Socialism and socialistic legislation being pushed are just more excuses for the government to expand its size and scope. If the U.S. dollar wasn't so devalued this "problem" wouldn't exist at all. I went to the grocery store to buy 1 (one) roll of toilet paper (and this is just generic store brand, mind you) and it cost me $1.07, whereas a decade ago it would only have cost me just .50¢, if that.
It's time people start looking around at what's happening over at the banking cartel know as the Federal Reserve, which is why it needs to be audited.
Why is there so much hate for socialism in America! There doesn't seem to be very much here in Canada!
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-05 4:27
>>2
I really don't think so. The truth is people are angry about their HMO's, healthcare costs about twice as much per capita as Canada and western europe, yet the infant mortality rate is higher. We need to find a way to reduce healthcare costs, and in order for republicans to redeem themselves (I take you as a libertarian, but whatever) they need to stop pretending there is no problem and actually do something about it.
If I wasn't pro single payer, I would be in support of anti trust suits. The healthcare industry is monopolized, and it's gouging the consumer.
>>4
Well, I do agree with most Libertarian beliefs.
healthcare costs about twice as much per capita as Canada and western europe
Yes, because the middle class are buying less with more money. Which is why I mentioned that the U.S. dollar is very devalued at this point. The dollar is valued at 96% less than what it was valued in 1914. This affects every single exchange in the nation, not just healthcare.
We need to find a way to reduce healthcare costs, and in order for republicans to redeem themselves (I take you as a libertarian, but whatever) they need to stop pretending there is no problem and actually do something about it.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not going to lie, the Republican party has most definitely lost its way and has strayed so far from its original principals that it would appear they are almost indistinguishable from the Democrat party, in respect to Government expansion (although most are voting nay on healthcare reform).
If I wasn't pro single payer, I would be in support of anti trust suits. The healthcare industry is monopolized, and it's gouging the consumer.
Once again, wholeheartedly agree. There needs to be anti trust suits filed against these companies and split them up into smaller independent companies so there's more competition. Having more companies compete with each other in the free market will drive prices down, thus allowing the consumer to afford healthcare much more easily.
It worked on Standard Oil, it worked on AT&T, I wish it had worked with Microsoft too, but they are being watched closely.
But I believe that the free market would be able to reform healthcare, not Government. I believe that the Government should not get involved, except to split up these companies and allow much more competition than what is already available.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-05 13:16
>>2
Pretty much. It's funny how so called cynics are only cynical about business leaders in the private sector but not about politicians, the truth is the government is worse because while businesses are motivated to act unethically they can't be inefficient or they will lose out to competition whereas the government can be both inefficient and unethical and get away with it, as long as the mayor has a black face or is a fundy they will have secured enough votes from minorities/christfags to stay in power.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-05 13:19
>>3
Because McCarthy was right, socialism is pretty much about having the state provide everything for us which is fucking stupid. I can accept that the state can provide some services more efficiently but we are only looking at things like emergency services, the army, courts and system of representation. Even roads and education could be provided more efficiently by the private sector if the government would replace it's direct bureaucratic control with regulations.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-05 13:23
>>4
The US pays about the same amount in state healthcare per capita as similiar developed countries, it's just on top of that they have to fund the research and development needed by America's legendary pharmaceutical corporations cure these disease in the first place. You see the US is the centre of the world's medical research unlike the rest of the world which simply lets America advance mankind before plagiarising the research like some commie Chinese bootlegger and gloating at how they get to pay less.
Name:
andrei2009-08-06 0:14
>Why are Americans still in the Cold Par/Post WWII mentality that "BETTER DED DEN RED".
it's not just americans. ask the citizens of any former soviet nation and they'll agree with you...
