Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Are Key Democrats Becoming Socialists?

imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
edited May 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Today, Hillary discussed her ideas of "shared prosperity" over the "on your own society" known as capitalism. Now I remember back in 2000 when she was calling for the abolition of the electoral college in replacement for a truly democratic popular vote platform (simultaneously rooting for Al Gore and pleasing the citizens of New York with new electoral power). I only bring that up because I hear her say things that I don't think she truly thinks through or means, so I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1

But let's say she's being 100 percent serious. I have to ask myself, "Would Bill Clinton sign his name to this 10 years ago?" and my answer is more and more a resounding no. He is, by and large, one of the most successful economical presidents in the history of this nation.

She's not alone in this conquest, and we only need look one person over at Barack Obama, whose claim to fame is his motivation for universal healthcare. Keep in mind, universal healthcare isn't "free." It costs somebody something, but he lets it be known that higher income families and businesses should put in their fair share to help out the common man. I'd argue that anyone paying over 40 percent of their income is already doing enough by anyone's standards, but I digress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_el_pr/obama_health;_ylt=AphMGdhJcoxyyyr6xI8gBT3MWM0F

Those things into consideration, there are many democrats that do not share these core beliefs. My grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he heard some of the rhetoric coming out of some of the democrats lately. I just can't see myself ever supporting this idea of my space is your space so let's all join hands nonsense. I come from the school of thought that if everyone was even, then everyone would be poor.

I guess I'll only ask the registered Democrats on this one, as I flirt with the left side only on certain issues, but do you think more and more of the party could be deemed "socialist," and if so, is that a good or a bad thing?

imbalanced on
idc-sig.png
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
«1345

Posts

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    Most everyone in America, whether they realize it or not, strongly advocate a mixed economy in which the market tends to dominate some aspects and the government dictates or directs others. We have a socialized military, socialized highway development, socialized standards of food and drugs and consumer products. Our primary education system is almost entirely socialized and our secondary education system is largely socialized. Medical care is partially socialized and heavily regulated (often in ways that are financially renumerative to insurance companies). The federal government manages the money supply and interest rates and regulates pretty much every economic transaction.

    Drawing a principled "line in the sand" at socialized health care (which would probably leave in place most of the current profit-making structures, btw) as though this is the edge of the precipice seems asinine.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    This thread won't go well.

    I think that many high-profile Democrats, particularly Kerry and HRC of late, use language and rhetoric that indicate a core belief that the government's destiny and intended function is omnipotence and that it is only because of backwards thinking and lack of progress that the government isn't already omnipotent.

    That being said, I don't fear that they themselves will be able to implement more than modest steps in that direction.

    EDIT: Also, I like it when it is called "helping people save more money" when the government gives them free money.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Higher-income families don't pay 40% of their income. They pay 20%, just like all the other income brackets, except the bottom.

    And universal health care will pay for itself in a lot of ways, especially when it comes to job generation. Right now, no one wants to open up factories in the U.S., because it's too damn expensive to give their employees health care. They'd rather open them up in Canada, where they don't have to worry about that.

    And what's wrong with getting rid of the electoral college?

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Universal health care != filthy communism. In fact, it's about goddamn time the US caught up to the rest of the developed world in that regard.

    Look, on some level, having decent public services will help out our economy in general by raising quality of life. This isn't a zero-sum game.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Both parties waffle between centrism and more focused ideology. The left seems markedly less lefty than it did, say, during LBJ's Great Society years. Clinton was a fairly conservative Dem, and that coupled with the left's need to cooperate in a GOP-controlled Senate if they wanted to get anything done during the 90s certainly gave the Democrats an appearance of more moderate temperment. Now they run congress, the GOP is falling apart, and the presidency is fast becoming a joke. It's not surprising that they would return to some of their core goals, such as universal health care and a more socialized economy.

    So yeah, they're probably drifting leftward, because they feel they can. This isn't really surprising.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    This thread won't go well.

    I think that many high-profile Democrats, particularly Kerry and HRC of late, use language and rhetoric that indicate a core belief that the government's destiny and intended function is omnipotence and that it is only because of backwards thinking and lack of progress that the government isn't already omnipotent.

    That being said, I don't fear that they themselves will be able to implement more than modest steps in that direction.
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Higher-income families don't pay 40% of their income. They pay 20%, just like all the other income brackets, except the bottom.

