Socialism Questions

[Totenkopf]

No matter what term you wish to use, socialist or statist or something else, the subsidizing of the Greek population by it's govt has been a big source of Greece's problems. At some point they, the govt, are no longer going to be able to do so and then the people revolt b/c their sense of entitlement has been offended. It's difficult to generate wealth when the govt is robbing peter to pay paul so it can get perpetually reelected. Frankly, it's merely a conceit to claim that "socializing" America's health and welfare system will make it somehow more humane or human. It just shilfts control from an arguably impersonal private sector to an unaccountable public one.

[vanir]

...the subsidizing of the Greek population by it's govt has been a big source of Greece's problems.

 

It would be customary to qualify the statement (evidentiary procedure), then point out how that extrapolates the generalised claim.

 

For example, let me toss out, "No subsidy had nothing to do with it. It was corruption."

 

You might also explain why Australian economy isn't in third world nation status when we subsidise flagrantly. Medicare, I don't pay for any mandatory medical care, not a cent. I pay a yearly levy in taxes, a few hundred bucks I never notice. You know how much I pay for $100 medication, 5 bucks. Welfare, if I'm unemployed I get benefits...forever. If I'm invalid, elderly, disabled, pension. Must be paying ridiculous taxes? Got a payslip right here. Taxable $677, Nett $633. Y'know how much my tax return was last year? $1200.

 

Dude, trust me, subsidy is working. Really, really well. You guys, yanks, you've got some serious brain related troubles in your government offices over there.

[Tommycat]

You guys, yanks, you've got some serious brain related troubles in your government offices over there.

Australia population: 21 M

US population 300 M

 

Australia military budget:Appx $15B US

US military budget: Appx $540B US

 

Australian medical budget: Couldn't find hard numbers

US Medical budget :$394.5B US Medicare + $276.4B US Medicaid (HOLY CRAP!!! We actually DID spend more on healthcare than military and this was under Bush)

 

Now seems to me that we just aren't getting our money's worth out of medicare and medicaid. I blame it on the numbers of supervisors and administrators. The efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid is sorely lacking. Currently we are spending around 750B US on Medicare and Medicaid. That does not include the 700B we also spend on social security, or the 570 in other mandatory expenses(including Welfare). Now, I'm no financial genius, but you'd think that the TRILLION PLUS we spend on medicare, medicaid and SS would get us a bit more than health care for a few people. It seems that we should expect more bang for our buck.

 

Heck with JUST medicare and medicaid, if we take that money and put it aside solely for funding medical needs, the entire population of the US would have 2500 extra for medical expenses PER YEAR. NOW, that population number includes people that can afford better insurance(appx 70% of the population) so we're left with around 10k per person per year.... average health care cost per person? around $7500

 

edit: please don't beat me up too much over the numbers, I just did quick searches.

[Salzella]

No matter what term you wish to use, socialist or statist or something else, the subsidizing of the Greek population by it's govt has been a big source of Greece's problems. At some point they, the govt, are no longer going to be able to do so and then the people revolt b/c their sense of entitlement has been offended.

 

Oh come on. The problem with Greece is not that it is socialist (it's not), it's that it's poorly run, and in Europe you could look at several more socialist examples, although we're still talking only in comparision to America and it's bizarre fear of anything even slightly red, that are in fact propping up Greece, to varying extents. The Nordic countries for example. And in any case the recent troubles are not in fact down entirely to the government.

 

At some point they, the govt, are no longer going to be able to do so and then the people revolt b/c their sense of entitlement has been offended. It's difficult to generate wealth when the govt is robbing peter to pay paul so it can get perpetually reelected.

That is a series of pretty extraordinary assumptions. Firstly, I can't see it being true that a people under a government that has some sort of welfare protection is more likely to revolt than one where the government does nothing. Secondly, the protests in Greece are largely down not to the government, but due to the financial speculators who made the market panic by downgrading the bonds, and I find it sickening that a small clique of suits in Wall street can panic a massive insitution such as the EU, not to mention the organisations that it is connected to, just because they get a bit jittery about payments, which let's not forget was not a problem before the economy tanked...

 

Frankly, it's merely a conceit to claim that "socializing" America's health and welfare system will make it somehow more humane or human. It just shilfts control from an arguably impersonal private sector to an unaccountable public one.

