• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democracy Vs Socialism

Kelzie said:
Dude, their DOCTORS just sewed a new face on a woman. For the first time ever. In the world. Face it, you're wrong. National health care is actually far more efficient than private. Ask galen, I convinced him. Well, kind of. I asked him about it and he did the research and convinced himself.

And there are plenty of counter examples to that just look at Canada their treatment is not up to U.S. standards and you have to wait months to get that treatment. Not to mention the negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry, people put years and billions of dollars into medical r&d, so if they're not going to profit off of their work then why would they continue to do it?
 
I've done my own research on this and I came to an entirely different conclusion than Galen go to this site:

http://lucidicus.org/lu/whatlucidicusdoes.php
http://lucidicus.org/lu/newsandviews.php

Dr. Hendricks's speech from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (1957)
"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.'
"That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
Translation: "I can't counter your arguments so I'm going to pretend I'm too good for it."

:lol:


Translation: I've already countered his argument three times straight, and I'm bored.
 
Comrade Brian said:
So, anything unnecessary=socialism, what kind of screwed up logic is that?

Ya know, most of your post was going pretty well, but you're getting off track here.

It's not that fire departments are not needed, it's that fire departments are required for proper functioning of government.

I say it's a socialist idea because the function of fire-putter-outer can be performed perfectly well in the private sector, but collectivization of this industry has destroyed any opportunity for free market fire companies.

Comrade Brian said:
Socialism and capitalism can't combine. Because they are fundamentally antagonistic of each other. They are entirely different economic systems, its like trying to combine feudalism and capitalism.

That's true. Any effort to meld capitalism with socialism leaves only socialism. Fire departments are a perfect example of this.
 
Kelzie said:
Dude, their DOCTORS just sewed a new face on a woman. For the first time ever. In the world. Face it, you're wrong. National health care is actually far more efficient than private. Ask galen, I convinced him. Well, kind of. I asked him about it and he did the research and convinced himself.


No. Hannibal Lecter did it with a pocket knife...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I've done my own research on this and I came to an entirely different conclusion than Galen go to this site:


Here's the facts:

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact

A review of health care in the United States and four other industrialized, English-speaking countries, published Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs, found that the United States leads in some areas and trails in others.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4899528/from/RL.3/

You can't argue the facts. The US does not have the best health care system in the world. Ours is on the same level as other countries with national health care. The only difference is we spend TWICE as much on it. It's inefficient.

And don't worry about the poor pharmaceuticals. They're private companies. If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't sell their products. Econ 101. And they're obviously still spending money on R&D. Like I've already pointed out, France is on the forefront of new medical technology.
 
NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
Instead, the United States has opted for a makeshift system of increasing complexity and dysfunction. Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193;

Doesn't mention if that's only out of pocket expenses, or the full cost including government welfare...er subsidies. In a word, meaningless, suitable only for inflaming minds not accustomed to reading numbers.


NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries.

Is that important? If it is, there's a reason for it, and it ain't because the government hasn't nationalized the health care system. It's because the medical schools don't graduate enough doctors. Also, needless to say, this country pays doctors more than they earn elsewhere, and more than they're worth, for the most part. If there was a demand for doctors in this country, we should be seeing an influx of foreigners in the ER....I mean doctors, not Mexicans.

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries.

That's because its not free, and when things aren't free, the laws of economics dictates how they're consumed.[/quote]

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries.

So, is the problem that we spend too much money on health care, as the numbers above seem to claim, or are we not spending as much time in the hospital? Can't have it both ways.

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries.

That's because our expectations exceed reality. It's a symptom of ignorance. Does the author of that article expect the Satisfaction Index to improve when the same people that run the DMV take over the hospitals?

Needless to say the reasons for any "dissatisfaction" won't be resolved by reducing the amount of money spent on services.

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations.

No drug war. No crack babies. No permanent welfare undereducated underclass. No millions of invading hordes from Mexico. Not so much obesity. Lots of factors....all of them totally independent of dollars per capita spent.

