Question to all American citizens

[Man?orAstroman?]

From the general feeling I get from everyone on this forum, is that you are all communists, or revolutionaries in favor of communism/lazze-faire. If you are pro communism, why not move to a country that is communist, or start a revolution already? Please discuss civily.

[bunk]

There are no communist countries. That in itself is an oxymoron i think because there are no socalist countries on an actual path to communism now. Starting a revolution is an extremely difficult thing to do. First, most communists believe in having mass support so would not just start a coup.

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:54 PM
There are no communist countries. That in itself is an oxymoron i think because there are no socalist countries on an actual path to communism now. Starting a revolution is an extremely difficult thing to do. First, most communists believe in having mass support so would not just start a coup.
Then I am assuming you are against capitalism? Why live in a country that is so heavily capitalist that would never revolt? If anything Europe is a far better chance for communism.

[bunk]

I live in England. Obviously revolutions, coups, and civil wars have been more commonplace in the third world but there should be some revolutions in the next decades in some advanced capitalist nations

[Redmau5]

Stop being a fucking idiot. People don't just start revolutions for the fun of it, there has to be a certain political and economical climate.

And there is no point in just moving to one of the so-called communist countries and forgetting about the rest of the capitalist world. The whole idea is awaken people who are being exploited by the capitalist system and show them there is an alternative, by which i mean socialism.

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:07 PM
I live in England. Obviously revolutions, coups, and civil wars have been more commonplace in the third world but there should be some revolutions in the next decades in some advanced capitalist nations
Why would you want to get rid of capitalism? Its the reason you have that computer, the internet, electricity, police protection, etc... Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens. Socialism has been tried and has failed time and time again. What makes you think it will work if any "first world nations" try it?

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:09 PM
Stop being a fucking idiot. People don't just start revolutions for the fun of it, there has to be a certain political and economical climate.

And there is no point in just moving to one of the so-called communist countries and forgetting about the rest of the capitalist world. The whole idea is awaken people who are being exploited by the capitalist system and show them there is an alternative, by which i mean socialism.
Well, if it were a popular idea then why wouldn't people rebel? If we were so "exploited" as you suggest then why don't the people uprise? Could it be that capitalism works and rewards those who work harder and better themselvs through training and education?

[RedAnarchist]

I would enjoy your unrestricted membership while you still can, "comrade".

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:15 PM
I would enjoy your unrestricted membership while you still can, "comrade".
Are you insinuating I should be banned for practicing free speach? Only communist ideals are allowed here? Thats kind of odd.

[RedAnarchist]

Its not just communist ideals that are allowed here. We tolerate non-communist socialists, and capitalists can air their views in the OI.

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:20 PM
Its not just communist ideals that are allowed here. We tolerate non-communist socialists, and capitalists can air their views in the OI.
So only else where, where you can ignore reality and other ideals if you so choose? What ever happened to being "open minded"? I guess this place isn't what I was looking for when I chose intelligent and civil discourse.

[RedAnarchist]

I didint make up the rules. Why dont you read through the guidelines found at the top of the page and ask yourself a few questions about why the management of this forum needs to restrict certain members.

Anyway, this is not a country. If you dont like it, you dont have to stay here.

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:27 PM
I didint make up the rules. Why dont you read through the guidelines found at the top of the page and ask yourself a few questions about why the management of this forum needs to restrict certain members.

Anyway, this is not a country. If you dont like it, you dont have to stay here.
Same to you buddy.


Actually, why would they need to restrict NON-DISRUPTIVE members? I could understand if I were to spam the boards with "Bush is teh best! Capitalizm rulz!" if they banned me, but for simply expressing a diffrent point of view? Draconian at the least, fascist at best.

[LSD]

Then I am assuming you are against capitalism? Why live in a country that is so heavily capitalist that would never revolt? If anything Europe is a far better chance for communism.

Don't assume that everyone on this board lives in the US.


Why would you want to get rid of capitalism?

um...how long have


Its the reason you have that computer,

True enough.

But there's no reason to believe that under communism I wouldn't have this computer as well. More importantly, there is every reason to believe that billions of others would be able to have computers as well.

In case you haven't notices, capitalism tends to favour those with...well...capital.


electricity,

No!

I have electricity, because of human ingenuity.

If anything capitalism hinders technological innovation because it forces all progress to be controlled by the "laws of the Market", which means that far from improbing people's lives they aim to improve individual profits.


police protection,

...from what?

I think I speak for everyone on this board when I say that society could do with a lot less police oppression (:o sorry, Freudian slip, I mean protection, of course)


Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens.

What?!?!

Haven't you noticed that the more capitalist the country, the worse the healthcare coverage?

Look at the US versus Western Europe.

Notice that the socialized system seems to work..BETTER?!?


Socialism has been tried and has failed time and time again. What makes you think it will work if any "first world nations" try it?

I don't.

But I do think that Communism will work.

Besides, what made 18th century thinkers think that democracy could work? It too had been tried and seemed to fail.

Should they have "given up"?


Are you insinuating I should be banned for practicing free speach? Only communist ideals are allowed here? Thats kind of odd.

Not banned, "Restricted".

It means that you can only post in the Opposing Ideologies forum. That way you don't start Capitalism Rules! Communism Sux threads in forums where they don't belong (such as politics).


I could understand if I were to spam the boards with "Bush is teh best! Capitalizm rulz!" if they banned me, but for simply expressing a diffrent point of view?

It's to keep the site running!

If every forum was full of Communism doesn't work threads, nothing else could be discussed. This is, after all, a leftist board.

If you want to advocate a rightest viewpoint, there is a forum designed especially for that purpose.

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 06:33 PM

Then I am assuming you are against capitalism? Why live in a country that is so heavily capitalist that would never revolt? If anything Europe is a far better chance for communism.

Don't assume that everyone on this board lives in the US.


Why would you want to get rid of capitalism?

um...how long have


Its the reason you have that computer,

True enough.

But there's no reason to believe that under communism I wouldn't have this computer as well. More importantly, there is every reason to believe that billions of others would be able to have computers as well.

In case you haven't notices, capitalism tends to favour those with...well...capital.


electricity,

No!

I have electricity, because of human ingenuity.

If anything capitalism hinders technological innovation because it forces all progress to be controlled by the "laws of the Market", which means that far from improbing people's lives they aim to improve individual profits.


police protection,

...from what?

I think I speak for everyone on this board when I say that society could do with a lot less police oppression (:o sorry, Freudian slip, I mean protection, of course)


Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens.

What?!?!

Haven't you noticed that the more capitalist the country, the worse the healthcare coverage?

Look at the US versus Western Europe.

Notice that the socialized system seems to work..BETTER?!?


Socialism has been tried and has failed time and time again. What makes you think it will work if any "first world nations" try it?

I don't.

