Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[Deleted]

I was never taught about the US/Canadian war in school, was it Indians in 1221 or something?

Nope, they wanted to liberate the Canadians or something, who were happy to be her Majesty's subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

[namelessone]

When England stepped back from their role as a superpower for the first time in hundreds of years what did we get? WWI and WWII.

This is a very arguable statement. You say it's when England stepped back from their role of the superpower, I say it's precisely BECAUSE of the England's role as a superpower that WWI began. Because smaller nations could no longer stand being "left out" by large colonial powers. It can also be argued that WWI itself ended the England as superpower. Sure, US is controlling rogue states, but then, how many rogue states went rogue in the first place BECAUSE of the opposition to US control? In a sense, US leads the fight against the very monsters it inadvertently helped to create. Case in point - Osama Bin Laden.

EDIT: I just noticed we are WAY off topic.

[Endus]

I'm sorry but if you really believe that then you have never heard of a regional monopoly.

There you go, changing the argument because you can't win on the terms you chose.

It doesn't matter, since pharmacorps don't HAVE to sell to Canada. They do because we're still a profitable customer to sell to. We just negotiate a good price. It's no different than a corporation negotiating a really good deal from Chevrolet for their fleet of company cars. They're willing to sell at a lower price, at a lower cost per unit, because they're guaranteeing a large bulk of sales, for a large total net profit.

You really don't see how the world is better off without a power vacuum? When was the last time something like annexation was a real concern of any nation that wasn't in Africa? Would you argue that threat of American intervention doesn't keep West-hating nations such as Iran from applying pressure to Europe via the Strait of Hormuz?

I never claimed any of that. I was pointing out that the world adjusts, and that the current state of the world, with a single nation as the main superpower, is not recognizably more "peaceful" than it was with more. It's just a different type of conflict. And the entire military-industrial complex the US supports encourages conflict. The goal isn't to make the world peaceful, it's to manage conflict so that it doesn't hurt US interests.

What keeps North Korea from marching into South Korea? What stops China from gobbling up Taiwan or straight up annexing Japanese/Korean territory? Who do you think prevented Russia from just going hog-wild all over Europe right after WW2? Surely you don't think these nations rest on their laurels because they don't and didn't want anything.

What stopped the US from invading sovereign nations and deposing leaders in unfriendly nations? Oh, right, nothing, they just ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway, on what we now know to have been falsified claims of WMDs (I'm not assigning blame to any particular individuals, since that's a bit more squirrely, but that the intel was false is a fact).

What stopped the US from establishing and funding terrorist groups in other nations, in the hopes that the unrest they caused would prevent their enemies from gaining ground? Nothing. Even when it was a dude named Osama Bin Laden who was getting that funding and training.

The US has not been a force for world peace.

[Laize]

2008, Georgia.

Russia was perfectly capable of handling that. We don't have to be involved in everything.

I wouldn't, however the US pretty much caused the problem and keeps throwing oil onto it. If there wasn't the US, don't you worry that we would actually have defense budgets.

That's possible, if unlikely given what happened in the 40s. Assuming history is any indicator, of course.

South Korean army and a terrible economy, in all likelihood.

If you think the people in North Korea are worried about their economy then you haven't been doing a lot of research on North Korea.

Other people are watching and said people might embargo them if they started doing shit like that. Also it's hard invading Japan, I hear.

It was at one time. I don't think today's Hello Kitty Japan is really up to the task of standing up to a juggernaut like China without assistance, however.

Surely Russia wasn't a superpower and does not defeat your argument.

If you think that, then you don't understand what a political superpower is.

The Soviet Union was absolutely a superpower. The only reason they fell was because their top-down economy became unsustainable given the size of the state and disquieted masses who were sick of being put through the Gulag for speaking ill of their inept politicians.

[GennGreymane]

Because with social medicine certain TV series cant run

but but.... whose going to help jesse

[Masark]

Do they even have a Navy?

Yes. Currently consists of 12 frigates, 3 destroyers, 4 submarines, 12 coastal defense ships, and various other miscellany.

[Jaojin]

Interesting article I was browsing on Yahoo before seeing this. Relevant to the topic, but you have to read it.

http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/world-...233204795.html

A snippet:

Indeed, most of the top 20 "happiest" countries according to the index are in western Europe. So what gives? What do these nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity?