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-06 21:58
One problem with socialism is that it makes people lose their responsibility for themselves and always assume someone else is taking the responsibility.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 6:12
>>5
the free market would solve the financial problem for most people(after the anti trust laws were enforced obviously), but capitalism and medicine just don't go good together. it's profitable for people to be sick, so instead of finding cure's they'd be creating temporary fixes for people to become dependent on.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 12:09
>>9
you best be trolling nigger. a lot of people want it back
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 12:20
>>12
yeah, the sub-humans who refuse to work and can't handle freedom
>>11 but capitalism and medicine just don't go good together. it's profitable for people to be sick, so instead of finding cure's they'd be creating temporary fixes for people to become dependent on.
I don't agree that capitalism wouldn't benefit medicine. Profit is not the problem (although excess profit is a problem), and socialism or any other -ism is most definitely not the way to go.
The problem is also lobbying politicians who enact laws that are for the companies interests and not the peoples. Like you said, it's profitable for people to be sick, which is probably why raw milk is legal in only 28 out of 50 states. If these companies weren't big monopolies, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Having a completely socialized medical industry is not going to change the fact that this corruption exists in Washington.
Best solution is anti trust suits, and more competition, the government can't even correctly maintain highways and a Cash For Clunkers program, and we expect them to be able to able to run our medical programs efficiently? That's ridiculous!
Americans need to know what this shit really means for them and their country before they get all teary eyed about dying poor people.
In Europe the large publically funded healthcare sytems give government almost unlimited scope to do whatever they want. Want to ride that motorbike without a helmet, or with a half face helmet? Sorry, pieceing your head together costs too much, we'll ban that. Want to smoke that ciggarette indoors? Sorry that'll damage too many peoples health, we'll ban all smoking indoors in buildings open to the public (this happened in the UK). The government runs adverts on tv telling people to stop smoking, to stop eating fatty foods, to exercise. The NHS periodically send me and everyone else between 18-25, letters telling me to go and get screened for STD's. And this is small fry, I can think of many many examples of this where the NHS and health cost of something has been the reasoning for it, even changes in the school curriculm.
Big healthcare systems are the wet dream of socialists, they give almost unlimited scope for the government to corral and controll. You better realise what you are getting yourselves and your children in for. When every problem you might have has an economic cost to someone somewhere they have all the reasoning they need to do what they want.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 17:59
Capitalism works with medicine thanks to health insurance. They don't want people to get ill so they don't have to pay out so they will encourage members to get the most effective treatments, they distribute information like how to catch cancer early and avoid STDS and they dish out incentives for people to give up smoking, drinking or obesity so people who look after their health don't have to pay for smokers, drinkers and the disgustingly obese.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 18:20
>>18
But with health insurance they just neglect the sick people. I wouldn't say that "works".
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 19:50
>>19
Well that just goes back to my original argument that there is lack of competition amongst the insurance companies. More competition = better for the consumer because it drives prices down. Sick people that get "neglected" are usually the unfortunate poor souls that are the real victims of less competition amongst the companies. The way Government should step in is to split up these monolithic giants, anything else just leads to the Government increasing its size and scope.
I agree with the European in >>17 , and almost all Republicans are against Obama's planned healthcare reform including even Ron Paul. I've heard from countless UK citizens online that the system is generally a failure, and they wish to go back to a free market system. Is this what we really want as a country?
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 21:03
"More competition = better for the consumer because it drives prices down. Sick people that get "neglected" are usually the unfortunate poor souls that are the real victims of less competition amongst the companies."
Thats such a nonsence. Competition in the marked leads to pricefights,as you say. They try to lower prices and minimize the costs. That much ,that they fire as much worker as they can and slow the medical help to a minimum. Thats what happens in all companys fullstop.
And to the "the government controlls everything" guy at 17.
That example with smoking is so freaking wrong.
Here in Germany are nearly 11.000 people dying ,because of smoking. 3.300 are dying because of the effects of passive-smoking. Dont you think,that it is the right for nonsmokers to have not cancer-producing air for them and their children if they go in a restaurant?
And thats why the governments in nearly every state of the EU (and Turkey) made those laws.
Topic:
Why the f... should a socialized mediccare lead to a dictatorship ffs?
