" Oh lord " As for governments taking wealth to pay for a monopoly on roads and plumbing, I do not endorse it. We have a tragedy of the commons in water distribution and pollution, and property delineation (and proper enforcement) would have prevented these problems. Man is not a means to an end be disposed of by his government. Man is his own ends." I know the place your taking about it exists its a magical place where there is no tax there is only freedom its called the 3rd world who do you think would have built the roads in the 1st place or the water mains telephone lines "Yeah, good job at proving my point. Most of Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia contain the most heavily-manipulated economies in the world. Their people are the least economically free in the world, and they are poor as a result.
socialized medicine is necessary
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I NEED TO CAPITALIZE THIS BECAUSE NONE OF YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO REALIZE THIS SO I HAVE TO MAKE IT AS PLAIN AND CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. GOVERNMENTS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PULLS OF EXPENDITURES VERSUS REVENUES. IF THEIR EXPENDITURES DON'T MATCH THEIR REVENUES THEY DON'T PROVIDE AS MANY SERVICES AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO. IF A COMPANY HAS A FUNDING SHORT FALL, THEY CAN SELL SHARES, THEY CAN SELL ASSETS. A GOVERNMENT IS JUST AS MUCH SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF ECONOMIC REALITY AS CORPORATIONS ARE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS CORPORATIONS COMPETE, WHEREAS A GOVERNMENT IS A MONOPOLY.
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:No, I meant WWI. I mean Germany was aggressive in WWII, but they were not the initial aggressors. The Treaty of Versailles was an assault on Germany." @SinGulaR said:I guess you mean WWII. But you're right. It's needless to say that those 3 trillion dollars could have been spend otherwise or saved in the first place. But Germany spends a lot on it's social system like healthcare, education and a great part on social security. There is a plan to lower the accumullation of national debt to zero by 2012 but I'm not so sure that will happen. I somehow have the feeling that a great part of the economy runs on credit. And credit alone. Is the Federal Reserve owned by your goverment or is it a private bank like the European Central Bank? "" @lilburtonboy7489 said:Yea, it's the Federal Reserve. It's basically the downfall of the American economy and it is responsible for our financial crisis :( But look on the bright side, at least in Germany you aren't spending 3 trillion dollars on an aggressive war. You people learned after WWI. "" @SinGulaR said:It's the same here in Germany. Our goverment lends money to pay back debt. Which results in more debt. Which results in more money beeing lend. In the end the debt is so high that it will be inly possible to pay the interest. When it has come to this we are slaves of the Central Bank. Isn't there something like a Central Bank in the States as well? "" I wonder who honestly believes that the US will ever be able to pay back it's debt. I mean it's 11.4 trillion $. That's almost the GDP from the US in 2008. "Because our debt is growing much faster than our GDP, and there is no end in sight. Spending is skyrocketting due to underfunded programs, such as social security, medicare, etc...Yet our productive growth is slowing at a fast rate because of the increase consumption and decrease in production. That 11.4 trillion doesn't even come to close to the real deficit because they don't factor in tranfer of payments debts. So how will we pay back an increasing debt? Either 1) Inflate, 2) Increase taxes. Both will be disastrous, and no politician wants to bite the bullet. Politicians will keep delaying the inevitable for personal gains until people stop lending us money. We are fucked. "
Our Federal Reserve isn't really private. It's complicated. It works as a public institution in every way, but somehow has kept the status of being private, therefore it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and other laws which keep public institutions accountable. But is is the most powerful government entity that exists. It controls the interest rates of all private banks, it sells and buys US Treasury bonds, and it funds our deficits at the whims of politicians. It also is the only institution which has the authority to contract out to the currency provider. It controls the money supply, and since only the US dollar is legal tender, it has a whole lot of power.
It is just plain dishonest to say it is a private institution.