But I do think that Communism will work.

Besides, what made 18th century thinkers think that democracy could work? It too had been tried and seemed to fail.

Should they have "given up"?


Are you insinuating I should be banned for practicing free speach? Only communist ideals are allowed here? Thats kind of odd.

Not banned, "Restricted".

It means that you can only post in the Opposing Ideologies forum. That way you don't start Capitalism Rules! Communism Sux threads in forums where they don't belong (such as politics).


I could understand if I were to spam the boards with "Bush is teh best! Capitalizm rulz!" if they banned me, but for simply expressing a diffrent point of view?

It's to keep the site running!

If every forum was full of Communism doesn't work threads, nothing else could be discussed. This is, after all, a leftist board.

If you want to advocate a rightest viewpoint, there is a forum designed especially for that purpose.
I assumed you lived in a capitalist nation because all communist nations don't have the internet, or even computers.

How long have what? That was kind of vague.

How many people in China, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba do you think have computers? The press is strongly controled by the state, they will never have the internet because too many people could access free press.

Ok, then power your house by yourself. Don't buy it from corporations. If it were truely that easy to obtain efficient power then everyone would. It is thanks to capitalism that we do have electricity. If it were only human ingenuity, then all the people of North Korea would have light.

In case you haven't noticed, but there are murderers, rapists, muggers, child moulesters, etc out there. Lets see who you call if you ever get mugged.

Check your facts buddy. In Canada alone people wait up to and even more than six months for a life saving surgery. Also, do you have numbers to prove your claim that Westren Europes socialized system is better then ours?

Why would people switch to Communsim? It has proven to fail time and time again. People need incentives to work. You simply can't expect everyone to just assume roles and trane to be doctors without some sort of incentive.

Oh, you mean censored. Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and Hitler all knew something about doing that to people who voiced disent.

I never spamed anything. I made one thread, it would be pretty frivolous to "restrict" me for that.

How do you know I'm a "rightest"? Did I say that anywhere, or do you know me personaly?

[RedAnarchist]

You use the huge oxymoron that is "communist nation". I would think that qualifies you as a capitalist. Either that or you dont know enough about Communism to call yourself a communist.

[NovelGentry]

Why live in a country that is so heavily capitalist that would never revolt? If anything Europe is a far better chance for communism.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was born here. Would you care to pay for a plane ticket and an apartment for a few months so I can settle and find a job there?


Why would you want to get rid of capitalism?

End working class exploitation.


Its the reason you have that computer, the internet, electricity, police protection, etc...

Workers and scientists (who are essentially workers) are the reason I have my computer.


Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens.

Good doctors, nurses, biochemists, pharmecists (aka: workers) allow for decent health care and treatement.


Socialism has been tried and has failed time and time again.

Well at least you're not saying communism failed time and time again. And yes, you're right, it has been tried, but in most cases where socialized production actually existed, that is worker controlled / democratic means of production, it failed because it was destroyed violently by the opposing capitalists or alternative interests.

Examples like the Paris Commune, Spanish Civl War.. etc. The USSR, China, Cuba, etc... are difficult to really consider socialist.

The economic model is not the problem. The political model very well might be part of a problem. But the real problem is that most of these places just weren't ready.


What makes you think it will work if any "first world nations" try it?

When it does occur here, IF it occurs by mass worker's uprising, that is, if it occurs from a real class struggle as opposed to a vanguard or coup like situation -- than it will work for no other reason than the people want it to work and are obviously willing to sacrifice their lives to make it work.

But on top of that. There's never been shown to be a flaw of socialized production, in fact, that is fairly well proven to work. The problem is trying to maintain a socialist nation among a world of capitalism and other opposing forces. SEE: USSR attacked by Fascist Germany, Cuba trade restricted by US, Vietnam napalmed to shit.


Well, if it were a popular idea then why wouldn't people rebel?

If it were a popular idea, people would rebel. But it's not a popular idea -- not yet anyway.


If we were so "exploited" as you suggest then why don't the people uprise?

Not were so... are so. Most people do not realize they are being exploited. This is the way it's always been, and as they understand it, they are paid for their labor. This discussion leads to the question of private property, which most people understand is a basic right. Thus you must seirously change peoples views on private property to gain full consciousness.

However, there is an obvious amount of consciousness which can be gained simply by understanding the position of the working class. And I do mean the position of the working class, not the position of select workers in the working class who happen to be not doing so bad.

Do you not feel that companies exploit their workers?


Could it be that capitalism works and rewards those who work harder and better themselvs through training and education?

I suppose it COULD be, I'm not going to deny someone can work their ass off and make it. I know this kid who worked 2 full time job and one part time jobs over the summer so he could pay for college.

I suppose the question is, why should someone have to do such a thing to pay for education? Education should be free, it is the collective work of human beings, such things belong to no one. The internet has changed this to some extent, creating vast online libraries of works in the public domain. However, try and tell a company you did all the work for a Bachelors degree on your own, so theoretically you have one, you just didn't actually get a degree. Good luck.

Could it be that capitalism actually exploits a certain amount of the population to sustain the lives of luxury of those born into such a position?


Are you insinuating I should be banned for practicing free speach? Only communist ideals are allowed here? Thats kind of odd.

No, he's insinuating you WILL be restricted to opposing ideologies. This board is for communist discussion and development of ideas, methods of practice, and basic learning. You didn't come here to learn about communism, you came here to tell us it was wrong and it doesn't work. We have a section of the board reserves for such discussion, because the rest of the board is designed to actually discuss communism -- thus you will be restricted to that section and you can try and prove your point all you want in there.


So only else where, where you can ignore reality and other ideals if you so choose?

Many of us actively argue in the OI, including myself. The idea as I stated above is that the rest of the board is designed to actually learn, study, practice communism. It is a means of keeping forums on topic. If capitalists were allowed to post everywhere, there would be questions like "How can you say people aren't greedy?" in every damn thread.

Some people have very distinct questions or ideas to talk about that have to do with actually developing communist ideas. To prove my point, you came to this message board and you posted these questions/points in Politics. The description on Politics reads:


Discuss international politics. Anything from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

The description on Opposing Ideologies reads:


Only forum where right-wingers, cappies, preachers and other misguided individuals are allowed to post.

-- Which one sounds more suited for what you posted here? The fact is you should have posted this in OI to begin with. But since it seems to be the case that most capitalists and right-wingers have very poor comprehension skills you seem to put it at some place in random that has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.


What ever happened to being "open minded"?

I'll willingly admit to being closed-minded on certain things. I've studied the different systems, I've seen capitalism first hand, and I've made my decision. Like I said, I still argue in the other forum, but this simply isn't the right place for it.


I guess this place isn't what I was looking for when I chose intelligent and civil discourse.

