America, Socialism, and Healhcare

[Taure]

This seems to be the prime debate in America right now: America and its relation to socialism. Is Obama a socialist, and if he is, is that a good or bad thing?

To a certain extent America is married to capitalism. America is all about preserving the freedom of the individual, and capitalism is based on economic freedom.

However, given that all western economies, including the US, are socialist to one degree or another (i.e. they are mixed economies, a mix between pure socialism and pure capitalism), how far do you think America can shift to the left before it's too far?

To be honest, I think Obama is a socialist, but say to the majority of Americans: "I do not think this term means what you think it means."

Bush was a socialist too, just less socialist.


Healthcare reform seems to be where this debate is centred at the moment. It seems to be the point at which many say "this is too far left".

Personally I don't see any possible disadvantage to America nationalising healthcare.

It would probably mean an increase in taxes, yes. But it would also mean no health insurance. And given that insurance companies are out to make a profit out of you, and government provided healthcare seeks only to cover their costs while providing the best healthcare possible, taxes should be lower than the cost of health insurance (given the significant profits of the healthcare industry).

Compared to a nationalised healthcare system, a system based on health insurance massively overcharges you, to make a profit. Nationalise and you cut out the middle man.

Now, this will be counteracted by the fact that health care would be open to a lot more people so costs would be much higher than they are now. Whether or not this will mean that the average person pays more or less (taxes vs. insurance) I'm not sure about. The healthcare industry, after all, is one of the most profitable in the entire US economy. "The people" would be better off that amount of profit, but worse off the amount of taxation it would take to fund a universal health care system.

Nevertheless, even if it does come out as more, I'd think that this was worth it.

Wouldn't you love to be able to walk in to a hospital without having to worry if your insurance covers the rare operation you need? Call an ambulance when you need to without having to worry about it being a waste of money if it turns out you're okay? Be more willing to go to the doctor about that problem with your knee that you've always had but didn't want to check out because it would cost you?

Studies have shown that the more regularly people go the doctor over little things, the longer they live. It enables things like cancer to be caught early. A system where people are scared of going to the doctors, because of cost, will mean that they don't go until much later, and the result is more deaths when lives could have been saved, not to mention expensive treatment instead of an easy cure.

And that's not to mention the social benefit to nationalised health care, which presumably those who are against nationalised health care don't care about ("those dirty unemployed people should work for the right to live, and if they're ill then they can die!"). A healthier population is a more productive population and a happier population. And for those of us who retain some measure of humanity, we do consider the cost of taxes worth the lives of our poorer fellow citizens.

Thoughts?

[[KMA]Avenger]

my thoughts? you seem to be new to this part of the forum (if so, welcome ) so you may not be familiar with what i think...

get rid of the Federal Reserve, transfer the issuance of currency to the government (which rightly belongs to the US government anyways by constitutional right) and you can then nationalize the health system with VERY little burden to the taxpayer...

think about it carefully.

[Taure]

Are you arguing that the US government should finance nationalised health care by simply issuing themselves a huge amount of money?

<_<

Can I hear the word "inflation" on the horizon?

It's generally best when the "central bank" of a country (In UK Bank of England, In Eurozone European Central Bank, in US Federal Reserve) is given independence from the government, because otherwise the government uses it for political ends. For example, before the Bank of England was given control over UK monetary policy execution, the government would use it just before an election to give themselves a popularity boost, regardless of if it was good for the economy.

[[KMA]Avenger]

see, that's why i first said think

do you know the process by which the Govt raises money?

[CRASSUS]

By "cutting out the middle man" you are cutting out literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the health insurance industry.

[[KMA]Avenger]

your point?

[Juliette]

By "cutting out the middle man" you are cutting out literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the health insurance industry.

Indeed. Nationalising might work in backwards countries like Bolivia and Venezuela, but not in countries with a stable, well-established system like 'most' of the Western world.

your point?