No, it's not. Capitalist healthcare is, by definition, not human; it is faceless, it is corporate, it is regulated. That seems to be a large part of the appeal of the whole system for some. Also, a public body is, again by definition, accountable. That is largely the point of it being associated with government and it is why the NHS in the UK is accountable, and part of the reason we value it so much, even though it is bloated and inefficient, is because we can look across the Atlantic and see how much worse off we could be.

[Tommycat]

No, it's not. Capitalist healthcare is, by definition, not human; it is faceless, it is corporate, it is regulated. That seems to be a large part of the appeal of the whole system for some. Also, a public body is, again by definition, accountable. That is largely the point of it being associated with government and it is why the NHS in the UK is accountable, and part of the reason we value it so much, even though it is bloated and inefficient, is because we can look across the Atlantic and see how much worse off we could be.

 

Sorry, but for all your talk of assumptions, you forget the key problem with government run healthcare is it depends on the government. In the US that relies on the US government. Ask yourself this: Would you trust your healthcare in the hands of either party? If you would trust the Dems to do it, would you trust the Republicans to take care of you properly? Is it too far removed to think that a future US administration(or rather congress) might add in a requirement of government service to have access to this healthcare. Some requirement that military service is required?

 

Keep in mind persons in the military have experienced a type of government run healthcare. Look at the VA and it's bloated inefficient and pretty dismal treatment of patients(in many areas). When I was in the service, they pretty well prescribed whatever the drug of the month was to everyone. We used to joke about how they would give prescription strength Tylenol for everything. Viral infection? Tylenol. Pneumonia? Tylenol. Broken leg? Tylenol. Necrotizong Faciitis? Tylenol. (Though I hear they use Vicodin now)

[Salzella]

Assuming that nationalised healthcare will be bad because it's 'run by the government' is the biggest and daftest assumption you could make, and could well end up a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm guessing from the quote in your signature you don't view governments with a fantasic amount of good faith. Well, fine. However, I would trust the government to do it because Governments have a mandate to govern, ie. provide the best possible service to people in the areas in which it holds power, and in a country as large, rich and (apparently) willing as the US of A then I would think it a pretty good bet that the healthcare would be of good quality. Private companies have no such mandate and their interests are beyond regulation, and as such it's slick and faceless, but overall a) not universal which we already know and b) largely unconcerned with the extent to which it gets people better beyond the impact that it has on their (considerable no doubt) pay packets. I know which of the two I would rather have looking after me.

 

Also, conflating public healthcare with military healthcare is daft because they are two completely seperate institutions and furthermore I'm guessing that the former is going to be a hell of a lot better funded and run than the latter.

[Tommycat]

Assuming that nationalised healthcare will be bad because it's 'run by the government' is the biggest and daftest assumption you could make, and could well end up a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm guessing from the quote in your signature you don't view governments with a fantasic amount of good faith. Well, fine. However, I would trust the government to do it because Governments have a mandate to govern, ie. provide the best possible service to people in the areas in which it holds power, and in a country as large, rich and (apparently) willing as the US of A then I would think it a pretty good bet that the healthcare would be of good quality. Private companies have no such mandate and their interests are beyond regulation, and as such it's slick and faceless, but overall a) not universal which we already know and b) largely unconcerned with the extent to which it gets people better beyond the impact that it has on their (considerable no doubt) pay packets. I know which of the two I would rather have looking after me.

 

Also, conflating public healthcare with military healthcare is daft because they are two completely seperate institutions and furthermore I'm guessing that the former is going to be a hell of a lot better funded and run than the latter.

My quote is from one of the founding fathers of this country. It just so happens that HE didn't trust the government either.

 

As for whether ANY government can do it: Well I'm sure one can. I just don't have faith in the US government to run anything all that well. Look at all the waste fraud and abuse ALREADY in the system. Now we add a huge bureaucracy to that. and we'll end up with VA healthcare(not military healthcare) which getting them to reverse a "no" decision just about requires an act of congress.

 

Again, I point out that even if you trust THIS administration with your health, ask yourself if you would trust say... the Bush administration with your health.

[Totenkopf]

Oh come on. The problem with Greece is not that it is socialist (it's not), it's that it's poorly run, and in Europe you could look at several more socialist examples, although we're still talking only in comparision to America and it's bizarre fear of anything even slightly red, that are in fact propping up Greece, to varying extents. The Nordic countries for example. And in any case the recent troubles are not in fact down entirely to the government.