Being an electoral democracy is virtually a given – of the top 20 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren't democracies. Being small also seems to help. Big countries with heterogeneous populations are more unwieldy; disparate groups make it harder for a society to build social cohesion and trust.

What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don't let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor.

[pucGG]

I just had non-essential surgery in my chest (a procedure which took around 2 hours of operating) and it left me with a bill of around 15 USD... lol
So tell me, why does socialized medicine suck again? This procedure would've cost around 6000 dollars if I had funded it privately....

Between highscool and college I worked for 1 year. In that one year I payed 28.000 dollars in taxes. Majority of that money went to the health department of the government. Seeing that I am a healthy individual, I haven't got much bang for my buck.

[Masark]

Between highscool and college I worked for 1 year. In that one year I payed 28.000 dollars in taxes. Majority of that money went to the health department of the government. Seeing that I am a healthy individual, I haven't got much bang for my buck.

Is that $28 or $28000?

[Cjeska]

Bill Hicks recognized the fascist corporate state in america was the single biggest threat to liberty and freedom. He would indeed welcome socialized medicine as a means to overcome the massive healthcare industry.

I welcome your comment on my post as proof of what I just said, thank you very much. If you have something of value to add, please do so, I would hate having to talk about your avatar and pretend I knew what the person in your avatar would have thought about the subject at hand.

And just to throw that in, the stocks of major pharmaceutical companys went up the moment obamacare was approved, just give that a moment of thought, will ya? Socialized medicine doesn't make it cheaper (quite the opposite) it just leaves others with the bill, and I find this attitude disgusting to say the least. The system is broken, and it's not government intervention that can fix it, it's the free market that can, but it isn't allowed to work in the healthcare industry.

Just watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPdkhMVdMQ

[pucGG]

Is that $28 or $28000?

The latter.

[Endus]

I was never taught about the US/Canadian war in school, was it Indians in 1221 or something?

They may not rely on it, but the benefit from it and therefor dont need much defense. Do they even have a Navy?

Seriously, dude, crack a book sometime.

The War of 1812 was one of the only times the US was invaded by an enemy force. The British, as retaliation, sailed down and set fire to DC.

And Canada doesn't rely on the US at all. We benefit somewhat from defense systems, like those used against ballistic missiles, but we're mostly at risk against weapons like that because of the US. That line of argument is essentially the same as shoving a buddy over the edge of a balcony, and then pulling him back, and saying "dude, I totally just saved your life, you owe me".

[Deleted]

And that about wraps up this discussion.

Though I'm sure conservatards are gonna start blabbing all over this thread about how socialism doesn't work, despite mountains of empirical data that says otherwise.

Sure. Socialism is 100% better than Capitalism, and ALWAYS works. It's not like these two systems are debatable, subjective and comes down to preference.
Don't be an idiot who only sees one side of it, thank you.

As for OP. It comes to this: Do you want to everybody to pay into 1 big pile of money, which then gets divided amongst the people who need/use the hospital.
It's just a matter if you're willing to pay for other people as well. It's only cheaper for the people who goes to the hospital and gets regularly ill.

I'm from Denmark. We have social liberalism, with the highest taxes in the world, and it does work. Personally i just don't like paying for other people. Again... Subjective.

[namelessone]

Yes. Currently consists of 12 frigates, 3 destroyers, 4 submarines, 12 coastal defense ships, and various other miscellany.

And one Stephen Harper with a shotgun riding a specially trained harp seal.

[Greeney]

Canada also has to pay very little if any for national defense since the US pretty much protects Canada with their defense

Right, because Canada gets attacked like every day and the US comes to our aid all the zero times Canada has been attacked in your living memory! That was a ridiculous comment.

USA spends way too much on the military, much more than they need (much more than both US and Canada needs even!), and millions of Americans could have a significantly better quality of life if so many people stopped wetting their pants every time they heard the word "socialized."

I have a better idea though, which shouldn't even affect the budget of the military OR increase your personal taxes; Just tax the freaking churches and let that money pay for medicare. Now everyone can be happy besides a few pastor's who don't get to live in multimillion dollar homes.

