When has socialism ever succeeded? One time? (1 Viewer)

[niftydrifty]

I'd asked this same question on another forum a few years ago and it generated pages of debate... but nobody came up with one concrete example... and nobody was whining about definition.

sounds like you found like minds willing to assume, ie., make asses out of "u". vaguely defined exercise ... and as a result, no concrete examples. gee, I wonder why.

it's funny how you fish for concrete examples, and yet you won't provide concreteness when asked for specifics regarding what it is you mean.

gigo.

 

[Joby]

All right zim, seeing how this thread is devoid of any real debate and only focused on defining that which you say has only failed, here you go:

YouTube - Manifestoon

Enjoy :2wave:

By the way, it has never been accomplished, to answer your question. And it probably won't until aliens or Jesus enforces it.

As for calling Keynesianism socialism, which it is not, has resulted in the Pax Americana. As well as the govt funding development of the tool we're using, which is two if you count the internet. If you're out west, it's even more if you take into account the land that was provided by the US govt to homesteaders to develop it, as well as the millions of acres given to railroads.

When we talk about socialism here, it usually breaks down to:

-Privatize all profit.
-Subsidize all loss.

Which isn't that great of a deal unless you're a shareholder, er, make that Capitalist.

 

[Joby]

Oops, double post, my bad.

Can a mod or someone with the power please delete that second one? Thank you. It's weird, I tried to edit it but it ended up posting it twice. My technological incompetence is shining through I'm afraid.

 

[theTANTALIZER]

This is a speech from Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture. Kruschev was eerily correct about our future.

"I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:

" 'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you. We'll so weaken your economy until you'll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.'

"And they're ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme."

So, in other words, you are saying that you either won't or can't define it. Gotcha.

 

[Truth Detector]

There are, actually, two issues here, not one, when discussing healthcare; quality and access. From a quality prospective, I'd find it difficult to imagine the US not being #1. Doctors per capita, best medical schools, research facilities, and the fact that when a difficult procedure is needed to be done, the US is often the place chosen, all show that as far as quality goes, for healthcare, the US is where you want to be. The best professionals usually locate here, also, both because of some of the above reasons, but also because of the privatization issue. Remember what I said about human psychology and greed. Most everyone wants to get ahead. The US is the place to do it.

No disagreement here.

Access is another issue entirely, and this is where the US lags, specifically because of insurance companies. Now, when I say access, I do not mean the ability to find a doctor; that is of little problem, here. I mean finding a doctor or treatment that your insurance company approves. Unfortunately, the care of the patient has been taken out of the hands of the healthcare provider, and placed in the hands of the non-healthcare providing, bean-counting, desk sitting, insurance company worker. They have the power to tell the healthcare provider or patient/policy-holder, "sorry, I, someone who has never seen or treated the patient, am not authorizing the treatment recommended; therefore, even though it is in the insured's policy, we will not pay for it." As a provider, I have seen this happen many times. I have had it happen to me as a patient, too. Now, let us not kid ourselves. Why do we have medical insurance? Since medical care is quite expensive (as it should be, since it is very specialized work), insurance will offset some pretty high out of pocket costs. Many of us cannot afford the high costs of healthcare without insurance. So, if an insurance company refuses to pay for a treatment, the treatment is often done without. Now, why would this happen? Back to my original argument, why extreme forms of socio-politico-economic policies fail: Human Psychology and GREED.

Here we need some clarification; you are right in that the health care payer is “placed in the hands of the non-healthcare providing, bean-counting, desk sitting, insurance company worker” in the current situation. But if we have Universal Healthcare mandated by Government we get “placed in the hands of the non-healthcare providing, bean-counting, desk sitting, government worker.

On top of that, we get the usual mismanagement and fraud associated with any “government” program and the costs begin to soar. As costs begins to soar, Government desperately attempts to manage those soaring costs by……..reducing services, reducing specialization, limiting choice and eliminating costly procedures.

It begs the question, once we have gone the same failed route as everyone else, where will we and the rest of the world go for highly specialized care?

This is why I support far more regulations on the insurance industry. The first step would be that if an insurance policy has a treatment listed in it's plan, under no circumstances can it NOT be covered if authorized by the treating provider. If insurance companies collude, to exclude treatments (remember GREED), then there would need to be more regulations, ie: government involvement in identifying what those listed treatments need to be. In the past, I have supported UHC. I have waivered from this position, recently, as this could be too extreme. However, healthcare needs to be taken out of the insurance company's hands and placed back with the provider, and it needs to be cost effective. These are the access issues that we in the US face, that negatively affect our quality of healthcare.

