Americans

[got tonkaed]

And again this thread takes another step towards the subject of Communism.
Red Scare anyone?

its hard to discuss america without from time to time, bringing up capitalism, and hearing some dissenting opinions. Much like its hard to avoid religion, or fast food.

[Jenos Ridan]

Well, your military budget is currently $500bn (4% ofyour budget, which means a total budget of $10,000bn). The NHS costs £100bn per year, which is $200bn per year. Times by 5, thats $1,000bn per year for universal health care. Your tax is 26.2 % currently, so a rise to 28.8% (which will still keep ot lower then all of western Europe) would cover the expense of universal health care. This would leave most people will more money at the end of the day, as overall health care costs per capita iss cheaper with universal healthcare then private healthcare, by quite a lot.

Is that the average rate? Also, I heard that New Zealand has a national sales tax and therefore no need for a income tax. A general comsumsion tax could also help, but best to keep it light, say 3 cents on the dollar.

[Anarchist]

Um...this is socialism.

Not as bad as, say, Russia, but we've still got it.

Where do you live? Im not aware of any True Socialist country existing in the world. Russia was Communist a highly corruptable form of Socialism, but far different.

I don't see what you mean by 'renewable resources.' Do you mean a return to the barter system? Could you define the term, please?

esentially a resource that never runs out, and takes less time to create

Currently our world is completely dependent on Crude Oil, when it runs out were screwed no matter how you look at it. A renewable energy would be biofuel(has serious problems) wind energy(clean energy)

We rely on trees for paper(complicated process needing many chemicals)
While a tree takes 100 years to grow to maturity, a hemp plant takes 6 months(and is far more usefull) too bad its illegal.

Theres two examples, its common sense being ignored for the sake of supply and demand.

I don't see what you mean by 'equality,' either. Socialism is inherently unequal, in that those with power will use it to further their own gains. See the Soviet Empire for details.

'[E]verything according to ability,everything according to need' With socialism, everything goes where the central planners say it goes. I understand the sentiment, but I think the mantra is better served by pure capitalism.

Again thats Communism, Socialism is distributed at local levels with the goal to eliminate collectivism(spelling?) What you refer to as pure capitalism is better known as the free market, while I agree its would be a better system compared to the world today. It still has some of the problems that capitalism would have; Foreign investors,outsourcing,and promoting competition over cooperation. Its far from perfect.

Socialism eliminates foreign interferance, and replaces currency with renewable resources in order to evenly distribute the wealth to all. In order to improve quality of life beyond needs and into luxury. Higher technologies would need to be invented, this is where free education and cooperation will proove its efficiency.

Remember sharing?

Free education and healthcare are not all they're cracked up to be. The education tends to be crappy (see American government schools for an example there), or the healthcare swallows everything else to be the best (see Cuba). Besides, they're not free. Your property tax pays for the schools (whether you have kids there or not, you pay for it), and healthcare comes from any other Federal tax you have (though off-budget, forcing a logistical nightmare).

Socialism includes the elimination of currency as an inevitable goal(perhaps still used in global trade) making cost irrelevant. Its all about resources. Our education systems and our medical system is private, thats why the wealthy get the best education and the best treatment.
Socialised education and healthcare makes class irrelevant, simply sign up for what you wish to learn and do. no longer worrying about food,shelter, and medical treatment for that is a Need of society.

As for your views on organized religion, I have this to say: they really can't coerce you. If they do, you leave. It's that easy. As far as they can't coerce, and as far as they unite (or create) a community, and as far as they inspire people to do great things, I have nothing bad to say against it.

not sure what made you say this, however I agree.

Hmm....do you believe in a man's right to property?

I believe we have the right to possesions, but noone has the right to own the world.

[mr. incrediball]

So Brits can't think and govern for themselves? Just another American "puppet"?

Do you have any kind of appreciation of how politics works in the real world? ANY whatsoever?

We've been inextricably tied to America since WWII. I don't think I really need to explain the whole thing, cold war, Thatcher and Reagan, special relationship etc. etc. etc. at this point do I?

Our foreign policies are intertwined, the responsibility for which lies with both sides, rightly or wrongly, but what that DOES mean is that British lies are lost due to American foreign policy decisions. We've made the decision to stand by America, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and ignore drastically brutal and, to be frank, illegal foreign policy without saying a word does it! That, I'm afraid, gives us a right to at least moan a bit.

Couldn't agree more with Guiscard here. America has alot of enemies nowadays and unfortuantly us Brits standing by you is giving us "bad rep". Quite frankly, you should put your own country's existance down to pure chance.
Remember, America was once part of the great British Empire.