 

Slightly red? You mean like Social Security, welfare and Medicaid....all of which have existed in America for several decades already and don't appear in any real danger of going away, other than by potential insolvency? As to who's to blame in Greece, are you absolving govt of any responsibility or is this another one of those anti-capitalist argumants you're making? I never said Greece's problem was ENTIRELY the govt anyway. But you have to admit they were promising subsidy levels that were economically unsustainable.

 

That is a series of pretty extraordinary assumptions. Firstly, I can't see it being true that a people under a government that has some sort of welfare protection is more likely to revolt than one where the government does nothing.

 

Nice strawman. Not making comparisons between two seperate systems. Greece is under significant financial strain and the people who've gotten used to being heavily subsidized now face austerity measures and are being egged on by communists and other malcontents to riot in the streets. The Germans are even being villified for not wanting to subsidize Greek irresponsibility.

 

Secondly, the protests in Greece are largely down not to the government, but due to the financial speculators who made the market panic by downgrading the bonds, and I find it sickening that a small clique of suits in Wall street can panic a massive insitution such as the EU, not to mention the organisations that it is connected to, just because they get a bit jittery about payments, which let's not forget was not a problem before the economy tanked...

 

The protests in Greece are mostly about the fact that they will now have to make hard choices and not get by on someone else's dime. Whether they scapegoat Wall Street or their own govt's incompetence is irrelevant. They only want their subsidies and don't care who has to finance it. And when economies are "good" and everyone can make their payments, no one worries. When people start defaulting, then it becomes an issue. Basic logic.

 

No, it's not. Capitalist healthcare is, by definition, not human; it is faceless, it is corporate, it is regulated. That seems to be a large part of the appeal of the whole system for some. Also, a public body is, again by definition, accountable. That is largely the point of it being associated with government and it is why the NHS in the UK is accountable, and part of the reason we value it so much, even though it is bloated and inefficient, is because we can look across the Atlantic and see how much worse off we could be.

 

Socialst healthcare is no less faceless than capitalist healthcare. It is also regulated, usually by the very entity that provides it in the first place. No, a public body that is a faceless bureaucracy is no more accountable in the end than a private corporation. Except in cases where a govt allows for a virtual monopoly, regionally or nationally, corporations are also accountable in the end. Both to the govt itself and to the shifting sands of popular opinion. Seeing as how I've never experienced the horrors of "capitalist healthcare" that many across the pond seem to think exist (and I've gone periods of years w/o health insurance), I can say I'm glad I'm not stuck (yet?) w/ "socialist healthcare".

 

Also, conflating public healthcare with military healthcare is daft because they are two completely seperate institutions and furthermore I'm guessing that the former is going to be a hell of a lot better funded and run than the latter.

 

Can I interest you in a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

You might also explain why Australian economy isn't in third world nation status when we subsidise flagrantly. Medicare, I don't pay for any mandatory medical care, not a cent. I pay a yearly levy in taxes, a few hundred bucks I never notice. You know how much I pay for $100 medication, 5 bucks. Welfare, if I'm unemployed I get benefits...forever. If I'm invalid, elderly, disabled, pension. Must be paying ridiculous taxes? Got a payslip right here. Taxable $677, Nett $633. Y'know how much my tax return was last year? $1200.

 

Dude, trust me, subsidy is working. Really, really well. You guys, yanks, you've got some serious brain related troubles in your government offices over there.

 

Subsidy is always great when someone else is carrying the freight.

[Tysyacha]

Ayn Rand, one of my favorite writers, was one of the most pro-capitalist authors I've ever had the privilege of reading. I believe that she would be against so-called "corporate welfare" as well as welfare for individual people.

 

If capitalism involves competition among businesses, especially businesses which offer the same type of good or service, then why are some of them given government money? Shouldn't the free market be the sole decider of whether a given business can "compete" or not? Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund corporate subsidies? I may be ignorant, but this doesn't make sense to me.

[Totenkopf]

No, I wouldn't say ignorant. If the market is to decide, then there should be no subsidies for business. Otherwise you've basically only got crony capitalism. However, neither should there be public subsidies for individuals (barring the legitimately sick or incapacitated) or at least not w/o strict strings attached. Just like w/the service, if the govt is footing your bill, it gets to call the shots about what you'll need to do to qualify and where you may have to go as well.