Your ideas will add to the costs of health services. Regulation is part of the reason many get “excluded” in the first place.

I think the REAL issue is that PEOPLE need to control their health care and become more active in managing it. If health care providers had to be more competitive and people could freely pick and choose where they get their care, health care providers would compete and thus manage the costs down.

But this alone is not the single largest COST factor in the healthcare industry; that is the cost of insurance again litigation. Government mandated programs limit Doctor’s liability to near zero which is how they manage costs; why can’t we get some tort reform to protect Doctors from such lawsuits which expect them to be “God” and never make a mistake. Serious operations are a dangerous thing, mistakes will happen and people die or become disabled. Does this mean we should SUE the entire industry out of existence for the sake of a few individuals with good lawyers and dumb jury’s?

The worst thing we can do to one of the best healthcare systems in the world is to turn them into the same mediocre systems out there mismanaged by fraud and careless non-caring Government bureaucrats and useless regulation.

Just look at Europe, you pay 17% to healthcare and another 25% for taxation and this is if you earn a mere $25,000 annual. This isn’t cheap. You have to ask yourself, do you want to keep the money in your own pocket and negotiate a better deal, or have some HUGE bureaucracy be it employer’s plans or Government plans that dictate what you can and cannot have?

I prefer choice and education over more of the same, or if it becomes a Government program, WORSE.

 

[Truth Detector]

I am fascinated when Liberals get all upset over the use of the term Socialism, but then abuse a non-defined term like Neo-Conservative to demagogue those they vehemently disagree with.

It's the same when you call them "Liberals" as if you insulted them. Why would they be insulted if they are indeed of the Liberal/Socialist mindset? Could it simply be a knee jerk defensive reaction from them because they know historically their political philosophy has never met with much success?

The FACT is that Socialism is a milder form of Communism. We're no longer talking about a mixed economy where Government regulates safety for it's citizens from the potential greed of the Capitalists; but now commands the resources to dictate to the markets what they shall manufacture, what wages they are to pay, and now picks and chooses who the winners of this great Government giveaway will be at the detriment of those businesses that do not fit the "pre-conceived" notions of the Government now in power.

This is indeed a march towards socialism. Unions run nations like England, France and Germany. Europe is straddled with the promises it makes to it's people and cannot now keep them because it has already taxed it's citizens to the limits and still cannot manage to balance a budget without destroying what little productivity they can squeeze out these days.

You can rail all you want about a narrowly focused definition, but I assure you that what made this nation great and made it the most powerful nation on earth was not by turning it's citizens into a dependent class of ignorant citizens who look to the Government to solve all of societies ills and protect us from making stupid decisions.

ANYONE who defends the outrageous and criminal spending we are witnessing right now does so not because they are being intellectually honest, but do so to defend a hyper partisan point of view which historically cannot point to ANYTHING that could be suggested as being successful.

Every Government endeavor is fraught with high costs, corruption, fraud and mismanagement. How does this make them different from those in private industry who do the same thing you would ask? Why it is the free markets; because companies who act in an irresponsible manner eventually go out of business. What are you going to do with Government? Fire it?

Government does do some things very well; it enforces our laws, provides limited protection from fires and loss provides for the defense of the nation and can make treaties with other nations that would benefit the citizens of those nations.

Government does things very wrong when it injects itself into the market place and attempts social engineering at the cost of market forces; just as it did with the CRAs forcing lenders to provide low cost loans to people who normally wouldn't even think of buying a home. Just as what happened with the housing projects of the 70's and 80's that turned into rat infested drug havens.

To suddenly leave our historic brains behind and gleefully follow this pied piper off a cliff requires the willing suspension of disbelief or wallowing in denial. Yet this is what I and others are currently witnessing when those who thought the OTHER guy was so bad desperately defend THIER guy who is so much worse.

 

[Decker]

There isn't 47 million uninsured.
If you read how they calculate that it's utter tripe.
The real number is 8 million and we have programs to take care of said people.

Yeah, the US Census Bureau is wrong and you are right. Now we can just shut down the CB and ask for your opinion.

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

US Census Press Releases

I'm sure that number is closer to 50 million today.

But... keep inhaling the manure.

LOL.
That's why people come here to get procedure done they cannot get done in their homeland. Canada sends people over the border for very basic procedures they cannot achieve themselves.