We are now under the control of an oligarchi ,which leads the politics with their lobbys and their power,which are against a non-profit mediccare. You should know that,if you decide what you want.
>>21 That much ,that they fire as much worker as they can and slow the medical help to a minimum. Thats what happens in all companys fullstop.
That happens with any other kind of industry. Point is things would work better in a free market because, say I need to have kidney stones removed? Under a socialist government medical system, I would have to wait three weeks just to even see a doctor, under the free market, I can see a doctor same day, and have the kidney stones removed next day if not, two days later.
And to the "the government controlls everything" guy at 17.
That example with smoking is so freaking wrong.
Here in Germany are nearly 11.000 people dying ,because of smoking. 3.300 are dying because of the effects of passive-smoking. Dont you think,that it is the right for nonsmokers to have not cancer-producing air for them and their children if they go in a restaurant?
And thats why the governments in nearly every state of the EU (and Turkey) made those laws.
I agree, however I believe here in the U.S. that that should be left up to the individual states and not the federal government. Which is actually the case anyway.
Topic:
Why the f... should a socialized mediccare lead to a dictatorship ffs?
We are now under the control of an oligarchi ,which leads the politics with their lobbys and their power,which are against a non-profit mediccare. You should know that,if you decide what you want.
I don't know the law in your country, but here in the U.S., the Constitution grants no authority for the government to just suddenly give hand outs to the people. Read your world history, every single nation that has had a government expand to attempt to accommodate to every single person eventually collapses, becomes a Democracy (which is a bad thing if you understand that the United States isn't a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic), then an oligarchy.
Healthcare is a good, not a right and should not be a right. I agree that it should be affordable (even to poor people), but certainly not a right. Rights are personal liberty, free speech, ect.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-08 7:07
>>21 And to the "the government controlls everything" guy at 17.
That example with smoking is so freaking wrong.
Here in Germany are nearly 11.000 people dying ,because of smoking. 3.300 are dying because of the effects of passive-smoking. Dont you think,that it is the right for nonsmokers to have not cancer-producing air for them and their children if they go in a restaurant?
And thats why the governments in nearly every state of the EU (and Turkey) made those laws.
That is not the point. When I goto a bar as a non-smoker I choose to go into that persons property, as it is their property they should have dominion over what they want to do therer and if they soke so be it. I made the choice.
Here is a question - if you could walk into a pub/club/bar and just tell everyone they are not allowed to smoje and they had to do it would you do that? If not, why should the government do it? I wouldn't do it beacuse I have some fucking manners.
This is exactly the socialist attiude that Europeans don't realise they have.
>>20 I agree with the European in >>17 , and almost all Republicans are against Obama's planned healthcare reform including even Ron Paul. I've heard from countless UK citizens online that the system is generally a failure, and they wish to go back to a free market system. Is this what we really want as a country?
People do want national healthcare but it simply isn't viable anymore. That is why the government does al this stuff to keep people healthy, beacuse treatment for people doing what they want is too expensive. It is rapidly becomming privatised, it is already semi that way.
so you want us to break up the big companies into seperate, smaller companies?
Or do you want a new health insurance company out there to get squashed by the bigger, larger companies who can maneuver the red tape?
Either way, it means no mass mergers and monitoring how big companies get.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-09 18:27
>>22becomes a Democracy (which is a bad thing if you understand that the United States isn't a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic), then an oligarchy
To my knowledge, all democracies have constitutions limiting government power in this day and age. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Even then, we've had dynasties as well...sort of. I mean, not every Kennedy became president, but they have had roles of power/roles in the government. The Bush's as well, to a lesser extent.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-09 18:29
>>24 so you want us to break up the big companies into seperate[sic], smaller companies?
Yes I would encourage that. And I would wish that government do that instead of expanding itself to provide healthcare.
>>25
Well, yes, but there is a fundamental difference between a Democracy and a Republic. I'm not sure how it is in other nations, but the United States is a Republic, always has been. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention anything about the U.S. being a Democracy.
