ClockCat, that was one of the most uplifting posts I've seen all year, over the entirety of the internet. Thank you.

What people need to get is socialism is differant from communism.

One is voluntary, one is forced. If a system works great, why does it need to be forced. If Canadians and Scandinavians are so happy with their system, great then you can make participation voluntary, right? Just send everyone a bill they voluntarily pay like cable TV, everyone will pay since their so happy right?

Not at all. I'm for what works. Your brand of socialism(i.e. punishing success to reward failure) is what will lead to anarchy.

I'm in favor of what works, what can be proven to be sustainable. Your 'punish success' methods will fail.

Some things in a socialist system can be good. For example I think what Cuba did to train lots of doctors and medical professionals is a good idea. This prevents their from being labor shortages which would lead to rationing and high prices.

But you are proposing a system where government involvement will creates shortages. I'm in favor of government involvement reducing shortages. For instance the government should give tax breaks to companies developing pandemic vaccines. You basically want to kill the profit motive in pharmaceutical companies so they don't take risks. This will create vaccine shortages.

I'm forced to pay high taxes for something I don't want. If you make the system voluntary, I'm fine with it.

Then DON'T MAKE ME FUCKING PAY HIGH TAXES FOR IT!

I thought we were all supposed to be one big happy family that looks out for each other under socialism? Shouldn't the happy family decide together when to bring a precious new life into the world, especially since they're all our children? But to you the individual right to breed is sacred. Why isn't the individual right to keep what I earn and spend my money as I please sacred to you? This makes no sense, some individual rights are not to be touched. While the government can confiscate all one's individual wealth, it belongs to all our children.

Yes, it's a vast conspiracy to keep people without insurance and to keep insurance companies making obscene profits without new competition in the market. Probably the same people that faked the moon landings.

Why do you think insurance companies spend so much on paperwork and bureaucracy? Because the world is full of thieves. You claim government run health care won't have all this overhead. Since when has gov. programs not had tons of bureaucracy? And if they don't won't their be tons of fraud? Doctors and hospitals getting public money for phony claims. Theives don't go away under socialism, they steal from the government.

If that is their life choice. If they want to make the choice not to work and risk they won't be able to afford medical treatment, then they can't have access to expensive medical treatments. If I skydive, I take a risk that I may be killed or injured. But it's my life, my choice. If I want to spend my money to travel around the world instead of pay high taxes for medical services, it's my life.

Of course there is a public health issue with letting people die in gutter. So there would need to be a cheap place to die.

Under my brand of socialism, a social worker would visit everyone without insurance. The social worker would find out what the problem is. For some it's lack of education or drugs, psychological problems. Get these people into a program that gets them out of these circumstances with education, drug treatment, counseling. So when they are in these programs they could get government medical insurance. When they finish rehabilitation then they can afford to buy insurance.

But of course, some people will tell the social worker to leave them alone. They are happy being poor and not working much. Some will drop out of the programs. For these people, they would have to be cut off from all but the cheapest medical services. If they show up in the emergency room, they would sent to a place with only basic medical services and pain killers, the would not have access to any expensive services at taxpayer expense. This was their choice.

OK some legal reform is a good idea. But I still want to sue doctors and hospitals when they screw up.

I guess you can win with intelligent explanations so you have to resort to personal attacks. You can't explain how to pay for it without raising taxes that will kill jobs and the economy. So just call your opponent a moron. I look forward to they day when you have to wait for rationed health care with extreme shortages of everything makes you wait months for treatment, or they tell you sorry but your treatment to too expensive.

Your lack of an explanation of how systems that reward failure while punishing success are sustainable make you sound like a moron to me.

How many times do I have to write that it works, has worked, and continues to work in every developed country in the world except the US?

"But I still want to sue doctors and hospitals when they screw up."
Why? So you aren't permanently incapable of work as a result, and therefore unable to support yourself. Consequences? Higher insurance premiums, refusal to work, larger bureaucracy, fewer doctors, more fraud.
Great solution. Socialism doesn't bankrupt the system over an error, it provides for the victim, and evaluates fixing the problem as opposed to punishing it. Better solution.