" @Suicrat said:That could not be farther from the truth. Competition lowers price and raises quality. I don't even think socialists would argue against that." @VisariLoyalist said:If they provide me with value, then they should be free to dispose of that value. I don't see where you get the notion that privatizing American healthcare (remember, it's already heavily manipulated by the government) would be harmful to the poor. Free markets drive costs down, not the other way around. Just look at the computer industry if you don't believe me. "" @Suicrat said:
" @SinGulaR said:So don't the workers who make your lifestyle possible deserve to at least be free of disease? Most people who don't have health insurance have jobs so I don't follow your logic unless you want the creation of a extreme class based society wherein the elite get the best healthcare in the world and the poor all squalor in disease. "" @Suicrat said:It's an essay pointing out the fallacy behind thinking you improve the overall lot of a group of people by taking from one group to give to another group. As for medical treatment, I said it earlier in this thread, and I will say it again. I had surgery on my ankle this year, paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A government-run insurance plan for which I will be perpetually in debt. No matter how much I produce, no matter how wealthy I become, I will always have to give them a portion of my wealth. I would much rather have been given the option to take out a loan, and eventually be free of that debt burden. "" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment? "
I know how competition lowers prices but also quality.
If you lower your price and also fall behind in quality, you will go out of business. The survivors are those who can provide high quality and low prices. Whoever is the best at that, will be the most successful.
I see how capitalism has brought the wealth that you can have surgery on our ankle while every 10 seconds a child starves to death in the world somewhere because it's country has nothing of monetary worth to offer. Or it's leader keeps all the capital to himself.
@lilburtonboy7489:
When was the last time you bought something at a low price with a high quality that you couldn't get elswhere with a higher quality at a higher price? Low price low quality products stay in business because there are people who can't afford to pay high quality. And i a business which survied a price competition it will raise it's prices to maximise it's earnings because that's all what counts in capitalism.
It all boils down to "Either you're successful and can pay for your happyness and health or you are not successful in which case you live in misery and die." That means we still fall under the "Survival of the fittest and ablest" principle like all the other animals. I always thought that since every one of us individually and as a race as whole is self aware of his own existence and therefore should be able to rise above a natural selection process for it's indivuduals. But seeing this "beeing successful in society and beeing able to live and procreate" and comparing it to "beeing able to be successful in hunting and gathering" I can see similaties which by now shouldn't be there anymore. This can not be what is called civilisation, but just the most complex form of savagery on earth. What a pity.
" @slinky6 said:Why are companies able to do that? Because we allow them to get away with it. No one should buy insurance from any company that rips them off. If bad insurance companies were boycotted they'd either go out of business or be forced to change their practices." With a free market economy it's as simple as not buying insurance from the shitty companies. If people aren't insured it should be their problem, not mine through taxes. I'm a Canadian, by the way, and our healthcare isn't all it's cracked up to be (Long ass waiting periods, doctors aren't happy with their wages). Its not "free healthcare" by any stretch. It probably ends up costing me more than I like to think about and it means I'm responsible for people I don't know or give a shit about. Wanting socialism is really just an admission of laziness and wanting others to take care of you. Socialists make themselves out to be altruistic and noble, but they are really as selfish as any capitalist, they just aren't willing to work hard to fulfill their selfish desires. Please don't quote me then say "BUSH WAS A CAPITALIST LOOK WHERE WE ARE NOW" because Bush spent tax money only the way a socialist douche could. Secondly, he was retarded, but I guess that's a tired and basically unnecessary thing to say. "Free market economies work when it comes to non essential goods such as iPods and trendy clothes but when it comes to the preservation of someones life do you really think that anyone should be left out of life preserving healthcare treatment because they didn't think ahead? Is that a deadly sin in your book that if you either don't seek or get bad insurance than you deserve to die?? It's not like you get a second chance with your insurance provider either as soon as you develop a condition you are locked in to their insurance because do to the rules of preexisting conditions you can't get that better coverage and furthermore they can raise your rates as they choose without increasing the variety of conditions they cover. So in conclusion a free market economy may force people to make healthcare better but it also has too many casualties along the way. "
i agree we need to cut spending, but my problem with our government is that they would rather spend money on some crackpot war than for the health and benefit of their own citizens
" It all boils down to "Either you're successful and can pay for your happyness and health or you are not successful in which case you live in misery and die." That means we still fall under the "Survival of the fittest and ablest" principle like all the other animals. I always thought that since every one of us individually and as a race as whole is self aware of his own existence and therefore should be able to rise above a natural selection process for it's indivuduals. But seeing this "beeing successful in society and beeing able to live and procreate" and comparing it to "beeing able to be successful in hunting and gathering" I can see similaties which by now shouldn't be there anymore. This can not be what is called civilisation, but just the most complex form of savagery on earth. What a pity. "No, this is the false dichotomy assumed by the left.