>>28
The word "Democracy" shouldn't be used, because it can spread confusion. I agree that it is a "Representative Democracy" or a "Electoral Democracy", but it is often shortened to just "Democracy" which is an ill advised thing to perpetuate since as I said earlier that it can spread confusion and have people make the mistake that the United States isn't a Republic.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-10 22:11
Okay, as far as socialized or at least reformed health care goes, I have a good, personal story. In my high school years (only a couple years ago, now) my father was about 8 or so years into multiple sclerosis and didn't take terribly good care of his body at that, so he didn't really have the drive to do much, let alone work a job. We got social security because my mother died when I was young, and he got disability payments, which were cut in half because of the social security. His insurance also covered some of his cheap meds that helped him get some energy and lift his mood, but not the daily betaseron/copaxone injections that actually help prevent the disease from getting worse. We couldn't really afford additionally health insurance for me because we always saved up for vehicle patch-ups (a car that's as old as I am, a truck that's older)and other emergencies (We lived in the outskirts of a town, one of the only places we could afford rent. Going anywhere required a motorized vehicle). My dad tried to get me into the MI Child health care program which I believe was free. Unfortunately, he received too much money from SS and disability insurance to get me into the program.
TL;DR: When I was in my teens, my father had too much income to get me into a state sponsored program and too little to afford buying insurance. I think that's a pretty big problem.
Now we have SCHIP, no salary limits, all children are insured if there parents sign them up.
Problem fixed.
Why doesn't anyone actually know what the fuck they're talking about?
P.S. The bastard gubmint added more taxes to cigarettes in order to pay for SCHIP. I'm still a minor and smoking cigarettes, so I guess in a way, I'm paying for my own insurance if I get it within the next year or so.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-11 5:57
>>29
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the US is a republic? >>30
That's more due to systemwide bureaucratic inefficiency.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-11 10:42
You people and your crazy European programs. At least we don't have to deal with that crap in America.
>>32 Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the US is a republic?
It's a very good thing that the US is a Republic, because that's exactly what the founding fathers intended.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-11 12:56
I HATE women. I never had a girlfriend and never will. The only times I got laid was when I paid a woman or promised her something. I'm never going to hold hands with a chick, kiss a girl intimately because we're in love, or any of the other shit that human beings were made to do. I guess that I'm suppose to be happy masturbating every fucking night. I'm a man with sexual urges and can't get with a female. I'm suppose to be alright with that? THERE IS A FUCKING CURSE ON MY LIFE. A CURSE THAT PREVENTS ANY FEMALE FROM LIKING ME. Oh I forgot, I do get interest from fat chicks and I'm not attracted to fat chicks.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm going to become the biggest asshole in the world. I tried the whole being considerate thing and it got me nowhere. If people can't handle my newfound harshness, then bring it on. BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
I get happy when I hear about some college slut getting murdered or injured in a hit and run. "oh she was a beautiful and talented girl, how could this happen." I don't know but I'm glad it did.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-11 12:56
I HATE women. I never had a girlfriend and never will. The only times I got laid was when I paid a woman or promised her something. I'm never going to hold hands with a chick, kiss a girl intimately because we're in love, or any of the other shit that human beings were made to do. I guess that I'm suppose to be happy masturbating every fucking night. I'm a man with sexual urges and can't get with a female. I'm suppose to be alright with that? THERE IS A FUCKING CURSE ON MY LIFE. A CURSE THAT PREVENTS ANY FEMALE FROM LIKING ME. Oh I forgot, I do get interest from fat chicks and I'm not attracted to fat chicks.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm going to become the biggest asshole in the world. I tried the whole being considerate thing and it got me nowhere. If people can't handle my newfound harshness, then bring it on. BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
I get happy when I hear about some college slut getting murdered or injured in a hit and run. "oh she was a beautiful and talented girl, how could this happen." I don't know but I'm glad it did.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-11 13:21
>>32
what's more due to bureaucratic inefficiencies?