|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
posted September 27, 2008 12:27 AM |
|
|
Socialism gives you a "public defender" in every facet of life... no thanks I'll pass. It's why I don't like Hillary Clinton and would've moved to Toronto if she were nominated for president...
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 27, 2008 11:29 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 11:31, 27 Sep 2008.
|
Damn your brainwashing runs DEEP 
Face it, certain aspects are meant to be socialisticly run, such as Healthcare. It's amazing how well it runs in every other country that runs a socialistic healthcare system, yet you still whine about how it calls for total rampart corruption, mister expert, whereas exactly in the USA, where the healthcare system is ran capitaliticly, you see the biggest corruption and poorest quality But hey keep believing your own dogmas, by all means.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are on the extreme ends of the spectrum; the only good way is the golden middle. Some things are meant to be ran capitalistic, others are meant to be ran socialistic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Free market = free letter to corruption.
Socialism = rampant corruption. A corrupt capitalist government is far less dangerous than a corrupt socialist one.
Big piece a bull**** But hey, have fun with your wild wild west "every man for himself!" way of life.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 27, 2008 04:48 PM |
|
|
Moonlith, if you can convince me why socialized healthcare would be good for my country (USA), I'll support it. Or, let me say this another way... Tell me why I need to pay for smokers to get cancer treatment when if they didn't smoke they wouldn't have had a problem, most likely. Or the rampant obesity in the US now, why do I need to pay for complications from that? As soon as all these self-inflicted health problems are stopped, I wouldn't mind paying to help people get care if they need it.
Accidents happen, and I would love to not have to pay high costs if they happen to me, but it is totally unfair for the government to take my money to help people that wouldn't help themselves.
The government already takes way too much of my money to fund a corrupt food stamp system. I work in a grocery store to pay for school and I see this corruption everyday and it makes me very angry to see that on a daily basis.
My money is already taken to fund social security, that's money I will never ever see again.
So why?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2008 06:16 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
It's amazing how well it runs in every other country that runs a socialistic healthcare system
Yeah, those long waiting lists and relatively bad doctor pay is certainly great, right.  Face it. The reason American health care is relatively expensive is because it's good. No one goes to North Korea for heart surgery.
Quote:
Both Capitalism and Socialism are on the extreme ends of the spectrum; the only good way is the golden middle. Some things are meant to be ran capitalistic, others are meant to be ran socialistic.
Agreed, but, with your rampant anti-capitalism, I wonder what you think should be run capitalistically.
Quote:
Big piece a bull****
How's that? Think about it. If a government has a monopoly on jobs, it's easy to make sure that some person is never hired.
Quote:
But hey, have fun with your wild wild west "every man for himself!" way of life.
"Every man for himself" is a good way to run an economic system. It doesn't mean that everything should be that way - just the economy.
Wolfman:
You do realize that there's a way to fix social security without dismantling it, right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
MrCash
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 05:03 AM |
|
|
mvassilev, correct me if Im wrong, but are you talking about the "laissez faire" system? As in, the government shouldnt do anything concerning the economy (no prohibiting monopolies, no minimum wage laws, etc.)? Just wanted to make sure...
In any case, I agree with a "middle of the road" system-somewhere between capitalism and communism...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 05:07 AM |
|
|
To repost my post from CH:
I generally support a free market, though to be truly efficient, there have to be a few limited government interventions into it.
1. Printing money: The government has to print money, because the gold standard has been shown to be flawed. Of course, the government printing money can create huge problems too (just look at Zimbabwe), but sometimes increasing the money supply is a good idea when there is less money in circulation (such as during a depression).
2. Externalities, particularly environmental ones: People don't really pay for the full costs of driving their cars. They pay for the cars, sure, and for the gas and insurance, but that doesn't cover the whole social cost of driving the car. For example, if you're driving a big SUV, what about the additional danger you pose to people who drive smaller cars? And when you burn fuel, you release pollution that affects more than just you. This is why negative externalities should be taxed to factor the additional cost into the system.
3. Law enforcement and defense: Pretty self-explanatory. These enforce the non-aggression principle, and also enforce contracts.
4. Tax breaks: Certain behaviors, such as adoption and giving to charities, should be encouraged. Thus, there should be an income tax break for such things.
5. Education and scholarships: Students who don't come from rich families should be able to get a good education. They should also be able to get into college on merit and have government scholarships to pay for the cost.
6. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly: Because trusts and monopolies actually interfere with the actions of a free market, they have to be broken up.
7. Health care: A healthy populace makes the economy function better. Yet many universal health care plans eliminate the incentive to look for lower prices. Hence, my plan, which makes health care more affordable, while keeping competitiveness: have the government pay for a certain percentage (but not 100%) of all health care costs. The percentage would vary depending on the cost of the procedure and the individual's income. Also, there should be universal health care for children, since they're relatively healthy (so they're easier to insure) and it's particularly important to keep them that way.
Except that I'm kind of split on monopolies, because I've heard good arguments both for and against anti-monopoly legislation. As for minimum wage laws, yes, I'm against them - they don't help anybody, only punish those at the very bottom by preventing them from working.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 05:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Both Capitalism and Socialism are on the extreme ends of the spectrum; the only good way is the golden middle. Some things are meant to be ran capitalistic, others are meant to be ran socialistic.
Never before have I agreed with you more
/unintentional rhyme
Quote:
2. Externalities, particularly environmental ones: People don't really pay for the full costs of driving their cars. They pay for the cars, sure, and for the gas and insurance, but that doesn't cover the whole social cost of driving the car. For example, if you're driving a big SUV, what about the additional danger you pose to people who drive smaller cars? And when you burn fuel, you release pollution that affects more than just you. This is why negative externalities should be taxed to factor the additional cost into the system.
True.
It's ridiculous here in Australia that 4WDs are actually cheaper due to a rebate because from the government's point of view they are trying to help the farmers who use four-wheel drives on their farms etc. when really all it does is increase the number of soccer mums driving SUVs through tight packed traffic in the inner suburbs and polluting.
There should be an additional tax on cars such as these, and perhaps here in Australia there could be some kind of farm permit thing which allows an exception to the tax.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
MrCash
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 05:36 AM |
|
|
Fair enough mvassilev . You make valid arguments.
Preety much the only thing I can disagree with is the minimum wage thing. During the Industrial Revolution, there were no minimum wage laws and therefore, families working in factories (which was a very high number of people) were dirt poor, and practically starving. Even children as small as eight years old had to work, otherwise he wouldn't eat. Obviously, the companies had no real motives to raise wages so as long as the government didnt act, the appaling conditions of the poor would continue.
If we did this today, everything mentioned above would most likely happen again. Except it would be even worse: Poor families will not be able to feed children, who in turn could not work (due to child labor laws, unless your against that too)to feed themselves. What we get is an increased number of abortions, infanticides and homeless children. We get more crime too...and strikes, and labor unions...
Again, companies would have no incentive to raise the wages. As long as their is a steady amount of desperate workers who are willing to take any job (with the high number of immigration here, its likely) the conditions of the poor folk would remain in the same appaling conditions...
Btw, what good would scholarships do, if the people in the lowest class couldnt even properly support themeslevs in their jobs? how could they go to college?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 06:05 AM |
|
|
TA:
Or just cut taxes on farms in general.
MrCash:
Quote:
Pretty much the only thing I can disagree with is the minimum wage thing. During the Industrial Revolution, there were no minimum wage laws and therefore, families working in factories (which was a very high number of people) were dirt poor, and practically starving.
That's because their labor wasn't worth much. Now people's labor is either worth more or they're unable to become employed at all, and just sit on welfare. It's better for them to work for some money, and have the government maybe help them with the rest, than have the government provide for them 100%.
Quote:
Obviously, the companies had no real motives to raise wages so as long as the government didn't act, the appalling conditions of the poor would continue.
The companies had the same incentives with wages then as they do now. The government doesn't reward companies that pay higher wages!
Quote:
Again, companies would have no incentive to raise the wages. As long as their is a steady amount of desperate workers who are willing to take any job (with the high number of immigration here, its likely) the conditions of the poor folk would remain in the same appalling conditions...
The race to the bottom doesn't happen. There is only a race to the top. More workers = lower wages = cheaper goods = good for everybody, especially the poor.
Quote:
Btw, what good would scholarships do, if the people in the lowest class couldn't even properly support themselves in their jobs? how could they go to college?