Not true. "Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian NPHS indicated that they had received health care in the United States during the previous twelve months, and only twenty indicated that they had gone to the United States expressly for the purpose of getting that care." Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians' Use Of Health Care Services In The United States -- Katz et al. 21 (3): 19 -- Health Affairs

German's system is collapsing.

Not true.

Canada's government monopoly like GB's is in a state of decay... waiting lists are not health care.

They have cheaper, widely available and as good or better quality of care than we do. They are ranked 30th on the list.

If the long long waiting lists are so bad why do almost no Canadians cross the border for the US's superior care? Why did private insurance companies give up on policies for Canadians seeking care that would kick in if the wait for treatment was over 30 days?


Medical Specialists in Quebec earn, on average, over a quarter of a million dollars a year. That's not too bad. And that's $100,000 less than the Canadian national average. Quebec specialist taking government to court -- Pindera 175 (8): 861 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

Your WHO list in hilarious for it BS. Having spent 30-years on the road... mainly between Europe and North America it is absolutely hilarious the list comes out as it does.

That's great. Don't bother explaining yourself. I'll take your anecdotal evidence as gospel.

German speaks openly about rationing. They are losing doctors because they can't make any money... being servants of the state system... and Baby Boomers are getting old... with a small population to fund their care.

I'm sure the panic is pandemic.

Mention European health care to an American, and it probably conjures up a negative stereotype — high taxes, long waiting lines, rationed care.

It's not that way in Germany. Very little tax money goes into the system. The lion's share comes, as in America, from premiums paid by workers and employers to insurance companies.

German health benefits are very generous. And there's usually little or no wait to get elective surgery or diagnostic tests, such as MRIs. It's one of the world's best health care systems, visible in little ways that most Germans take for granted.
Most Patients Happy With German Health Care : NPR

Like in Oregon, rationing means government WILL and DOES make life and death decisions; who will receive care and who will not.

Let's see, in the bloated and corrupt private system we have insurance companies making the decision on who gets what. I'd rather have Doctors making that decision.

Even The Great Tom Daschle wrote (paraphrasing) that older people will just have to get with the program and not expect to live as long or get the medicines they need. Basically he told the folks to "Man-up and die".

Sure he did.

WHO List... LOL. Who wrote it? David Letterman...?

The fricken Irish our kicking our asses by almost 20 slots.

Let's put down the giant Were #1 Foam fingers b/c were not #1...we're #37th.

Letterman is funny. That list is disturbing in its message. Why are you laughing?

 

[zimmer]

I am fascinated when Liberals get all upset over the use of the term Socialism, but then abuse a non-defined term like Neo-Conservative to demagogue those they vehemently disagree with.

It's the same when you call them "Liberals" as if you insulted them. Why would they be insulted if they are indeed of the Liberal/Socialist mindset? Could it simply be a knee jerk defensive reaction from them because they know historically their political philosophy has never met with much success?

The FACT is that Socialism is a milder form of Communism. We're no longer talking about a mixed economy where Government regulates safety for it's citizens from the potential greed of the Capitalists; but now commands the resources to dictate to the markets what they shall manufacture, what wages they are to pay, and now picks and chooses who the winners of this great Government giveaway will be at the detriment of those businesses that do not fit the "pre-conceived" notions of the Government now in power.

This is indeed a march towards socialism. Unions run nations like England, France and Germany. Europe is straddled with the promises it makes to it's people and cannot now keep them because it has already taxed it's citizens to the limits and still cannot manage to balance a budget without destroying what little productivity they can squeeze out these days.

You can rail all you want about a narrowly focused definition, but I assure you that what made this nation great and made it the most powerful nation on earth was not by turning it's citizens into a dependent class of ignorant citizens who look to the Government to solve all of societies ills and protect us from making stupid decisions.

ANYONE who defends the outrageous and criminal spending we are witnessing right now does so not because they are being intellectually honest, but do so to defend a hyper partisan point of view which historically cannot point to ANYTHING that could be suggested as being successful.

Every Government endeavor is fraught with high costs, corruption, fraud and mismanagement. How does this make them different from those in private industry who do the same thing you would ask? Why it is the free markets; because companies who act in an irresponsible manner eventually go out of business. What are you going to do with Government? Fire it?

Government does do some things very well; it enforces our laws, provides limited protection from fires and loss provides for the defense of the nation and can make treaties with other nations that would benefit the citizens of those nations.

Government does things very wrong when it injects itself into the market place and attempts social engineering at the cost of market forces; just as it did with the CRAs forcing lenders to provide low cost loans to people who normally wouldn't even think of buying a home. Just as what happened with the housing projects of the 70's and 80's that turned into rat infested drug havens.