What it boils to is, there is no infinite resource on earth, except the human mind. And giving the government the exclusive privilege to offer a service will handicap that resource, and limit its productive potential.
I have already illustrated that these programs don't help the poor more than the wealthy, they make it harder for them to afford the bare essentials, but because it is indirect
Private schools has to survive from something, sure in rare cases it can work if they got someone willing to fund all of it, but at that point they are basically the same as public schools, aka it's not being funded by the parents of the students but by someone else. The whole issue with private schools is that in order to teach well they need lots of money, which they get from the rich parents. When you have a government that makes sure all schools have sufficient money then that's no longer a issue and everyone can enjoy a proper education. Now if you can find someone that will pay for all private schools so that poor kids can still get a good education then I'm fine with that, but the fact is that people don't do that, reality is that private schools are around because public schools are shit so the rich parents are willing to pay big bucks to get their kids a better education and I understand that completely, but if the government would make sure public schools weren't so shit then rich parents would be fine with their kids on those schools and they would probably donate things to the school to improve it even more, it's what happens here.I AM NOT DEFENDING THE POLITICS OF THE U.S.! FASCISM IS JUST AS BAD AS SOCIALISM! And no, not every private school is just for the wealthy, there are private schools in the slums of urban centres in Brazil, India, China, and all over the developing world, and they provide education to the poor. I live in Canada, in the riding of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I know a great deal about what democratic socialism entails. As for taxing the rich to help the poor. There is no such thing as a corporate tax. Any tax a government levies on a company, the company then passes on to the consumer. I know what the ideals of socialism are, I just know they fail to square with reality. Inflation hurts purchasing power, the poor are the most sensitive to fluxuations in purchasing power. Until you address this point, none of your idle platitudes about socialism will be worth a lick of shit. As for the Netherlands, your economy survives on the back of Shell, the most rapacious corporation in the history of mankind, so if you're going to defend the Netherlands and its ability to feed and clothe its poor, then you need to address this issue as well. I AM NOT A RIGHT-WINGER, I AM A CAPITALIST! CAPITALISTS ARE CENTRISTS. "
Yes with taxes going up prices will go up aswell but people will still be able to buy more then they did before. Besides it's not just taxes, it's also how you spend it. As for companies increasing prices, well you argued Shell, well here is the thing, people on the poverty line do not give a fuck about gas prices, they can't afford them anyway.
No matter how you look at it, we have less poor people then the US, we have less homeless people then the US and pretty much everyone here has medical insurance.
As for adressing Shell, well here is a short piece on the English part of my party's website.
Or if you are lazy just read this part:
"The SP is demanding that the government cream off some of the billions in profits which the oil corporations are making. “We can't allow Shell and its shareholders to raking in the proceeds of high fuel prices while the ordinary citizen's wallet is emptied,""
And what makes you think that our economy survives on Shell, sure it's a huge company, but what's your point? The US bought Alaska for jack shit yet they are worth less then their debt. Oil is great, but it's politics and the taxing of it that makes a country a success or a failure, in the end even without Shell we would still be 1 of the richest countries. Just so you know, Unilever gets us more money then Shell does.
As for capitalism, how is that central? It really depends on how you execute it, you can argue capitalism within socialism aswell, without defining in what you believe you have not argued a thing.
Just incase you are arguing that people should have the freedom to do what they want, hire people for whatever price they want, severely reduce or even remove taxes etc then you would be a conservative, which are very right winged, and since this is what people usually mean when they talk about capitalism (since like I said, virtually any country or political view uses capitalism in some form), so I'm really wondering what the hell you are talking about.
" I like to play video games! "GTFO
I would like to point out that no one goes to europe or canada for their medicale needs.