[Endus]

Sure. Socialism is 100% better than Capitalism, and ALWAYS works. It's not like these two systems are debatable, subjective and comes down to preference.

You need to be clear whether you mean "socialism" in an economic sense, or a political sense; they aren't the same.

"Socialism" in a political sense means social welfare programs. Every first world country is socialist to a fairly extensive degree already, even the US.

"Socialism" in an economic sense means co-operatives and union ownership. The root difference between economic socialism and capitalism can be boiled down thus; capitalism is banks, socialism is credit unions. Yes, you can have both in the same system.


If you think "socialism" means anything else, you are, to be blunt, wrong. Crack a dictionary sometime.

[Miscer]

ITT we get to hear from everyone that doesn't live in the U.S tell us how bad it is.

[Deleted]

Russia was perfectly capable of handling that. We don't have to be involved in everything.

You know, when you asked me which nation was threatened with annexion, I wasn't expecting you to tell me that we should have let the nation that could have performed the annexion do it.

That's possible, if unlikely given what happened in the 40s. Assuming history is any indicator, of course.

In the 1940s, we had a defense budget and did not want to use it.

If you think the people in North Korea are worried about their economy then you haven't been doing a lot of research on North Korea.

If you think you can double the size of your country without it collapsing if you don't have a proper running economy then I don't know why I even bother discussing with you. Even the North Korean nuts realize that; that South Korea is protected by the US is just icing on the cake.

It was at one time. I don't think today's Hello Kitty Japan is really up to the task of standing up to a juggernaut like China without assistance, however.

Hello Kitty Japan is waking up as they see that China is rising to be an aggressive superpower, which the US cannot do shit about, #1 world power or not.

If you think that, then you don't understand what a political superpower is.

The Soviet Union was absolutely a superpower. The only reason they fell was because their top-down economy became unsustainable given the size of the state and disquieted masses who were sick of being put through the Gulag for speaking ill of their inept politicians.

That's exactly what I said, superpowers are NOT beneficial to world peace. I'm sorry you didn't understand the irony.

[namelessone]

ITT we get to hear from everyone that doesn't live in the U.S tell us how bad it is.

And vice versa: people who live in US trying to tell the rest of the world how shitty it is outside of US borders.

[Glorious Leader]

I welcome your comment on my post as proof of what I just said, thank you very much. If you have something of value to add, please do so, I would hate having to talk about your avatar and pretend I knew what the person in your avatar would have thought about the subject at hand.

And just to throw that in, the stocks of major pharmaceutical companys went up the moment obamacare was approved, just give that a moment of thought, will ya? Socialized medicine doesn't make it cheaper (quite the opposite) it just leaves others with the bill, and I find this attitude disgusting to say the least. The system is broken, and it's not government intervention that can fix it, it's the free market that can, but it isn't allowed to work in the healthcare industry.

Just watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPdkhMVdMQ

The health care act passed in the united states (commonly refereed to as Obama care) is not socialized medicine. It's not even remotely close. It is indeed a massive give away to the insurance industry and is the only reason it passed. The corporate oligopoly allowed it be passed because it was just that, a massive give away. The free market CANNOT I REPEAT CANNOT do health care. I recognize that's a common talking point but the reality is the free market is not suited to everything and doesn't even really exist. Can you by uranium? How bout child slaves? The "free market" utopian ideal is in reality the vile maxim of the masters of man kind. It has almost never existed and it's contributions are neglible. Mostly it contributes to the financilization of the economy, moving jobs and employment to areas where profit margins are greater. The reality is that the free market concept and idea ignores the need for PLANNING. It's likely that most of you are actually afraid to talk about planning because of the fear engendered in large part by the corporate media state. However the future will require PLANNING. Or the species is not likely to survive. The free market principle is in actuality the principle that Adam Smith states. The vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves and nothing for other people. It is not the only principle but it is currently the only one that gets much attention.

As a side note for anyone who is interested in REAL NEWS and not the bs fed to you by the corporate media state. I recommend checking out and donating to.

www.trnn.com

The real news network IS NOT FUNDED BY ANY CORPORATION OR GOVERNMENT. They are entirely user supported. They do excellent work.