Most of us wouldn't have a problem if it was posted in the right forum. Again, the reason we restrict you to OI is generally that if you are a capitalist, all your points will ALWAYS have to do with confronting us on "Why does communism work?" "How do I ride a bike in communism without the government killing me?" And other random foolishness. We're not all here to argue why communism works, some of us -- most of us -- actually believe it works and are here to discuss the finer points of it.

You can pretty much say whatever you want on here except blatantly racist, sexist, etc things. But you've started out by proving you cannot grasp where these kinds of issues belong -- in doing so, we will help you along by making sure you can NO LONGER post them where they don't belong.

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:48 PM
You use the huge oxymoron that is "communist nation". I would think that qualifies you as a capitalist. Either that or you dont know enough about Communism to call yourself a communist.
What am I supposed to call it? Communist country? It would still have boundries, it would still be a nation. Stop trying to use symantecs to label me to fit your name calling.

[LSD]

How do you know I'm a "rightest"? Did I say that anywhere, or do you know me personaly?

I think this quote says it all:
"Why would you want to get rid of capitalism? Its the reason you have that computer, the internet, electricity, police protection, etc... Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens. Socialism has been tried and has failed time and time again. What makes you think it will work if any "first world nations" try it?"


How many people in China, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba do you think have computers? The press is strongly controled by the state, they will never have the internet because too many people could access free press.

Once again, these are no more communist then the German Democratic Republic was democratic.


Ok, then power your house by yourself. Don't buy it from corporations. If it were truely that easy to obtain efficient power then everyone would. It is thanks to capitalism that we do have electricity.

um...you have to actually defend that assertion.


Check your facts buddy. In Canada alone people wait up to and even more than six months for a life saving surgery.

um...as a Canadian, I can tell you that I vastly prefer our system.

You do realize that in your country, millions of people can't afford health care at all, right?


Also, do you have numbers to prove your claim that Westren Europes socialized system is better then ours?

Health Care: An international Comparison (http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf)
Best in the world or just the most expensive? (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)
CIA life expectancy chart (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html)

[Man?orAstroman?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:54 PM

Why live in a country that is so heavily capitalist that would never revolt? If anything Europe is a far better chance for communism.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was born here. Would you care to pay for a plane ticket and an apartment for a few months so I can settle and find a job there?


Why would you want to get rid of capitalism?

End working class exploitation.


Its the reason you have that computer, the internet, electricity, police protection, etc...

Workers and scientists (who are essentially workers) are the reason I have my computer.


Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens.

Good doctors, nurses, biochemists, pharmecists (aka: workers) allow for decent health care and treatement.


Socialism has been tried and has failed time and time again.

Well at least you're not saying communism failed time and time again. And yes, you're right, it has been tried, but in most cases where socialized production actually existed, that is worker controlled / democratic means of production, it failed because it was destroyed violently by the opposing capitalists or alternative interests.

Examples like the Paris Commune, Spanish Civl War.. etc. The USSR, China, Cuba, etc... are difficult to really consider socialist.

The economic model is not the problem. The political model very well might be part of a problem. But the real problem is that most of these places just weren't ready.


What makes you think it will work if any "first world nations" try it?

When it does occur here, IF it occurs by mass worker's uprising, that is, if it occurs from a real class struggle as opposed to a vanguard or coup like situation -- than it will work for no other reason than the people want it to work and are obviously willing to sacrifice their lives to make it work.

But on top of that. There's never been shown to be a flaw of socialized production, in fact, that is fairly well proven to work. The problem is trying to maintain a socialist nation among a world of capitalism and other opposing forces. SEE: USSR attacked by Fascist Germany, Cuba trade restricted by US, Vietnam napalmed to shit.


Well, if it were a popular idea then why wouldn't people rebel?

If it were a popular idea, people would rebel. But it's not a popular idea -- not yet anyway.


If we were so "exploited" as you suggest then why don't the people uprise?

Not were so... are so. Most people do not realize they are being exploited. This is the way it's always been, and as they understand it, they are paid for their labor. This discussion leads to the question of private property, which most people understand is a basic right. Thus you must seirously change peoples views on private property to gain full consciousness.

However, there is an obvious amount of consciousness which can be gained simply by understanding the position of the working class. And I do mean the position of the working class, not the position of select workers in the working class who happen to be not doing so bad.

Do you not feel that companies exploit their workers?


Could it be that capitalism works and rewards those who work harder and better themselvs through training and education?

I suppose it COULD be, I'm not going to deny someone can work their ass off and make it. I know this kid who worked 2 full time job and one part time jobs over the summer so he could pay for college.

I suppose the question is, why should someone have to do such a thing to pay for education? Education should be free, it is the collective work of human beings, such things belong to no one. The internet has changed this to some extent, creating vast online libraries of works in the public domain. However, try and tell a company you did all the work for a Bachelors degree on your own, so theoretically you have one, you just didn't actually get a degree. Good luck.

Could it be that capitalism actually exploits a certain amount of the population to sustain the lives of luxury of those born into such a position?


Are you insinuating I should be banned for practicing free speach? Only communist ideals are allowed here? Thats kind of odd.

No, he's insinuating you WILL be restricted to opposing ideologies. This board is for communist discussion and development of ideas, methods of practice, and basic learning. You didn't come here to learn about communism, you came here to tell us it was wrong and it doesn't work. We have a section of the board reserves for such discussion, because the rest of the board is designed to actually discuss communism -- thus you will be restricted to that section and you can try and prove your point all you want in there.


So only else where, where you can ignore reality and other ideals if you so choose?

Many of us actively argue in the OI, including myself. The idea as I stated above is that the rest of the board is designed to actually learn, study, practice communism. It is a means of keeping forums on topic. If capitalists were allowed to post everywhere, there would be questions like "How can you say people aren't greedy?" in every damn thread.

Some people have very distinct questions or ideas to talk about that have to do with actually developing communist ideas. To prove my point, you came to this message board and you posted these questions/points in Politics. The description on Politics reads:


Discuss international politics. Anything from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

The description on Opposing Ideologies reads:


Only forum where right-wingers, cappies, preachers and other misguided individuals are allowed to post.

-- Which one sounds more suited for what you posted here? The fact is you should have posted this in OI to begin with. But since it seems to be the case that most capitalists and right-wingers have very poor comprehension skills you seem to put it at some place in random that has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.


What ever happened to being "open minded"?

I'll willingly admit to being closed-minded on certain things. I've studied the different systems, I've seen capitalism first hand, and I've made my decision. Like I said, I still argue in the other forum, but this simply isn't the right place for it.


I guess this place isn't what I was looking for when I chose intelligent and civil discourse.