Shortsighted? You want to increase joblessness just because it would be more efficient? If we did everything efficiently, as we have so often worked towards (introducing robotics in car factories - job loss of millions; even the printing press cost thousands their job), there would not be a need for a massive part of the population. Imagine all those people, doing nothing but profiteering on the hard work of those that do have jobs. Seems reducing the world population isn't such a bad idea after all. It'll further progress.


What I think is funny about all this is that Avenger appeals to the US Constitution here. Sure, the Constitution gives Congress the right to coin money etcetera. Often the complaint is that Congress did not have the right to delegate control thereof. That is somewhat sad. The Constitution is pretty simple. "These are the rules. If it's not here, that makes it okay." How else can 7 short articles cover it all?



Ah well.. great to see you here, Taure. Don't let Avengers bitterness scare you away.

[Cole]

your point?

Shortsighted? You want to increase joblessness just because it would be more efficient? If we did everything efficiently, as we have so often worked towards (introducing robotics in car factories - job loss of millions; even the printing press cost thousands their job), there would not be a need for a massive part of the population. Imagine all those people, doing nothing but profiteering on the hard work of those that do have jobs. Seems reducing the world population isn't such a bad idea after all. It'll further progress.

I love this kind of raisoning. Jobless people being all "parasites" taking away the money from the "good" workers..
What is more interesting, is the hardworkers of today can become the "parasites" of tommorow.
How so? They lose their job. And all of a sudden, no matter how honest and right they are/were, they will fall in the "parasites" category (aka jobless people). Nice and fair world promoting efforts, isn't it?
No matter how well you used to be, if you "fail" once (lose your job and can't find one quickly), you will be considered like others [parasites].
Creating more "self-made parasites" who do realize (because they aren't stupid and know what's behind the farce), that it doesn't matter if you were an "examplary" person, when you will be jobless (age thing, firm problems..many reasons to joblessness lasting some time, not only bad people stealing the money and sitting like lazy bunch), the former "hero" you used to be, will be now considered as a "parasite".
Why? JUST because he/she became jobless and is accused to be a "parasite", because a short part of jobless people, are cheating. So now, rather see the former "hero", dieing for the goodness of current hard workers (and who knows, future parasites to get rid of?)? While in "hardworkers" side, many people are far worse than the "hero" will ever be (in honesty, crime records etc..). But they got work. So it's good thing. Until they lose it. Nice raisoning, isn't it?

Yes, that was a deep dig at neoclassical theory.
No system is perfect, but this one is far from being perfect lol. Needs a jobless people help otherwise not difficult to know the outcome(s).

And for your info people, I am not a socialist nor a communist. I am just logical. (and centre-right oriented)

[Taure]

do you know the process by which the Govt raises money?

Taxation, bonds and securities of varying length, loans.

Regarding the jobs of the health insurance industry: regrettable, but not as regrettable as the lack of access to healthcare.

Though many of them may be able to find administrative positions in the massive expansion of the health care system that would follow from nationalisation.

At the moment, America spends over double the amount of most European nations per capita on healthcare, for just under half of the same health infrastructure.

Which means you're spending double than we are for pretty much the same standard of care.

All that extra money is the money that the health insurance companies take as their profit.

When/if the industry is nationalised, you'll have twice the amount of money to spend on actual provision of healthcare with no change of expense to the American people. That means, possibly, twice as many hospitals. That's a lot of extra employment.

[Juliette]

your point?

Shortsighted? You want to increase joblessness just because it would be more efficient? If we did everything efficiently, as we have so often worked towards (introducing robotics in car factories - job loss of millions; even the printing press cost thousands their job), there would not be a need for a massive part of the population. Imagine all those people, doing nothing but profiteering on the hard work of those that do have jobs. Seems reducing the world population isn't such a bad idea after all. It'll further progress.