To suddenly leave our historic brains behind and gleefully follow this pied piper off a cliff requires the willing suspension of disbelief or wallowing in denial. Yet this is what I and others are currently witnessing when those who thought the OTHER guy was so bad desperately defend THIER guy who is so much worse.

The socialists.
They are so smart they have to institutionalize socialism to save us from ourselves... and always do it fast...

... but the geniuses cannot come up with examples of what they scream and screamed for.

It's a smoke screen so they can avoid the fact it doesn't work, hasn't worked successfully over the long term any time it has been attempted.

 

[obvious Child]

I wish nobody was allowed to use the term capitalism or socialism when debating economic issues. That way, we would actually have to debate the issue on its merits instead of thoughtless name calling. If you disagree with a policy, point out its faults, don't just throw on a label and think you are done.

Perhaps, but it's more of an issue of extreme ignorance. If people actually understood the varying forms of capitalism and socialism, we wouldn't have stupid threads like this one. And we could actually talk about Socialism in a broad fashion that results in some meaningful discussion rather then Socialism = Bad! troglodyte behavior there.

Zimmer can't even begin to define the term he bashes! I've seen this with Communism as well where the person trying to say Communism is bad can't even define it or cite accurate historical examples. He more or less ended up using Communism as defined by what self proclaimed Communists have done which is inherently useless as self proclaimed Commies have tried virtually everything.

If you can't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say?

If we all just defined our terms before we started...well this place would increase in value quite significently.

 

[obvious Child]

The socialists.
They are so smart they have to institutionalize socialism to save us from ourselves... and always do it fast...

... but the geniuses cannot come up with examples of what they scream and screamed for.

It's a smoke screen so they can avoid the fact it doesn't work, hasn't worked successfully over the long term any time it has been attempted.

You mean the term you still can't define yet you keep bashing?

Tell me, has Jewish Kibbutz system failed or prospered?
Tell me, have the native indian cultures in the African jungle and Andes mountains failed or prospered for thousands of years?
Tell me, has the highway system of America failed?
Tell me, how is Sweden doing, arguebly the most Socialist country on the planet?

 

[zimmer]

You mean the term you still can't define yet you keep bashing?

Tell me, has Jewish Kibbutz system failed or prospered?
Tell me, have the native indian cultures in the African jungle and Andes mountains failed or prospered for thousands of years?
Tell me, has the highway system of America failed?
Tell me, how is Sweden doing, arguebly the most Socialist country on the planet?

After much pleading I did say the last 150-years. Modern, industrialized society.

Sweden. Lived there. Nice place but socialism is a burden there too. They pare it down when they can. They have to.

Look at what some economists from Sverige have discovered about Eurosocialism when compared to US States?
Oh fy fan, you like Mississippi?

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

 

[obvious Child]

After much pleading I did say the last 150-years. Modern, industrialized society.

Which is a total failure to define what you bash.

Sweden. Lived there. Nice place but socialism is a burden there too. They pare it down when they can. They have to.

And yet it works. Therefore you go. Socialism functions. What your argument has failed to do and what is pretty obvious is that you define "succeed" as you want and leave the standards and criteria in the dark, thus allowing you to change "succeed" as you please. That's dishonest and it's obvious.


The problem with European Socialism and I really don't need you link is that it stalls growth. In some ways this is actually better right now, particularly in France. What stalled their growth during the good times is now slowing down the bad. It's a trade off and each culture has a decision to make.

Tell me, has Jewish Kibbutz system failed or prospered?
Tell me, have the native indian cultures in the African jungle and Andes mountains failed or prospered for thousands of years?
Tell me, has the highway system of America failed?

As Rathi and I have constantly stated every society requires some level of Socialism to function.

There's a good example of a socialism free country. It's called Somalia during the 1990s.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is a speech from Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture. Kruschev was eerily correct about our future.

"I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:

" 'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you. We'll so weaken your economy until you'll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.'

"And they're ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme."

Your quote, its a myth. Never happened.

They Never Said It: A Book of Fake ... - Google Book Search

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is a speech from Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture. Kruschev was eerily correct about our future.

"I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:

" 'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you. We'll so weaken your economy until you'll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.'

"And they're ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme."

And the USSR is just so powerful, in today's world. :roll:

 

[Joby]

I am fascinated when Liberals get all upset over the use of the term Socialism, but then abuse a non-defined term like Neo-Conservative to demagogue those they vehemently disagree with.