Most of us wouldn't have a problem if it was posted in the right forum. Again, the reason we restrict you to OI is generally that if you are a capitalist, all your points will ALWAYS have to do with confronting us on "Why does communism work?" "How do I ride a bike in communism without the government killing me?" And other random foolishness. We're not all here to argue why communism works, some of us -- most of us -- actually believe it works and are here to discuss the finer points of it.

You can pretty much say whatever you want on here except blatantly racist, sexist, etc things. But you've started out by proving you cannot grasp where these kinds of issues belong -- in doing so, we will help you along by making sure you can NO LONGER post them where they don't belong.
Then save up some money and leave. Wait, that would require work.

Unions did that long ago, and now are out dated.

Actually, if we didnt have corporations, you wouldn't have your computer. Why would some one mine and process the metal, synth the silicon, make the chips, solder the boards, program the values for free?

And you have to pay those people. They don't go through years of training and college payments to work for free.

They are as close to communism will probably ever come.

What about Europe? They are trying socialism, and its failing there. Their economy is going down the tubes, and their health care system is going to fail quicker then our social security program.

Is it not a popular idea for a reason?

No, companies don't exploit their workers. They used to be very exploited in the early 1900's. But you have to admit 40 work weeks with 2 weeks vacation a year isn't exploitation. Its work.

No, people can work themselvs up. All it takes is hard work and dedication. Colin Powell did this, I did this, and many others that came to this country with nothing. Its hard work, but it can be done.

Actually, I came here to debate the falacies of communism. People won't work for the same pay and benefits and take on extra responsibilities. Sad as it may seem we are driven by competition and incentive.

Again, no one here can prove I am "right winged", and it was one question I had asked.

I chose to post in this forum because it appeared to have the most traffic, and I didn't want to wait to recieve an answer. Also, a lot of "communists" are against large government, however communism entrusts everything into the government and state control. How is that so?

Ok, so move my post to IO. But you would still restrict me from expressing my opinion on political issues? Thats kind of unfair.

[NovelGentry]

How many people in China, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba do you think have computers? The press is strongly controled by the state, they will never have the internet because too many people could access free press.

Is this some kind of joke? I'm not saying they all have computers... but a) you list them all under your definition of communist, which they are not, and b) LOTS of chinese people have computers -- although there IS something of a gateway that does restrict certain things.


Ok, then power your house by yourself. Don't buy it from corporations. If it were truely that easy to obtain efficient power then everyone would. It is thanks to capitalism that we do have electricity. If it were only human ingenuity, then all the people of North Korea would have light.

Workers at the electric company power my house. Workers created the power lines that come to my house. Workers put the wires through my house and built my house. Workers created the things that use power in my house.

North Korea has light. To my understanding they do have some energy issues, but they have light -- whether you think so or not.

From a journalist: "At night, because of the energy shortages, there are no lights and it's absolutely silent. You can hear babies crying from the other side of the river."

They do have lights, but like I said, energy shortages, for which the compensate for.


In case you haven't noticed, but there are murderers, rapists, muggers, child moulesters, etc out there. Lets see who you call if you ever get mugged.

Cuba has the lowest crime rate in the western hemisphere.


Check your facts buddy. In Canada alone people wait up to and even more than six months for a life saving surgery.

40% of Americans are not covered with health insurance and have an extremely difficult time even getting life saving surgery, let alone getting it within 6 months.


Why would people switch to Communsim?

Freedom.


It has proven to fail time and time again.

Communism has never existed. Something that's never existed cannot fail.


People need incentives to work.

Indeed. No one ever said they didn't. Money is not the only incentive for working though.


You simply can't expect everyone to just assume roles and trane to be doctors without some sort of incentive.

Again, money is not the only incentive. Some people when they are kids actually want to be doctors and don't even know how much money they make. Besides, doctors are workers, even if they are well paid workers that frequently become petty-bourgeoisie.

Let me point out that Cuba has a cap on the maximum amount of money people can make. The Doctors in Cuba are excellent, as is their biotechnicians. So much so that an American company is actually trying to license a cancer pill from Cuban pharmeceuticals. Cuban medical research and medical care is in very good standing.


Oh, you mean censored. Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and Hitler all knew something about doing that to people who voiced disent.

And of course political opposition here is always welcomed.


How do you know I'm a "rightest"? Did I say that anywhere, or do you know me personaly?

I don't know what you are. What I do know is you don't know how to read and you're seriously misinformed about the rest of the world.

[1936]

Man or astromans view on capatilsm
Also, it allows for decent health care and treatment of its citizens.

Take a trip to cuba and find a cuban born, cuban raised person wearing glasses.

When you return and enquire how did you know there were non, the health care of socilasm!

Now then take a trip to America, in which health care is to be bought like fancy clothes or a new car.

[NovelGentry]

Then save up some money and leave. Wait, that would require work.

My money is spent on this little thing I do in my spare time: living.

Also, I'm not into trading one capitalist for another. Why exactly SHOULD I have to leave this country? Where would you be if all the early revolutionary people in the US just moved somewhere else to avoid British Rule rather than fighting for independence?

"Don't like it, just move!" -- It's a convenient answer, but not one that's very realistic or meaningful.


Unions did that long ago, and now are out dated.

Most unions, and union leadership are not designed to end exploitation, they are designed to protect workers rights. You do not understand the kind of exploitation we are talking about.

Businesses are required to pay workers less than the value of the products they produce in order to make profit. This means that workers are being paid less than they've given to the business/company. What we seek to do is make workers benefit directly from their labor by transfering production into the hands of workers rather than fat cat business owners who play golf all day while people work to pay for tee time.

http://img109.exs.cx/img109/3236/firetheboss.jpg -- This simple cartoon should help you understand.


Actually, if we didnt have corporations, you wouldn't have your computer.

The personal computer was created by two guys in a garage using very basic electronics.


Why would some one mine and process the metal, synth the silicon, make the chips, solder the boards, program the values for free?

Because the computers they produce can be directly given to them, and in turn for producing computers for others, other people will produce things freely for their consumption. While they build computers, someone can build them a house. While houses are being built for other people, those people can farm. While someone is farming to produce the food you need to live, you can be making clothes for them.

For your information there is a very widespread example of people who do program for free. It is called the open source movement and free software -- and right now companies like Microsoft and Apple (aside from using it's technology to power their own systems) are shitting their pants.


And you have to pay those people. They don't go through years of training and college payments to work for free.

No, nor do they go to be handed pieces of paper. They go so that they can have a house, eat, drive a car, have clothes to wear, listen to music.

What we propose is making all production work the same way. Thus, while you contribute your labor to the world, the world contributes it's labor to you. So you don't need money to buy a house, eat, drive a car, have clothes to wear, and listen to music, etc.

So if you don't need money to do the things you need/want to do. Why do you need to be paid to work?


They are as close to communism will probably ever come.

There are much more apt-examples of actually socialized systems.