I've heard some people from the US go to Canada to get over-the-counter drugs. Then again, that was in a Michael Moore film." I would like to point out that no one goes to europe or canada for their medicale needs. "
" @ryanwho: Oh and people who make a lot of money don't hate poor, hardworking people. What they hate is lazy pricks like you who want them to pay for your problems. "Well you're shitting on poor hardworking people regardless even if you only want to spit Ayn Rand pile on the poor lazy people who deserve(?) not to have healthcare. You can say bolded but everything else you said indicates you think poor people are poor because they're not trying hard enough so they get what they deserve, which is rich yuppy detachment at its finest. By opposing universal healthcare, you're taking it away from everyone who can't afford it, not just the people you think don't deserve to have it.
This is a no-brainer, priorities should be
1 health care for everyone, and
2 education for everyone,
not
1 National defense
2 shopping
My country (Costa Rica) offers health care for everyone, it has many problems, but the solution would NEVER be privatization, they just have to make it better, a first step would be to stop stealing the money thats supposed to go to health care. My people just have to get up their lazy asses, and go on strike for this, put the people responsible in jail, start promoting the necessary laws.
People need to understand that if a lot of people dont have basic things, things will turn sour. nobody wants a family member getting kidnapped, or riots(a valid way for demanding what you need) for example.
" @SinGulaR said:" It all boils down to "Either you're successful and can pay for your happyness and health or you are not successful in which case you live in misery and die." That means we still fall under the "Survival of the fittest and ablest" principle like all the other animals. I always thought that since every one of us individually and as a race as whole is self aware of his own existence and therefore should be able to rise above a natural selection process for it's indivuduals. But seeing this "beeing successful in society and beeing able to live and procreate" and comparing it to "beeing able to be successful in hunting and gathering" I can see similaties which by now shouldn't be there anymore. This can not be what is called civilisation, but just the most complex form of savagery on earth. What a pity. "No, this is the false dichotomy assumed by the left. What it boils to is, there is no infinite resource on earth, except the human mind. And giving the government the exclusive privilege to offer a service will handicap that resource, and limit its productive potential. I have already illustrated that these programs don't help the poor more than the wealthy, they make it harder for them to afford the bare essentials, but because it is indirect "
Sorry but I want to see you make a boot out of the "Infinite resource" humand mind. You're right though. There is no infinite resource but there would be enough resources for everyone alive to come around. We live in a society of scarcity which is superficially produced by the concept of trade. And this concept denies a part of this society the right to be lazy because paying with your life to execute a right is not really having an option to execute this right at all. It's like having to choose between wage-slavery and death and that's outright barbaric.
Just imagine someone who's life fullfillment would be to never work for a salary. He couldn't live a fulffilling life in the current circumstances without ending up in serious trouble. And now don't come and tell me that there wouldn't be enough resources for all the people on earth because if that's the case we better start killing off the uneccessary people right away to save those resources. But first we vote for a party which decides who is uneccessary in the first place hope they don't say it's the Canadians ;)
there's a lot of overly idealistic people in here....mainly on the right.
but you know what? they're right. fuck poor people. fuck government. Corporate anarchy is the best for everyone! WHOO!
but seriously, it pisses me off when people treat a democratic-republic like it's a marxist state, it's insulting as all hell. downright unamerican.
we should reduce the influence of special interests groups, tighten the reigns on corruption (death penalty, anyone?), put a cap on campaign budgets, and then increase the governments power over essential public services (such as healthcare). the government needs to regulate industry, and the People need to regulate the government, it's called democracy. Anything else is just backwards.
I actually feel better after venting that, catharsis ftw.
I oppose health care cause I don't want people like YOU to get health care, like I said it's a crying shame for decent folk to not be able to have health care, but at the end of the day my family worked hard to get where we are now. And now you people want us to throw all that work away, all that goddamn sacrifice so YOU can have what WE worked so fucking hard to get, that is bullshit, it is unjust, and it is wrong.
And by the way my family has done more for humanity than you will ever do in 10 lifetimes.
I pity you, and I hope to god if you have kids or ever have kids that they find a better role model than you.
Now go die you elitist fucking scum.