    Are we talking income tax, or total tax? Because I pay over 30% of my income in taxes, and I'm far from high-income. Also, I'm ignoring the payroll taxes my employer pays on my behalf, which effectively comes out out my paycheck.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I'm pretty much a socialist and no I wouldn't really be able to respect myself if I voted Democrat.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Most everyone in America, whether they realize it or not, strongly advocate a mixed economy in which the market tends to dominate some aspects and the government dictates or directs others. We have a socialized military, socialized highway development, socialized standards of food and drugs and consumer products. Our primary education system is almost entirely socialized and our secondary education system is largely socialized. Medical care is partially socialized and heavily regulated (often in ways that are financially renumerative to insurance companies). The federal government manages the money supply and interest rates and regulates pretty much every economic transaction.

    Drawing a principled "line in the sand" at socialized health care (which would probably leave in place most of the current profit-making structures, btw) as though this is the edge of the precipice seems asinine.

    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.

    Most doctors only bring home (and this is before taxes) approximately 40 percent of the work they do. Then taxes take off another 40 percent of that income. If you start messing with that initial 40% income any more, a lot of doctors are just going to skip into another profession that makes more money and isn't in constant danger of malpractice suits.


    EDIT: I keep using 40% as a generic percentage on everything. Unless I can find a real statistic, I'm going to stop using it. I'm just referring to what my father has told me about his fun as a radiologist and nuclear physician.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    I started reading the OP and quickly realized that I haven't been keeping up with the democratic candidates as much as I probably should. Then I realized why I stopped paying attention to these two in particular.

    Don't fucking kowtow to the religious right, you spineless bitches. Fuck them, fuck 'em hard, fuck 'em long, just fuck 'em.

    Spoiler:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Higher-income families don't pay 40% of their income. They pay 20%, just like all the other income brackets, except the bottom.
    Are we talking income tax, or total tax? Because I pay over 30% of my income in taxes, and I'm far from high-income. Also, I'm ignoring the payroll taxes my employer pays on my behalf, which effectively comes out out my paycheck.
    Total tax. And we're talking on average, not you in particular.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
    Man, with dire prognostications like these, from a doctor's son no less, it must be the case that medical care in every other first-world nation is vastly inferior and much more expensive!

    Right?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.
    Yeah, okay, if you didn't want to start that debate, you probably shouldn't have. And I'm referring to the authoritarian motherfuckers, who subtly couch their racism and xenophobia in more friendly language, and communicate it through less obvious means (like speaking at Bob Jones university), and show themselves to be way more conservative than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate. Boy, we can both play this game, can't we?

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Higher-income families don't pay 40% of their income. They pay 20%, just like all the other income brackets, except the bottom.

    Are we talking income tax, or total tax? Because I pay over 30% of my income in taxes, and I'm far from high-income. Also, I'm ignoring the payroll taxes my employer pays on my behalf, which effectively comes out out my paycheck.

    That's only if your employer would actually pay you more money if they had a lower payroll tax. I know my employer wouldn't.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.

    But aren't we a government for the people? I know that's philosophical and all that, but I don't doubt that these words are little more than campaign rhetoric. They sound good if you don't pay any particular attention to their implications. They imply that the government works for you - the way it's supposed to in America - rather than for itself, like some fascist regimes we may all point at.

    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
    Man, with dire prognostications like these, from a doctor's son no less, it must be the case that medical care in every other first-world nation is vastly inferior and much more expensive!

    Right?
    And I'm sure they have shorter lifespans, in those countries, too.

    I know most of the doctors I know in this country are living in hovels, barely making enough to survive.

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Higher-income families don't pay 40% of their income. They pay 20%, just like all the other income brackets, except the bottom.
    Are we talking income tax, or total tax? Because I pay over 30% of my income in taxes, and I'm far from high-income. Also, I'm ignoring the payroll taxes my employer pays on my behalf, which effectively comes out out my paycheck.
    Total tax. And we're talking on average, not you in particular.

    I'll keep that in mind. I personally pay about 35% and that will be rising this year, and I won't be rich aaaaany time soon.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Are you saying that you'd rather politicians be consistent than right? Of course, whether or not this is a right step is certainly questionable, but the world has changed over the last 10 years. Why is it so hard to conceive of a person, even a politician, changing as well over that time?

    tea-1.jpg
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
    Man, with dire prognostications like these, from a doctor's son no less, it must be the case that medical care in every other first-world nation is vastly inferior and much more expensive!

    Right?
    And I'm sure they have shorter lifespans, in those countries, too.

    I know most of the doctors I know in this country are living in hovels, barely making enough to survive.

    Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Higher-income families don't pay 40% of their income. They pay 20%, just like all the other income brackets, except the bottom.
    Are we talking income tax, or total tax? Because I pay over 30% of my income in taxes, and I'm far from high-income. Also, I'm ignoring the payroll taxes my employer pays on my behalf, which effectively comes out out my paycheck.
    Total tax. And we're talking on average, not you in particular.

