[wildman]

"What is, a socialist?"

In any human society there is always both public and individual interests.

And there will always be tension between these interests.

But they are not mutually exclusive. One can enhance the other. That's the ideal of any truly civil society.

Reasonable people can disagree on what is the proper balance between these two interests. Different societies can strike a different balance within broad limits and still have functional societies but it's a matter of normative values not of some simple-minded absolute right or wrong.

um, public money (taxes) used to fund services that would otherwise not exist (who would want to operate a police station that for the most part consumes money) that are in fact vital to the order of society as a whole...

Americans pay one of the highest taxes in the world and yet most seem to detest socialism!

:/

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 07:06 PM ----------

There are certain things, such as police, fire, defense that are best handled by a government entity.

As for taxes, they figure to get much, much higher with this current person in the White House. I mean we will now have to pay for more debt than all other POTUS have racked up.

Combined.

Plus add in the hc debacle and they have to go higher.

[SteveM]

This is a broken record. The US pays far more in taxes per capita in health care than does Canada for socialized health care. On top of that, there are outrageous insurance premiums charged in the US as compared to a small cost in Canada (most people in Canada simply do not believe Americans could pay that much per month). Now on top of that, there is more money needed to cover the new privatized American plan. Why?..because private health care is going to bankrupt the US.

Socialized health care, like socialized fire protection, police protection and national defense is the only thing that makes financial sense.

This is a broken record. The US pays far more in taxes per capita in health care than does Canada for socialized health care. On top of that, there are outrageous insurance premiums charged in the US as compared to a small cost in Canada (most people in Canada simply do not believe Americans could pay that much per month). Now on top of that, there is more money needed to cover the new privatized American plan. Why?..because private health care is going to bankrupt the US.

Socialized health care, like socialized fire protection, police protection and national defense is the only thing that makes financial sense.

Question: Across the pond in Clearwater there is a clinic that caters to Canadians that come here for treatment. And they do very well. If Canadian HC is so great why are they prosperous? On the radio this morning Ian Beckles was talking about care his mother got in Canada. (Not very good) (He's Canadian, duh) How long you have to wait for something like ACL repair.

Wait time for knee replacement in Ontario? 180 days.
http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_data_map.aspx?LHIN=2&Mod=0

A podiatrist customer called today for a reorder of business cards. Wanted "and surgery" removed so I asked what was up. Turns out by the time Medicare pays him for the surgery he loses money because liability insurance is so high. And you think it will be better under NobamaCare? You'll see more doctors getting out or specializing.

I like my GP. He does a lot of Medicare patients and loves it. He makes decent money with Medicare. But he sees many patients in one day. Quantity over quality. 2 weeks to get an appointment. Still waiting to get the results of x-rays I had done 3 weeks ago. My wife's doctor? An appointment the next day. Callback in 24 hours max. Guess who I'm transferring too?

---

Last edited by graphicgr8s; 03-24-2010 at 08:20 PM.

[B Grace]

This should be interesting reading:

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After nineteen years many folks have forgotten.

Wait times in Canada for an MRI? Soonest is 10 weeks. Longest? 22 weeks.

MRI Scans | Manitoba Wait Time Information | Manitoba Health | Province of Manitoba

Note: These are Canadian government websites.

Another customer of mine needed a heart valve replacement. Actually had the same doctor that Robin Williams had do his. his cost? The flight up north. Thin k it will be the same under NobamaCare? Doubtful.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 10:40 PM ----------

No, socialism has always rewarded those who do old fashioned hard work that benefits the community.

It is modern-capitalism which impedes the attempts of an honest man(woman) to succeed in the world.

Instead of increasing service, people undercut prices.
Instead of increasing quality, people outsource to other nations.

Modern Capitalism, as Marx predicted, is eating itself away. Its hard for mom & pop shops to stay alive. The big chains are battling for the last penny of price difference.

What will they do when they reach 1? Would we at last achieve a perfect market differentiated by quality of product and quality of service? (joke)

Serge why would a person have a desire to produce more widgets if the money would have to be spread? Who is John Galt?

[Votesh]

I seems many people

particularly

people from North America

particularly

those that oppose Obama

are using the word Socialist in a negative way.