Are you aware that American governments have been telling non Americans for many decades what to do ?" I like when people from other countries talk like they know what's best for Americans. Seriously, if you refer to us as "you Americans," kindly get the fuck out of the conversation. (edit: not referring to the above post) "
Americans governments have tourted, banned the sale of certain products to those who do not agree with whatever American government is currently in power, sometimes indiscriminately drop bombs on those who refuse to bow to Americas will.
It is perfectly rational for non Americans to make public their views on something as fundamental as health care.
The richest country in the world not being able to provide health care to it's poorest citizens is embaressing but it demonstrates the core values of many American politicians and the few have the power to make these changes in America - they value only money and wealth and health for the richest few.
" @ryanwho: Oh yeah I'm a rich kid? Fuck you you little bitch, there was a time when my family could barely afford food, and we worked our fucking asses off to get where we are today, and little lazy bitches like you refuse to do what we did and wait and work and sacrifice, instead you want it now, you refuse to work you want people like me, my father, my mother, my brother, to pay for your shit, fuck you! I oppose health care cause I don't want people like YOU to get health care, like I said it's a crying shame for decent folk to not be able to have health care, but at the end of the day my family worked hard to get where we are now. And now you people want us to throw all that work away, all that goddamn sacrifice so YOU can have what WE worked so fucking hard to get, that is bullshit, it is unjust, and it is wrong. And by the way my family has done more for humanity than you will ever do in 10 lifetimes. I pity you, and I hope to god if you have kids or ever have kids that they find a better role model than you.Now go die you elitist fucking scum. "
I bet you believe in God.
and the whole fucking world tortures, what fucking world are you living in?
" @MrKlorox said:Are you aware that American governments have been telling non Americans for many decades what to do ? Americans governments have tourted, banned the sale of certain products to those who do not agree with whatever American government is currently in power, sometimes indiscriminately drop bombs on those who refuse to bow to Americas will. It is perfectly rational for non Americans to make public their views on something as fundamental as health care. The richest country in the world not being able to provide health care to it's poorest citizens is embaressing but it demonstrates the core values of many American politicians and the few have the power to make these changes in America - they value only money and wealth and health for the richest few. "" I like when people from other countries talk like they know what's best for Americans. Seriously, if you refer to us as "you Americans," kindly get the fuck out of the conversation. (edit: not referring to the above post) "
But to say that is an american thing is wrong. Wealth equals power. And all the elitist people around the world wo get a kick out of commanding others around value only wealth. And themselves. It serves them right that decent people have to work their asses off and are righteously angry at those who don't because that keeps controversy between us alive. They don't care about any of our problems beeing born rich in the umteenth generation they don't have to think about healtcare having their doctors livin right with them in thei 30 room houses.
" @PlipO: Name one country we bombed indiscriminately, and the whole fucking world tortures, what fucking world are you living in? "
Please, let us not hijack the thread, I am very willing to inform you of America's atrocities and double standards but not in this thread.
" @VisariLoyalist said:allright so we unregulated the markets during the bush years and look where it lead us, 9.7 unemployment. Great job free markets!!!" whatever healthcare has elements which involve production but the divi-ing up of healthcare should not be based on how much you can pay. That is fundementally what I'm saying and any other argument is insane. The myth of the free market has been proven to ruin economies and steal rights from citizens time and time again so I would please urge you to knock all that rich man's propaganda out of your head before you go killing another working class person. "If you can't pay for something that you value, you can borrow the money to pay for it. This already happens with government provided healthcare. If they can't afford it THEY borrow the money which they pay back through taxation and inflation. A process to which the poor are the most sensitive. Totally free markets have never existed. Relative freedom has only ever existed, and as I mentioned, the places and markets with a greater degree of relative freedom have fared far better (especially in the standard of living of the poor) than places and markets with a lesser degree of relative freedom. I have cited historical examples, and I urge you to research them. It is not my fault you've been brainwashed against self-confidence and your ability to use your mind to obtain your goals, but to accuse me of being a victim of brainwashing would be flatly incorrect. "
" @PlipO: Atrocities? Really? If your discussing the Native Americans, then yeah that's a horrible thing, and if your talking about the slave trade, yeah that was horrible too, but I'm not saying sorry I didn't do shit, my ancestors came from ireland. So start naming dispshit. "Am glad they left :)
" @PlipO: Atrocities? Really? If your discussing the Native Americans, then yeah that's a horrible thing, and if your talking about the slave trade, yeah that was horrible too, but I'm not saying sorry I didn't do shit, my ancestors came from ireland. So start naming dispshit. "Dont forget you removal of democratically elected governments and sponsorship of paramilitaries in South America...you take care now
Urgh. A lot of you still seem to equate the government to the people. Y'know, we honestly don't have control over the government, right? I could walk into my state senate tomorrow and tell them, as a citizen, who is supposed to be a part of the soverignty of the nation, that I don't what them to continue with something. I'd get laughed right out of the building. Its all fine and good that you all like to take a wide humanitarian view on some of the things the government has done, but quit blaming everyone in the country for it. Especially for things that happened before a lot of us were born. WE aren't the government, and its rather insulting to be constantly reading persecuting remarks directed at the citizens because of something the big boys did. We don't control them, we can't tell them what not to do.