What about Europe? They are trying socialism, and its failing there. Their economy is going down the tubes, and their health care system is going to fail quicker then our social security program.

Europe is not trying socialism. The majority of Europe is capitalism with a welfare state. What we propose is NOT a welfare state.


Is it not a popular idea for a reason?

Indeed, it seems to be very misunderstood by people like yourself.


No, companies don't exploit their workers. They used to be very exploited in the early 1900's. But you have to admit 40 work weeks with 2 weeks vacation a year isn't exploitation. Its work.

Again, you don't understand what we mean by exploition. Howeve, do not doubt that there are not companies that still exploit their workers in the ways you're referring to. See: Nike and Wal-Mart.


No, people can work themselvs up. All it takes is hard work and dedication. Colin Powell did this, I did this, and many others that came to this country with nothing. Its hard work, but it can be done.

Colin Powell did not come to this country with nothing -- He was born in New York City and served most of his life as a careerist in the Military. Had it not been for his part in the Iran Contra he probably never would have become Secretary of State -- Many people who try the same die. And despite what you've been told, neither did Bill Gates, Those guys from Enron, Bush Sr., Arnold Swarzenegger, etc.


Actually, I came here to debate the falacies of communism.

And there is a place for that -- it's called Opposing Ideologies.


People won't work for the same pay and benefits and take on extra responsibilities.

We don't propose people do work for the same pay. We propose to wipe out the idea of "pay" -- I would gladly take on extra responsibilities for my fellow workers, and I gladly do.


Sad as it may seem we are driven by competition and incentive.

Maybe so, but no one proposes removing these things.


Again, no one here can prove I am "right winged", and it was one question I had asked.

If you think democrats are left wing, you're wrong. The right-wing/left-wing split is usually perceived somewhere between democrats and republicans... this is simply not true. The Left wing is actually much further left than Democrats. And unless you're a complete and utter centrist, you got no case, cause you've made it quite clear you're not left wing, even if you give yourself a left wing title.


I chose to post in this forum because it appeared to have the most traffic, and I didn't want to wait to recieve an answer.

Unfortunately that's not how you're supposed to do it. We have the separate sections for a reason.


Also, a lot of "communists" are against large government, however communism entrusts everything into the government and state control. How is that so?

Communism has no government. And you obviously have no understanding of what communism is.


Ok, so move my post to IO. But you would still restrict me from expressing my opinion on political issues? Thats kind of unfair.

I'm sure it will be moved. And no, it's not unfair, you've already admitted in your posting that you came here to talk about the fallacies of communism, OI is reserved for that discussion. So there is no point in you having access to other parts of this board. You will be able to read, but not post in them. If at any point you become a communist, you can surely PM an admin and we will see how you go.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:49 PM
From the general feeling I get from everyone on this forum, is that you are all communists, or revolutionaries in favor of communism/lazze-faire. If you are pro communism, why not move to a country that is communist, or start a revolution already? Please discuss civily.

From the general feeling I get from you on this fourm, is that you are non a revolutionary communist. If you aren't a revolutionary communist, why not go to a message board that doesn't have revolutionary communists, or start a non-revolutionary communist message board. Please discuss civily.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

While I understand the point behind restrictions, I have to say it's a damn shame. There are a lot of interesting threads I'd like to respond to. that I don't think would end up being "cappy vs. commie" in nature. Oh well.

One thing though.. Perhaps the restrictions could be limited to OI as well as chit-chat? I mean, if chit-chat is meant to be non-political, I don't think letting us restricted folk on there would ruin your fun.

[NovelGentry]

One thing though.. Perhaps the restrictions could be limited to OI as well as chit-chat? I mean, if chit-chat is meant to be non-political, I don't think letting us restricted folk on there would ruin your fun.

Probably a chance we're not willing to take. But you are free to post anything here, including non-political topics.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:49 PM
From the general feeling I get from everyone on this forum, is that you are all communists, or revolutionaries in favor of communism/lazze-faire. If you are pro communism, why not move to a country that is communist, or start a revolution already? Please discuss civily.
Revolutions depend.

You know there are some situations where a revolution could pretty much start just like that.

It is alot easyer to start a revolution to change a president then it is to change an entire system!

And for such a revolution...the uprising of an ENTIRE class....the working class who knows nothing but opression since the beginning of the class systems existance, this is a revolution that takes preperation. Education.
It is a big thing, this is the uprising of an entire class we are talking about.

Now remembering this, we know that there are no communist countries.
And even if there was a communist country. If you believe in the FREEDOM of the WORLD'S working people, which is what communists believe, then you wouldnt go kick it and chill in another country when there is work to do all around the WORLD to make revolution and freedom.

So do you see what im saying?

[Xvall]

Seriously, though.


If you are pro communism, why not move to a country that is communist,

I could adress this by stating that there aren't communist nations, or that socialistic nations aren't truely socialistic, but instead, let's pose a hypothetical situtation.

Suppose that there is a place out there that describes our "utopian society", in exactly the same way that we idealize it. Stateless, moneyless, everything seems to be going perfectly, and people living in a state of communal bliss.

Would I migrate over there? Of course not.

Out aims extend far beyond the simplicity of us wanting to live in communes for our own individual enjoyment. We believe that the working class is opressed, and that as such, we should take action to make conditions in already existing capitalistic nations better.

Additionally, many of us are under the impression that even if we did have our own communistic nation, capitalistic nations would not leave us alone.

Every single nation that has taken steps towards massive socialistic or communistic leanings seems to end up being hassled by nations like the United States. Be it the intervention in Vietnam, the assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, the elimination of Salvador Allende, or the aid of nations simply on the basis that they oppose communism; capitalism, in the past, had proven itself to be intolerant of nearly every form of communism or socialism.

This is why we aren't going anywhere. We're not going to go live on a happy little island if we fear everyday that any minute now, big business is going to parade in, kill our representatives, tell us that we've been liberated, and force us to comply with American policy.


or start a revolution already?

Working on it. Trying to, anyways.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:18 AM
If you believe in the FREEDOM of the WORLD'S working people, which is what communists believe, then you wouldnt go kick it and chill in another country when there is work to do all around the WORLD to make revolution and freedom.


The usual rebuttal to the "If you don't love it; leave it."

[Professor Moneybags]

Cuba has the lowest crime rate in the western hemisphere.

Yeah, the government commits their crimes for them.



Why would people switch to Communsim?

Freedom.

If that's all it's got going for it, then you're in trouble because freedom is the very last thing your arrangement will result in. Legislating need as a standard of entitlement makes the providers into slaves and the needy into their masters.

[Professor Moneybags]

Notice that the socialized system seems to work..BETTER?!?

No, comrade, it doesn't. I know plenty of people who speak from experience.

[LSD]

yeah.. well I'm one of them.

And did you even read the statistics? There's not even any doubt that socialized medical systems are more efficient, provide better care, and, oh yes, provide it to everyone.