No, neo-conservative is a well known phrase used to seperate the modern GOPers from real conservatives.

And using 'socialist' against a liberal is like using 'fascist' against a coservative.

The FACT is that Socialism is a milder form of Communism. We're no longer talking about a mixed economy where Government regulates safety for it's citizens from the potential greed of the Capitalists; but now commands the resources to dictate to the markets what they shall manufacture, what wages they are to pay, and now picks and chooses who the winners of this great Government giveaway will be at the detriment of those businesses that do not fit the "pre-conceived" notions of the Government now in power.

No, the FACT is that the term Socialism no longer means anything. It used to refer to a milder form of communism, yes, in which private property would be eroded away and communism implemented over time. Hugo Chavez, for example, is a self-described socialist and he actually may be one according to this definition. Barack Obama, like George W Bush before him, is bailing out banks for the sake of the established order, ie the propertied class. The propertyless classes have no direct stake in whether the stock market goes up or down, or whether a bank is bailed out or not. Seriously, do not tell me that Timothy Geithner is anything close to being a socialist.

Lastly, concerning the "Government giveaway" to businesses it likes....this is kinda sorta the antithesis of socialism. Unless, of course, you are talking about Corporate Socialism, which is also called Corporatism, which is a synonym for Fascism. Though, I do not believe that was the type of socialism the OP was refering to.

Unions run nations like England, France and Germany.

Uh, what?

You can rail all you want about a narrowly focused definition, but I assure you that what made this nation great and made it the most powerful nation on earth was not by turning it's citizens into a dependent class of ignorant citizens who look to the Government to solve all of societies ills and protect us from making stupid decisions.

Well, it certainly helped in times like WWII where all industrial output was put under govt oversight, along with rationing so that greedy citizens didn't take away from the greater good.

ANYONE who defends the outrageous and criminal spending we are witnessing right now does so not because they are being intellectually honest, but do so to defend a hyper partisan point of view which historically cannot point to ANYTHING that could be suggested as being successful.

What do you mean by 'right now?'

If you are talking about the last 30 years, then perhaps this statement would hold some water.

As for ANYTHING check out the TVA.
Or the Transcontinental railroad, specifically the Pacific Railroad Acts.
Or Hoover Dam

This, being of but a few projects developed by the govt or created due to govt investment.

Let me know if you need more examples.

Government does things very wrong when it injects itself into the market place and attempts social engineering at the cost of market forces; just as it did with the CRAs forcing lenders to provide low cost loans to people who normally wouldn't even think of buying a home. Just as what happened with the housing projects of the 70's and 80's that turned into rat infested drug havens.

Well, first of all, 2 examples does not a refutation make. The TVA provides electricity to tens of thousands, and that was 100% govt.

Anyway, should the government not have given out millions of acres -for free- to develop the nation? If that had happened, it never would have developed. No private investor would ever lay rail lines 2000 miles with Zero customers if the government was not giving him grants.

Or, another example, nobody would ever spend the money to develop a nuclear reactor, since there are much much cheaper ways of making energy.

Nobody would have developed satellites to transfer data since it is much much cheaper just to lay more phone lines.

These are only two examples of many, but of course that technology would have been developed. But not in the US, rather in a country willing to invest in new technologies.

To suddenly leave our historic brains behind and gleefully follow this pied piper off a cliff requires the willing suspension of disbelief or wallowing in denial. Yet this is what I and others are currently witnessing when those who thought the OTHER guy was so bad desperately defend THIER guy who is so much worse.

This is the heart of the matter.

If socialism is defined as the expansion of government (which it is not), then whoever was the leader during the time of the biggest government expansion is the most socialist.

Not even taking into account Comrade W, who is the most socialist president ever, Let's See:

Reagan is lucky W came along to take away the title of most socialist American President. It is too early to judge if one Democrat budget -during a recession-which is still lower than W's last budget- will break the trend of Republicans being the spendcrazy liberals.

I always knew there was a reason republicans were Red.

But seriously, I am getting tired of Keynesianism being called socialism. It is a slight both against an ardent capitalist in Keynes and genuine socialists. Also, puts the focus on the far-right, suggesting that anything which isn't 100% laissez-faire is socialist, which, again, it is not.

 

[obvious Child]

Joby, there's a flaw in that graph. Democrats are indeed the big spenders. The difference is that they finance their spending differently. They try to match dollar of expenditures with dollar in revenues. That results in either a decline in the debt or slower growth in the debt. The Republicans however have a long history of debt financing which obviously causes their administrations to see large spikes in debt growth.