On a more topical note. Socialized medicine is another ideal thing here in the US, but the vast majority of the people here couldn't afford that small tax hike. This isn't some pointless rhetoric from some guy that this doesn't relate to either. My entire family has been under the poverty line for my entire life. Sure, its bad we can't hit the hospital all the time for the sniffles, but if you go chopping of ANY of the scarce amount of money for paying those taxes, we start going hungry. It sure would be nice to get cold medicine from the doctor every time we get a cold in winterbut I think I prefer something to eat, some heat, and a nice roof to sleep under. When I was a kid, my folks would often go without a meal or two during a hard week. And that was on a full paycheck. Start cutting out more for taxes, and we'd have been sunk. THAT is the reality for a lot of US families. Getting that cough medicine isn't really going to be a comfort to all those families that get taxed more and can't eat.
I also noticed a few of you scoffed at the emergency care deal. If a poor family member gets badly hurt, the hospital simply can't refuse to treat you. It's illegal. They can harass you for payments later, yes, but the base fact is in those emergencies, you aren't simply SOL because your poor. I know this for a fact, cuz my sister broke her ankle once, and surprise surpise, they didn't just turn her right back out the door.
Last note here I believe, our government was founded after people split off from a monarchy. Everything about our government is meant to restrict power of the governement since they saw first hand that power corrupts, even if given with the best intentions. Those 'right wing idiots' still work off that principle for the most part. Organizations given total control of anything tend to close an iron fist around it. If you give the our national government complete control over the health industry how will it fare? Its generally accepted anywhere that governments are innefficient and stuck with beurocracy styled procedure. Those right wingers don't really want to let the government to have that chance to completely regulate the nations health. What if the governement is wrong about what is healthy? How long till they outlaw everything that could cause injury or bad health? Thats the concern they tend to operate with. Tossing around 'right wing evil morons' so much just doesn't seem to feel correct. Sure, I'll bet a lot of them are corrupt and out for their own interest, but then...you don't have to be restricted to right-wing idealogy for that.
Passionate idealism is great, don't get me wrong. Is one of the driving forces that built this country. But, you also have to consider, we live in a less than ideal world. Things take time.
" @Suicrat said:1) As usual you spew out of a lot of crap. Why is that everytime I see one of these topics you are defending the fucked up politics of the US? Private education is superior over public education, and you know why? Because every country who has real private education is killing public education. You see instead of creating a elite of schools because they cost shitloads, you can also just tax that money and improve all schools. So is private education actually superior, or is it just superior because it kills public education? The only difference between private and public is money, socialism removes that issue so that there is no issue of money, therefor all schools would be just as good, or atleast to a certain degree (there is as always a difference in quality, but you can't do shit about that)"2. Private education is widely known to be superior to public education throughout most of the world."