    On average, you're still full of it. The average income tax paid by wealthy folks is somewhere in the low 20% range. If they have an employer, they pay about 12% off the top in payroll taxes. If they're self employed, double that. We can pretend that they don't pay state income tax, because I'm being charitable.

    Here are some numbers if you'd like to sound more informed.

    edit: Also, you weren't talking "on average", you were saying that the tax burden on every income bracket except the bottom is 20%, which is demonstrably wrong.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
    Man, with dire prognostications like these, from a doctor's son no less, it must be the case that medical care in every other first-world nation is vastly inferior and much more expensive!

    Right?
    And I'm sure they have shorter lifespans, in those countries, too.

    I know most of the doctors I know in this country are living in hovels, barely making enough to survive.

    Being neither for or against socialized medicine because I haven't dont enough valid research up to this point, I'm going to toss out that the idea of socialized medicine as it applies to mental health (my chosen field) scares the the hell out of me. America on the whole simply has a problem recognizing the importance of mental health, and this is already reflected in the way insurance companies go about paying me. I can only imagine how the government would approach the subject.

    Spoiler:
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.

    But aren't we a government for the people?

    All governments are governments for the people, from dictatorships to democracies.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SonosSonos Registered User
    edited May 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.

    But aren't we a government for the people?

    All governments are governments for the people, from dictatorships to democracies.

    I see you point but would you consider militaristic despots such as Robert Mugabe govternments for the people?

    Sonovius.png
    PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.

    But aren't we a government for the people?

    All governments are governments for the people, from dictatorships to democracies.

    Not true. See: fascism. One of the more meta implications of fascism is that the government comes before the people. Ostensibly, it's a government to rule the people, which is a bit different than being for the people.

    Spoiler:
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.
    That kind of system ill-serves the vast majority of the population, however. If there really is a market for prohibitively-expensive yet top-quality medical care, it will thrive even with a system of socialized basic care. It's really more of a boutique market writ large at the moment.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
    Man, with dire prognostications like these, from a doctor's son no less, it must be the case that medical care in every other first-world nation is vastly inferior and much more expensive!

    Right?
    And I'm sure they have shorter lifespans, in those countries, too.

    I know most of the doctors I know in this country are living in hovels, barely making enough to survive.

    Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.

    I dunno guy, I read something about this documentary coming up called "Sicko" and basically your country has a horrible health care.

    Sure, you -- being the richest country in the world and host of some of the best universities the world has ever seen -- bring forth some damn good professionals and you attract them from all over the world too, but to say that that is because of the political system is quite a quirky thing to say.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    The premise of this thread is a joke. Democrats have pushed for national healthcare since for decades and decades. Bill Clinton tried to get it passed after he was elected in 1992.

    If you want to define every government program as socialist then I think you'll find that virtually 100% of U.S. politicians are socialists.

    I support a strong commitment of resources to social safety nets and education because it improves people's lives, makes them freer to pursue opportunities, makes the country stronger and prevents regressive nativist, isolationist, anti-globalization political backlashes.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Sonos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Yeah, thank god we have the Republicans, who instead of talking about government omnipotence, just talk about the era of big government being over, then actually legislate government omnipotence.
    Yeah ok whatever, I'm not particularly interested in that debate. I'm not talking about the practice of government spending or the security/freedom trade-off. I realize Pubs aren't exactly the epitome of fiscal conservativism. I'm thinking more about the remarks about "government affords people certain rights" and "I want to take those profits" and "shared prosperity" and other such linguisitic clues that the underlying concept of government that some people hold is actually much less mainstream and much more liberal than they are willing to practically pursue in this political climate.

    But aren't we a government for the people?

    All governments are governments for the people, from dictatorships to democracies.

    I see you point but would you consider militaristic despots such as Robert Mugabe govternments for the people?

    Yes. I'm not going to start a debate on the whole freedom - security thing and all of that because it would be an entirely other thread (and somewhat similiar to Loren's), but he does act 'for the people' in his mind, because if it weren't for his iron fisted apartheid-esque rule the country would surely fall into chaos and be taken over by western colonialist powers and abloo bloo bloo.

    tea-1.jpg
  • OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Too stupid to feel pain. San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Universal health care != filthy communism. In fact, it's about goddamn time the US caught up to the rest of the developed world in that regard.

    A-fucking-greed. It makes me sick to my stomach that greedy Corporations are the only reason this hasn't happened yet.

    makosig.jpg
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.

