you can do all that in a state with socialised healthcare system too. Private hospitals exist in those states too. You can choose to use those if you want. But looking at the quality of healthcare states like france, italy, uk, norway I think you don't really have to worry about not receiving good healthcare you're not forced to care about other people, you just have to pay a part of their bill . Frankly, I believe in order to have a "healthy" society you need to have a system of taking some from the richer people to help the less fortunate ones. I think your whole argument that people will step in and help other people isn't realistic at all. If it was realistic how come you have so many people who can't get access to healthcare?
I didn't mean to be insulting but there is a lot of books about socialism that discuss different aspects of it. It is too complicated for a single post. Just as an example of your position in this question, you claim that everything that is run or managed by government such as health is socialist institution, in this case, is military, CIA,... post office are also socialist institutions? The fact that something is managed by government has nothing to do with socialism. If you like to learn about human history and origins of modern government, I like to suggest that you read this book: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
I am for adjusting and chaning the health care system. Calling it socialized is a typical crazy label that applies political descriptions to a system that is having problems with several areas; 1. An enormous increase in the cost of health care. Medical costs in the US have skyrocketed. 2. Traditional insurance routes have changed and mutated. Industry coverage is expensive to the businesses. The US auto industry is screaming about how its employees insurance coverage adds a considerable cost to every car built versus auto's made elsewhere where industry doesn't cover or cover a part of insurance and the government does. 2b. Individual and/or group insurance has mutated with incredible cost increases and exemptions 3. The dominance of existing insurance has moved coverage from health care to cost containment. There are many efforts to contain and deal with these existing problems. Calling them socialized medicine is a disservice to the problems that exist. If you are interested in pure govt run govt paid for health coverage consider the coverage for soldiers. On the one hand its medical breakthroughs are breathtaking with regard to medical care for soldiers in the field. There are problems with follow through in the states between active care and VA care. It would be interesting to compare costs in the military care process and the private process as it would be to compare other aspects of care and response.
If you gave them 35% of their wages back, and removed the social safety net, it would happen. It used to happen before socialized medicine. At it's zenith, American society was very successful and prosperous. Because it was based on no separation of the concepts of social and economic freedom. Bureacracies, yes. Part of the welfare state? Not necessarily. I don't believe in government monopoly. There was a time when a national postal service served a function. That was several hundred years ago. Why can't FEDEX and UPS compete for the right to deliver first class mail? You don't have to look far to understand the ramifications (and we're approaching that point) of continuing on with a failed social ideology. How great would the internet be if the government ran it? What if they taxed for it? You had to apply for a license to get a domain name. The name had to be approved for meeting particular criteria such as an arbitrary set of social values? Would we just now be achieving web 1.0? I will check out the book, but have to say going in that Marx was an idealist. Unfortunately, a socialist system such as he proposes doesn't account for one important thing, much like Keynesian economics does not. The human factor. That the best in man, is also accompanied by the worst in man. And whoever controls the levers of the law, without a fundamental platform of human and absolute rights as the underpinnings, has the potential to abuse, distort and contaminate the concept of a greater good. I cannot subscribe to any ideology that places limits on expression, creative energy or property rights. But I'll research it to better understand your POV.
This is because the government regulates, and favors special interests and corporations that lobby. It will only get worse under a more comprehensive and mandatory plan. When people choose to outsource their decision making to the government, particularly one as corrupt and unresponsive to the will of the people as this one, it's a recipie for failure.
Marx was not an idealist. While Marx approached the socialism as an economic development and saw the flaws in present system, in private life he liked to be a middle class. If you read his letters, you will see how upset he was when they exiled he and his family from Austria and they lost their family silver service. If you want an idealist, it was Engels. His family was rich but he worked in their family factory, managing it (a job that he hated), so he could financially support Marx research. He lived with a woman who was a worker in the factory and totally out of his social class because he looked down on such concepts. The link that I posted is a book by Engels. Socialism does not place any limit on expression or creative energy, quite the contrary. When it comes to property rights, it believes that our society production will grow in away that out grows the present system. It is mainly concerned with the ownership of means of production and not making wives a common property as some Americans believe.