Health Care: An International Comparison (http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf)
"Best in the World", or just the most expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

But, please, try and prove me wrong? :lol:

Even the CIA disagrees with you!
CIA World Life Expectancy Chart (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 05:33 PM
yeah.. well I'm one of them.

And did you even read the statistics? There's not even any doubt that socialized medical systems are more efficient, provide better care, and, oh yes, provide it to everyone.

Health Care: An International Comparison (http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf)
"Best in the World", or just the most expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

But, please, try and prove me wrong? :lol:

Even the CIA disagrees with you!
CIA World Life Expectancy Chart (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html)
Then why do people prefer private healthcare instead of the nationalised variety, given the choice ?

Something to do with the quality ?

[LSD]

Again, with the assertions.

Did you failt to notice that every industrialized nation on earth, save one, has a socialized healthcare system?

America, with its "private healthcare" is 46th in life expectancy, pays more than any other industrialized conutry, and covers less people.

But, I'm still waiting for you to refute the facts I provided.

[Professor Moneybags]

Did you failt to notice that every industrialized nation on earth, save one, has a socialized healthcare system?

My failiure to notice this might have something to do with the fact that it isn't true. Try reading your sources again.

(For now, I'll ignore the fact that universal healthcare requires forcibly taking money from some people in order to pay for it.)

I had to laugh at this though :

( http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf )

It seems to think that it is "unfair" that those who do not pay for medical services do not get them. No doubt it believes that forcing some people to pay for the healthcare of others is "fair".


America, with its "private healthcare" is 46th in life expectancy, pays more than any other industrialized conutry, and covers less people.

Only 46th ? That's the fault of immigrants dragging it down. Do you advocate deporting them so that it improves, my Plato-utilitarianist comrade ?


But, I'm still waiting for you to refute the facts I provided.

Yeah, right. (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1615)

[waltersm]

there are no truely communist countries, and what do you think we're doing here

[LSD]

It seems to think that it is "unfair" that those who do not pay for medical services do not get them.

Yes I do...maybe because they can't afford them?


Only 46th ? That's the fault of immigrants dragging it down. Do you advocate deporting them so that it improves, my Plato-utilitarianist comrade ?

:lol:!

Wow, can you say strawman?

What, Canada doesn't have immigrants?
Italy doesnt't have immigrants?
France, England, Australia, Japan...they all don't have immigrants? :D

Hell even a country in the midst of civil strife like Israel has a longer life expectancy than you!


My failiure to notice this might have something to do with the fact that it isn't true. Try reading your sources again.

Name one which doesn't.


Yeah, right.

Oh wow another political oppinion piece from "CapMag". :P That's trustworthy...

:rolleyes:

"Long lines" or not, less people per capita in Canada die every year from preventable medical conditions than in the US. Fact.

Why? Because although they may wait longer, everyone is covered.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2005, 07:08 PM

Only 46th ? That's the fault of immigrants dragging it down. Do you advocate deporting them so that it improves, my Plato-utilitarianist comrade ?

Yeah, and guess who are the people who have the hardest time getting private health-care that is affordable?

Yep; the immigrants! :rolleyes:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:49 PM
From the general feeling I get from everyone on this forum, is that you are all communists, or revolutionaries in favor of communism/lazze-faire. If you are pro communism, why not move to a country that is communist, or start a revolution already? Please discuss civily.
Because they are too busy enjoying the benefits of a roof, food, computers and other luxuries that their parents are providing them.

[NovelGentry]

the benefits of a roof, food

Precisely why we'll never be friends.

[encephalon]

From the general feeling I get from everyone on this forum, is that you are all communists, or revolutionaries in favor of communism/lazze-faire. If you are pro communism, why not move to a country that is communist, or start a revolution already? Please discuss civily.

Hey! Here's a similar question! If you're all so anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-left in general, why the hell are you here?

Unlike most of us in regards to "escaping capitalism", you even have a choice. Ya' Stupids.

[1936]

There are enough recources and food, for everyone globaly to live at a standard we would call "above acceptable" quality of living. Within a collective of equal distribution of these needs of in your wording....


the benefits of a roof, food

....within this collective no one would go without these "needs".

In a globaly capatilst world there would be a hell of alot more poverty then in a socialist based society.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 28 2005, 01:52 PM


In a globaly capatilst world there would be a hell of alot more poverty then in a socialist based society.
I disagree. A socialist society would guarantee poverty for everyone.

Maybe you'd be happy that we were all equally impoverished, but I wouldn't.

[1936]

(food and everything you need = currency)

10 people......50 units of currency

Now in communism we all have 5 units each.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And in capatilsm....

1 dude - 25 units to himself
3 dude - 5 units each
3 dude - 3 units each
3 dude - 1/3 of a unit each







Comprende?

[encephalon]

I disagree. A socialist society would guarantee poverty for everyone.

Why? And before you use the "because people wouldn't have an incentive to work without profit" stupidity,consider if every productive facet of your life is done for profit. Got any hobbies there, t_wolves_fan?

Hey, wait. You don't even make any profit posting on this forum, yet you're obviously very driven to post on it nonetheless. I'll be damned. You're a revolutionary after all.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 28 2005, 02:03 PM
(food and everything you need = currency)

10 people......50 units of currency

Now in communism we all have 5 units each.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And in capatilsm....

1 dude - 25 units to himself
3 dude - 5 units each
3 dude - 3 units each
3 dude - 1/3 of a unit each







Comprende?


:lol:


Sustainable development coupled with equal products for all = everyone has low quality products.

Sustainable development coupled with capitalism = at least some people have quality, some have inferior quality and some can't afford either and must substitute to something else.

Think of it like the shitty cars produced in Eastern Europe. Due to limits on labor and raw materials, plus the demand that everyone have equal quality, everyone got shitty cars. Everyone is equally impoverished. Viva la revolution!

In capitalism, at least a lot of people get high quality cars, some people get stuck with shitty cars, and some people have to ride the bus.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:04 PM


I disagree. A socialist society would guarantee poverty for everyone.

Why? And before you use the "because people wouldn't have an incentive to work without profit" stupidity,consider if every productive facet of your life is done for profit. Got any hobbies there, t_wolves_fan?

Hey, wait. You don't even make any profit posting on this forum, yet you're obviously very driven to post on it nonetheless. I'll be damned. You're a revolutionary after all.
I enjoy posting here.

I would not enjoy cleaning toilets, washing dishes, digging mines, sewing stitches, or driving a taxi.

How many people would do those things like they would their "hobbies", because they enjoy them?

Enough to meet demands for them?

[encephalon]

I would not enjoy cleaning toilets, washing dishes, digging mines, sewing stitches, or driving a taxi.