The chance to be free of the British would make anyone fight with a ferocious will, no pure chance needed.

But, I will be the good colonial and defer to your superior knowledge of all the world and the motivations of everybody in it.

actually, only thirteen states used to be in the british empire, the rest was spanish until the revolutionaries conquered it.

[Iz Man]

But, I will be the good colonial and defer to your superior knowledge of all the world and the motivations of everybody in it.

You'll find if you read more of his posts that he knows everything about everything, and that we are all but mere mortals in his divine presence...

[GeneralUnderhill]

Where do you live? Im not aware of any True Socialist country existing in the world. Russia was Communist a highly corruptable form of Socialism, but far different.

Hmm...I live in Texas, so you know. Ron Paul's district, actually.

As for True Socialist, Russia did have that. They claimed to have tried to move on to True Communism, but Lord Acton was right. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." They couldn't move on. Neither can the Chinese (I'll be the first to say that they're not 'true' socialists, though. They tried that and nearly starved themselves to death)

esentially a resource that never runs out, and takes less time to create

Currently our world is completely dependent on Crude Oil, when it runs out were screwed no matter how you look at it. A renewable energy would be biofuel(has serious problems) wind energy(clean energy)

We rely on trees for paper(complicated process needing many chemicals)
While a tree takes 100 years to grow to maturity, a hemp plant takes 6 months(and is far more usefull) too bad its illegal.[/quote]

I would assume that true capitalism would tend towards 'renewables,' then, to better secure a supply of money for the future.

In a socialist society, the government would still regulate potentially 'harmful' substances, e.g. weed, in favor of the common good.

I concur that we're completely dependent on crude oil, but I don't see it running dry soon enough to warrant a rush for 'green' alternative fuels (though the air-powered car is pretty sweet).

Theres two examples, its common sense being ignored for the sake of supply and demand.

Funny thing about that. Common sense is a rare thing.

Again thats Communism, Socialism is distributed at local levels with the goal to eliminate collectivism(spelling?) What you refer to as pure capitalism is better known as the free market, while I agree its would be a better system compared to the world today. It still has some of the problems that capitalism would have; Foreign investors,outsourcing,and promoting competition over cooperation. Its far from perfect.

Socialism eliminates foreign interferance, and replaces currency with renewable resources in order to evenly distribute the wealth to all. In order to improve quality of life beyond needs and into luxury. Higher technologies would need to be invented, this is where free education and cooperation will proove its efficiency.

I was working under the impression that Communism was a form of anarchy. Anarchism can't plan anything, due to a lack of archism and enforcement methods.

I don't see a problem with foreign investors, outsourcing, or competition over cooperation (though to compete effectively, one must cooperate with others).

While I agree that money isn't exactly a good thing, it's in human nature to make whatever's available into some form of money. We desire reward for labor, and the ability to use it for frivolous things.

Remember sharing?

Never was good at it. ^_^

Socialism includes the elimination of currency as an inevitable goal(perhaps still used in global trade) making cost irrelevant. Its all about resources. Our education systems and our medical system is private, thats why the wealthy get the best education and the best treatment.
Socialised education and healthcare makes class irrelevant, simply sign up for what you wish to learn and do. no longer worrying about food,shelter, and medical treatment for that is a Need of society.

Isn't socialism for removing borders and all that? Or am I confused between you and Marx again?

While I agree with you in principle, I can't ever see it working in the real world. Humans are, by nature, not very altruistic. We want rewards for our labor. We want accolades. Money (or stuff) is that reward, and having a lot of it brings praise (see Paris Hilton or Donald Trump or Bill Gates).

Um...you're an anarchist, right? Who would be there to sign up with?

Your comment about food, shelter, and medical treatment strikes me as bogus. Somebody has to work for those things. You make it sound like you just sit back and let the sky rain down blessings.

not sure what made you say this, however I agree.

Sorry. Anarchy thread, page 5. You said you were against organized religion. I should have quoted.

I believe we have the right to possesions, but noone has the right to own the world.

I should've clarified.

Do you believe in the right to own land?

[Minister Masket]

And again this thread takes another step towards the subject of Communism.
Red Scare anyone?

its hard to discuss america without from time to time, bringing up capitalism, and hearing some dissenting opinions. Much like its hard to avoid religion, or fast food.

*cough...McCarthy...cough*
Hmm, what? Oh yes I definatly agree!

