrong answes total over all subjects. Don't i deserve something for working hard?

I'm not sure where people get this idea that socialism means hard work won't get you anywhere.

[mittacc]

I'm not sure where people get this idea that socialism means hard work won't get you anywhere.

Higher tax=less reward for hard work and doing nothing is actually rewarded...

[Knight Gil]

No amount of revamping a governing body will change the mindset (or goals) of a person.

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

You're objectively wrong.

A person in the United States decides where they work, not the other way around. I am choosing to go into photography as a career. It's something I enjoy. But I can't just sit here and say "I'm going to be a photographer!" and it magically happens. I have to weigh the pros and cons. I have to make list of what I will need to do. I have to understand that probably, I won't make a lot, but still, it makes me happy. I have goals for my life, and I try not to inflate them to disproportionate sizes.

Having goals for your life is not incompatible with socialism.

The joy of capitalism is the freedom. Sadly, most people don't understand that freedom doesn't mean their life will be filled with milk and honey.

I do understand that most of the time a capitalist corporation throws around the word "freedom" it is a sugar-coated word to defend that regulations or taxes shouldn't exist. Which is pretty ridiculous and a more utopian idea than communism.

There is no such thing as free healthcare and education.

Semantics. "Free" means that anyone will be able to be educated and healed, by competent services, whether they are rich or poor. Which is an idea that obviously displeases capitalists who thinks it makes them better of a person and more deserving of such services and even a hard working citizen if they are richer.

The vast majority of those asking for socialism are those that refuse to buy healthcare insurance but don't hesitate to upgrade their computers every year.

Bullshit.

Just the other day we had a poster talking about how he doesn't buy insurance because he is 26 and healthy and doesn't 'need' it. This lack of understanding of what insurance is, is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

Healthcare through a speculation business is a retarded thing. Thinking that it's a good idea to force people to buy insurance, and blame people that won't buy it instead of understanding their reasons to not do so proves how out of touch with reality capitalists are.

I'm not sure where people get this idea that socialism means hard work won't get you anywhere.

That and the assumption of how every capitalist is a hard working, honest individual.