Those are some of the reasons...but seriously there is no competition for medical services, no controls on medical service charges, no reviews of effectiveness, etc. The cost issue is a massive complex problem worthy of incredible levels of study in its own right some of which is going on.
Socialized medicine is dangerous, and those of you who support it don't understand the true agenda. At this moment, rapid advances are being made in the areas of Gene Therapy and Life Extension technologies. The goal of Socialized Medicine is to force all American to use a doctor THAT THE GOVERNMENT wants them to use. This means, the general public will be blocked from accessing advanced medical technologies while being spoon fed the medicine that the government wants them to have. Hillary also doesn't talk about where the money for socialized medicine will come from.........well, the answer is the people, particularly those who are wealthy. The wealth will be taken from the rich and then used to provide these social programs for everyone else, a classic case of socialism. This is why only a fool would vote for Hillary. She is a total socialist.
I doubt having a few hundred bucks more each month would cause people to go on donation rampages. they would most likely buy a new iphone socialised medicine doesn't force you to use a certain doctor. you can choose your doctor. And private hospitals and exist in socialised medicine systems too, you can use those if you want. Oh, and socialised medicine has been in existence long before life extension technologies were even thought to be possible and I can't think of any reasons why the leaders would want to not share those technologies with the poeple. And as I've said before having a socialised medicine system doesn't eliminate private hospitals and private research in this area
In the USA. Will anybody that need a heart bybass operation get it? Or will only the ones that managed to pay for insurance get it?
You really don't know what socialism is, do you? It is just too funny when Americans are so worried that they will lose their "Chance" of striking it rich or the government is going to confiscate the money that they don't have today but they are going to have after they strike it rich and all of this because of the devils of socialism. What else those godless socialists are going to come up with, making all wives the common property?
What is socialism really? One thing for sure is that a social democracy like many european countries are is not socialistic countries. Tesla, I read your earlier posts here at DP and you seems to be very paranoid about governments and everybody in charge, seems like everybody is after you, its very hard to take your arguments seriously on socialised medicine also. Mao was a total socialist. You can see the difference between the two of them?
It seems for many of Americans if you can't call some one a Mother F*cker or SOB in a political forum or discussion then you call them a socialist.
The "leaders" wouldn't share life extensions technologies for the same reason that so many technologies today remain classified: because they don't want you to have access to it. I put "leaders" in quotation in the last sentence because the government is not supposed to be the "leaders" but the "servant" of the American people, who are the true leaders. Our elected officials are supposed to do what we the people tell them, not what they want to do, but in contemporary America, this pattern has been reversed. You really should read more before coming into DP to debate people on this stuff. First off, the government has a LONG history of blocking access to advanced technologies. Nikola Tesla, the founder of alternating current, died in poverty, because he wouldn't give in to JP Morgan and the gang. Viktor Shuaberger lost his mind and died when his discoveries in water vortexes where taken by the U.S., and he also died penniless. Henry T. Moray was harassed and shot at because he was working on alternative energy experiments that the government felt was a threat. Let me guess: you probably don't know who either one of these three men are, right? The government and powerful people who control it are selfish, and if life extension becomes realized, they will hog it for themselves. THINK ABOUT IT. Everyday 24,000 people die due to starvation, many of them in places like Africa, when THERE IS MORE than enough food on the planet to feed them. Why do they starve and die? Because of selfishness. So don't you tell me about the government not restricting access to advanced technology. Because anyone who spends more time reading than watching tv knows that is a lie. You bet the government will block it. You don't read too much, thats why you think I'm paranoid. In the 20th century, 200 million people died because of government, many with a bullet in the back of their head. Do you care for me to give you some historical examples, putting your arguments to rest? Here are some historical examples which show why I'm "paranoid" Nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis Red Terror: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror Khmer Rouge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge Great Leap Forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward Do the death toll count for all these events, and then come back and we can continue this discussion. And don't tell me "it can't happen here in America, because America history is full of genocide(of Native Americans), Slavery(of Blacks). So please don't tell me the things in the links above can't happen here in America. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. period. It is the opposite side of the coin of fascism, which is just as bad. I don't need the government to provide me with socialized medicine, because the government can't manage money, and is headed towards bankruptcy? Where will the money for socialized medicine come from? You didn't even define socialism in your post, you just went on a rant talking about how Americans are fearful of losing their wealth..........of course we are afraid, go look at Cuba under Castro. Communism and Socialism lead to the same thing. Where does the money for socialized medicine come from? Does the government borrow more money from the Fed, to add more to the national debt, or do they tax the living daylights out of the rest of us? Think about it......