[Anarchist]

1)Russia may have only been Socialist under Lenin, which didnt last long.
China is a deadly combination of Capitalist Communism.(where the government gets Ferraris and the people starve to death)

2) Legalise Weed!, while Socialism may not legalise it for the common good(I think they would) Capitalism wont legalise it, due to its potential threats to the unofficial monopoly and profits.

Socialism would be more driven to renewable energy for the greater good,
Capitalism would fight against it because its less proffitable, If there is limited supply, demand rises. Prices go up and proffits are made!

We should go green not because we have to but because we should be green to begin with.

3)Capitalism is where the wealthy make policy and control everything, Communism is where the governent makes policy and controls everything, Socialism is where the people create policy and control everything, Anarchy is "The Negation of all oppressive structures"(did you really understand that spiel?) where noone has the right to make policy nor control everything(due to its oppressive nature)

The problem with foreign investors is that they dont care about the local community, also they are able to effect local policies in areas that they do not live. (Would you want China passing laws in the United States?)

4) Socialism is each nation becoming independent from one another with no foreign interference, through this continents will begin to work together through cooperation(barter) Anarchy eventually leads to no borders because borders are oppressive structures.

We all want rewards, unfortunately in todays society we work to survive not to enjoy life.(thats not a good thing) While the upper class dont work and gain most of the wealth.

Um...you're an anarchist, right? Who would be there to sign up with?

If I understand you correctly, I dont sign up with anyone. I represent myself as an individual.

5) Im sorry, but this is the hundredth time ive had to explain socialism so I tend to be nonspecific(hoping people research things for themselves and come with their own individual ideas)

Currently we work for small proffits,most of our proffits go to things that we need and in order to sustain life. We gain luxuries by accepting loans and ending up in debt. Forced to accept a second job to attempt to pay off that debt. (not to forget the student loan we have to pay off in order to have a decent job)

Socialism states that aslong as you work, you have the right to the things that you need(meaning aslong as you pull your weight, you wont be left to die)
With education being free you can learn in any field that you wish, you then work in that field.(as society evolves you would be able to switch jobs more frequently) Since everyone is working equal shares you will no longer be forced to work 40+ workweeks. Working less grants more freetime, leading to a better quality of life. (If your really curious, id suggest you research for yourself)

6) Im not against religious beliefs, but I am against organised religion.
7)I believe we have the right to have things(possesions) I do not believe we have the right to own land,air,or water. Nor anything else that doesnt belong to anyone.

[Iz Man]

And in a completely semi unrelated note, we need fairly high taxes for that universal health care system that was due about a decade ago...

No thanks.
If I ever need a transplant of any kind, I don't want to have to wait a year to get it......
Plus, I'd like to chose my own doctor to do the transplant. I also think I have a better idea as to who is better suited to operate on me than Hillary Clinton does.

[Stopper]

And in a completely semi unrelated note, we need fairly high taxes for that universal health care system that was due about a decade ago...

No thanks.
If I ever need a transplant of any kind, I don't want to have to wait a year to get it......
Plus, I'd like to chose my own doctor to do the transplant. I also think I have a better idea as to who is better suited to operate on me than Hillary Clinton does.

Choosing your doctor and hospital is perfectly possible in universal healthcare systems - I'd know, since it happens in my country.

But that's not really what I wanted to say, anyway.

I'm just thinking you probably want to rephrase the emboldened part, because at first glance, you seemed to be suggesting that a private healthcare system somehow has its own methods of getting the organs needed for transplant quicker than in a public one......

[vtmarik]

And in a completely semi unrelated note, we need fairly high taxes for that universal health care system that was due about a decade ago...

No thanks.
If I ever need a transplant of any kind, I don't want to have to wait a year to get it......
Plus, I'd like to chose my own doctor to do the transplant. I also think I have a better idea as to who is better suited to operate on me than Hillary Clinton does.

Then why not subsidized medicine like Canada has? It's a fair compromise, don't you think?

At least then we won't have a system that makes millions on inventing diseases like Restless Legs Syndrome.

[hulmey]

No thanks.
If I ever need a transplant of any kind, I don't want to have to wait a year to get it......
Plus, I'd like to chose my own doctor to do the transplant. I also think I have a better idea as to who is better suited to operate on me than Hillary Clinton does. Shocked

Thats alot of shit and you know it. If you could get heathcare for free i doubt you would go and pay for it. Unless you are stupid rich and can throw away 100,000 or 200,000!!!!

[Iz Man]

I'm just thinking you probably want to rephrase the emboldened part, because at first glance, you seemed to be suggesting that a private healthcare system somehow has its own methods of getting the organs needed for transplant quicker than in a public one......