As for the child immunization rates, most of that is either due to stupid educated parents that want their children to die of diptheria or measles, or due to stupid natives and immigrants that don't know what immunization if for. The lack of immunization isn't a due to any failure of the medical systsem. Any parent that want's their child to get immunized can get it done, either out of their own pocket, or via the established welfare programs. Except for smallpox, of course. The terrorists might be figuring out a way to infect the US tomorrow, but I can't get my girls a simply shot to protect from that.






NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita.

I haven't heard of anyone dying from lack of an MRI, like has happened in Canada...oh, wait. Canada HAS socialized medicine. Go figure.

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.

Canada doesn't have any lawyers, right? That's why the US is awash in paper. It's got nothing to do with health care.

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance.

No. They've got a subsidy. An insurance is where the client signs up for a policy, the insurer does some actuarial magic, and figures out how much risk the client presents to the company and charges him a fee based on the services contracted for and the risks involved.

The nations with socialized medicine are running a welfare program.

NewYorker Proganda Sheet said:
A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy—a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper—has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers.

We haven't loyally stuck to anything. We've simply refused to marry the pig under the veil. What we need is to get the government out of the health care business and let the free market do it's stuff. Denying all medical services to any and all lawyers would be a perfect start to reforming the majority of the problems with the US health care industry.

Kelzie said:
You can't argue the facts. The US does not have the best health care system in the world. Ours is on the same level as other countries with national health care. The only difference is we spend TWICE as much on it. It's inefficient.

Its inefficient because it's not free. The one thing the free market excells at, far better than any other method, is maximizing efficiency. Our system is clogged full of lawyers, for one thing. And the patient isn't the person actually spending money on the insurance policy. Usually, his employer is. And needless to say, the employer isn't the one enjoying the hospital stay after the employees hernia surgery, so why should he buy a policy to cover it?

Get it so the patient is the person paying for the services, and miraculous things will happen to American medical care. Third party payer is a second reason, after lawyers, for any problems that exist in the US health care industry.

(Don't agree about the lawyers? The International Space Station was designed by 535 lawyers in Washington, and not by engineers. Needless to say, it was twenty years late and billions over budget)
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Its inefficient because it's not free. The one thing the free market excells at, far better than any other method, is maximizing efficiency. Our system is clogged full of lawyers, for one thing. And the patient isn't the person actually spending money on the insurance policy. Usually, his employer is. And needless to say, the employer isn't the one enjoying the hospital stay after the employees hernia surgery, so why should he buy a policy to cover it?

Just realized how that first sentence could be read. I meant that it's not operated on free market principles, that it's over regulated and constrained.

I didn't mean that it's not "free of charge".

Sorry.
 
SA said:
Because you think a law defining and protecting private ownership of property is a "regulation".

duh.

How is it not regulating the economy?

SA said:
It is when I'm threatened with a gun to pay for it, yes, it's bad.

And I don't have to pay for the military that's main objective is to kill people?

SA said:
That's because you're using the terms incorrectly.

Fix that, and you'll have a better notion of what you're talking about.

Excuse me, any more spins on this merry-go-round of yours and I'll puke. Let me know when you understand the correct meanings of the words, I'm not going to go through this same discussion with you yet another time. I know it's a trendy socialist thing to lie about words and meanings, to steal words and meanings and use them inappropriately to make socialism look better than the pig in a pink mini-skirt it really is, but I'm done playing for now.

The terms I use are less partisan, and more logical.

SA said:
Yes it is bad because it will lead to a lack of competition in the medical profession, socialized industries have the tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.



The reason why people take on the incredibly difficult and costly task of becoming a Doctor is, because the pay is high but if it is socialized then the best and the brightest among us won't have the incentive to become Doctors and they'll go on to pursue another career path more conducive to the achievement of wealth.

It may or may not be a good idea, I just don't see why it is so different from the military.

All I'm saying is, we have a "gun put to our head" to pay for (Scarecrow talk for pay taxes for) militaries that kill people, but to do so for medicine to help people... is considered crazy. Whatever.