In closing:
"Well then explain to us ignoramuses how a system that rewards failure and punishes success is sustainable. How will this lead to anything but a dysfunctional economy and society? Has this ever been proven to work?"

Yet another strawman.

EXC, you have written some of the most wrong things I have ever read. How many people with millions of dollars do you think made a lucky investment? won the lottery? inherited it? How have those people worked hard for their money. The truth is that your kind of capitalism does not reward the kind of success that deserves reward. It rewards liars, cheaters, thieves and criminals. It rewards those whose morals have no problem with killing for money. They have no problem causing terrible undue misery to hundreds if not thousands or millions. These are the kind of people who, in a just world, would be in prison for human rights abuses.

Tell me, if you don't want to give anyone a "free ride" then why live where you have to pay taxes for anything. Why not just find some place in the wilderness or a deserted island where the IRS won't be able to find you. You can pay for plumbing, electric wires, basic sanitation, your own health care, etc... What you can't afford you don't get. Need a job? You'll have to find some way to do that on your own. Of course, this would be completely made and out right stupid. Just remember that unless you're lucky enough to be so extravagantly rich that you can pay to set up your own infrastructure, then, if you have any sense of morality, you should not except hand-outs from the world's super-rich.

New pics! Sweet.

Oh god dammit >.< you beat me to that pic 

The U.S. fell 3 more places from 2006 to 2008?

:I

It is 'forced' to ensure everyone contributes. Sending bills and awaiting payment wastes money and time (and as a result it will increase the cost and lower efficiency). It is quicker, cheaper and far more efficient to make the process automatic.

Also, another reason for taxes being automatic is that everyone gets access to the resulting services (infrastructure, police and fire service, safety, etc). If taxes were not automatic how can you ensure that everyone benefiting from those services (which is virtually everyone) has contributed to them? You would have to go though more process, which in turn increases the cost further and lowers the efficiency of the service.

Also, if taxes were not automatic not everyone would pay, most likely as a result of ignorance. Such people would want these services, and probably use them, but not realise the importance of taxes. I would contend that anyone fully understanding the reasoning behind taxes, with respects to the common good, morality, a functioning society, economics, practicality, etc, would agree that taxes are appropriate.

Oh yes, here we have the underbelly of the capitalist argument... that having resources and money automatically means you are hard working, successful and deserving of your wealth. Conversely, not having much and have to turn to society for help mean you're a complete failure, are lazy, and deserve your pathetic nothing of a life.

This (the punishing success/rewarding failure argument) is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. Let me explain why this argument fails.

The problem with this line of thought is that many people are born into wealth and are left large inheritances, conversely, others are born into poverty. Maybe in each case the parents deserve their status; maybe the rich parents work extremely hard to get where they are at; and maybe the poor parents were lazy drug addicts who have no one to blame but themselves for having nothing. Maybe. (I suspect not, for reason we shall see below.) But none of this mean their children deserve their status. The children of the wealthy parents do no inherently deserve their wealth, likewise the children of the poor parents do no inherently deserve their poverty. They land in this situation by an accident of birth.

This leads to the next problem: as a result of this accident of birth, each have grossly unfair starting point in life, with the wealthy children getting a top class education and access to what they want, and the poverty stricken children have a mountain to climb before they get anywhere far, meaning the wealthy children have a good chance of succeeding in life and the poor children having a greater chance of failing and may never even get the education that came so easily to the wealthy child. There is good reason that their parents were in the same boat. Maybe each of their parents do deserve their wealth and poverty respectively, but then maybe they started out just as their children did, born into wealth and poverty respectively, and since a wealthy child is likely to do well and a poor child is likely to have trouble and not do so well, this gives us good reason to hold that this is how their parents ended up with their wealthy/poverty situation too. So we have a constant cycle.