The actual practise of socialism in the world is almost nil. Efforts to practise a type of socialism, such as communism in the USSR failed. Amongst many problems that brought them down was that a govt controlled economy was ultimately ineffectual versus a market dominated economy. China ultimately changed. Whatever they call themselves today, their growth is a function of unleashing the power of the market. Changing the medical system to deal with current problems should be just that. Target the problems and try and come up with solutions. Some might be market driven, some might be govt. supported. But the very term socialized medicine is a disservice to a system that has many problems and is incredibly costly and is excluding many people from its appropriate usage. That the term has become politicized is another example of how things that need to get fixed get f'ed up by the political system.
Can you answer please, I dont know the answer. In the USA, will anybody that need a heart bybass operation get it? Or will only the ones that managed to pay for insurance get it?
Read this article on Wiki about socialized medicine. You will probably be dead before your turn comes for the government to give you a heart bypass:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_Medicine The article also makes it crystal clear that the money for socialized medicine will come through taxation. I don't know about you guys, but I'm fed up with the income tax, and I sure as hell don't want to pay more taxes for socialized medicine. The government can't provide everything for everyone, this is why we have something called a free market. My God, the founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they realized we were considered socialized medicine. If Hillary gets in office, this country is finished. American so strapped for cash that they can't afford to pay for more taxes. Plus, here is the $64,000 question: if the government charges us taxes to pay for socialized medicine, will the taxes we pay exceed the cost we would pay if we just went with a private medical insurance company? This is why we DON"T NEED socialized medicine. The founding fathers knew that the private free market could take care of this better than the government. Socialism fails, and as soon as the government tries to provide health care to everyone, the system will implode. Here is a novel idea: if people want health insurance, why don't they just save their money, instead of relying on the government. It is called personal responsibility.
That article start with "The neutrality of this article is disputed." So Tesla, what you are saying is that somebody that are not insured that need a heart bybass operation will not get it if they cant pay themself? Will an uninsured broke man get the operation or will he die not getting it in USA today? Off topic. I dont understand your faith in the private medical insurance company. You know that they only are after your money right? Tesla, you say: "Here is a novel idea: if people want health insurance, why don't they just save their money, instead of relying on the government. It is called personal responsibility." Tesla, do you think there are poor people around that just are able to buy their daily bread? If you do, please tell me how these people should save.
frankly I only knew about Tesla, I saw a documentary about the electricity and his work was also presented as I've said before in a socialised healthcare system there are also private hospitals and private health research going on. You can use their services if you choose it can happen anywhere wether they have some socialist elements in their country or not that's why having some socialistic elements in your country is great why do some of the european socialised healtchare systems work so well?
Once again, your post shows your total lack of knowledge about this subject. You should really not discuss the things that you know nothing about because it takes away the credibility of the part of your posts that you actually know about. I have already posted some link for guerrilla in this thread as a start of his reading about this subject, I also recommend you to try it and at least get a basic knowledge about the subject before discussing it.