That socialism is bad, that a socialist is evil, and that the country is going to hell if those "damn socialists" get their hands in power.



I don't get it.

Do you not enjoy having the police around?

Do you not enjoy having the fire department around?

Do you not enjoy having a public school to send your kid to? (alternatively, fully, or partially subsidized colleges and universities)

Public parks?


I don't get, why the concept of socialism is causes such hate in people, when socialism is all around you.

If you have anything to contest against, contest against improper use of funds. Contest against corrupt officials. Contest against greedy CEO's. Contest against private insurance companies.

Contest against the ideology where what matters is how much money you have, and not how you make it.

Is there fault to the above logic? Is it really too much to ask?

There is some fault to the logic.
Who is to decide what is an improper use of funds? If you just mean a use of funds in a manner that they are not intended or allowed to be used, then I would agree with you. If you mean just the use of funds in a way that some deem to be improper, I would disagree to a degree.

Why should a greedy CEO be contested? I can understand if they do something that intentionally harms people, but then who is to decide if they have intentionally harmed someone to the point that they deserve to be "contested". Greed is not illegal in most places, and it shouldn't be in my opinion.

Why should the ideology that your wealth matters, irrespective of how you make it, be contested? Maybe it shouldn't matter within the spectrum of, say, the legal system, or political system. In the private realm what is wrong with wealth mattering to some.

Most socialist programs have positive effects for most of the population. However, few of them are all good, all of the time. Plus, there is a problem with who should decide when the good of society should outweigh the good of the individual.

[wildman]

Most socialist programs have positive effects for most of the population. However, few of them are all good, all of the time. Plus, there is a problem with who should decide when the good of society should outweigh the good of the individual.

"few of them are all good, all of the time."

To the best of my knowledge nothing in ordinary human affairs is "all good all of the time" no matter what your chosen ideology.

"there is a problem with who should decide when the good of society should outweigh the good of the individual"

The problem is not of who but that the question has to be be asked at all. That is WHEN does the good of society outweigh the good of the individual or vice versa?

The truth is we, as a society, muddle our way through with incomplete tentative answers to such a question constantly fine tuning it until the majority of folks can live with the answer. At this point the answer is passed down from generation to generation as conventional wisdom and eventually becomes part of our secular religion. Not as neat and tidy as the ideologist would like but there you are.

[Wheatfield]

Question: Across the pond in Clearwater there is a clinic that caters to Canadians that come here for treatment. And they do very well. If Canadian HC is so great why are they prosperous? On the radio this morning Ian Beckles was talking about care his mother got in Canada. (Not very good) (He's Canadian, duh) How long you have to wait for something like ACL repair.

Wait time for knee replacement in Ontario? 180 days.
Wait Times in Your Area

A podiatrist customer called today for a reorder of business cards. Wanted "and surgery" removed so I asked what was up. Turns out by the time Medicare pays him for the surgery he loses money because liability insurance is so high. And you think it will be better under NobamaCare? You'll see more doctors getting out or specializing.

I like my GP. He does a lot of Medicare patients and loves it. He makes decent money with Medicare. But he sees many patients in one day. Quantity over quality. 2 weeks to get an appointment. Still waiting to get the results of x-rays I had done 3 weeks ago. My wife's doctor? An appointment the next day. Callback in 24 hours max. Guess who I'm transferring too?

I don't think anyone will pretend that the Canadian system is perfect, what I find astounding is your insistence that the American system is perfect in the face of reams of evidence to the contrary.
If you can afford top dollar insurance, you have a better system.
If you can't, then you don't.
At some point, your system will get so expensive that it will implode, while more efficient social based systems will soldier on.

As an aside, apparently there are clinics in Canada that cater to Americans who need treatment as well, so your two examples are kinda meaningless.

Like many Americans, you are flag blind.

[stevewig]

'What is a socialist?' is in fact a very intelligent question which should be asked more often by more people. So should the questions 'What is a Capitalist?' and 'What is a Communist'.

This would give intelligent meaning to the use of these words which is totally absent in today's political environment. Each of these words, intended to describe a particular political philosophy, becomes meaningless because they are all used as derogatory labels by people who use them intentionally for that end. Very often the people using these labels would be unable to describe, in an intelligent manner, exactly what they mean by that descriptive label other than the fact that it is intended to insult the target.