Republicans subscribe to the leveraged notion while Democrats operate on the equity notion. If we had to compare balance sheets, the GOP would be almost entirely Debt where the Democrats would be far more Equity based.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No disagreement here.

OK.

Here we need some clarification; you are right in that the health care payer is “placed in the hands of the non-healthcare providing, bean-counting, desk sitting, insurance company worker” in the current situation. But if we have Universal Healthcare mandated by Government we get “placed in the hands of the non-healthcare providing, bean-counting, desk sitting, government worker.

Which is why I no longer support the complete UHC model that would bring us this. I used to, but it seems as if the government will continue some of the idiotic out of the hands of providers healthcare decisions that the insurance companies do.

On top of that, we get the usual mismanagement and fraud associated with any “government” program and the costs begin to soar. As costs begins to soar, Government desperately attempts to manage those soaring costs by……..reducing services, reducing specialization, limiting choice and eliminating costly procedures.

I don't subscribe to the position that everything the government touches turns to crap, nor do I subscribe to the position that everything the private sector touches turns to greed. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

It begs the question, once we have gone the same failed route as everyone else, where will we and the rest of the world go for highly specialized care?

Which is why their needs to be some sort of combined plan. Taking the private sector's ability to attain excellence with the government's ability towards regulating that excellence.

Your ideas will add to the costs of health services. Regulation is part of the reason many get “excluded” in the first place.

I completely disagree. Without regulation, human psychology takes over and we have greed ruling the day. Fewer services, higher costs, more exclusions. This is what I see in the health care industry every day, and why the industry is much against any type of regulations. It would cut into their substantial greed.

I think the REAL issue is that PEOPLE need to control their health care and become more active in managing it. If health care providers had to be more competitive and people could freely pick and choose where they get their care, health care providers would compete and thus manage the costs down.

When you say providers, are you referring to doctors/physicians or insurance companies? If it is the former, for most people, the cost of healthcare is high enough that the most important thing is finding a provider in your insurance network. Providers changing fees would make no difference. Also, the human psychology of being ill is often a factor. Most people just want to feel better, and worry about the cost later.

If you mean insurance companies, competition already happens, but without much regulation, things keep getting worse.

But this alone is not the single largest COST factor in the healthcare industry; that is the cost of insurance again litigation. Government mandated programs limit Doctor’s liability to near zero which is how they manage costs; why can’t we get some tort reform to protect Doctors from such lawsuits which expect them to be “God” and never make a mistake. Serious operations are a dangerous thing, mistakes will happen and people die or become disabled. Does this mean we should SUE the entire industry out of existence for the sake of a few individuals with good lawyers and dumb jury’s?

I agree 100% with this. One reason that healthcare insurance is so high is because malpractice insurance is so high because of litigation. Here's something I read. Because of the litigiousness of people, especially when it comes to childbirth, an Obstetrician's malpractice insurace can be as much as $173,000! There are several OB/GYN's in my area that are either switching specialties or ceasing their practice because they cannot afford to stay in business.

One thing, though. I would not be opposed to the proposal the insurance companies be sued for refusing to cover care. Even the threat of this would help keep them honest. I am, currently, involved in a precedent-setting case that could force this issue.

The worst thing we can do to one of the best healthcare systems in the world is to turn them into the same mediocre systems out there mismanaged by fraud and careless non-caring Government bureaucrats and useless regulation.

Let the private sector handle it...with governmental regulation and overseeing. Our best healthcare system needs to be able to cater to more of it's own population.

Just look at Europe, you pay 17% to healthcare and another 25% for taxation and this is if you earn a mere $25,000 annual. This isn’t cheap. You have to ask yourself, do you want to keep the money in your own pocket and negotiate a better deal, or have some HUGE bureaucracy be it employer’s plans or Government plans that dictate what you can and cannot have?

Well, you and I disagree, philosophically on this. I have no issue with paying more taxes for more services...none at all. Without regulation, the human psychology of greed takes over. Healthcare is a seller's market. Seller's markets require more regulation to protect the consumer from the greed factor.

I prefer choice and education over more of the same, or if it becomes a Government program, WORSE.

I agree with choice and education, but their needs to be a gatekeeper. I see this as very similar to what I tell parents when trying to parent their teenager. Think of parenting as creating a box that your teenager lives in. Inside that box, they can do anything the want, put anything the want, decorate it any way they want. But, as the parent, it's your box. You set the parameters and then allow the teen to be creative and independent inside those paramenters that the parent sets to provide safety. Always works great, considering it mirrors how most of us deal with life. The box is the regulations. Again, I do not subscribe that all things the government touches are bad, nor all things the private sector touches are greedy. There needs to be a combination of these two. This is why I am completely against an extreme version of either model, and what we have, now, is too far in one direction.