Nor do people that do such tasks on a daily basis. As a product of society, society as a whole should be responsible forsuch undesirable tasks.


I enjoy posting here.

Nevermind, I mistook you for something along the lines of Mr. Moneybags. You're slightly more progressive, at least in the sense that you don't seem to believe that profit should always dictate everything.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:33 PM

I would not enjoy cleaning toilets, washing dishes, digging mines, sewing stitches, or driving a taxi.

Nor do people that do such tasks on a daily basis. As a product of society, society as a whole should be responsible forsuch undesirable tasks.


I enjoy posting here.

Nevermind, I mistook you for something along the lines of Mr. Moneybags. You're slightly more progressive, at least in the sense that you don't seem to believe that profit should always dictate everything.
How is society going to "be responsible" for undesirable tasks without coercion?

Are you under the impression everyone will magically reach consensus on how responsible they are for cleaning the bathroom on their floor of the People's Glorious Apartment Complex and be happy to do it?

I'm progressive and open-minded. That's why I reject radical ideas on all sides.

[Professor Moneybags]

It seems to think that it is "unfair" that those who do not pay for medical services do not get them.

Yes I do...maybe because they can't afford them?

I want a Ferrari, a yacht, a private jet and a space shuttle, but I can't afford it. I don't go around screaming about how unfair it is though. Of course, forcing other foot you medical bill is "unfair" too, but that's another story.


Wow, can you say strawman?

What, Canada doesn't have immigrants?
Italy doesnt't have immigrants?
France, England, Australia, Japan...they all don't have immigrants? :D

But their health system is free, though isn't it ? :rolleyes:


Name one which doesn't.

Read your own sources.


Oh wow another political oppinion piece from "CapMag". :P That's trustworthy...

Poisoning the well.


"Long lines" or not, less people per capita in Canada die every year from preventable medical conditions than in the US. Fact.

Utilitarianism.


Why? Because although they may wait longer, everyone is covered.

That's too late for some and a lame excuse to boot.

[colombiano]

I want a Ferrari, a yacht, a private jet and a space shuttle, but I can't afford it. I don't go around screaming about how unfair it is though. Of course, forcing other foot you medical bill is "unfair" too, but that's another story.

The items you listed are material in nature and NOT essential to ones survival as a human being.


The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States (http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_s tates.htm)
Source is from 1999 since this study the number on uninsured has increased .




That's too late for some and a lame excuse to boot.
Please make sure you are Punctual at ALL times and Never late. We never want to hear you utter the words "Better Late Than Never". My experiences with health care in the US has been a Nightmare . My wife is on Cigna Healthcare( Where cutting corners and denying claims is an everyday practice to save the company and share holders money, even with the most serious of medical conditions). Neither one of US has ever been to the Doctor Or Emergency room where we did not have to wait a significant amount of time. The truth of the matter is that HealthCare in the US has and still continues to suffer from the Bureacratic Inertia that many claim to exist in Canada and other Countries around the world with Socialized Medicine.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Just to speak on a point earlier mentioned, Cuba - a socialist nation - has MANY computers, and is working on attaining many more.

Its funny that these people have 'no access to the internet' yet I talk to many of them everyday. How do I manage that?

[NovelGentry]

Sustainable development coupled with equal products for all = everyone has low quality products.

Sustainable development coupled with capitalism = at least some people have quality, some have inferior quality and some can't afford either and must substitute to something else.

Your system does not fix the problem, merely obfuscates it for the sake of pretending it doesn't exist and forces it on that problem on to the part of the population who is primarily responsible for creating all of it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 12:10 AM

Sustainable development coupled with equal products for all = everyone has low quality products.

Sustainable development coupled with capitalism = at least some people have quality, some have inferior quality and some can't afford either and must substitute to something else.

Your system does not fix the problem, merely obfuscates it for the sake of pretending it doesn't exist and forces it on that problem on to the part of the population who is primarily responsible for creating all of it.
Well, capitalism as it exists now doesn't solve the problem, true.

But your sentence still made no sense. Could you clarify?

[NovelGentry]

But your sentence still made no sense. Could you clarify?


Your system does not fix the problem, but merely obfuscates it for the sake of pretending it doesn't exist and, in the process, forces the problem on the part of the population who is primarily responsible for creating all of the goods to begin with.

Yes, the wording was a bit messed up -- but it should make perfect sense now. I've been writing a lot of this stuff in very tired states, and it's not up to par -- not like it really matters. Bah, it still makes no fuckin sense cause I got multiple instances of it. I'm normally not this bad... I know I'm not, let me try again. Should be better now.

[LSD]

But their health system is free, though isn't it ?


Yes, so what? They still have immigrants, and those immigrants still have human rights.

Oh, wait, are you saying that the US health care system is the best ... so long as we don't count the poor?

:lol:


Utilitarianism.

A healthcare system should be utilitarian. Ever heard of Triage? You do what you can for the most people with what you have. That's medicine.


That's too late for some

Perhaps, but not for most. Again, you ignore the fact that more people, per capita, recieve health care in socialized medicine countries than in the US, and that, more importantly, less people per capita die from preventable disease.


and a lame excuse to boot.

That's not even an argument. Try to keep to logic.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:34 PM


Your system does not fix the problem, but merely obfuscates it for the sake of pretending it doesn't exist and, in the process, forces the problem on the part of the population who is primarily responsible for creating all of the goods to begin with.


Yes, that is much better.

The fact that pollution or externalities is "forced" onto those who create the products is not entirely accurate. We all breathe the air pollution and we all drink tainted water. The air and water are in the public domain - our political system perverts capitalism by subsidizing the use of the public domain for the "storage" of externalities.

That's why this is mostly a political concern. The problem of externalities should be dealt with politically in a way that still fits perfectly with capitalism. For instance, if the health effects of a unit of pollution were determined, and a tax were placed on the emission of that unit equal to the cost of the health problem it caused, and then the revenue were used to mitigate health problems, that would be an appropriate political solution. In fact it's how most economists advocate we control pollution. It's simply using the political system to ensure the true cost of economic activity were factored into economic decision-making. It still allows people or firms to make private decisions and seek maximum gain for minimum cost.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:33 PM
You're slightly more progressive, at least in the sense that you don't seem to believe that profit should always dictate everything.
I don't believe that, so where did you dream that up ?

[Professor Moneybags]

The items you listed are material in nature and NOT essential to ones survival as a human being.

Neither is healthcare. Do you need to go to hospital every day to survive ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:49 PM
Its funny that these people have 'no access to the internet' yet I talk to many of them everyday. How do I manage that?
I say enjoy talking to them while you can. (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51270,00.html)

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, so what? They still have immigrants, and those immigrants still have human rights.

Right to enslave others in order to pay for their healthcare ? No thanks.


A healthcare system should be utilitarian. Ever heard of Triage? You do what you can for the most people with what you have. That's medicine.