2) "Adding taxes will merely harm the poor even more. Even if they don't pay it directly. Adding arbitrary costs to a thing (in the case of what you're talking about, everything) only increases the costs." And again you have no clue on what socialism is about, surprise surprise... Socialism looks at what people need to live well enough to afford the usual things and a little more so that no one has to live in poverty, now they wouldn't tax the poor even more, infact that would lower their taxes and increase the taxes on the rich, therefor the poor would only gain and wouldn't be harmed. Seriously get it through your head, the goal of socialism is to make things more equal, that no one has to poor, everyone would be able to buy food, pay the rent, send their kids off to college etc. Anything that would make live financially worse for poor people has absolutely nothing to do at all with socialism. The Netherlands is and will always be 1 of the richest country in the world, per head we have more money then almost any country, including the US, you really should stop thinking that right wing crap will bring salvation to all those countries, because it won't, ofcourse no system is perfect, socialism is the next best thing, it gives people a proper income that they can live off, it gives everyone health care, anyone can go to a college or university and all this while greedy people can still make millions/billions. "1) Private Education is superior to public education because profit drives organizations of any kind to perform more effeciently. They only people who can afford private education are usually people of the middle class and higher. They already pay taxes, so taxing private education won't solve any problems, because people will always demand an alternative to public education because it will always leave them unsatisfied. This is why private education always promises to offer better education, and delivers (otherwise it's a failed enterprise). Check out the private schools in your area for proof.
If the only difference between public schools and private schools were how much you were paying then private schools wouldn't be in demand. This is common sense and I don't understand how you think it "kills" the quality of public schools, when what actually "kills" the quality of public schools are bad policies and misguided teachers unions.
2) This is always going to backfire, because of the law of supply and demand. You are going to lose money by placing arbitray costs on things, and not even the Netherlands does that (from my knowledge). Socialism is a fine idealogy, but it shouldn't be the sole policy, especially when it comes to dealing with taxation.
OH GUERO! YOU HAVE NO FAITH IN MEDICINE!
Conservatives are manipulated-market capitalists, I am a free market capitalist, this difference is crucial. The only service for which there can be no open competition is the retaliatory use of force (because that is war and war is bad), for that there needs to be a monopoly (i.e., a government), the only thing that should be banned is the initiation of force. This comes in many forms: assault, theft, fraud, murder, manipulative contracts, invasion, et cetera.
What it comes down to is people produce, governments coerce, and when people coerce, it is the job of governments to retaliate (via civil and criminal law mechanisms). The government's role in an economy is to ensure that transactions are not coercive, but voluntary. Any good that any person wishes to obtain needs to be created or traded for by the person who wishes to use it, anything else (on the part of the rich as well as the poor, the extremely wealthy -- those who run the banks -- being the most egregious perpetrators) is theft.
As for education, I am training to prove you, and those who agree with you wrong. Education can be affordable, equitable, and free from government intervention, but I don't want to steal your money to help prove my point. That would defeat the whole purpose. Instead of idly complaining (and activism as it currently exists isn't much more than idle complaining) about my province's education system, I'm training to be a teacher, and working towards a goal of a school free of government interference. The problems with my country's (and my province's) health care system are beyond any one outside of the political system's power to change, because Canadian Law prevents it, and I'd never want to try to take power from anyone, using force, or electoral campaigning for that matter. Education is different, there is room to demonstrate one's effectiveness to education consumers (i.e., parents and their children.)
Free market capitalism allows for the maximum number of experiments in productivity possible. Government intervention limits the possibilities directly and indirectly.
As for that article, you further proved my point. The Netherlands' public sector operates on the back of the energy industry, and in turn, your government allows it to help shape policy. Of course, that matters little on the national Dutch stage, but corporate lobbying runs the European Union, and if your party wants to fuel its activities with corporate profits, that will never change.
P.S.: I support your party's opposition to public funding for veal advertisement. But why are your special interests worth listening to and not other competing groups? Do you not see the contradiction of this form of "Social democracy"? It's a scramble for power over one another, instead of leaving people to pursue their interests as they choose.
(Apologies for the late response. A few friends came over.)
Suicrat...you lost all credibility when you said that the Iraq war was just a "drop in the bucket" I refuse to read any of your posts after that statement.
What?
whatever healthcare has elements which involve production but the divi-ing up of healthcare should not be based on how much you can pay. That is fundementally what I'm saying and any other argument is insane. The myth of the free market has been proven to ruin economies and steal rights from citizens time and time again so I would please urge you to knock all that rich man's propaganda out of your head before you go killing another working class person. "
You are insane. The free market is the only market the world follows; all other alternatives have failed (IE Soviet Union).