I love this kind of raisoning. Jobless people being all "parasites" taking away the money from the "good" workers..
What is more interesting, is the hardworkers of today can become the "parasites" of tommorow. How so? They lose their job. And all of a sudden, no matter how honest and right they are, they will fall in the "parasites" category. Nice world, isn't it? No matter how well you used to be, if you "fail" once, you will be considered like others. Creating more "self-made parasites" who do realize (because they aren't stupid and know what's behind the farce) that it doesn't matter if you were an "examplary" person, when you will be jobless (age thing, firm problems..many reasons to joblessness), the former "hero" you used to be, will be now considered as a "parasite". Why? JUST because he became jobless and is accused to be a "parasite" because a short part of jobless people are cheating. So now, rather see the former "hero" dieing for the goodness of current hard workers (and who knows, future parasites to get rid of?). While in "hardworkers" side, many people are far worse than the "hero" will ever be. But they got work. So it's good. Until they lose it. Nice raisoning, isn't it?

Jobless people do not produce anything. They do not do anything in exchange for the many benefits they receive.
A person who worked hard and earned a lot of money can quit their job and live of the rent of their bank accounts, is no parasite. Obviously, they have already done enough for humanity to warrant their position for as long as their money lasts.


It's all quite simple.
Baker bakes bread for me, I reward the baker by giving him money I earned working at the water bottling plant. The baker uses that money to buy bottled water. If I would not work at the water bottling plant, and would receive money from the government because I have no job, the baker would not be able to buy bottled water and would get in all kinds of trouble.

People who refuse to do anything for society except profiteer of the safety measures in place for bad times have no place in it. Would you not agree?

[Cole]

your point?

Shortsighted? You want to increase joblessness just because it would be more efficient? If we did everything efficiently, as we have so often worked towards (introducing robotics in car factories - job loss of millions; even the printing press cost thousands their job), there would not be a need for a massive part of the population. Imagine all those people, doing nothing but profiteering on the hard work of those that do have jobs. Seems reducing the world population isn't such a bad idea after all. It'll further progress.

I love this kind of raisoning. Jobless people being all "parasites" taking away the money from the "good" workers..
What is more interesting, is the hardworkers of today can become the "parasites" of tommorow. How so? They lose their job. And all of a sudden, no matter how honest and right they are, they will fall in the "parasites" category. Nice world, isn't it? No matter how well you used to be, if you "fail" once, you will be considered like others. Creating more "self-made parasites" who do realize (because they aren't stupid and know what's behind the farce) that it doesn't matter if you were an "examplary" person, when you will be jobless (age thing, firm problems..many reasons to joblessness), the former "hero" you used to be, will be now considered as a "parasite". Why? JUST because he became jobless and is accused to be a "parasite" because a short part of jobless people are cheating. So now, rather see the former "hero" dieing for the goodness of current hard workers (and who knows, future parasites to get rid of?). While in "hardworkers" side, many people are far worse than the "hero" will ever be. But they got work. So it's good. Until they lose it. Nice raisoning, isn't it?

Jobless people do not produce anything. They do not do anything in exchange for the many benefits they receive.
A person who worked hard and earned a lot of money can quit their job and live of the rent of their bank accounts, is no parasite. Obviously, they have already done enough for humanity to warrant their position for as long as their money lasts.


It's all quite simple.
Baker bakes bread for me, I reward the baker by giving him money I earned working at the water bottling plant. The baker uses that money to buy bottled water. If I would not work at the water bottling plant, and would receive money from the government because I have no job, the baker would not be able to buy bottled water and would get in all kinds of trouble.

People who refuse to do anything for society except profiteer of the safety measures in place for bad times have no place in it. Would you not agree?

You don't seem to realize something. Not everyone are managers or owners earning 4,000+ per month. Most are indeed NOT like that! It represents a 15-20% at max of current workers. And even, I can tell that there are people with a master level at university who sometimes have difficulties to find a work. Does it mean they are "parasites" JUST because they don't have jobs? (and since they were students, might not have worked much before getting their diplom) Wow, not a wonderful view of society!

So, people who can still get money (illegaly) are economically "better" (till found out to be criminals) than those who can't find a job, and had one which didn't gave them much to survive after job loss. Or at least, such kind of theory HIGHLY promotes crime to earn black market money to keep living. Wonderful, isn't it?