CB said:
What you are talking about are economic systems, capitalism is strictly economic. Economic systems are not determined by their relations to the state, they are determined by the mode of production and who owns the means of production. Take for instance capitalism, it works under the wage-system for mode of production(and a jumble of other things, but wage-system is capitalist), the people who own the means of production are bourgeousie, and are called that, because that is their relation to social-production. And since socialism is a different economic system, it abolishes the wage-system, and that has been one of the socialist's movement primary goal. So therefore throw in some other evidence too, which I would be typing all night, and you find out you are wrong.

Traditional capitalism. And I realize the socialist problem of the "bourgeoisie" taking advantage of the "proletariat" (lower class), but I also know that the marxist philosophy rests on the idea that the "proletriat" will inevitably rise up against eh "bourgeoisie" because of it's oppression. Has it happened?

CB said:
Police aren't a socialist idea, I believe that idea dates back to the Romans.

Government owned and operated, socialist.

CB said:
No, e.g. military dictatorships are hostile to socialism.

Stalin?

CB said:
Ah yes, so many examples how everything was working far better in the Industrial Revolution, etc. etc. as long as you don't count the conditions.

About as well as the Soviet Union.

CB said:
SA said:
fire departments = not required = socialistic.

So, anything unnecessary=socialism, what kind of screwed up logic is that?

Truly.

CB said:
Socialism and capitalism can't combine. Because they are fundamentally antagonistic of each other. They are entirely different economic systems, its like trying to combine feudalism and capitalism.

Well they have, however you explain it, we have a mixed economy right now with many properties of both capitalism and socialism.

AS said:
I say it's a socialist idea because the function of fire-putter-outer can be performed perfectly well in the private sector, but collectivization of this industry has destroyed any opportunity for free market fire companies.

Needlessly complex and partisan definition of socialism. If we define everything not needed or negative as socialism and everything good as capitalism we can control public opinion by calling something capitalist or socialist depending if we like it or not.

I'd rather use true, logical, bipartisan terms.

SA said:
That's true. Any effort to meld capitalism with socialism leaves only socialism. Fire departments are a perfect example of this.

That just doesn't make any sense. The US government has many socialist properties.

SA said:
No. Hannibal Lecter did it with a pocket knife...

Let it be known that my debate opponent is this guy. ^ :p
 
Has it happened?
More than you know.
Government owned and operated, socialist.
You are again under the(mistaken) impression that government is socialism.
I don't recall Stalin being a military dictator, but why did you bring him up? Also he was quite hostile to many socialists, unless the Purges never happened, unless he never instituted policies which have never been advocated socialist.
About as well as the Soviet Union.
It usually depends what period under the USSR, because not all periods were the same. Also I find it that you imply that I am pro-Soviet Union, for the most part I am not.
Well they have, however you explain it, we have a mixed economy right now with many properties of both capitalism and socialism.
Socialist properties such as? Wage-system? Government?
 
-Demosthenes- said:
And I don't have to pay for the military that's main objective is to kill people?

Just curious. Do you know which end the bullets come out?
 
Comrade Brian said:
Socialist properties such as? Wage-system? Government?

Socialist Security.
Welfare.
Department of Education/Public schools
Semi-nationalized health care industry
Medicare/Medicaid
Any taxpayer funded subsidy to any business.
.
.
.
.
 
Kelzie said:
Here's the facts:



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4899528/from/RL.3/

You can't argue the facts. The US does not have the best health care system in the world. Ours is on the same level as other countries with national health care. The only difference is we spend TWICE as much on it. It's inefficient.

And don't worry about the poor pharmaceuticals. They're private companies. If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't sell their products. Econ 101. And they're obviously still spending money on R&D. Like I've already pointed out, France is on the forefront of new medical technology.

Why bother with "facts" when you can quote the fictional works of Ayd Rand. Surly atlas shruged should be read like the bible, without any sense of questioning logic.
 