What you have ? More like "what the government can grab/steal/expropriate on your behalf", in this case. Providing you with healthcare should not be the government's job.


Perhaps, but not for most. Again, you ignore the fact that more people, per capita, recieve health care in socialized medicine countries than in the US, and that, more importantly, less people per capita die from preventable disease.

I didn't ignore it, I don't consider "most people benefit from x, therefore x is good" to be a valid standard to work from.

[colombiano]

Neither is healthcare. Do you need to go to hospital every day to survive ?
Healthcare is Essential to a Human Being Survival and living a Healthy life. Nobody has said anything about going to the hospital "every day" to survive.Yet when basic medical needs can't be meet or someone simply cannot afford to go to the doctor to have their diabetes diagnosed or afford medicines to assist with such sickness that is a Matter of life and death.

:rolleyes:




Right to enslave others in order to pay for their healthcare ? No thanks

If you were one of the 44 million Americans without Healthcare covergage I can't help but wonder that your tone and arguements would change. Try walking in their shoes.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:49 PM
Healthcare is Essential to a Human Being Survival and living a Healthy life. Nobody has said anything about going to the hospital "every day" to survive.Yet when basic medical needs can't be meet or someone simply cannot afford to go to the doctor to have their diabetes diagnosed or afford medicines to assist with such sickness that is a Matter of life and death.

:rolleyes:
And how does this mean I must be forced to provide money to pay for your healthcare ?

[colombiano]

And how does this mean I must be forced to provide money to pay for your healthcare ?

God forbid you ever need help from another human being.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:49 PM
If you were one of the 44 million Americans without Healthcare covergage I can't help but wonder that your tone and arguements would change.
No, it wouldn't.

[colombiano]

First you argue that Heath Care is Not Essential to the Survival of A Human Being.
You were proven wrong.
Then you resort to the same selfish arguement of "Fuck em they are not my problem."

Not very Christian Like of you Professor Moneybags



No, it wouldn't.



:lol:
Ok Sure. ;)

:lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Health care is an interesting topic.

The deal on health insurance is that it's based on a risk pool. An insurance company can only remain profitable if it has enough healthy clients which it can charge enough money to cover its unhealthy clients' expenses.

The problem as I see it, and my wife has helped me understand this, is that as Americans live longer, and especially as the baby-boom reaches old age (and runs into old age's inevitable health problems), costs are going up. High-tech solutions are more expensive and more in demand, longer-living people are having more health problems, average-aged people are having more health problems due to stress and poor diet, malpractice insurance is going up thanks to frivilous lawsuits, and the insurance companies need to charge more to ensure their own profit margins.

As a result, more and more of the risk pool is being priced out. Rising costs + shrinking risk pool = even higher costs on the fewer remaining risk pool participants. And so the spiral continues.

There is a definite argument to be made that government-funded health care saves money. If someone who cannot afford health insurance receives preventative care at a tax payer-subsidized cost of $200, then he won't require emergency services in the future at a tax payer-subsidized cost of $500. Frankly if paying $200 now saves me $300 in the long-run, it's well worth it and I don't give a shit if it's the government or a private company to which I am writing the check.

Also, since our employers are now paying our health insurance, if the government picked up the tab our wages could theoretically go up a good 20%, which may nor may not cover the required tax increase to pay for government-funded health care.

On the other hand, rationing is a big problem in my opinion. Right now I can get a specialist appointment in less than 2 weeks. If we go to government-subsidized health care and it takes me 6 months to get that same appointment, then I don't think we've made much progress. It's also a problem that when things are standardized the quality tends to decline.

What I would like to see is for health insurance to be reformed so that it is like car insurance. We would deal with insurance companies (middlemen who take a cut) only for catastrophic cases. Just like we pay $80 a month to State Farm in case we get in a car accident that results in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in injuries, for which we will have to pay a deductible of at most $500, so I would pay $80 a month to whichever health insurance company I choose (since it's no longer tied to my employer) in case my liver fails. On the other hand, the same way my breaks fail and I gotta pay $800 to the mechanic to get them fixed, so I would directly pay the doctor $200 for a sprained ankle. No insurance guy gets involved who adds 5%-20% of the bill.

I think this would help because a hell of a lot more people can afford $80 a month for medical insurance than they or their employers can afford $1000 a month or more right now. The risk pool greatly increases, lowering costs per member. And, for those who cannot afford either insurance or the cost of primary care (the sprained ankles) or both, the government can pick up the tab at a much lower cost than comprehensive, universal care.

I really think it's an idea worth looking at.

[LSD]

What you have ? More like "what the government can grab/steal/expropriate on your behalf", in this case. Providing you with healthcare should not be the government's job.

I agree! But then I think that government itself is an imorall instutituion so I don't think it should be doing anything...

But providing healthcare should be a responsibility of society. Health is a basic human right, and as long as we live in a capitalist society, then yes, the government is the only body capable of providing equal coverage.

And by the way, it isn't as though this is a radical concept! Every developed nation on earth (save you know who) agrees with the general idea! It seems that on this one, you're the fanatic!


I didn't ignore it, I don't consider "most people benefit from x, therefore x is good" to be a valid standard to work from.

...um...so in your judgement less people dying and more people being healed is not a valid standard to "work from"?

How then would you judge a healthcare system?

Cost? (the US' is the most expensive)
Coverage? (the US covers the least)
Health? (the US heals the least)

If you can judge a company on how many products it produces, why not judge a healthcare system on how many people it heals?


Right to enslave others in order to pay for their healthcare ? No thanks.

This is an argument I still do not understand.

If we are talking about socialized medicine within capitalism, then the doctor is hardly "enslaved", he just has a different name on his paycheck. He still works for the same hospital (or clinic, etc..), but instead of that hopsital paying him a salary based on income, it pays him a salary based on government funding...

...kind of like how public schools work (don't tell me, public schools "enslave" :lol:).

By your standard, he's being "payed" for his labour...so what's the problem?


And how does this mean I must be forced to provide money to pay for your healthcare ?

What, taxes?

You're forced to provide money for the military! Don't you think that healing the sick is a better cause?

[t_wolves_fan]

I agree! But then I think that government itself is an imorall instutituion so I don't think it should be doing anything...

But providing healthcare should be a responsibility of society.

How does society provide healthcare without a government?


Health is a basic human right, and as long as we live in a capitalist society, then yes, the government is the only body capable of providing equal coverage.

You have a right to be healthy, but government-provided healthcare is an entitlement, not a right. Governments do not provide or grant rights, they only protect or violate them.

Leftists always confuse "rights" with "entitlements". The problem is, it's not on purpose.

Equal is not always good.


If you can judge a company on how many products it produces, why not judge a healthcare system on how many people it heals?

Extremely good point.