For the long answer to this question we would need to consult the history books to discover why unrestained capitalism from the European 19th Century resulted in Socialism and how this latter philosophy led to the excesses of a very sophisticated, intellectual philosophy called Communism. These excesses, similar to what happens (but to a mush lesser degree) in todays political world, were caused by the evils of human nature triumphing and trampling over philosophy. Much as it does in the religious world too.

[GeneV]

'What is a socialist?' is in fact a very intelligent question which should be asked more often by more people. So should the questions 'What is a Capitalist?' and 'What is a Communist'.

Which was the point of my post which implied that Adam Smith might not call a corporate-dominated economy "Capitalist."

In point of fact, I think these terms are not very productive in the way that they are most often used--which is to label and discard a person or idea. It is a corollary to the principles of the discussion on the other thread about dividing up into teams. Political systems are not pregnancies, and you can be a little bit xxxxxist. They are also not religions that require purity and rigidity of belief. Unless you follow Ayn Rand, you are probably not a pure Capitalist, and unless you are a devotee of Lenin, you are probably not a communist or a socialist.

The better questions may be, throwing away the emotional baggage and admitting we are not purists, what are the good points of capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, social democracy, etc., and how can we fashion policies that make the most of those advantages?

[SteveM]

Question: Across the pond in Clearwater there is a clinic that caters to Canadians that come here for treatment. And they do very well. If Canadian HC is so great why are they prosperous? On the radio this morning Ian Beckles was talking about care his mother got in Canada. (Not very good) (He's Canadian, duh) How long you have to wait for something like ACL repair.

Wait time for knee replacement in Ontario? 180 days.
Wait Times in Your Area

A podiatrist customer called today for a reorder of business cards. Wanted "and surgery" removed so I asked what was up. Turns out by the time Medicare pays him for the surgery he loses money because liability insurance is so high. And you think it will be better under NobamaCare? You'll see more doctors getting out or specializing.

I like my GP. He does a lot of Medicare patients and loves it. He makes decent money with Medicare. But he sees many patients in one day. Quantity over quality. 2 weeks to get an appointment. Still waiting to get the results of x-rays I had done 3 weeks ago. My wife's doctor? An appointment the next day. Callback in 24 hours max. Guess who I'm transferring too?

I also never said that Canadian health care was perfect, it needs to change as well, which will most likely mean more user fees to make people think before using it too much. With that said, you can’t just go asking for something because you are a hypochondriac. If your doctor starts asking for things that are not needed, he’ll/she’ll get reported and could end up having their license pulled. Those checks and balances are in place to prevent fraud. It is also based on priority. If circumstances are dire for someone, they might move closer to the front of the line. Someone may get bumped a number of times if their condition is not severe. Again not ideal and something to be addressed, but overall the system works very well.

I’ve already told you how unimpressed I was when my US insurance company denied further claims for my son until after a certain date (as I had apparently used up my “allotment”). I also wasn’t very impressed with being unable to get a maternity doctor for my wife. In Connecticut at least, they were all grouped together where you received whoever was available that day. It was a revolving door of doctors that asked the same questions over and over while they tried to become familiar with their patient. My second was born in Canada and the experience was much more seamless. I also didn’t have the “10%” copay to cover. It doesn’t sound like much, but for Canadians reading this, my wifes routine blood test was $1000. We have to put out $100 from our own pocket on top of the insurance premiums we paid. Now have that happen for every little thing a cuple goes through when they have a child. $$$$$$


There are also Canadian issues reported in the US media that are actually a problem in the US as well. Did you see CNN last night? Apparently the US is short 40,000 family physicians before the new care packaged was signed into law. Considering how many patients each doctor has, how many people pay for insurance now yet have no doctor? How many doctors are you short now that more people will be covered? Canada might also have issues in some areas, but at least we have staffed up to take care of our entire population.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 08:22 AM ----------

This should be interesting reading:

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After nineteen years many folks have forgotten.

So you're saying Europe and Canada are the same as the USSR? One of the first threads I started on this site was a series of photos I took there in 1981. The thing that struck me with that country at that time was the attitude. There were lineups everywhere, and people seemed to be living a fairly meager existence.