I'm not saying we should therefore just take the inheritance of the wealthy child away, after all, the wealthy parents should be able to determine what happens to their money, however the fact the wealthy child doesn't necessarily deserve what they got, and the fact that the poor child doesn't necessarily deserve their situation, this gives us a good argument for financial redistribution (via the wealthy paying slightly more in tax) in order to try and limit the cycle (explained above) and reduce the social and economic disparity.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes/depends on people being born equal, but unfortunately this is not how reality is. Given two people having the same starting point in life and having the same opportunities, if one becomes wealthy through hard work, and the other doesn't care, does nothing, has a minimal wage job, or worse, lives off state welfare, then I would be in complete agreement: each would be deserving of their situation, and therefore aside from contributing to the common good (such as safety and health care, where it benefits everyone when all people are covered), anything else could be said to be rewarding failure. Unfortunately however real life isn't like this.

I agree that some people are lazy and rely too much on state welfare. I strongly dislike people that simply don't bother to try and just live of welfare (and I think people who knowingly commit fraud against the government should be in prison), however it doesn't mean that people on welfare or who rely on others for help some other way have not tried to improve their situation. It's easy to talk about choices and being successful but it's far harder in practice, especially given the social inequalities discusses in the previous paragraphs.

To sum up, whist I agree with much of the capitalist/libretarian argument in theory and occasionally in practice, the realities of the world simply invalidate much of the ideas and continuing to enforce them simply leads to an unjustifiable system, socially and economically.

That was longer that I though it would be, but it leads me to this:

You cannot use the punishing success/rewarding failure argument on what I've said because people in question do not inherently or necessarily deserve their wealthy or poverty!

Health care is rational everywhere, even in the US. It is rationed via cost.

Utterly false. I can tell you're parroting ideology rather than actually researching the issue and educating yourself.

The system I am proposing--universal health care, which can take various forms--already exists in various countries and has various mechanisms for avoiding shortages.

Ironically your own example of avoiding shortages (Cuba) is from a country that runs precisely the type of system you are claiming will lead to shortages!! LMAO! Clearly, by your own citation(!) such a system CAN avoid shortages! Clearly, there isn't such a problem with shortages that you think there will be.

I want to kill the profit motive in health care because it is immoral to play the profit game with peoples health. I'm particularly talking about insurance companies. I'm not talking about killing profit in the pharmaceutical industry. Besides, do pharmaceutical companies make vaccines with high profit margins in mind? Or even basic drugs like aspirin? I suspect their profits derive from the non-essential drugs market, the fads and so-called 'quick fix' drugs.

Your claim that it will lead to shortages is utterly false, because it already happens and does not lead to shortages.

1. You don't get to determine how or where you taxes are spent. For all your know your taxes may not even touch a particular area of government spending.

2. If you don't want it, opt out and pay private. Many countries allow people to opt out of the government run health care system and go private. I suspect the US government would certainly have something similar to that to appease the anti-government folk.

Alternately it could be like Britain, where although you cannot stop contributing to the NHS (since A&E services are only provided by the NHS) you can ask the NHS to fund part of the cost of treatment at a private clinic. (e.g. whatever it costs the NHS to perform the same treatment, with the patient making up the rest.)

This doesn't answer the question: do you think paying taxes grants YOU permission to control the lives of others?

As for the right to individuals wealth, who is taking this away? The fact is some things are better (cheaper and more efficient) provided and run collectively, moreover doing it this way will actually benefit you.

It benefits you to contribute towards the police force if want the rampaging killer in your neighbours house to be immediately arrested. If the police only attend on proof of insurance and your neighbour is not police-insured then you and your family are at risk. Likewise, it benefits you to contribute towards the fire department if want the fire in your neighbours property to be immediately distinguished. If the the firefighters only attend on proof of insurance and your neighbour is not fire-insured then you and your family and your property are at risk.