Kelzie said:
Here's the facts:



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4899528/from/RL.3/

You can't argue the facts. The US does not have the best health care system in the world. Ours is on the same level as other countries with national health care. The only difference is we spend TWICE as much on it. It's inefficient.

What four countries were analyzed; also, there are other factors at play for why we lag behind in some areas and these factors will not go away with the introduction of a national healthcare system it will make things even worse.

And don't worry about the poor pharmaceuticals. They're private companies. If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't sell their products. Econ 101. And they're obviously still spending money on R&D. Like I've already pointed out, France is on the forefront of new medical technology.

So are the companies in France, that's why their leading in new medical technology it has nothing to do with a nationalized healthcare system.
 
Last edited:
CB said:
Demo said:
Has it happened? [lower classes rebelled, taken over government and installed a Marxist government]

More than you know.

Not here. Our government must work pretty well, with it's generous amounts of capitalism and socialism.

CB said:
Government owned and operated, socialist.


You are again under the(mistaken) impression that government is socialism.

A main part, yes.

CB said:
I don't recall Stalin being a military dictator, but why did you bring him up? Also he was quite hostile to many socialists, unless the Purges never happened, unless he never instituted policies which have never been advocated socialist.

Self proclaimed "communism," totalitarianistic, secret police, and all that bad stuff. Socialism taken this far is always perverted in this way. That's why we need both capitalism and socialism.

CB said:
Socialist properties such as? Wage-system? Government?

Taxes, welfare, police/fire, public libraries, public education, business regulation, military, ect.
 
Not here. Our government must work pretty well, with it's generous amounts of capitalism and socialism.
No, because any revolution or something are not easy things, a majority end in failure, also the US has traditionally been always more prosperous than most other ountries(mostly because of the large amount of resources and land).
Self proclaimed "communism," totalitarianistic, secret police, and all that bad stuff
What do you base this from? Countries that had a one-party state that called themselves "communists"? Claiming that that is communism goes to show that you have little knowledge of it.
Taxes, welfare, police/fire, public libraries, public education, business regulation, military, ect.
Those are not socialist policies, socialism is not "welfare capitalism", military, etc. etc.
 
Comrade Brian said:
No, because any revolution or something are not easy things, a majority end in failure, also the US has traditionally been always more prosperous than most other ountries(mostly because of the large amount of resources and land).

That has nothing to do with it, Africa has far more natural resources than the U.S., Russia had far more land and natural resources than the U.S., China has far more resources and land than the U.S. et al.
What do you base this from? Countries that had a one-party state that called themselves "communists"? Claiming that that is communism goes to show that you have little knowledge of it.

Yes yes we've already heard your: "my communism is the real communism," schtick before, but who are you to say that your communism is the real communism?
 
Comrade Brian said:
No, because any revolution or something are not easy things, a majority end in failure, also the US has traditionally been always more prosperous than most other ountries(mostly because of the large amount of resources and land).

What do you base this from? Countries that had a one-party state that called themselves "communists"? Claiming that that is communism goes to show that you have little knowledge of it.

Those are not socialist policies, socialism is not "welfare capitalism", military, etc. etc.
Wait, you mean to tell me that you beleive in the stateless version of communism? People like you really do exist?

:rofl

So the class sturggle is over. Yay. Not all conflicts arise from class warfare though. In fact most do not. Who is going to resolve those disputes? You don't have a state anymore, so who resolves disputes?
 
zymurgy said:
Wait, you mean to tell me that you beleive in the stateless version of communism? People like you really do exist?

:rofl

So the class sturggle is over. Yay. Not all conflicts arise from class warfare though. In fact most do not. Who is going to resolve those disputes? You don't have a state anymore, so who resolves disputes?

Religious institutions? Oh wait it's Communism I forgot religion would be abolished.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Religious institutions? Oh wait it's Communism I forgot religion would be abolished.

And who/what abolished it?

The ridiculous theory is that without classes, we would always get along just peachy and a state wouldn't be needed.