The people I spoke with were convinced that they had the best standard of living anywhere. They had no idea what it was like outside of the USSR and the blind nationalism made them defend there situation as the best possible. It kind of sounds like the US right now doesn't it? Look at what is taught in the US school system....US history, US geography etc and very little if anything about the outside world. I don't think this is done by cooincidence....do you? My visit to the USSR was done through my public school. The group of students we met there had apparently been shown what North America was like. Of course all they saw were pictures of underfunded Native reserves and the homeless.....hmm....

[Nesster]

What does socialism mean today, in actual practice and governance... vs. what it may have been 50 years ago? Much of the lizard-brain emotional sloganeering in the USA is based on 50+ year old ideology.

My understanding of western european socialism is this: growing out of the labor classes, and in opposition to the owner/capitalists, merchants, and clergy, the socialist parties stressed the value of labor in the national product. Therefore they advocated state-owned industry, social programs to benefit and support the workers, and tight regulation of non state-owned enterprise. Naturally, competition for the controlling jobs in this system are party-political rather than internal to corporations - therefore 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

This is why socialism is such a horror to Americans, as our political system is based on property rights and individual ownership of the means of production. (Oh, we did expand who is allowed to vote over time...) Thus the men who private enterprise made rich and powerful, and those men who hope to achieve the same, will defend their position. The frontier expansion of the USA provided a nice outlet for the working man; and usually progressive immigration policies (well, slavery wasn't progressive) ensured lots of cheap labor.

The idea of private ownership and provision for the common good is drilled into us from childhood. When done in an enlightened, humane way, there's nothing wrong with this... only, as we discover over and over, this political economy set up is not necessarily structurally enlightened or humane.

The traditional political split in the US has been between those who believe private enterprise = liberty = the best for us all, and those who believe priate enterprise must be held accountable to the well being of the common man, to society as a whole. The details get mixed up every time a new coalition of interests gets created by one party or the other. Sometimes the populists are on the right, sometimes on the left. Our own era is defined by the collapse of the FDR liberal coalition and the emergence of the Reagan one, threatened by the neo-liberalism of Clinton and Obama. Hence a lot of the vehemence.

[Green Chile]

In Bolivia president Evo Morales is the leader of the "Movement Towards Socialism," which has as its foundation a stance against the neoliberal policies of the 1990's that brought about privatization of natural resources like natural gas—and even water. There's a good documentary called "Flow" that shows how water resources were developed by private companies around the third world, especially in countries that could not afford the public infrastructure.

If you want to watch some more videos, check out "Cocalero," which is about Evo's campaign in the 2005 elections. You can also go back in time to 2002 and 2003 by watching "Our Brand is Crisis" to see how American pollsters helped an American-influenced neoliberal gain the presidency for the second time. He had to leave office over outrage that Bolivia would export its natural gas via Chile, Bolivia's perennial enemy.

The point is that if you want to see self-avowed socialism, look at countries like Bolivia, where socialism is budding, or look at Poland, where socialism is transforming to privatization, or look at Great Britain, which recently privatized its rail service (well, maybe not too recently). Look at the changes occurring in poor European countries like Spain and Greece, which are having to upgrade their public services to accommodate EU requirements.

Barack Obama's policies are a far cry from policies in other countries. I used to live in Poland. Guess how much tuition costs for university? Nothing. Guess how much people have to pay to see the doctor? Nothing. Yes, of course Poland and other European countries have a greater tax burden, but the very poor—and there are very many classified as very poor—have the same access to public education and medicine as the very rich. It's not perfect, but at least in those countries the rich don't leave the poor to suffer.

We are so far from Socialism in this country it's hilarious how people try to demonize President Obama as a socialist. Really, people need to understand what they are talking about before the go before the public with their opinions.

[GeneV]

What does socialism mean today, in actual practice and governance... vs. what it may have been 50 years ago? Much of the lizard-brain emotional sloganeering in the USA is based on 50+ year old ideology.

The terms cause more confusion that anything else. I am old enough to remember when a self-described "communist" was elected President of France. Horror of Horrors!

France did not join the Eastern Block, and private property did not disappear. France added a few social programs, and then elected a more right-leaning party.