Health care is no different here. If your neighbour has a contagious disease and they are not insured you and your family are at risk. If someone with heart problems is not covered, resulting in them putting off seeking medical advice, but then they have a heart attack whilst driving, crashing into your car and injuring/kill you, well, it would have been better if they were covered to begin with. It can benefit you to ensure everyone has access to medical treatment.

How can you steal health care? You either need it or you don't. It's not like you can pretend to need chemotherapy or pretend you have a broken leg!

The reason insurance companies have so much bureaucracy is in order to find way to avoid impacting their profit margins. This means denying care, care which is often needed.

Government run health care has its own mechanism, and it isn't based on denying care to save money: a doctor actually examines you, then determines if you need further treatment; if you do then how quick you get treated depends on the seriousness of your situation. Fraud (whatever you mean by this) is weeded out via the doctor, since treatment is provided based on the medical advice of your doctor who actually examines you, rather that how it is in the US where the insurance companies make decisions via post!

You're STILL making the fallacious assumptions that someone who is uninsured or underinsured is so due to their choice. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? What is this based on?

You are assuming they have no job (how do you know this?)

Even if they don't have a job you are assuming they have not tried to get one (how do you know this?)

Even if they have a job you are assuming that they will have adequate medical coverage or even medical coverage at all (how do you know this?)

This ignores the people who can afford to buy medical insurance but are either denied care (if they have insurance) or refused insurance altogether! I posted links and videos on this. Then there are those have a job but whose employer does not provide adequate coverage or does not provide coverage at all. You will probably say they should just get a new job at has coverage or offer better coverage, well, it easy to just tell people to find a new job, but when you have bills to pay and children to look after, and are in the midst of a recession no less, it isn't as easy and simple as quitting and getting a new job.

People within this thread HAVE explained and are continuing to explain and I have provides linkes to further detailed explanations, and yet you STILL continue to make caricatures of government run health care systems, you STILL make assumption not based on reality.

If you think universal health care systems with government involvement are unsustainable and riddled with shortages then you clearly are not basing your opinion on observation. Observation of the worlds health care reveals that it is only the US healthcare system which has fundamental problems, meanwhile, the universal systems around the world which you think will leads to mayhem, albeit not perfect, are doing rather well.

I called you a moron (which I conceded was harsh and I apologies for) because I just cannot imagine someone so incompassionate as you are sounding. You just don't care about anyone in trouble and assume that anyone in such a place must be to blame and are there as a result of their own choice or laziness.

Your premise is fundamentally flawed, as I (and it sounds like others in a previous thread) have explained. You are assuming there is inherent failure and success which is being punished and rewarded. 

Yes, just look outside of the United States at the universal health care systems around the world. If your arguments again these systems were true and therefore valid, they should be in near collapse and in complete disarray, but this is not what you find. Clearly there is something wrong with your opinion and arguments of such systems.

The price of living in a civilzed country is as much about what you must do (responsibilities) as is it was about what you would like to do (freedoms).

No responsibilities no freedoms simple as that, ever freedom has a cost both financially (taxes) and in responsibilities (obeying the law).

A democracy is also about obeying laws you disagree with and accepting that while the people may get the society they want you personally may get one you hate but you still have the option to try to change it

But nowhere does unlimited unconditional health care exist. You're not referring to anything that anyone is suggesting. Universal health care isn't about turning people into superbeings, EXC, it's about basic treatment.

Read the post by ragdish, whose main concern is the people he'd like to treat. Physicians I know have the exact same attitude towards medical systems as he does, not surprisingly. The greatest frustrations I've heard come from the move in Canada towards privatization, which hinders their ability to do their job well, if at all.

So you've given us arguments for private health care based on nothing. The rest of the developed world provides health care for its citizens without flailing into anarchy or bankruptcy. Yes, there are occasionally longer wait times, and yes, we pay higher taxes. But we get a system where physicians at least have the opportunity to do their jobs -- even if the person they're treating is poor.