    This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
    Man, with dire prognostications like these, from a doctor's son no less, it must be the case that medical care in every other first-world nation is vastly inferior and much more expensive!

    Right?
    And I'm sure they have shorter lifespans, in those countries, too.

    I know most of the doctors I know in this country are living in hovels, barely making enough to survive.

    Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.

    I dunno guy, I read something about this documentary coming up called "Sicko" and basically your country has a horrible health care.

    Sure, you -- being the richest country in the world and host of some of the best universities the world has ever seen -- bring forth some damn good professionals and you attract them from all over the world too, but to say that that is because of the political system is quite a quirky thing to say.

    Sicko wasn't about us having poor health care. It was about us having EXPENSIVE health care that not everyone can afford, which is only because 1) the quality demanded by health care in the US, 2) the costs of malpractice suits, 3) the costs associated with certain insurances not paying full amounts for procedures.

    I'm not even going to mention the fact that universal health care costs would pay for the few while taking from the many. Most people that can get free health care ABUSE it by not taking care of their own bodies, whether that be through poor diet or general recklessness (aka smoking).

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    One thing that worries me about the type of universal health care being proposed is this - Does it include offering money and incentives for future medical research?

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.

    And that's why we live longer than everyone else! Oh wait, we don't. By a long shot, in fact.

    Please elaborate on the definition of "best medical practices" that doesn't include actual increased life expectancy or decreased infant mortality rates. I'm in the mood for some entertaining disingenuity gymnastics.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Sicko wasn't about us having poor health care. It was about us having EXPENSIVE health care that not everyone can afford, which is only because 1) the quality demanded by health care in the US, 2) the costs of malpractice suits, 3) the costs associated with certain insurances not paying full amounts for procedures.
    Great health care that is inaccessible to the majority because it's prohibitively expensive is poor national health care.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    A-fucking-greed. It makes me sick to my stomach that greedy Corporations are the only reason this hasn't happened yet.
    Greedy corporations are bleeding money in health care costs. They'd love the government to take it over as well.

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.

    And that's why we live longer than everyone else! Oh wait, we don't. By a long shot, in fact.

    Please elaborate on the definition of "best medical practices" that doesn't include actual increased life expectancy or decreased infant mortality rates. I'm in the mood for some entertaining disingenuity gymnastics.

    Health care doesn't generally affect increased life expectancy. That can be done by exercise, diet, not smoking, etc. Those cultures are different than America, and therefore are like comparing apples and oranges. Check out the cancer mortality rates or something that hospitals actually CAN FIX, and you'll see we are much higher than other countries.

    Irond Will wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Sicko wasn't about us having poor health care. It was about us having EXPENSIVE health care that not everyone can afford, which is only because 1) the quality demanded by health care in the US, 2) the costs of malpractice suits, 3) the costs associated with certain insurances not paying full amounts for procedures.
    Great health care that is inaccessible to the majority because it's prohibitively expensive is poor national health care.


    And I wouldn't say great healthcare is inaccessible to the majority. My first job out of college gave me full PPO coverage of health, dental, eye. I can't pull out my eyeball and get a replacement, but that coverage will more than supplement any material need I might have at a doctor's office.

    EDIT: I keep switching between "healthcare" and "health care." From now on I'm using it as one word, because I'm lazy.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Marty81 wrote: »
    One thing that worries me about the type of universal health care being proposed is this - Does it include offering money and incentives for future medical research?

    Most of that is done in private universities anyway, isn't it? I honestly don't know for sure, I just think that, since most journal articles on the subjects of new treatments and stuff come out of private medical schools, that's where most of the research is happening.

    Spoiler:
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    I'm not even going to mention the fact that universal health care costs would pay for the few while taking from the many.

    Actually it would likely lead to an improved job market in the US and increase the number of corporations and companies willing to work and base themselves here because they won't be required to provide health insurance to their employees and can invest that money (even after taxes for the universal healthcare system) elsewhere. Healthcare/legacy costs for retired employees costs more per car in Detroit than the steel being used in it. Take that away and they would have a good deal more revenue to do with as they please. Either by improving plants, lowering car costs, or going on a 'very important meeting' in Bali.

    tea-1.jpg
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    I'm not even going to mention the fact that universal health care costs would pay for the few while taking from the many.

    Er...what? Would you like to take another stab at having this sentence make sense?
    Most people that can get free health care ABUSE it by not taking care of their own bodies, whether that be through poor diet or general recklessness (aka smoking).

    Please back this up with numbers, otherwise it just looks like you're slandering a whole bunch of people without any particular good reason.

«1345
This discussion has been closed.