Obviously, scholarships would also go to the cost of living while going to college.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
MrCash
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 06:25 AM |
|
|
Labor is worth more now? Not sure about that...there is a stagerring amount of immigrants here and many Americans are now unemployed (as far as I know; Ill be sure to verify this)...with more willing hands to do labor, the cost of it should theoretically go down; its the whole supply vs. demand thing: If available labor exceeds the demand, the cost of overall labor goes down...and companies could pay employees ridiculously low wages because another worker is always available. Obviously, this is only the case in low end jobs. Labor is not as readily available in high end jobs (engineer, manager, etc.) and therefore, companies have to offer competetive wages to obtain the limited pool of people with the skills to do these high end jobs.
And thats all the debating Ill do for now...its too late where Im at...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 06:50 AM |
|
|
Labor is definitely worth more now - every year, people get more and more productive. Consider this - poor people now have a higher standard of living than the rich did a hundred years ago!
And the natural rate of employment is around 5%, as it is now. Any more than that and either the economy is doing unusually well, or people are being hired by the government without regard.
And remember that the savings of low wages go somewhere - into the cost of the product, making it cheaper for everybody to buy (thus certainly helping the poor).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 08:00 AM |
|
|
The product made may not affect the poor as often factories are producing luxury goods and not essentials.
Also selling price may not be dependent on production costs.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 11:58 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 12:14, 28 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
Moonlith, if you can convince me why socialized healthcare would be good for my country (USA), I'll support it. Or, let me say this another way... Tell me why I need to pay for smokers to get cancer treatment when if they didn't smoke they wouldn't have had a problem, most likely. Or the rampant obesity in the US now, why do I need to pay for complications from that? As soon as all these self-inflicted health problems are stopped, I wouldn't mind paying to help people get care if they need it.
Accidents happen, and I would love to not have to pay high costs if they happen to me, but it is totally unfair for the government to take my money to help people that wouldn't help themselves.
It comes down to a basic "The strong carry the weak" kind of society. You pay for the misfortune of someone else, so in the long run, others will pay for YOU when you happen to meet said misfortune, and most likely are unable to pay for it yourself. The fact some people require more care than others is just something you have to take for granted, although you can think of what to do about the people that cause their own problems. Here in the Netherlands we have a certain "Own risk", a maximum amount you have to pay for yourself in a year before your healthcare finances your medical needs.
Also take note even fat people and smokers add to the economy (as much as I dislike admitting that). But that's just the way it goes: Some are more a burden than others. And yes some CHOOSE to make themselves more a burden, but don't blame the healthcare system for that; blame the fat-food restaurants and the underlying causes, and do something about that.
But the question comes down to this: Would you rather live in a society where people help one another, or live in a society where people with misfunctions are being told to take care of themselves, which essentially comes down to secluding "less worthy" people. Or in my eyes, a regime that kills handicapped people at birth because they would only be a burden. This is actually dilemma I wonder about myself But take note the more wealthy a society is, the more burden it can actually carry. You're living in--- You used to live in a rich country!
Mind you, like you, I don't like paying for stupid people. But that's also something you can take into consideration when designing a healthcare system; to what extend is a person to blame him / herself for his / her medical problems?
Mvas:
Quote:
Yeah, those long waiting lists and relatively bad doctor pay is certainly great, right. Face it. The reason American health care is relatively expensive is because it's good. No one goes to North Korea for heart surgery.
What are you talking about? The quality here is just as good; and the only reason it's cheap here is because our government actually pays for it. I don't think our Doctors get paid any less than yours. As for the waiting lists, you can actually wonder wether that's because it runs so well in your country, or simply because most people don't go see a doctor because they can't afford it?
Besides, a doctor should be doing his job because he wants to help people. If he does it for the money, he's in the wrong business. (not to say they don't deserve a high pay, they are one of the few kinds of people that actually deserve a high pay in my mind.)
Quote:
Agreed, but, with your rampant anti-capitalism, I wonder what you think should be run capitalistically.
I only tend to go rampant with that because we only tend to discuss the things that SHOULDN'T be ran capitalisticly Like Healthcare, water and energy supply, public transport.... There are things that simply shouldn't be competed for, simply because it actually reduces the quality in order to produce bigger profits (like with your healthcare system).
Things in which Capitalism should be free, are things like luxery products. Things that don't directly and severely influence the quality of a person's life.
And note that just because things aren't being competed for, that doesn't mean worse quality. Besides, you could pay a top executive depending on how much approval rates he gets from the public.
Quote:
How's that? Think about it. If a government has a monopoly on jobs, it's easy to make sure that some person is never hired.
How is this any different from the FBI being able to arrest you currently under the suspicion of you being a terrorist?