Watch your blood pressure. I'm paying for that shit.

...

Hehe.

Our forests? You know we sell oil, right?

Alright, EXC, you didn't respond to my post so I'll ask you again straight out. How come you don't want to pay others medical bills but you have no problem paying for their police, fire fighters, anything else that subsidized (you know like food...)? Also, how can you morally use these services yourself, effectively "stealing", as you would put it, from those richer than you? Lastly, why do you continue to live in such a society when I have provided you with what appears to be a very to be exactly what you want? think about it, no taxes ever!

You know what, fuck it, you're basically just a n00by troll.

I never said I did want to pay for these services. I think in large part with new technologies they can be made privatized and made to be paid on a pay as you go system.

For instance fire protection, we are locked into a 19th century mode of operation with firemen that mostly sit around all day waiting for a fire call with expensive fire truck that are rarely needed. Technology should enable us to eliminate most of these jobs with more efficient use of sprinklers and fire sensors. Also the police and fire unions essentially blackmail and bankrupt our government with their ponzi scheme pension system, where you pay for services you use today 30 years from now. Kicking the problem down the road.

I've never called the police in my life. I only called the fire department once when the motel next door was burning. I used to a garden hose to try and put the fire out while the fire house only 2 blocks away took half an hour to get there. There was articles in the newspaper the next day about the slow response of the fire department. But, no one got fired over the slow response.

If the service was privatized, they company would have to pay for failure to provide service and perhaps be put out of business. There is no reason why you can't have competing fire protection and security services. Very little of our income needs to go to government.

How are they morally justified to force me to pay for something I don't want or need?

I'm fine with paying for what I use. I want a social system that get people out of poverty so they can pay for what they use. Nothing more than that. I don't want a system that rewards failure. That's all I want. If that makes me an illogical troll, then that's your call.

Such a rational response.

Because a functioning society requires healthy people. A functioning society does not require people to be rich.

You can't just make up things to be natural rights. There is a reason why something are rights and other things are not.

I must have missed this evidence. Can you point to the post where you revealed this evidence.

Being filthy rich can be made a human right, it's not a matter of can or can't at all, anything can be declared a right of all humans even being ludicrously wealthy and indulged. Doing so might degrade the credibility of protecting human rights as a societal good, though, by reducing the question of dignities to petty bickering over the dimensions of TV sets. Still, we could waste our time doing it and finding it a meaningless and unproductive pursuit.. sure.

The point of course, is that providing health and well being assurances as a basic human right makes an actual difference to the quality of the community, it's intrinsically meaningful. There's no intrinsic value to seven figure bank accounts, their value is derived from disparity, remove the disparity and they may as well not exist.

EXC, I wasn't talking to you dear.

I was talking to sensible people.

I do feel very good though about the future of things in this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090804/pl_afp/uspoliticshealth

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4923731.shtml

Oh my. Where is your majority now Mr. EXC?

American tax brackets. They are lower than they are in south africa

When there are Rich people there have to be poor people, its just not possible for everyone to have good jobs, think about how many poor people are needed to stock the supermarket shelves, puting gas in your car, making sure the streets are litter free, a society cannot function without people in these low paying jobs and there is no way to pay more because well there are so many of them...

ok so an 8 hour day at minimum wage you will get for a 5 day week (per month) is $1798. lets face it not all minimum wage jobs are even 5 days a week or even 8 hours a day. So this is a well off minimum wage family

so that is $21576 per year. before tax. lets double that for a family so to people working is $43152 a year before tax.

im not sure how it works in america if families can pay tax as one tax braket, but let me assume they can as it works out as less.

They fall into the 15% tax braket so unless im mistaken that leaves $36679

lets assume they have two kids, whatever they had better paying jobs when they had them. not totally unreasonable.

Ok i cannot find how much full health insurance costs per person for a year so yeah, deducte that off there anual salary. can that be afforded i don't know as i dunno how much it is so il let you be the judge.

but i did find this