Apparently class warfare causes theft, murder, rape, and yes, even different religious idealogies.

The entire idea is completely void of reason and logic.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Socialist Security.
Welfare.
Department of Education/Public schools
Semi-nationalized health care industry
Medicare/Medicaid

Non of these are sufficient due to the destruction of them by conservatives. Apparently 2 trillion dollar war based on a lie is more important then our education.
 
Che said:
Non of these are sufficient due to the destruction of them by conservatives. Apparently 2 trillion dollar war based on a lie is more important then our education.


Look at all the money that's been spent on education in America, then think about the fact that there's people running around who think the war in Iraq is based on a lie.

Clearly we're spending way too much money on education and not getting anything in return.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Look at all the money that's been spent on education in America, then think about the fact that there's people running around who think the war in Iraq is based on a lie.

Clearly we're spending way too much money on education and not getting anything in return.

Well, typically when the president says we're going to war and risking
the lives of 2000 soldiers for WMDs and the WMDs don't show up, I call it a lie. The great part is that people still believe they're WMDs there. How much more retarded could the American public get????? You're right our education system is screwed up obviously.

I propose federal standards. Every school is taught at the same level and pays for the same materials. The education would be very advanced and enthralling.

The reason why our education system doesn't work is simple. If you give school A, B, and C a $100, school A will use it for construction, school B will use it for nice bathrooms, and school C will use it for textbooks. Thus they are each very different schools in different conditions.

Also teacher's unions need restrictive laws. The teachers must be able to teach the children what they need to learn effectivlely or be fired. No questions asked.
 
CB said:
What do you base this from? Countries that had a one-party state that called themselves "communists"? Claiming that that is communism goes to show that you have little knowledge of it.

It's not communism or extreme socialism. It's what extreme socialism degrades into.

CB said:
Those are not socialist policies, socialism is not "welfare capitalism", military, etc. etc.

Using the strictest form of socialism, they are.

Che said:
Non of these are sufficient due to the destruction of them by conservatives. Apparently 2 trillion dollar war based on a lie is more important then our education.

Regardless, they are socialist.
 
Che said:
Well, typically when the president says we're going to war and risking
the lives of 2000 soldiers for WMDs and the WMDs don't show up, I call it a lie. The great part is that people still believe they're WMDs there. How much more retarded could the American public get????? You're right our education system is screwed up obviously.

If you paid attention, you would have seen that Bush said that the war in Iraq was necessary for a dozen different reasons. That was because he couldn't name the primary reason without all the surrender monkeys having a hissy fit. The primary reason was that it was time to get the pawns out of the center of board so the queen could have free room to move in all directions. We didn't enter Iraq for a lie. We entered Iraq for reasons not stated.

Of course, because Americans think chess and other war games are for geeks, they're too stupid to see simple realities. What do you expect from anyone that would vote for a Democrat or a Republican?

Che said:
I propose federal standards. Every school is taught at the same level and pays for the same materials. The education would be very advanced and enthralling.

The reason why our education system doesn't work is simple. If you give school A, B, and C a $100, school A will use it for construction, school B will use it for nice bathrooms, and school C will use it for textbooks. Thus they are each very different schools in different conditions.

The reason the schools systems don't work is even simpler than that. The nationalized school system violates that basic premise of federalism. The central authority of Washington prevents the several states from determining the best methods of teaching their students. Instead, methods that don't work are forced on everyone from the very highest levels.

Schools A, B, and C should be using their own money, and then the parents would be watching how it's spent. Since the parents in Arkansas are spending money from California, what do they care? And, nice, you didn't mention that most money is squandered on union goon salaries, and they NEVER fix bathrooms because broken bathrooms are an excellent way to make stupid parents support yet another bond issue.

Public education will be fixed when the public no longer has anything to do with education.

Che said:
Also teacher's unions need restrictive laws. The teachers must be able to teach the children what they need to learn effectivlely or be fired. No questions asked.

That ain't gonna happen. Not in the real world.
 
Back
Top Bottom