Are you trying to say the U.K. doesn't have an organ transplant waiting list problem?
Do a google search and get back to me.

[Iz Man]

Then why not subsidized medicine like Canada has? It's a fair compromise, don't you think?

At least then we won't have a system that makes millions on inventing diseases like Restless Legs Syndrome.

The RLS crap, I agree with you on that; but we don't need the gov't controlling who, how, when, and where we get treated.
Making millions is not a bad thing, as long as those ridiculous programs like you mentioned are not subsidized by the taxpayer. That's the kind of reform we need. Not government control.
You trust the government to take care of you?

[vtmarik]

I'm just thinking you probably want to rephrase the emboldened part, because at first glance, you seemed to be suggesting that a private healthcare system somehow has its own methods of getting the organs needed for transplant quicker than in a public one......

Are you trying to say the U.K. doesn't have an organ transplant waiting list problem?
Do a google search and get back to me.

Are you suggesting that the system in place in the US is any less damaged?

[Iz Man]

Thats alot of shit and you know it. If you could get heathcare for free i doubt you would go and pay for it. Unless you are stupid rich and can throw away 100,000 or 200,000!!!!

Health care for free?
You think that nationalized health care would be free?
When you get big and start paying taxes, you'll have a better idea of what exactly you get for free......
Nothing......

[Anarchist]

The United States has that problem too, only the Black Market can garantee speedy delivery.

Universal healthcare allows you to choose any doctor, its the private form that forces you to choose which doctor to go to, through your insurance.

[Iz Man]

Are you suggesting that the system in place in the US is any less damaged?

No, it needs reform, absolutely; but once again, I maintain that the gov't does not know best. I do, and you do, when it comes to taking care of ourselves and our families.

[vtmarik]

Thats alot of shit and you know it. If you could get heathcare for free i doubt you would go and pay for it. Unless you are stupid rich and can throw away 100,000 or 200,000!!!!

Health care for free?
You think that nationalized health care would be free?
When you get big and start paying taxes, you'll have a better idea of what exactly you get for free......
Nothing......

The RLS crap, I agree with you on that; but we don't need the gov't controlling who, how, when, and where we get treated.
Making millions is not a bad thing, as long as those ridiculous programs like you mentioned are not subsidized by the taxpayer. That's the kind of reform we need. Not government control.
You trust the government to take care of you?

I trust the government about as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat, however completely privatizing the industry is just as bad.

Would you privatize Fire and Police service? And the roads, sanitation, and water utilities? Why is the medical industry any different?

Currently we're in a situation where being healthy costs money. If a portion of our tax money went to a national health care system rather than programs designed to make lobbyists happy, don't you think that the general quality of life in this country would improve?

When people don't have to choose between getting a tumor removed and paying their rent, wouldn't that make the economy stronger?

The government wouldn't decide who gets treated, all the government would do is pick up the tab. The medical industry would then become what it's supposed to be, a service rather than a business.

[Iz Man]

The United States has that problem too, only the Black Market can garantee speedy delivery.

Not true at all. The waiting lists in the U.S. are not nearly as long as those in countries where the gov't controls health care.

Universal healthcare allows you to choose any doctor, its the private form that forces you to choose which doctor to go to, through your insurance.

Half truths. Nationalized health care typically provides a narrow list of choices of physicians to chose from. When it comes to major surgeries, the list grows smaller and smaller, and even disappears in a lot of cases.
Insurance companies do also have lists from which to chose, but they are much larger lists and you also have the option to change insurance companies. This is an area in which I believe we need reform here in the U.S.
There needs to be an expansion on what services are provided by insurance companies.
I maintain again, I don't feel the gov't has any place in choosing the who's, when's, where's, & how's when it comes to health care.
As an "anarchist", I figured you'd feel the same.....

[Stopper]

If I ever need a transplant of any kind, I don't want to have to wait a year to get it......

I'm just thinking you probably want to rephrase the emboldened part, because at first glance, you seemed to be suggesting that a private healthcare system somehow has its own methods of getting the organs needed for transplant quicker than in a public one......

Are you trying to say the U.K. doesn't have an organ transplant waiting list problem?
Do a google search and get back to me.

Yes, hearts, kidneys, lungs, blood etc are all in short supply.

I'm curious to know how a private healthcare system is supposed to be able to have a better supply of these things than a public healthcare system...

Honestly, I'm all ears.