 

[PeteEU]

Just look at Europe, you pay 17% to healthcare and another 25% for taxation and this is if you earn a mere $25,000 annual.

Err what nation in Europe do we pay "17%" to healthcare and another 25% for taxation?

 

[zimmer]

No, neo-conservative is a well known phrase used to seperate the modern GOPers from real conservatives.

And using 'socialist' against a liberal is like using 'fascist' against a coservative.



No, the FACT is that the term Socialism no longer means anything. It used to refer to a milder form of communism, yes, in which private property would be eroded away and communism implemented over time. Hugo Chavez, for example, is a self-described socialist and he actually may be one according to this definition. Barack Obama, like George W Bush before him, is bailing out banks for the sake of the established order, ie the propertied class. The propertyless classes have no direct stake in whether the stock market goes up or down, or whether a bank is bailed out or not. Seriously, do not tell me that Timothy Geithner is anything close to being a socialist.

Lastly, concerning the "Government giveaway" to businesses it likes....this is kinda sorta the antithesis of socialism. Unless, of course, you are talking about Corporate Socialism, which is also called Corporatism, which is a synonym for Fascism. Though, I do not believe that was the type of socialism the OP was refering to.



Uh, what?



Well, it certainly helped in times like WWII where all industrial output was put under govt oversight, along with rationing so that greedy citizens didn't take away from the greater good.



What do you mean by 'right now?'

If you are talking about the last 30 years, then perhaps this statement would hold some water.

As for ANYTHING check out the TVA.
Or the Transcontinental railroad, specifically the Pacific Railroad Acts.
Or Hoover Dam

This, being of but a few projects developed by the govt or created due to govt investment.

Let me know if you need more examples.



Well, first of all, 2 examples does not a refutation make. The TVA provides electricity to tens of thousands, and that was 100% govt.

Anyway, should the government not have given out millions of acres -for free- to develop the nation? If that had happened, it never would have developed. No private investor would ever lay rail lines 2000 miles with Zero customers if the government was not giving him grants.

Or, another example, nobody would ever spend the money to develop a nuclear reactor, since there are much much cheaper ways of making energy.

Nobody would have developed satellites to transfer data since it is much much cheaper just to lay more phone lines.

These are only two examples of many, but of course that technology would have been developed. But not in the US, rather in a country willing to invest in new technologies.



This is the heart of the matter.

If socialism is defined as the expansion of government (which it is not), then whoever was the leader during the time of the biggest government expansion is the most socialist.

Not even taking into account Comrade W, who is the most socialist president ever, Let's See:

Reagan is lucky W came along to take away the title of most socialist American President. It is too early to judge if one Democrat budget -during a recession-which is still lower than W's last budget- will break the trend of Republicans being the spendcrazy liberals.

I always knew there was a reason republicans were Red.

But seriously, I am getting tired of Keynesianism being called socialism. It is a slight both against an ardent capitalist in Keynes and genuine socialists. Also, puts the focus on the far-right, suggesting that anything which isn't 100% laissez-faire is socialist, which, again, it is not.

Entitlement programs.
The Raw Deal. FDR.
The Grating Society. Johnston.

Big bucks. Big costs. Big Burdens. Big failures.

 

[PeteEU]

Entitlement programs.
The Raw Deal. FDR.
The Grating Society. Johnston.

Big bucks. Big costs. Big Burdens. Big failures.

Iraq war.. Big buck, Big costs, Big Burdens, HUGE failures.

In other words, Iraq was a socialist program run by Republicans!

 

[Truth Detector]

Well, you and I disagree, philosophically on this. I have no issue with paying more taxes for more services...none at all. Without regulation, the human psychology of greed takes over. Healthcare is a seller's market. Seller's markets require more regulation to protect the consumer from the greed factor.

This is a fallacy however; these Socialist systems do not provide you with more services, but rather less. The worst part is that these systems attempt to force everyone into the same mediocrity without a lot of choices unless you opt OUT by paying even MORE above and beyond the confiscatory taxes it takes.

The additional fallacy is the notion that there will ever be enough taxes to pay for this "better" idea. Is it any wonder that countries all over Europe are struggling to solve their budget dilemma that costs keep going up and they can't possibly tax their citizens even more?