I wouldn't like to live in such corrupted society!


Forgot to mention, not everyone has an inherited house/appartment. So, those people who need to pay for their house or appartment, if it takes half of their income (let's say 1.5k out of 3k), and need rest for various things. 500€ left per month. How is it going to make them last long if they lose their job if they saved like 15k €, eh?
And a LARGE part of people are concerned by the above.

[[KMA]Avenger]

By "cutting out the middle man" you are cutting out literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the health insurance industry.

Indeed. Nationalising might work in backwards countries like Bolivia and Venezuela, but not in countries with a stable, well-established system like 'most' of the Western world.

your point?

Shortsighted? You want to increase joblessness just because it would be more efficient? If we did everything efficiently, as we have so often worked towards (introducing robotics in car factories - job loss of millions; even the printing press cost thousands their job), there would not be a need for a massive part of the population. Imagine all those people, doing nothing but profiteering on the hard work of those that do have jobs. Seems reducing the world population isn't such a bad idea after all. It'll further progress.


What I think is funny about all this is that Avenger appeals to the US Constitution here. Sure, the Constitution gives Congress the right to coin money etcetera. Often the complaint is that Congress did not have the right to delegate control thereof. That is somewhat sad. The Constitution is pretty simple. "These are the rules. If it's not here, that makes it okay." How else can 7 short articles cover it all?



Ah well.. great to see you here, Taure. Don't let Avengers bitterness scare you away.

you've missed the point entirely!

the UK, Canada and many developed European countrys also have nationalized healthcare...are they also backwards? and just for the record, Cuba also has nationalized healthcare, and their healthcare is 1 of the best in the world, far better than the UK's who actually created the national healthcare system!

the only things i'm bitter with is having my wealth stolen by our privately owned central banks, and that we are at war because of lies.

do you know the process by which the Govt raises money?

Taxation, bonds and securities of varying length, loans.

not 100% correct, the treasury issues a bond (a bond being nothing more than a promise to pay) which is bought by either the nations central bank or from a foreign country, which is why the US economy now depends largely on the Chinese...a VERY dangerous situation to say the least.
if the bond is bought by the central bank what happens is the central bank then loans the Govt the money at interest, our taxes go towards paying back the interest but the loan itself remains unpaid, hence, the national debt which never goes down but always rises due to the fact that our Govts are constantly borrowing from PRIVATELY owned FOR PROFIT central banks.

[Taure]

Obviously, they have already done enough for humanity

The only thing that those who work at health insurance companies have done for humanity is do everything in their power to deny others life saving treatment.

People who refuse to do anything for society except profiteer of the safety measures in place for bad times have no place in it. Would you not agree?

No, I don't.

Everyone deserves a basic standard of living. The evil of poverty is much greater than the evil of laziness.

In a perfect world, everyone would be employed.

However, there are not enough jobs out there for the number of people seeking them.

Moreover, some people are physically or mentally incapable of working.

Also, some people simply are gifted better genes than others. Should we hold them up to the standards of those to whom nature has been especially kind?

Finally, some people may not have been given the opportunity in life to get to the position where they can work.

And no, people do not have equal opportunities. Even discounting private schools, not all state schools are equal. In addition to this, some are born into a culture which forces or encourages them out of the education system. And lets not forget the impact that upbringing has. A person brought up by two lawyers has a much better chance of being successful in life than one brought up by a pair of cashiers.

[Cole]

Taure said it well why it would be an epic fail if this kind of help disappeared.

Increase controls, in France we do it, and we manage to save hundred of millions from the hands of cheaters with those controls! And we don't condemn 10-15% of population to die miserably like if they lived in a poor country.

If you don't provide help, how can you expect those people to have conditions to find another job? If they can't live anymore, how will they provide stuff needed to get a job (an address for example)?
Oh god, a never ending amount of things to put against that.

[[KMA]Avenger]

in my opinion...ALL public services should be nationalized, privatization sucks BIG TIME.