[Iz Man]

I trust the government about as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat, however completely privatizing the industry is just as bad.
Would you privatize Fire and Police service? And the roads, sanitation, and water utilities? Why is the medical industry any different?
Currently we're in a situation where being healthy costs money. If a portion of our tax money went to a national health care system rather than programs designed to make lobbyists happy, don't you think that the general quality of life in this country would improve?
When people don't have to choose between getting a tumor removed and paying their rent, wouldn't that make the economy stronger?
The government wouldn't decide who gets treated, all the government would do is pick up the tab. The medical industry would then become what it's supposed to be, a service rather than a business.

These are all valid arguments.
If we agree that we don't trust the gov't, how can we disagree that the same corrupt gov't won't corrupt a health care system?
First, it wouldn't be a portion of our taxes, it would be a massive increase in taxes to accomplish this.
The lobbyists would not go away, that's the the whole problem with this idea. Those who have power & influence in politics will inevitably get preferential treatment over those that are less powerful & more poverty stricken.
ANYONE here in the U.S. with an emergency, goes to the emergency room & gets treated then and there, without question. If your life threatening tumor scenario happened, then that person still gets treated. Much quicker than in a Nationalized system.
Again, I believe there needs to be reform, just not by putting the government in control.

[Stopper]

The United States has that problem too, only the Black Market can garantee speedy delivery.

Not true at all. The waiting lists in the U.S. are not nearly as long as those in countries where the gov't controls health care.

I wouldn't deny that the U.S. has shorter waiting lists than other countries. After all, an effective method of shortening these lists is to price a good chunk of the population out of healthcare.

All these arguments you're having over public/private healthcare systems simply boils down to the method of rationing healthcare.

If you believe decent medical treatment is a universal human right, then you'll have a public healthcare system.

If you think it's OK to price out the bottom 20% of the population from any healthcare whatsoever, while allowing the rest a very slightly improved service at much higher cost, then you'll go the private route.

EDIT: bollocks, I must have missed the last few posts somehow. Never mind.

[Iz Man]

Yes, hearts, kidneys, lungs, blood etc are all in short supply.

I'm curious to know how a private healthcare system is supposed to be able to have a better supply of these things than a public healthcare system...

Its not a question of supply. Obviously the main reason the U.S. does not have the shortage problems the U.K. does is sheer population. We also have a better donor system in the U.S. that allows quicker delivery.
The problems arise when bureaucrats become the decision makers in who gets the organs in question.
These same bureaucrats that are beholden to their constituents.
Doctors need to make these decisions, not government officials.
Government is not the solution to the problem.
Government is the problem.

[vtmarik]

These are all valid arguments.
If we agree that we don't trust the gov't, how can we disagree that the same corrupt gov't won't corrupt a health care system?

One word: Medicare.

Prove that Medicare is corrupt and irredeemable and then I'll agree with you.

First, it wouldn't be a portion of our taxes, it would be a massive increase in taxes to accomplish this.

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. I'd willingly accept another 10 bucks off of every paycheck if it meant that I didn't have to save up for a life-saving surgery if I need it, god forbid.

The lobbyists would not go away, that's the the whole problem with this idea. Those who have power & influence in politics will inevitably get preferential treatment over those that are less powerful & more poverty stricken.

When the entire nation is paying for health care, the lobbyists won't have any industry to lobby for. Insurance company rates would go down, including malpractice insurance since malpractice would become a federal crime (technically).

And as to your "those with more power will get preferential treatment" existing medical laws already prevent that from happening. Would these laws magically evaporate if the industry became subsidized?

"Here's 10,000 dollars, treat me first because I cut off my finger."
"Sorry sir, you'll have to wait, someone came in with massive head trauma and we have to treat the most major cases first."
"But does he have money?"
"It doesn't matter sir."
"Gah, the poor people get all the breaks!"

ANYONE here in the U.S. with an emergency, goes to the emergency room & gets treated then and there, without question. If your life threatening tumor scenario happened, then that person still gets treated. Much quicker than in a Nationalized system.

Yeah, and if you can't pay the bill afterward, they discharge you and put a lien on your possessions, your paycheck, and possibly come after you with lawyers.

"I survived the gunshot wound, but now I can't feed my family. Whoopee, the system works!"

Again, I believe there needs to be reform, just not by putting the government in control.

They already are! Pharmaceutical companies, ad agencies, hospitals, insurance companies, and even medical equipment manufacturers are all regulated and controlled by the government.

The only difference is that we're paying the companies while they pay the government instead of paying the government to pay the companies.

All we'd need as protection would be a single law. It would be something like:
"Funds collected via taxes from the citizens of the United States for a specific purpose are not permitted to the appropriated for any other purpose under any circumstances except a state of emergency."

It'll never happen of course, which brings us back to square one.