Once the Government takes over, the costs will explode exponentially because everyone will now be heading to the doctor to get every possible ailment looked after. It will overwhelm the system and bury us in deeper budget deficits.

The COST of such programs is hardly better managed nor are the cheaper. In reality they cost much more and put a burden on the productivity of the nation by forcing Governments to take even greater amounts of your paychecks.

California has had a 40% increase in revenue over the last five years; and yet, the Liberals running the State House still spent $41 billion more than they took in. We don’t have a revenue problem in California or the Federal Government, we have a SPENDING problem and the Liberal solution always seems to suggest that we need to SPEND even more. All the Liberal spending programs over the last fifty years on the poor and welfare have done NOTHING to reduce poverty or increase the wealth; they have only created a dependent class of people who gave up their freedoms for a handout.

Watch as California continues to descend into a Liberal hell hole as jobs leave the State and businesses locate elsewhere where they are welcomed and not treated as the personal banker for the Liberals who want to take their wealth and use it as a funding source for social experimentation to make Californians dependents of the state and expand their voter base. That is the nation’s future as lunatics currently infesting the Federal bureaucracy are the same as the ones that now infest California’s legislature.

 

[Fiddytree]

North Dakota, despite having amnesia with its uniquely strong socialistic past (at one point, the most socialistic state in the nation), quite embraces its accomplishments in this region.

 

[Truth Detector]

North Dakota, despite having amnesia with its uniquely strong socialistic past (at one point, the most socialistic state in the nation), quite embraces its accomplishments in this region.

What Socialistic past would that be? Did North Dakota have Government managed healthcare?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is a fallacy however; these Socialist systems do not provide you with more services, but rather less. The worst part is that these systems attempt to force everyone into the same mediocrity without a lot of choices unless you opt OUT by paying even MORE above and beyond the confiscatory taxes it takes.

The additional fallacy is the notion that there will ever be enough taxes to pay for this "better" idea. Is it any wonder that countries all over Europe are struggling to solve their budget dilemma that costs keep going up and they can't possibly tax their citizens even more?

Once the Government takes over, the costs will explode exponentially because everyone will now be heading to the doctor to get every possible ailment looked after. It will overwhelm the system and bury us in deeper budget deficits.

The COST of such programs is hardly better managed nor are the cheaper. In reality they cost much more and put a burden on the productivity of the nation by forcing Governments to take even greater amounts of your paychecks.

California has had a 40% increase in revenue over the last five years; and yet, the Liberals running the State House still spent $41 billion more than they took in. We don’t have a revenue problem in California or the Federal Government, we have a SPENDING problem and the Liberal solution always seems to suggest that we need to SPEND even more. All the Liberal spending programs over the last fifty years on the poor and welfare have done NOTHING to reduce poverty or increase the wealth; they have only created a dependent class of people who gave up their freedoms for a handout.

Watch as California continues to descend into a Liberal hell hole as jobs leave the State and businesses locate elsewhere where they are welcomed and not treated as the personal banker for the Liberals who want to take their wealth and use it as a funding source for social experimentation to make Californians dependents of the state and expand their voter base. That is the nation’s future as lunatics currently infesting the Federal bureaucracy are the same as the ones that now infest California’s legislature.

If we are talking about services in general, I don't agree. If we are talking about healthcare, I do to a point. Firstly, if the government takes over healthcare...not what I am suggesting, we will not see everyone going to the doctor for every ailment. Even people who have good medical coverage don't do that, now. There is, often an avoidance of going to the doctor that is less about money. It's about denial. If one doesn't know that they have a problem, they don't have to deal with it.

No, I am not talkinig about government takeover of healthcare. I used to be a proponent of this, but I have rejected it. No, I am suggesting stronger regulations than what we have now. Here's an example that just happened yesterday. A friend is on a medication. She just got new health insurance from her job. The new insurance company is refusing to authorize her medication, and is requiring her to go on a different, cheaper medication. The medications are not identical, and the med she is on has helped her, tremendously. This is the kind of thing that needs to be stopped, and since the industry will not regulate itself...greed, the government needs to.

 

[Fiddytree]

What Socialistic past would that be? Did North Dakota have Government managed healthcare?

It was more connected with agriculture. Part of the story was that there was a consensus that farmers were being squeezed by the railroads and privately owned mills. Our state elected more socialists than any other during the short period the Nonpartisan League was alive and well. Due to that political climate, we still have our state bank, state mill, and outlawing of corporate farming.