And said government monopoly doesn't apply for one because I don't support dictatorships, and for another because I don't support full communism / socialism. Only the main important aspects in a society that are meant to support its people should be ran socialisticly to ensure the quality is not reduced for the sake of profits. In my book, profits tend to translate as exploitation.
Quote:
"Every man for himself" is a good way to run an economic system. It doesn't mean that everything should be that way - just the economy.
But not the healthcare
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 12:22 PM |
|
|
Actually when the quality of health care was rated for America it was 26th overall when compaired to other nations. Yet American's pay the most for health care. Which is like going into a car lot and paying for a Limo and driving out with a Yugo.
____________
Message received.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 01:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yet American's pay the most for health care...
On what is this "fact" based on?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2008 05:31 PM |
|
|
TA:
Quote:
Also selling price may not be dependent on production costs.
The only case in which it isn't is if there is monopolistic action. Or if there is government intervention that creates price floors/ceilings.
Moonlith:
Quote:
But the question comes down to this: Would you rather live in a society where people help one another, or live in a society where people with misfunctions are being told to take care of themselves, which essentially comes down to secluding "less worthy" people.
I'd much rather live in the second society. Why should the strong carry the weak? At least economically. I have nothing against altruism and giving to charity, but it shouldn't be forced, and the economic system shouldn't be based on that.
Again, no one goes to North Korea for heart surgery. Why's that?
Quote:
There are things that simply shouldn't be competed for, simply because it actually reduces the quality in order to produce bigger profits (like with your healthcare system).
Hmm... sometimes. But the cost-to-quality ratio improves. Look at the airlines, for example. There used to be heavy controls on the airline industry in the US, and quality was good. Then they were deregulated, and, for some, quality went down. But the prices went down even more, and people became much more able to travel. It's better to be able to travel (more) than to not travel.
Quote:
Besides, you could pay a top executive depending on how much approval rates he gets from the public.
That's a terrible idea. What if he's firing people to cut costs? That won't make him popular, but it may be a good idea in the long run.
Quote:
How is this any different from the FBI being able to arrest you currently under the suspicion of you being a terrorist?
Not very different, but it gives the government yet another way to do something without actually putting someone in prison.
Quote:
And said government monopoly doesn't apply for one because I don't support dictatorships
Do you want private health care to continue to exist after government health care comes? How about private transportation? If the answer to these is "no", then you support excessive government monopoly.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 03:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also selling price may not be dependent on production costs.
The only case in which it isn't is if there is monopolistic action. Or if there is government intervention that creates price floors/ceilings.
No, there are different methods of pricing.
Think about Nike shoes made for like 1 dollar a day or whatever it is and then sold for 100 bucks.
It's not that Nike has a monopoly, it's that they choose to increase the price because of the demand, even though they have cheap labor and a ready supply.
Although with alot of production being outsourced to China and India that raises the question of the minimum wage again
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 04:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Think about Nike shoes made for like 1 dollar a day or whatever it is and then sold for 100 bucks.
It's not that Nike has a monopoly, it's that they choose to increase the price because of the demand, even though they have cheap labor and a ready supply.
In a sense, Nike does have a monopoly, because it doesn't make shoes - it makes Nike shoes. No one else can make them - they're a brand name, like McDonalds or Mercedes, and that, to a certain extent, is a monopoly, although it's not one that I object to. People don't buy Nike shoes because they're the cheapest or the best, people buy them because they're Nike shoes. It's called the economics of information. For a different example of the same phenomenon, imagine this scenario:
You are driving through some small town in the Midwest of the US, and you're really hungry, and have no food with you. There are two places to eat in the town: The Hamburger Eatery, and McDonalds. Where are you going to eat? Most people would pick McDonalds without a second thought, even if they don't particularly like McDonalds. Why? Because they know that McDonalds food is acceptable and that McDonaldses are relatively clean places. What about The Hamburger Eatery? It might serve the best and cheapest hamburgers in the world. Or it might be the spot of the next E. coli outbreak. The point is, you don't know, so you go to McDonalds. Better safe than sorry when it comes to your health.
There's a similar situation with Nike shoes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 07:41 AM |
|
|
Well you can call it that but I'm just saying that for most things the price isn't set by the production cost, but rather to maximize profit.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 29, 2008 07:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yet American's pay the most for health care...
On what is this "fact" based on?
Here is one study.. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jul/14/us_health_care_costs_highest_world_study_finds/
Again..everything has a spin so *shrugs*.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301143.html
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