" @Suicrat said:Are you kidding me? The Bush years represented the most dangerous excessive of government intervention in the financial sector in American History (Aside from during the Roosevelt years.) Read your history textbooks. Deregulation happened on a very superficial scale, while the responsibilities of regulators expanded beyond the scope of their mandate and funding, one example of that was the failure of the SEC to prosecute Bernie Madoff, even after receiving detailed reports years prior. The federal reserve inflated the currency more nakedly than at any point in U.S. history by sustaining the rate of interest at a rate lower than the rate of inflation, banks operated under the too big to fail doctrine, and took on levels of risk far beyond what a free market would ever tolerate, and fragmenting their reserve (which is theft, which would be criminalized in a free market) to the point where they had no real reserves, and came to the government to be "bailed out"." @VisariLoyalist said:allright so we unregulated the markets during the bush years and look where it lead us, 9.7 unemployment. Great job free markets!!! "" whatever healthcare has elements which involve production but the divi-ing up of healthcare should not be based on how much you can pay. That is fundementally what I'm saying and any other argument is insane. The myth of the free market has been proven to ruin economies and steal rights from citizens time and time again so I would please urge you to knock all that rich man's propaganda out of your head before you go killing another working class person. "If you can't pay for something that you value, you can borrow the money to pay for it. This already happens with government provided healthcare. If they can't afford it THEY borrow the money which they pay back through taxation and inflation. A process to which the poor are the most sensitive. Totally free markets have never existed. Relative freedom has only ever existed, and as I mentioned, the places and markets with a greater degree of relative freedom have fared far better (especially in the standard of living of the poor) than places and markets with a lesser degree of relative freedom. I have cited historical examples, and I urge you to research them. It is not my fault you've been brainwashed against self-confidence and your ability to use your mind to obtain your goals, but to accuse me of being a victim of brainwashing would be flatly incorrect. "
This is the problem of the Bush legacy. No president uttered the word liberty while trampling on it as fervently as Bush did, and conservatism is in many ways opposed to the principles of free market capitalism. Witness the willingness of Bush and the Republicans to spend taxpayer money bailing them out in the first place! That's not a free market, that's a propped-up market! You need to learn what the word "liberty" means before applying it to any of the policies of the Bush administration.
Moreover, the Bush tax cuts, in light of the inflationary activity of the federal reserve, constituted a wealth transfer from poor to wealthy, which is another way of saying Bush sponsored a massive robbery of the nation's poor for the benefit of the nation's rich. Government-imposed wealth transfers are antithetical to the principles of free markets.
@Bloody_Harvest said:
I don't need your endorsement of my words for credibility. As for what I said, read it again. All of the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan have been and continue to be a tragedy. But in terms of the debt burden left behind by Iraq and Afghanistan (that is if they get out of there any time soon, which they should do ASAP), the debt burden imposed by Medicare and Medicaid are massive. Were talking hundreds of billions versus tens of trillions." Suicrat...you lost all credibility when you said that the Iraq war was just a "drop in the bucket" I refuse to read any of your posts after that statement. "
I do not need the support of people who read my words selectively. If you're going to pass any semblance of adequate judgment on me, read the words I wrote, not the words you think I'm trying to write.
" There should be no profit motive when it comes to people's health "You can't eliminate the profit motive from anything, much less a resource-intensive industry from healthcare.
In Ontario, we have government-run health insurance, and the doctors flock to the highest-density areas of the province (read: the cities), and small towns are forbidden from offering financial incentives to get doctors to establish practices. So of course, yes, this benefits the urban poor, at the expense of the rural poor. Not the poor benefitting at the expense of the rich.
How would you eliminate the profit motive from the companies who produce IVs or syringes or X-ray machines? They need to produce goods in high quantities (partially due to the inherent demands of sanitation) affordably at a high quality, what would getting rid of the profit motive do to the production of these items?
You ask the impossible when you demand an end to the profit motive in any aspect of human endeavour. The profit motive drives human endeavour.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment