Healthcare

[Hieronymus Erasmus]

This subject might seem very easy when viewing it from a socialist point of view. Still I will give it a try to explain why healthcare should NOT be free. First I will explain why it should be.

Everyone needs healthcare at one point or another. When you are born a couple of weeks to soon, when your mother hit you with a pan, when you drive your first car against a tree, when you got cancer in your balls...
At that point you want to go to see a doctor to 'repair' you. If you do not have the money for it you do not want to let that cancer eat your balls fe. That is why in socialist and social-democratic countries as well as in refugeecamps healthcare is free.
But this costs a lot of money, to much I say. I will tell you why, because the government has it's chequebook ready when you are hurt medics spend to much money on patients, and because of the willing-to-pay government they even do that when you are not sick at all (breast-implantats etc) My solution is cut government subsidiaries to hospitals and other medic institutions. After you did that you could cut taxes so the people have more money to spend. Now healthcare insurance could take this over, people get an assurance OR do not get it and are willing to pay for themselves. When doing this the following would happen:

1. Taxes get lower so people can spend more of there money to whatever they like.
2. Because hospitals are not kept alive by the government anymore they will have to make their service more healthy. They will kick al unnecessary services and they might look at other ways of making money, for example they should rent adspace in the hospitalhalls.

:)

[LSD]

people get an assurance OR do not get it and are willing to pay for themselves

OR cannot afford either and die.


1. Taxes get lower so people can spend more of there money to whatever they like.

Yes but, as we all know, tax breaks help those with money. For workers, a "massive" tax cut usually means a couple extra hundred a month. In a system in which major surgeries can cost tens of thousands of dollars, that's nothing.

That's the point of socialized medicine, it redistributes. It takes excess material wealth from the rich so that everyone has the ability to seek medical attention.


2. Because hospitals are not kept alive by the government anymore they will have to make their service more healthy.

No, because they are now operating for profit, they will have to make their service more profitable. Remember, they're now "competing"! Free market and all that. This means that hospitals will cut corners and slash costs across the board. Good news for the shareholders, bad news for the patients (unless, of course, they're shareholders :)).


They will kick al unnecessary services

No, they will kick all expensive and risky services.

Since theire priority is now money, they will discontinue especially costly or dangerous operations, as they don't want to risk "lawsuits". Soon, these essential but difficult procedures will be found at only a few exclusive clinics. And as the "laws" of the market dicate, when the supply drops, the price rises.

And insofar as "unnescessary" services, you'll find much more of them! Rich people love "unneescessary" serviece. If we're operating for profit now, it really pays to have a plastic surgery wing, maybe even a botox department. Making the rich look young and beautiful pays a whole lot more than making the poor healthy.


and they might look at other ways of making money

They sure will, it's called raising prices.

Not to mention, slashing quality, firing staff, reducing procedures, did I mention raising prices?


for example they should rent adspace in the hospitalhalls.

They already do. ...and they contract for vending machines, and they use product placement, and they rent space for shops, and they sell drugs...

It isn't enough.

Healthcare is an expensive business, despite all the "creative" money-making schemes in the world, if government subsidies stop, prices will rise ...and rise ...and rise.

And the poor will die.


That is why in socialist and social-democratic countries as well as in refugeecamps healthcare is free.

By "socialist and social-democratic countries" do you mean every industrialized nation on earth?

[quincunx5]

OR cannot afford either and die.


No! If you are conscious you get asked if you want to go through the procedure. If you VOLUNATARY agree to the contract you will have to pay them back.



Yes but, as we all know, tax breaks help those with money. For workers, a "massive" tax cut usually means a couple extra hundred a month. In a system in which major surgeries can cost tens of thousands of dollars, that's nothing.


Hmm...Let me take you literally and say that tax cuts yield TWO-HUNDRED a month extra (you overestimated -- the trully poor pratically do not pay taxes). 200*12=$2400 annually. How many tens of thousands of dollars of operations do you plan on having in your lifetime? You can take that $2400 anually and spend it on private health insurance.



No, because they are now operating for profit, they will have to make their service more profitable. Remember, they're now "competing"! Free market and all that. This means that hospitals will cut corners and slash costs across the board.


And what exactly is the problem with that? Slashing costs does not mean they will stich you up with crazy glue -- unless that becomes technologically feasable and beneficial. They can reduce the number of doctors needed. It is the insitance of the doctors that they keep their salaries high. In a real free market the price for doctors and medicine would decrease.



Since theire priority is now money, they will discontinue especially costly or dangerous operations, as they don't want to risk "lawsuits". Soon, these essential but difficult procedures will be found at only a few exclusive clinics. And as the "laws" of the market dicate, when the supply drops, the price rises.


So society should pay a lot for dangerous procedures that may or may not help people. The risk is worth it at all costs? Or do people decide? If a great deal of people decide they want dangerous procedures then innovation will ensue and bring down the cost and risk of procedures. This is something the free market does quite well.



And insofar as "unnescessary" services, you'll find much more of them! Rich people love "unneescessary" serviece. If we're operating for profit now, it really pays to have a plastic surgery wing, maybe even a botox department. Making the rich look young and beautiful pays a whole lot more than making the poor healthy.


It is their money and they may do as they please. If they want to make themselves beautiful that will actually make some doctors rich, If these doctors harbor the same feelings for helping the poor then they themselves may subsidize expensive procecures yet still remain in good business from their Rich and Beautiful clientele.



They sure will, it's called raising prices.


If one learns anything from history, It's that riches are made from selling the MOST for the LEAST.



Not to mention, slashing quality, firing staff, reducing procedures, did I mention raising prices?


How does one slash quality? If I can get my leg sewn back on (hypothetical) and have a big scar, but pay $5000 I would gladly take it as opposed to making it as perfect as possible for $30000. That is MY choice! Saying that everyone should have the most incredible quality everywhere and all the time is ludicruous.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:25 PM

Hmm...Let me take you literally and say that tax cuts yield TWO-HUNDRED a month extra (you overestimated -- the trully poor pratically do not pay taxes). 200*12=$2400 annually. How many tens of thousands of dollars of operations do you plan on having in your lifetime? You can take that $2400 anually and spend it on private health insurance.


If you dont have a company that has a healthcare plan and you buy your coverage, 2400 dollars a year would get you about half a years coverage. And if you had a family you could forget about covering them.

[quincunx5]

If you dont have a company that has a healthcare plan and you buy your coverage, 2400 dollars a year would get you about half a years coverage. And if you had a family you could forget about covering them.


Well yes you are correct. That would only cover aprx. one person. If you have two working members in a family you will do better. Medical costs are high because it does not follow the free market. If it did, medical cost and hence medical insurance coverage would decrease. The point is if medical cost is a concern to your family then you will just spend a greater portion of your income on it. It's that simple.

[LSD]

No! If you are conscious you get asked if you want to go through the procedure. If you VOLUNATARY agree to the contract you will have to pay them back.

And, again, if you cannot afford to do enter into this "VOLUNTARY" contract, you die.


the trully poor pratically do not pay taxes

No kidding, I was giving you the bennefit of the "best case scenario".

My point was that even with the "well-off" workers, private healthcare doesn't work.


How many tens of thousands of dollars of operations do you plan on having in your lifetime?

I don't "plan" on having any! But if I get cancer...


You can take that $2400 anually and spend it on private health insurance.

Which usually costs way more than that and typically does not cover many essential services. Not to mention that pesky problem of "opportunity cost", now that I'm spending this money on insurance, what do I have to spend on the perscription drugs that my "private health insurance" doctor says I need?

Not to mention "coverage" for my family! After I've spent my 2400 (not to mention gotten a second mortgage, taken a loan, and borrowed money from my pal Stew) on personal insurance, what happens to any dependents'?


And what exactly is the problem with that?

With slashing costs? It usually entails slashing quality.


They can reduce the number of doctors needed.

The only way to do that is to reduce the number of patients seen, or, alternatively, reduce the quality of care that each patient recieves. In reality, they'll probably do a bit of both, which is bad for everyone (save the rich, of course).


So society should pay a lot for dangerous procedures that may or may not help people.

Of course it should! :angry:

That's the point of "society", to protect people's basic rights and keep them safe and healthy. All other priorities must be secondary to this.


If a great deal of people decide they want dangerous procedures then innovation will ensue and bring down the cost and risk of procedures.

Sorry, but "innovation" doesn't work like that. Science is a gradual process. Eventually, we will be able to make procedures safer, but for right now, the question is do we use what we have or not.

If we put healthcare into the "market" then these "risky" operations which will save lives will not be done. And that means that people will die ...poor people.


It is their money and they may do as they please.

Don't evade the issue!

Hieronymus claimed that making healthcare for-profit will reduce "unnescessary services", now you acknowledge that the righ can "do as they please" with "their money", meaning that, since the hospital want's "their money", a lot more "unnescessary sevices" will be done.


If these doctors harbor the same feelings for helping the poor then they themselves may subsidize expensive procecures yet still remain in good business from their Rich and Beautiful clientele.

Oh, that's brilliant; predicating a healthcare system on the kindness of sympathetic doctors. :rolleyes:


If one learns anything from history, It's that riches are made from selling the MOST for the LEAST.

Not when the thing being sold is needed.

When people have no choice but to "purchase" your product, you have far more leeway in prices.


How does one slash quality? If I can get my leg sewn back on (hypothetical) and have a big scar, but pay $5000 I would gladly take it as opposed to making it as perfect as possible for $30000. That is MY choice!

Not if you don't have the $30,000!


Saying that everyone should have the most incredible quality everywhere and all the time is ludicruous.

Not "incredible" quality, just equal quality.

Material possessions should have no bearing on whether or not you get to live.

[quincunx5]

And, again, if you cannot afford to do enter into this "VOLUNTARY" contract, you die.


You will pay it off afterward! Perhaps all the way until your natural death.



I don't "plan" on having any! But if I get cancer...


So those who do not get cancer should subsidize those who do?





So society should pay a lot for dangerous procedures that may or may not help people.

Of course it should!


Are you saying that Government or Society should be completely arbitrary whether or not it is benefitial? That's what that souns like.



Sorry, but "innovation" doesn't work like that. Science is a gradual process. Eventually, we will be able to make procedures safer, but for right now, the question is do we use what we have or not.


You are right in that science is a gradual process. Privatized health care (out side of Emergency situations) would make health care more accessible and hence bring down many costly components of it. One being medical equipment cost.



Hieronymus claimed that making healthcare for-profit will reduce "unnescessary services", now you acknowledge that the righ can "do as they please" with "their money", meaning that, since the hospital want's "their money", a lot more "unnescessary sevices" will be done.


A real world example can hopefully demonstrate. I went to a clinic to check out my ear - I had an ear infection. I paid $60 for the service and $20 for the prescription. My friend's son had the same thing a few months before, but he went to a regular doctor and medicare took care of it. Because he went to a doctor and not a competitive clinic society had to pay $320 /w medicine, his co-pay was $20. So I consider that he got an unnecessary service.

It was unnecessary because a cheaper alternative existed. That's what you mean in the first case. In the second case you say it is unnecessary because YOU feel it is unnecessary.



Oh, that's brilliant; predicating a healthcare system on the kindness of sympathetic doctors.


Oh, that's brilliant; predicating a society system on the kindness of sympathetic humans.

Would there be no doctors in your great utopia?



Not when the thing being sold is needed.

When people have no choice but to "purchase" you product, you have far more leeway in prices.


What is being needed? Do you need a TV, a radio, a computer, a car?
When these things were invented where they immediately needed? Should
every person have been given RCA tv, a marconi radio set, an ENIAC, a model-T
ford? Of course not their gradual popularity brought prices down.

You don't have far more leeway in prices, because somebody is willing to sell it for less.



Not "incredible" quality, just equal quality.


Equal equality is equal poorness. That's not freedom. You are not taking into account differences in individuals. You do know that people are different right?
Some like to work hard for a lot of pay. Some prefer to get a comfortable job with
a lot of time off (teachers). Some will spend 20% of their income on food, others will spend 8%. Some will live in a shitty apartment and drive a fancy car, others will live in a nice home and drive a bicycle to work (even if it's far away --THEIR CHOICE!).



Material possessions should have no bearing on whether or not you get to live.


That's the most rediculous thing I've heard. If someone barges into my home and tries to kill me, I will find any material possession I can find to knock this guy out. If I just moved into a new place with nothing there I would be screwed (maybe). If I have a rare baseball card -- I can voluntarily trade it with a doctor/collector who would provide me medical service in return. Why shouldn't my possessions help me out?

[LSD]

You will pay it off afterward! Perhaps all the way until your natural death.

Yes, that's called "debt". When you have a lot of it, you don't have a lot of what's called "disposable income", you can't "buy things" ...like medicine. You also don't have "good credit" ...meaning that the next time you need medical treatment, you'll be declines.


So those who do not get cancer should subsidize those who do?

Yes. Those who can easily afford to do so, meaning about 2% of the population at most.


Privatized health care (out side of Emergency situations) would make health care more accessible

That's the craziest argument I've ever seen.

Making people pay for healthcare makes it less acceptable. It makes the "lines shorter" for the rich, but for most people, it makes going to the hospital a terrible ordeal. It makes them more retiscent to see a doctor, it makes them less likely to be treated, and makes them more likely to die.

There's a reason that the US is so low on all important measurements of health.


It was unnecessary because a cheaper alternative existed.

You're confusing terms.

The procedure was nescessary, the price was simply higher. But that price is a made up thing, it has no objective reality and no bearing on whether or not the actual medical treatment was nescessary.


In the second case you say it is unnecessary because YOU feel it is unnecessary.

No, because it isn't nescessary.

Nescessary, especially in medical terms, is actually fairly easy to objectively quantify. This isn't an issue of "personal opinion"!


Oh, that's brilliant; predicating a society system on the kindness of sympathetic humans.

Would there be no doctors in your great utopia?

Of course there would, but there would be no "money" or "pay".

The problem with your "charity" model is that you expect doctors to act selflessly within a system that materially and socially encourages them to act selfishly. It's intrinsically hypocritical.

In a system in which doctors worked because they love medicine, they will, of course, treat all people. In a system in which doctors work because they love money, they will treat people with money.


You don't have far more leeway in prices, because somebody is willing to sell it for less.

Not nescessarily. Indeed, as evidenced by the actual state of health insurance in your country, all insurance companies charge a "pretty penny", the "market" notwithstanding.

Again, health insurance companies know that people have no choice but to buy one of their products, so they all keep their prices relatively high. In an industry this large, the idea of a "new entrepeneur" posing a significant threat is laughable. It simply takes too much time and too many resources to set up a viable insurance network.


You are not taking into account differences in individuals. You do know that people are different right?

Of course they are. But one thing that we all share is a desire to live. When it comes to not wanting to be sick, we're pretty much the same.


That's the most rediculous thing I've heard. If someone barges into my home and tries to kill me, I will find any material possession I can find to knock this guy out.

And you think that it should be like that?

You think that your personal safety should be dependent on whether or not you can "know some guy out"?

Don't you think that maybe ssociety should offer security with laws and rules against, say, murder?

I didn't say that material possesions don't have an influence on whether you live or die. Indeed, in capialism, they are pretty much the determining factor. The rich tend to be healthy, the poor to be unhealthy. But is that a good thing?

Do we really want that?

I'll repeat what I said, Material possessions should have no bearing on whether or not you get to live. That's should not. We should make all possible efforts so that material possesions do not define health.

[quincunx5]

Yes, that's called "debt". When you have a lot of it, you don't have a lot of what's called "disposable income", you can't "buy things" ...like medicine. You also don't have "good credit" ...meaning that the next time you need medical treatment, you'll be declines.


In your society, won't those who take the most be frowned upon? Will it not be a great cost to keep extremely sick people alive?



Yes. Those who can easily afford to do so, meaning about 2% of the population at most.


So 2% of the population should take care of the rest of the 98% in the most inefficient way possible (through the state). You do know that a lot of seemingly rich people are in debt? Or they will not be rich forever.



Making people pay for healthcare makes it less acceptable. It makes the "lines shorter" for the rich, but for most people, it makes going to the hospital a terrible ordeal. It makes them more retiscent to see a doctor, it makes them less likely to be treated, and makes them more likely to die.


You know there is a problem when the first thing that people do is go to a hospital. One has to make the distinction between having life threatening diseases like cancer and generic medical problems. You do not go to a hospital to find out you have an ear infection. The price is higher for a hospital for reasons that make sense. They have to cover their costs of operation. They have to pay for constructing it, maintaining it, paying taxes that will eventually wind up there anyway, having a fleet of emergency vehicles, paying salaries, ad naseum. You do understand. When it comes simple medical problems having a free market would make things cheap. You ever wonder why the things we use the most are the cheapest?



No, because it isn't nescessary.

Nescessary, especially in medical terms, is actually fairly easy to objectively quantify. This isn't an issue of "personal opinion"!


If there is no "personal opinion" there is no freedom. Do you not understand?
The right to have THIS or THAT provided freely ACTUALLY diminishes your freedom to choose!



The problem with your "charity" model is that you expect doctors to act selflessly within a system that materially and socially encourages them to act selfishly. It's intrinsically hypocritical.

In a system in which doctors worked because they love medicine, they will, of course, treat all people. In a system in which doctors work because they love money, they will treat people with money.


Doctors have a choice as to how they wish to do their business. Maximizing profits may not be what all of them choose to do! A believer in freedom would never count noses. A non-believer will tell you that this is as such and will not change until we have no "money" or "pay". Do not tell me that you are omniscient and know that every doctor is doing it FOR THE MONEY. They make a lot of money because they are very important and their trade association does what ever it can to keep the numbers low (hence not really free market).



Again, health insurance companies know that people have no choice but to buy one of their products, so they all keep their prices relatively high.


Right, sure they do, every insurance wants to keep a constant increase number of customers. They are afraid that if they lower their price just a bit it would attract01 even more customers away from the competition. They all have a secret conspiracy that must keep all prices high and equal - sacrificing expansion.



Of course they are. But one thing that we all share is a desire to live. When it comes to not wanting to be sick, we're pretty much the same.


What about suicide? And please don't tell me the usual party line that it's the SYSTEM that forces/accelerates them to do it. There are various reasons - mostly they are relationship releated.



And you think that it should be like that?

You think that your personal safety should be dependent on whether or not you can "know some guy out"?

Don't you think that maybe ssociety should offer security with laws and rules against, say, murder?


You don't get it, He is already in the house with the intention to kill {he tells me this, e.g)}. No law is going to stop him! Only I can.



Indeed, in capialism, they are pretty much the determining factor. The rich tend to be healthy, the poor to be unhealthy. But is that a good thing?


Do you consider the fact that sometimes the poor and the rich are the same people within their own lifetime? The extremes of those who are always rich and those who are always poor is like 7% (in the US).



We should make all possible efforts so that material possesions do not define health.


So we should move all the people in the tropical disease infested areas to milder latitudes? Or should we just use more of our no pay effort to help those who chose to live in bad locations?

[Mujer Libre]

Well, LSD has said pretty much all I want to say, except that I have one example of where running hospitals like businesses; ie for maximum cost efficiency, has caused service standards to plummet.

In Australia some time ago our wonderful government decided that public hospitals were getting too expensive to run, so they called in the accountants.The accountants said that there were too few patients to a ward, too many staff per patient and so on. Standards were cut. Patients were overcrowded and staff were too stressed and tired to a) treat properly and b) follow procedures like hand washing between every patient.

Unsurprisingly, patients started aqcuiring infections in hospital. Not just any infections though, things like methicillin resistant staph aureus and all those feared multi-resistant bacteria.

Sorry, but medical care and capitalism just don't mix. At least, not while the ethic of "non-harm" stands.

[Commie Girl]

I must agree with LSD on his insightful posts!

In decent, civilized countries, universal health care is seen as a priority of the state and the people.

Would Quincunx5 make the same arguments for, let's say, education? Privatize! :angry:

Society only benefits when all peoples are treated with equality, whether it be education, healthcare and marriage.

[quincunx5]

In Australia some time ago our wonderful government decided that public hospitals were getting too expensive to run, so they called in the accountants.The accountants said that there were too few patients to a ward, too many staff per patient and so on. Standards were cut. Patients were overcrowded and staff were too stressed and tired to a) treat properly and b) follow procedures like hand washing between every patient.


OK, so what you are saying is that PUBLIC hospitals did the wrong thing. I totally agree. If the hospitals were private each one or each group of them would be run differently. If one of them tried this non-sense bad publicity and lack of new patients would set them straight! Because if they had to cover their own ass they would raise standards to a suitable level.



Unsurprisingly, patients started aqcuiring infections in hospital. Not just any infections though, things like methicillin resistant staph aureus and all those feared multi-resistant bacteria.


If it was a private hospital it might go out of business. And that is a good thing. Some group would come along buy it up, and do thingsg right. If they were compensated ofcourse.



Sorry, but medical care and capitalism just don't mix. At least, not while the ethic of "non-harm" stands.


You gave me an example of state capitalism. That was a stupid thing to do -- I think we agree.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:08 AM


In Australia some time ago our wonderful government decided that public hospitals were getting too expensive to run, so they called in the accountants.The accountants said that there were too few patients to a ward, too many staff per patient and so on. Standards were cut. Patients were overcrowded and staff were too stressed and tired to a) treat properly and b) follow procedures like hand washing between every patient.


OK, so what you are saying is that PUBLIC hospitals did the wrong thing. I totally agree. If the hospitals were private each one or each group of them would be run differently. If one of them tried this non-sense bad publicity and lack of new patients would set them straight! Because if they had to cover their own ass they would raise standards to a suitable level.



Unsurprisingly, patients started aqcuiring infections in hospital. Not just any infections though, things like methicillin resistant staph aureus and all those feared multi-resistant bacteria.


If it was a private hospital it might go out of business. And that is a good thing. Some group would come along buy it up, and do thingsg right. If they were compensated ofcourse.



Sorry, but medical care and capitalism just don't mix. At least, not while the ethic of "non-harm" stands.


You gave me an example of state capitalism. That was a stupid thing to do -- I think we agree.
Um, we're talking about HOSPITALS here, not a pair of shoes. People in many cases CAN'T choose to take their custom elsewhere; they're SICK!

If all hospitals were private they could be run to whatever standard they want and people will still be forced to go to them. And you can be sure that hospitals which cost patients less will have lower standards, which is one of the things I was trying to illustrate in my post.

I was also trying to illustrate what happens when something like healthcare is run in a capitalistic fashion; i.e. the hospital as a corporation trying to run at a profit.

You also don't seem to realise that in order to provide accessible (i.e affordable) services to everyone a hospital basically has to run at a loss. (private hospitals in the current situation are exempt because they pretty much only takte patients with health cover) Can you see businesspeople rushing to run a business that runs at a guaranteed loss?

I certainly can't.

[quincunx5]

In decent, civilized countries, universal health care is seen as a priority of the state and the people.


Are there any other priorities? Or is everything number one priority? Should we be having national orgies spawning millions of children? I like the orgies part [no comments, please], but what about the children? Apparently it's OK because they have a right to life, so they will be protected. So what about having children in general can some have 2, some 10, some maybe 30? Because in your society it seems to be beneficial to have as many as possible?



Would Quincunx5 make the same arguments for, let's say, education? Privatize!


I'm not sure, because it has never happend. You will argue that there are plenty of private schools, but it has never existed without presense of public schools. Those who for some reason want to send their children to a private school have to pay for both the private school and the local public school. They pay for the local public school with their property taxes.

I would send my child to a public school for two reasons. One being that I would be a sucker for not taking advantage of a free school. The other being that I think public schools simply have better people. Most private schools are religiously affiliated. I don't go for that jazz (but I respect others' freedom to choose).

You know most public schools are not equal. Should we make all public school equal nationally? Should my school in my local area conform to national standards (whether they be better or worse). Should I be penilized for sending my child to a good local public school that is way better than another one accross the nation?

[QUOTE]
Society only benefits when all peoples are treated with equality, whether it be education, healthcare and marriage.
[/QUOTE

So the fact that they put smart people in smart classes, average with average, and below average in special ed is a bad thing?

Should faster runners have to wear uncomfortable winter jackets so that they can run as slow as you? Or should you strap rockets to yourself so you can be as fast as them?

Do you mean equality in marriage as in equality between partners or equality in marriage to your sexual orientation? I agree with both.

[LSD]

In your society, won't those who take the most be frowned upon?

Define "take the most"?

If you mean hoarde or take excessively or without concern for others then yes. If you mean cancer patients then no.

It's only in anti-humanist systems like capitalsim that those suffering from deadly dieseases are ones who are punnished.


So 2% of the population should take care of the rest of the 98% in the most inefficient way possible (through the state).

No!

I don't think that the state has a right to exist. It is an intrinsically coercive and oppressive instrument and I will never trust it. I just trust it more than I do private corporations.

The only reason that it is even needed is because something has to balance the overwhelming disparity caused by capitalism. Something has to be there which isn't (at least in theory) for sale.

In a truly free society, in which "money" and "capital" are abolished, there is no need for a state nor for redistribution.


You do know that a lot of seemingly rich people are in debt?

"a lot"? Really?

Oh, well if you say so... no wait, I think I'd like some statistical evidence to defend your "the rich aren't really rich" theory.


You know there is a problem when the first thing that people do is go to a hospital.

Not as big as when it's the last thing they do.

It's better that people go to the hospital too much than too little. In a perfect world, yeah, no one would go to a doctor unless they needed to, but capitalism doesn't ensure this. All it ensures is that the rich can get attention whenever they have a headache, and the poor... well won't.

They'll avoid and avoid because they just can't afford it and, even when they contract something serious, they will resist. ...and then they'll die.

Do you think that it's "coincidence" that the rich are statistically so much healthier than the poor in your country?

If your private health system was working so well, why is it that you have such abysmal health statistics?


If there is no "personal opinion" there is no freedom. Do you not understand?

:huh:

Wow....um, I'm not sure what to say to that. Talk about radical intepretation of the text!

What I said, because you seem to be confused, is that in medical issues, what is needed and what is no can be objectively determined. That personal opinion, while it can "exist", is irrelevent. If you need surgery you need surgery whether you "think" you do or not.


The right to have THIS or THAT provided freely ACTUALLY diminishes your freedom to choose!

:lol:

And the lunacy just keeps on trucking!

So me having access to more items (because I couldn't afford them before) "diminishes" my choices?

Whaa!? :blink:

Look at it this way. If I have 50$ and X costs 49.99 and Y costs 109.99. How many choices do I have? I cannot buy Y, but I can buy X.

If both are offered for free, how many choices do I have? Now I have 2 choices, both X and Y.

It's not that complicated.


Do not tell me that you are omniscient and know that every doctor is doing it FOR THE MONEY.

I didn't say that they are. I said that the economic structure pressures them to do so. Not to mention that, in a for profit environment, the hospital staff and administrators will demand that all doctors consider the financial interests of the hospital.


They all have a secret conspiracy that must keep all prices high and equal - sacrificing expansion.

It's not a matter of "conspiracy", just of understanding how the "market" works in reality, not in a macro-economics text book.

Insurance companies compete, sure. But they are all careful not to let their prices fall to low, it's just common sense. When you're in an industry that provides an essential service, you are able to keep prices much higher than in an industry in which consumers have the realistic option to refuse.


What about suicide?

:lol:

You aren't seriously contending that suicide is an argument for why healthcare isn't a right!

:D :D

I'll give you this, it's a new one! :P

Suicide, in 99% of cases, is due to psychological disorder. People with suicidal tendencies overwhelmingly suffer from depressive disorders.

Arguing that people don't need healthcare because a disease prevents them from recognizing it is like arguing that people don't need water because they have rabies!

People who attempt suicide need treatment more than people who do not. Arguing that they shouldn't recieve medical attention is not only insane, it's actually disgustingly prejudiced!


There are various reasons - mostly they are relationship releated.

No, mostly they are disease "related".

I don't know what "relationship related" even means.


You don't get it, He is already in the house with the intention to kill {he tells me this, e.g)}. No law is going to stop him! Only I can.

You do realize that this is a completely ludicrous example, right?

We're not talking about the way the world is, we're talking about the way it should be.

Do you think that a guy with a big stick in his house is more deserving of protection than someone without? Or do you think that a right to security of person extends to all people, regardless of big stick posession?

Yeah, if a guy is in your house, a big stick helps. But so what? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to stop him from getting into your house in the first place.

The same goes for healthcare. Yes, in capitalism, having "things" garners one better treatment, but is this right? Should there be this correlation?


Do you consider the fact that sometimes the poor and the rich are the same people within their own lifetime?

No, I didn't consider that "fact", largely because you pulled it completely from your ass.

Most people born poor will die poor, most people born rich will die rich. That is fact!


So the fact that they put smart people in smart classes, average with average, and below average in special ed is a bad thing?

No, because putting "smart" people in classes that they are not good at only hurts them, as does putting people in classes that are too slow for them. There is a legitimate correlation between level of knoweldge / aptitute in a field and level of instruction in that field.

There is no legitimate correlation between how many little green pieces of paper you have and whether or not your tumour gets fixed ...except in capitalism.

[Commie Girl]

QUINCUNX5:


Yes, priorities are food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare, at a minimum!

Not sure what orgies have to do with health but, hey, whatever floats your boat! :P

Um yes, people where I live choose to have however many/few chidren that they want, abortion is available regardless of income, included in our national healthcare! In Quebec, the govt was paying couples to have children due to underpopulation.

You see, having all of society contribute to the betterment of all can only benefit that said society, simple! Therefore, yes, people who choose to spend extra money on having their children attend a "private" school is their choice, they still contribute to the betterment of all through school taxes, just like some of my taxes go toward highways, etc., even though I dont drive and the elderly contribute to school taxes without having kids of school age, same with people who are childless.

And no, where I live schools are basically equal, all property taxes are pooled Provincially and redistributed to each school district according numbers of pupils. Simple again! And yes, I meant equality in marriage regardless of sex. (Canada is #4 recognizing the right to equal marriage!! :D )



The rest of your post is meaningless.

Where do you live, by the way? Aand no, I don't live in the U$ so stop making assumptions about my society. :rolleyes:

[quincunx5]

It's only in anti-humanist systems like capitalsim that those suffering from deadly dieseases are ones who are punnished.


No fucking kidding. Ofcourse if you have a disease you are punished! Ofcourse it's not your fault nor possibly anyone else's.



I don't think that the state has a right to exist. It is an intrinsically coercive and oppressive instrument and I will never trust it.. I just trust it more than I do private corporations


You seem to have something against people that rich?

The only reason that it is even needed is because something has to balance the overwhelming disparity caused by capitalism. Something has to be there which isn't (at least in theory) for sale.



Your right, government does create wealth, its role is to suck it out. The people
control what it can and can't suck out. Things that can be provided outside of government should remain so. Health is a service hence it can be on the market.




In a truly free society, in which "money" and "capital" are abolished, there is no need for a state nor for redistribution.


I thought you need redistribution to maintain equality?



It's better that people go to the hospital too much than too little. In a perfect world, yeah, no one would go to a doctor unless they needed to, but capitalism doesn't ensure this. All it ensures is that the rich can get attention whenever they have a headache, and the poor... well won't.

They'll avoid and avoid because they just can't afford it and, even when they contract something serious, they will resist. ...and then they'll die.


I think we will always disgree because of the way we view other people. My basic assumption is that people are responsible and will do things in their best interest. If they need more health care they will cut down on other things -- they will have to make sacrifices. You basic assumption is that people are sheep and need to be told what is good and bad for them, and how they should go about things.



Do you think that it's "coincidence" that the rich are statistically so much healthier than the poor in your country?

If your private health system was working so well, why is it that you have such abysmal health statistics?


Do you think that it's "coincidence" that the rich are statistically so much better in algebra than the poor in your country?

Sound silly, no? But that is true as well.

[KC]

Quincun, would you also support the privatisation of fire departments?

This guy is the worst debater ever. He interprets everything completely wrong and makes arguments that are so senseless that nobody understands what he actually means. Ban him.

[quincunx5]

And the lunacy just keeps on trucking!

So me having access to more items (because I couldn't afford them before)
"diminishes" my choices?

Whaa!? blink.gif

Look at it this way. If I have 50$ and X costs 49.99 and Y costs 109.99. How
many choices do I have? I cannot buy Y, but I can buy X.

If both are offered for free, how many choices do I have? Now I have 2 choices,
both X and Y.

It's not that complicated.


Why do you only have $50? if X or Y was important then you may need to allocate
more. But let's use your example. Assuming X and Y were essentially the same
product, but different quality/material. If it was democratically chosen by
the majority to have the government collect taxes to pay for X = $50, you would
no longer have that $50 dollars. You would be a sucker to get anything but
X. The price of Y would shoot up to $300, or else the Y company would go out
of business. The government just created a monopoly X. No choices left. I
forgot to mention similar products A to W, and Z that also disappeared because
it couldn't compete with "free".

[quincunx5]

Quincun, would you also support the privatisation of fire departments?


I think they can stay around. They are mostly efficient, there is nothing that I can see that would be cheaper. Again if a service is best provided by the government then so be it.



This guy is the worst debater ever. He interprets everything completely wrong and makes arguments that are so senseless that nobody understands what he actually means. Ban him.


I can't believe you. I have been lurking for about a week, reading things here and there. So I registered an account today, I felt like talking. I have seen much worse debating. There is no Publius, or Capital Lawyer around to help me explain. I have not said anything negative, disgusting, or attacked anyone personally. And already
someone wants to ban me?

[LSD]

No fucking kidding. Ofcourse if you have a disease you are punished!

Yes, but in capitalism, you not only get sick, you also have to suffer further in "paying" treatment.

...unless you're rich.


I thought you need redistribution to maintain equality?

Wealth does not need to be redistributed if it's abolished.

"Redistribution" is only nescessary in mixed-economy capitalism. It's sort of a conceession to ensure that some semblence of equality remains. If we had true laissez faire capitalism, we'd see a revolution tomorrow!


My basic assumption is that people are responsible and will do things in their best interest. If they need more health care they will cut down on other things

Which, of course, assumes that they have other things to cut down on!

Exactly what are these "thing"? Food? Medicine? Clothing? Rent?

The poor don't have "things", that's why they're called poor!


You basic assumption is that people are sheep and need to be told what is good and bad for them, and how they should go about things.

No, it's that all people are deserving of dignity and health, and that how much "money" I have should have no relation to whether or not I receive treatment.


Do you think that it's "coincidence" that the rich are statistically so much better in algebra than the poor in your country?

Not at all. The rich overwhelmingly get better education than the poor.

But, again, you're dodging the issue.

Do you deny that the market favours the rich? Do you deny that in a private healthcare system, the rich recieve better care?

If not, then how do you justify this?


Why do you only have $50?

Because it's a hypothetical, it's all you have. The rest of your moneey is spent, you know, keeping you alive.


Assuming X and Y were essentially the same
product, but different quality/material. If it was democratically chosen by
the majority to have the government collect taxes to pay for X = $50, you would
no longer have that $50 dollars.

You're missing the point, that's not how progressive taxation works. It doesn't take 50 dollars from you to pay for a 50 dollar product, it takes 50 cents from you, and 50 thousand dollars from the multibillionaire down the road.

It's called redistribution because it redistributes!

Plus, if Y is the superior product, that's the one that will be funded, not the shoddy alternative.


The price of Y would shoot up to $300, or else the Y company would go out
of business. The government just created a monopoly X.

Yes, in your scenario in which the government creates a monopoly, the government creates a monopoly. :rolleyes:

But how about if the government ...doesn't? How about the government funds both Y (the superior) and research on Z (even more superior)?

And, regardless, who said anything about "government" or "taxes"? I'm talking about eliminating markets alltogether. This means that X and Y are produced by X and Y producers, without material incentive, but because they want to, love to, and know it needs to be done.

No state, no government, just people producing. Now, we have genuine choices because not only is there no financial monopoly, there are no finances. Everyone can afford and enjoy and that's freedom of choice.

"Choice" is meaningless when the "choices" are unattainable!


I have seen much worse debating.

As have I, but I've gotta admit, you're pretty low on the list.

I think your problem is that you don't read posts that carefully and come up with some pretty fanciful interpretations of what people are saying. It's fairly frustrating.


I have not said anything negative, disgusting, or attacked anyone personally. And already
someone wants to ban me?

:lol:

You're not getting banned. Calm down.

[KC]

I think they can stay around. They are mostly efficient, there is nothing that I can see that would be cheaper. Again if a service is best provided by the government then so be it.

Why couldn't it be cheaper? If they are privatised, wouldn't competition drive the prices down lower than they already are?



So I registered an account today, I felt like talking.

To debate you have to read what people say and interpret it correctly. It's called reading comprehension. You're not very good at it. You're horrible at debating.



I have seen much worse debating. There is no Publius, or Capital Lawyer around to help me explain.

What are you talking about? What do Publius or CL have to do with anything?


I have not said anything negative, disgusting, or attacked anyone personally. And already
someone wants to ban me?

I don't see the point of keeping someone around that has no debate skills and, in effect, kills debates. You're more of a hindrance than a contributor.




You're not getting banned. Calm down.

I don't see why you try debating with this guy. You ask why material goods should determine why someone deserves to live or not, and he gives the example of a murderer coming into his house and the only way to defend himself is with material goods. It doesn't make sense, it's killing the debate, and it's annoying.

[quincunx5]

Yes, but in capitalism, you not only get sick, you also have to suffer further in "paying" treatment.


But in communism, I feel terrible that i'm not doing something useful but taking away people's time and energy.



Which, of course, assumes that they have other things to cut down on!

Exactly what are these "thing"? Food? Medicine? Clothing? Rent?

The poor don't have "things", that's why they're called poor!


I have no problem with Communism on a small scale. I think it's perfectly fine for small groups of people to voluntarily share living expenses. Do you realize how much better off the poor would be if they got together and shared their expenses?
Say 60 people living in a house, with their own garden, they can pass down clothing to their children or get it from salvation army. That would make their Food, Clothing and Rent very cheap per capita, allowing them to have some luxuries.

So please tell me why we are not seeing more and more of this? IIRC, there is not even 1% living in this kind of arrangement in the industrilized nations. Why do we
need to overthrow society when this has not happend?



Not at all. The rich overwhelmingly get better education than the poor.


Yes, they go to private colleges! You are actually correct because education is just that: education. It does not account for knowledge. Last I checked libraries were still around by the handful, no one stops you from going in and learning. Actually you can go into a book store and read there, too.

Being rich from the start may actually be hinderence, because they will never learn how riches are created from nothing!



Do you deny that the market favours the rich? Do you deny that in a private healthcare system, the rich recieve better care?

If not, then how do you justify this?


Ofcourse the market favors the rich. The market favors those who most understand the market! I think that makes sense.



I think your problem is that you don't read posts that carefully and come up with some pretty fanciful interpretations of what people are saying. It's fairly frustrating.


I read them carefully. I just have this disease that causes me to think all backwards.

[quincunx5]

Why couldn't it be cheaper? If they are privatised, wouldn't competition drive the prices down lower than they already are?


Fire Fighting is an emergency service. I support health care for Emergency services.



To debate you have to read what people say and interpret it correctly. It's called reading comprehension. You're not very good at it. You're horrible at debating.


I must be an idiot If don't agree?
I guess I'll never get better if I don't try.
You guys are so friendly to your fellow humans.



I don't see the point of keeping someone around that has no debate skills and, in effect, kills debates. You're more of a hindrance than a contributor.


If there is one thing you will agree with me on it's that there was NO debate until I opened my big mouth.

[KC]

I have no problem with Communism on a small scale. I think it's perfectly fine for small groups of people to voluntarily share living expenses.

You're horribly misinformed on communism.



Do you realize how much better off the poor would be if they got together and shared their expenses?
Say 60 people living in a house, with their own garden, they can pass down clothing to their children or get it from salvation army. That would make their Food, Clothing and Rent very cheap per capita, allowing them to have some luxuries.

So please tell me why we are not seeing more and more of this?

Who is going to buy/rent this house? 60 people living in a house is illegal. One garden won't feed 60 people.



Yes, they go to private colleges! You are actually correct because education is just that: education. It does not account for knowledge. Last I checked libraries were still around by the handful, no one stops you from going in and learning. Actually you can go into a book store and read there, too.

Do the poor have time to go to a library and read? Of course not! They're busy working minimum wage jobs 60 to 70 hours a week. What's teh point of going to a library anyways? Education in this sense in this system (capitalism) is pretty much worthless. Going to college isn't about getting educated, it's about getting a degree.



Being rich from the start may actually be hinderence, because they will never learn how riches are created from nothing!

Yes, being rich from the start is a hindrance! :rolleyes: The problem with this logic is that their interest is more than enough to live on without having to work a day in their lives! And they can hire people to make them rich.



Ofcourse the market favors the rich. The market favors those who most understand the market! I think that makes sense.


Explain how the stock market favors those who most understand the market. Why aren't most market analysts rich? What about economists? Etc...? Because getting rich is getting lucky.



I read them carefully. I just have this disease that causes me to think all backwards.

Irregardless, you're still bad at debating and I think you should be banned.

You still haven't dealt with my fire department question. And do you support 100% privatisation of schools?

[quincunx5]

You're horribly misinformed on communism.


No, actually I'm not. I have thought about it every which way, for quite a while. And I eventually grew up and let the silly notion go. The small commune is the only form that I tolerate.



Who is going to buy/rent this house? 60 people living in a house is illegal. One garden won't feed 60 people.


Why is it illegal? Use you magical powers of persuasion to make it legal -- because it obviously benefits the poor. Did I mention the specific size of the garden? I think not.



Do the poor have time to go to a library and read? Of course not! They're busy working minimum wage jobs 60 to 70 hours a week. What's teh point of going to a library anyways?


Give me some statistics here, such as percentage of those in the work force that word between 60 to 70 hours. Oh, and also see if you can find some statistics on how many hours the poor spend on watching television (time they could have used for reading and learning).



Education in this sense in this system (capitalism) is pretty much worthless. Going to college isn't about getting educated, it's about getting a degree.


Wow, I can't believe we agree on something. That's why I avoided the last two years of college.



Explain how the stock market favors those who most understand the market. Why aren't most market analysts rich? What about economists? Etc...? Because getting rich is getting lucky.


Because they know how to analyze the market, and nothing further. The rich are those that play directly in the actual market. The rich (which is never actually defined in the forum -- maybe you can have a pinned article defining what rich is).



The problem with this logic is that their interest is more than enough to live on without having to work a day in their lives! And they can hire people to make them rich.


Buy those people they hire might get rich too, no?

[KC]

No, actually I'm not. I have thought about it every which way, for quite a while. And I eventually grew up and let the silly notion go. The small commune is the only form that I tolerate.

Yes, actually you are. The small commune isn't communism. Communism has no monetary system. Communes must still work in the capitalist system. They can't own property without tax! And I'd love to hear why you "let the silly notion go". But that is for a different thread entirely.



Why is it illegal? Use you magical powers of persuasion to make it legal -- because it obviously benefits the poor. Did I mention the specific size of the garden? I think not.


It is illegal because the government says so. And by garden, do you mean farm? Because that might feed 60 people, but they couldn't earn enough money to pay for the house/farm because they'd be too busy farming! And you still haven't answered how they would acquire the property.



Give me some statistics here, such as percentage of those in the work force that word between 60 to 70 hours. Oh, and also see if you can find some statistics on how many hours the poor spend on watching television (time they could have used for reading and learning).

Again, learning is worthless without the degree. So if somone was more informed on a specific subject than another person, but that other person went to college, guess who's getting the job!




Wow, I can't believe we agree on something. That's why I avoided the last two years of college.

This makes no sense.




Because they know how to analyze the market, and nothing further. The rich are those that play directly in the actual market. The rich (which is never actually defined in the forum -- maybe you can have a pinned article defining what rich is).

Analyzing it requires knowledge of it; more knowledge than most rich people have. So why aren't these people rich if all they have to do is apply their knowledge (and most of these people do)? And, by the way, you didn't even finish that last sentence. Talk about a bad debater!




Buy those people they hire might get rich too, no?

Hiring a good stock broker or buying a real estate company probably won't make anyone rich besides themselves, no?

[quincunx5]

Yes, actually you are. The small commune isn't communism. Communism has no monetary system. Communes must still work in the capitalist system. They can't own property without tax! And I'd love to hear why you "let the silly notion go". But that is for a different thread entirely.


I am aware of what communism is. I do not feel I have to tell you what I know about it since you know about it.

Now I'm talking about communes. Land is not that expensive, you can pull together member's funds to buy it. Some members can work regular jobs outside of the commune to finance the commune, while others are always there. You can even take turns, whatever! Be creative.



Again, learning is worthless without the degree. So if somone was more informed on a specific subject than another person, but that other person went to college, guess who's getting the job!


That's just bullshit. I have met plenty of college graduates at job interviews who had no idea of the topic at hand. They could not even explain what it is they can do. I got jobs over them because well as you put it i'm a horrible debater, no wait - I knew what to say such as how I would get the job done and how little extra resources it would require me to do it.



Education in this sense in this system (capitalism) is pretty much worthless.


I agree with that. Education = Worthless, but Knowldege != Worthless.



And, by the way, you didn't even finish that last sentence. Talk about a bad debater!


Eh.



Hiring a good stock broker or buying a real estate company probably won't make anyone rich besides themselves, no?


Maybe. Perhaps hiring a mediocre cheap stock broker will maked him better by giving him experience working with you, you being a great debater and all. He can then use his developed talent to demand more pay.

[Commie Girl]

Can you please reply to my last post? Where do you hail from?

[quincunx5]

Can you please reply to my last post? Where do you hail from?


Queens, NY.

[KC]

You're not going to reply to her post?

[quincunx5]

Yes, but in capitalism, you not only get sick, you also have to suffer further in "paying" treatment.


Yes, but in Communism, you not only get sick, you have to feel bad that doctors have to spend their time on you when they could be helping many other not-as-sick people. Also the doctors can't help me today because the doctors in town do not feel like being doctors today, they want to be Actors. Unless ofcourse they are forced to be doctors today. No wait, I'm wrong, the doctors who want to be actors will just get replaced by the janitors who want to be doctors? right?

[KC]

Yes, but in Communism, you not only get sick, you have to feel bad that doctors have to spend their time on you when they could be helping many other not-as-sick people. Also the doctors can't help me today because the doctors in town do not feel like being doctors today, they want to be Actors. Unless ofcourse they are forced to be doctors today. No wait, I'm wrong, the doctors who want to be actors will just get replaced by the janitors who want to be doctors? right?

Why would you feel bad? The doctor is a doctor because he loves what he does; helping people get better. And you are horribly misinformed on communism.

[Lord Testicles]

if it wasn't for free healthcare id be dead by now and so would many other people its as simple as that.

[quincunx5]

Why would you feel bad? The doctor is a doctor because he loves what he does; helping people get better. And you are horribly misinformed on communism.


I would feel bad because the doctor can't get to every sick person, because he's spending so much time. You do know that in any society the number of doctors will always be fewer than the number of sick people? They can't get to everyone, so some will not be taken care of. Besides being my local doctors they also love acting! Should they give it up because I am needy? That doesn't seem right!


You are horribly misinformed on communism. I happend to see the many problems with it, which is why I'm "horribly" debating it in OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES. I can see the many problems with capitalism and globalisation - mostly that it isn't done right. But yet I still feel that commumism is worse.

I know from my experience in living in the USSR. Which I know you will argue is state capitalism, and it's true. But when you hardly have any money (from my experience), it seems to come very close to your utopia w/o money. There are inherent flaws with communism, one being the obvious: How do you intend to distribute "wealth" (that being defined as differences and talents of people through-out the world, and geographic differences that cause diverse products to be more easily available) all without ORGANIZING?

I have followed this forum for a week, went back as far as 2002 (I think?), and still have not been given a RATIONAL answer to this fundemental question. IIRC, t_wolves_fan also seemed to want the same answer - but it was never given. It is disappointing. I have also read everything on worldsocialism.org, and even browsed their forums way back to 2001, and still nothing.

I feel I have read an equal amount of leftist books on Socialism, Communism, and righty books on Capitalism, Democracy, Freedom. And to tell you the truth after 3 years of real soul searching I feel that I have to side with the capitalists. Why? because I feel Freedom and Capitalism go hand in hand.

[quincunx5]

if it wasn't for free healthcare id be dead by now and so would many other people its as simple as that.


No you wouldn't be dead, you'd just be in debt, and so would others. It's as simple as that.

Pardon me for being rude, what was your ailment?

[KC]

I would feel bad because the doctor can't get to every sick person, because he's spending so much time. You do know that in any society the number of doctors will always be fewer than the number of sick people? They can't get to everyone, so some will not be taken care of. Besides being my local doctors they also love acting! Should they give it up because I am needy? That doesn't seem right!

Doctors cant get to all sick people nowadays. Do you feel bad? And the doctor will be the doctor if he loves acting. He won't let you die because he wants to go act. And not all doctors would love acting.



You are horribly misinformed on communism.

I don't think so. You're the one assuming that there is such a thing as "communism, in the small sense." You're the one assuming that a commune is the same as communism.



I know from my experience in living in the USSR. Which I know you will argue is state capitalism, and it's true. But when you hardly have any money (from my experience), it seems to come very close to your utopia w/o money.

You're an idiot if you think that having no money in a society where you need money is like having no money in a society where money doesn't exist.


There are inherent flaws with communism, one being the obvious: How do you intend to distribute "wealth" (that being defined as differences and talents of people through-out the world, and geographic differences that cause diverse products to be more easily available) all without ORGANIZING?

Council communism. And how isn't there organization in communism?



I have followed this forum for a week, went back as far as 2002 (I think?), and still have not been given a RATIONAL answer to this fundemental question. IIRC, t_wolves_fan also seemed to want the same answer - but it was never given. It is disappointing. I have also read everything on worldsocialism.org, and even browsed their forums way back to 2001, and still nothing.

I remember Novel Gentry answering this question repeatedly, clearly and concisely.



I feel I have read an equal amount of leftist books on Socialism, Communism, and righty books on Capitalism, Democracy, Freedom. And to tell you the truth after 3 years of real soul searching I feel that I have to side with the capitalists. Why? because I feel Freedom and Capitalism go hand in hand.

Freedom and capitalism go hand in hand? Is that why the rich command the poor? Is that why to get rich you have to get lucky? So the lucky people rule the world? Some freedom!



No you wouldn't be dead, you'd just be in debt, and so would others. It's as simple as that.


Or they would refuse to treat you because you can't afford it.

[Lord Testicles]

Pardon me for being rude, what was your ailment?

heredatery diabetes which means ill be dead because i cant afford insulin which ill need constantly

[quincunx5]

Doctors cant get to all sick people nowadays. Do you feel bad? And the doctor will be the doctor if he loves acting. He won't let you die because he wants to go act. And not all doctors would love acting.


Yeah they can get everyone they try to get to because will profit. Remove that motive and they will not care. Don't tell me they will! Are you a doctor?

No but all doctors love doing others things besides their main profession. Last I checked every single fucking person does.



I don't think so. You're the one assuming that there is such a thing as "communism, in the small sense." You're the one assuming that a commune is the same as communism.


I never equated commues to communism. I mearly suggested that people can pool their resources in a capitalism society, and prosper because they are free to do so. In a free society you can make any arrangements that suits your needs. Will you please drop your pathetic argument that I think that Communes are synonymous with Communism.



You're an idiot if you think that having no money in a society where you need money is like having no money in a society where money doesn't exist.


You're an idiot if you think you know how others have lived. My family had a place to live, free health care, free education, etc. But guess what? People around us were still miserable. Do you understand that all the basics of life were provided for us, but yet people were still not content? Money was not really necessary.

All those free things were provided with really shoddy quality too. You had to wait in lines, fill out forms, wait for medical attention, etc. Can you understand?



Council communism. And how isn't there organization in communism?


Why don't you chat with your buddies here, they all seem to have different ideas on communism. If there is any confusion on my part, it's because no two of you can fully agree to anything comprehensive.



I remember Novel Gentry answering this question repeatedly, clearly and concisely.


Yes, but yet it still does not make sense, nor is it realistic.



Freedom and capitalism go hand in hand? Is that why the rich command the poor? Is that why to get rich you have to get lucky? So the lucky people rule the world? Some freedom!


Last I checked I didn't have anyone pushing my buttons. I am a master of my own destiny. I choose what I want, no strings above me! And yes I do have a job.

A job that I love going to. My employer is by no means rich. His income is based on the performane of our small 10 employee firm. What ever is left over after all expenses for labor and cost of goods, he gets to keep. I see nothing wrong with this. Were it not for him I wouldn't have this job that I love going to!

I am not lucky, this is not the first place I worked. If you sit on your lazy ass all day you will never accomplish anything. If you go seeking opportunity, your luck will increase. Maybe it will not be perfect, but it's something. For those that do not find what they are looking for will at least have had the adventure of looking for it. I happend to believe that if you want something you have to seek it out, and do it.



Or they would refuse to treat you because you can't afford it.


If you die, they get no money! If you live, they have a chance to collect some money. I think sanity would prevail and they would treat you. They will take the chance in you, that you will be able to pay something back.

[quincunx5]

heredatery diabetes which means ill be dead because i cant afford insulin which ill need constantly


That sucks. But another approach would be to reduce the time for medical patents.
I believe insulin is covered by something like 20 various patents. When the patents expire many generics can be put on the market bringing the prices down.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is a joke. How did people survive before insulin? That's right they didn't. The best way to solve the problem is to bring many players into the market and bring prices down, as apposed to having society pay high costs for a government monopoly (that's what a patent is) .

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:46 PM


heredatery diabetes which means ill be dead because i cant afford insulin which ill need constantly


That sucks. But another approach would be to reduce the time for medical patents.
I believe insulin is covered by something like 20 various patents. When the patents expire many generics can be put on the market bringing the prices down.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is a joke. How did people survive before insulin? That's right they didn't. The best way to solve the problem is to bring many players into the market and bring prices down, as apposed to having society pay high costs for a government monopoly (that's what a patent is) .
In many cases now drug companies slightly modify the drug before the patent runs out and get a new patent. It's essentially the same drug; but with a new patent.

I'll be a doctor in a few years, and I know many doctors. None of whom would leave a person who was obviously ill; even if they had something they really wanted to do. hat argument is ridiculous. Whether you're getting paid or not, a decent human being will not leave another to suffer just because they want to be somewhere else.

[Martyr Machine]

In a truly free society, in which "money" and "capital" are abolished, there is no need for a state nor for redistribution.

Currency is the evolution of a trade system. You cannot abolish currency without damaging the economic structure of a nation.

[LSD]

Currency is the evolution of a trade system.

Yes, but it isn't the ultimate revolution.


You cannot abolish currency without damaging the economic structure of a nation.

Of course you can! That's one of the foundational principles of Communism. Currency is only required in capital societies, in a communalistic one, there is absolutely no need for a unit of exchange nor for a unit of commercial measurement.

[Martyr Machine]

Of course you can! That's one of the foundational principles of Communism. Currency is only required in capital societies, in a communalistic one, there is absolutely no need for a unit of exchange nor for a unit of commercial measurement.

Let's say a friend of mine makes fine furniture. I go up to him and ask him to make me a table, but he puts a lot of effort into his work and wants something in return, so in exchange I give him some, lets say, gold that I aquired before the fascist (communist) revolution. What is to become of me? Would the government step in and put a bullet through my head? (probably)

[KC]

Let's say a friend of mine makes fine furniture. I go up to him and ask him to make me a table, but he puts a lot of effort into his work and wants something in return, so in exchange I give him some, lets say, gold that I aquired before the fascist (communist) revolution. What is to become of me? Would the government step in and put a bullet through my head? (probably)


You're thinking from a capitalist mindset. You have to remember that these people won't grow up in a capitalist environment, and therefore won't be greedy. First, why is your friend a furniture maker (whatever they're called)? Because he likes doing it. Second, why would he want something in return? He made the table because he loves doing what he does, and he loves doing something for his friend. Third, why would he want gold? What is he going to do with it? It's not worth anything, so what's the point of giving him gold? Nothing is to become of you. The situation that you have given is completely flawed and would never happen in a communist society.

[quincunx5]

You have to remember that these people won't grow up in a capitalist environment, and therefore won't be greedy.


History show that humans are greedy. You will never change that. Ever. Do you understand? I'm just curious, do you even work? Aside from food, clothing, shelter do you give every penny to charity? or to your fellow neighbor? I think not.



Third, why would he want gold? What is he going to do with it? It's not worth anything, so what's the point of giving him gold?


Hmm, it looks shiny and it's kind of rare. It must be worth something because of that, no? I guess not. Everything is just plain and ordinary. The artists in your society will love that attitude.



Yes, but it isn't the ultimate revolution.


Jokingly, Hyperinflation is just as good as not having money at all.



In many cases now drug companies slightly modify the drug before the patent runs out and get a new patent. It's essentially the same drug; but with a new patent.


You know I agree with you there 100%. That is indeed bullshit. I do know that the patent offices do not do it's job effectively. Inventions are supposed to be Novel and non-obvious to anyone working in the field. I am also deeply disturbed by software and business method patents - anything that takes pratically zero effort and resources to create should not be patentable.

[KC]

Weren't you the one that said that you've been reading these forums for weeks? And yet you offer up the same crap that other people have that have been debated to death.



History show that humans are greedy. You will never change that. Ever. Do you understand? I'm just curious, do you even work? Aside from food, clothing, shelter do you give every penny to charity? or to your fellow neighbor? I think not.


How does history show that humans are greedy? Don't you understand that greed isn't human nature (which doesn't exist), it is taught by society? It has been taught in capitalism and in feudalism and so on. It has been taught. Yes I work, and I don't give my money away. I live in this capitalist system, and therefore must act as a capitalist or I would die.



Hmm, it looks shiny and it's kind of rare. It must be worth something because of that, no? I guess not. Everything is just plain and ordinary. The artists in your society will love that attitude.

Yes, but tell me what the point of having something "rare" is in a society where there is no value system.

[quincunx5]

Weren't you the one that said that you've been reading these forums for weeks? And yet you offer up the same crap that other people have that have been debated to death.


I can read your nonsense mumbo jumbo explantions till I die. It still does not make it a good idea. I just haven't seen anything that knocks my socks off and makes me drop my jaw, and convince me that I am wrong.



How does history show that humans are greedy? Don't you understand that greed isn't human nature (which doesn't exist), it is taught by society? It has been taught in capitalism and in feudalism and so on. It has been taught.


You know there was a time when there was no real society. I think the period is called paleolithic. Nomads would beat the shit out other nomads if they posed any threat to them, or got in the way of their food or family. Eventually this rediculous rage subsided and civiliazations formed, but it did not disappear. But now anyone outside your little world was an enemy or a threat. Humans are historically violent, there is always a battle/war/scirmish somewhere on earth at any given time.

What exactly do you mean by "so on". Do you mean that period between 8000BC and now? That covers our recorded history. Our greed was displayed by our violence. We raped women, stole land, hoarded gold, killed others. Today we don't do those things as much. Instead we lust for "material possessions", wealth, and power. Oh no wait, we do! Don't you guys want power?

I'm sorry, I don't remember learning about greed in school. I must have been sick.



Yes I work, and I don't give my money away. I live in this capitalist system, and therefore must act as a capitalist or I would die.


You know even Adam Smith gave away a great deal of his money through-out his life time, even though he regretted it.

You are telling me that you are so greedy that you do not give anything?

Now I am curious. Where do you hail from?

[quincunx5]

Yes, but tell me what the point of having something "rare" is in a society where there is no value system.


There is no MONEY in your system, but that does not mean humans will not put a value to something, especially if it is rare, and hardly anyone in the non-gold, non-diamond area has ever seen anything like it. They will all want one, but they can't all have it. You get it?

[KC]

Why would diamonds be made, besides for industrial use? Why would gold be mined, besides for industrial use?

[quincunx5]

Why would diamonds be made, besides for industrial use? Why would gold be mined, besides for industrial use?


Diamonds and Gold are sitting around doing nothing. Someone happens to live nearby. They walk over to the former mine and pick it up. Same thing happends at other places. In your society people are free to walk about, aren't they?

[KC]

Diamonds aren't sitting around. They have to be created. And creating diamonds for luxury purposes is MUCH more work than creating industrial diamonds. Also, industrial diamonds don't look like diamonds found in jewelry and are obviously worth much less.


More than 250 tons of ore need to be mined to yield a one-carat rough diamond. However, only about 20% of all rough diamonds are suitable for use as gems. Since diamond is the hardest material known to man, the rest of the diamonds are used for industrial purposes, such as cutting, boring and grinding.
Source (http://www.diamond.com/learncenter.asp?Fn=morondiamonds.htm)


And gold isn't any more beautiful than copper, or aluminum, or iron, or brass. So why would people want it? Because it's rare? :lol: So is an egg with two yolks (Which I happened to eat last night). Was it worth anything? No!!!!

[quincunx5]

Diamonds aren't sitting around. They have to be created. And creating diamonds for luxury purposes is MUCH more work than creating industrial diamonds. Also, industrial diamonds don't look like diamonds found in jewelry and are obviously worth much less.


Diamonds can be created by natural phenomena or artificially engineered. Today we generally produce them artificially. But that does not mean there are no natural sources of diamonds left in the earth.

Also, you are not very creative. An industrial worker can "steal" the diamonds at work. Oh no he can't because that only happens in a capitalist society, it is not necessary in a communist one. My bad.



And gold isn't any more beautiful than copper, or aluminum, or iron, or brass. So why would people want it? Because it's rare?


That's your opinion, perhaps even mine, but it is not others'. But others' opinion does not matter to you, right?

[KC]

That's your opinion, perhaps even mine, but it is not others'. But others' opinion does not matter to you, right?

Someone could also think that a two-yolk egg is valuable. It is exactly the same situation as diamonds and gold.



Also, you are not very creative. An industrial worker can "steal" the diamonds at work. Oh no he can't because that only happens in a capitalist society, it is not necessary in a communist one. My bad.

Actually, from what I know this would be rather difficult. Most diamonds are used, in the industrial sense, for cutting devices. They are put on cutting instruments. The diamonds are worthless. Hell, you can go buy a diamond-bladed saw in capitalist society and it's not that expensive!

[quincunx5]

Lazar, you are missing the point. If you get rid of money and "value". Value will be found in something regardless. It's value will probably be related to it's scarcity. Many people will want it, but not everyone can have it. All I'm saying is that equality will never actually be achieved in a communist society. If you CAN'T have equality, trying to have equality will just lead to arbitrary rules. Do you not see the fact that communism doesn't overcome very simple economics.

[KC]

So people will come from miles around to bid for my wonderous and incredibly rare double-yolked egg :P

[quincunx5]

So people will come from miles around to bid for my wonderous and incredibly rare double-yolked egg


In capitalism, sure, why not?

In communism, you'll have to share, otherwise you are a greedy bastard, it won't matter to your community or the world that you are lucky.

[KC]

In capitalism, sure, why not?

In communism, you'll have to share, otherwise you are a greedy bastard, it won't matter to your community or the world that you are lucky.

Hahahahaha you just killed your argument. Who would want to see a double yolked egg? Who would steal one? Who would want to keep one? Because it's rare....

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:05 AM
There is no MONEY in your system, but that does not mean humans will not put a value to something, especially if it is rare, and hardly anyone in the non-gold, non-diamond area has ever seen anything like it. They will all want one, but they can't all have it. You get it?
Shit, if you want a diamond, go and dig. What's the problem? Take others that love diamonds and make a diamond-fan-club community. Dig and enjoy. Who cares... :)

[quincunx5]

Hahahahaha you just killed your argument. Who would want to see a double yolked egg? Who would steal one? Who would want to keep one? Because it's rare....


They are not that rare. Occuring like 1 in 1000. But you evaded the point, you are very good at that.



Shit, if you want a diamond, go and dig. What's the problem? Take others that love diamonds and make a diamond-fan-club community. Dig and enjoy.


I can't go out digging for diamonds because there is more important work to be done in communism! It will be decided by the non-diamond-accessible majority that digging for diamonds is illegal and a waste of time (with the exception of industrial use).

[KC]

They are not that rare. Occuring like 1 in 1000. But you evaded the point, you are very good at that.

What point did I evade?



I can't go out digging for diamonds because there is more important work to be done in communism! It will be decided by the non-diamond-accessible majority that digging for diamonds is illegal and a waste of time (with the exception of industrial use).

Of course you can! You're only going to be at work for 4-5 hours a day anyways, unless you want to work longer. And you assume that everybody would want a diamond. There is no need for one; that argument is based in capitalist thinking.

[quincunx5]

Lazar, scroll up and read again. When you are done, do it again.

There is no need because you say there is no need? You are not free if you can't decide what you need!

[KC]

There is no need because you say there is no need? You are not free if you can't decide what you need!

Do you need a two-yolk egg? Do I need a two-yolk egg? Why would anyone need a two-yolk egg? Why would anyone need a diamond? Explain to me why someone would need a diamond. I see no use for it, aside from using it as a cutting tool. That is why I said there is no need. Can you explain to me why you think there is a need for a diamond? Besides the fact that it is rare.

Also, please tell me what point I evaded.

[Guest1]

Diamonds are not rare. Monopolistic business practices and the "heirloom" culture make them artificially rare and valuable.

[KC]

Diamonds are not rare. Monopolistic business practices and the "heirloom" culture make them artificially rare and valuable.



Diamonds of the quality used in jewelry can be. But that's beside the point anyways.

[quincunx5]

Diamonds are not rare.


Actually, everything is rare. There is a finite amount of any substance on this planet. They are more rare than say nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon...But they are not as rare as kryptonite.



Monopolistic business practices and the "heirloom" culture make them artificially rare and valuable.


It makes them rarer and hence more valuable. Yes. I do not support monopolies.

[KC]

Do you need a two-yolk egg? Do I need a two-yolk egg? Why would anyone need a two-yolk egg? Why would anyone need a diamond? Explain to me why someone would need a diamond. I see no use for it, aside from using it as a cutting tool. That is why I said there is no need. Can you explain to me why you think there is a need for a diamond? Besides the fact that it is rare.

Also, please tell me what point I evaded.

Please respond to this quincun

[quincunx5]

Do you need a two-yolk egg? Do I need a two-yolk egg? Why would anyone need a two-yolk egg? Why would anyone need a diamond?


Yes I need a two-yolk egg because I don't have one. Maybe I'm making a comedy film and a two-yolk egg just makes a scene funnier. There are many things that you can say are not needed. But you do not know everyone and you can not be sure that someone doesn't need it for a saner reason than mine.

[KC]

What point did I evade?

[quincunx5]

Lazar, you left some things unanwered.



Now I am curious. Where do you hail from?




There is no MONEY in your system, but that does not mean humans will not put a
value to something, especially if it is rare, and hardly anyone in the non-gold, non-diamond area has ever seen anything like it. They will all want one, but they can't all have it. Agree?




If you get rid of money and "value". Value will be found in something regardless. It's value will probably be related to it's scarcity. Many people will want it, but not everyone can have it. All I'm saying is that equality will never actually be achieved in a communist society. If you CAN'T have equality, trying to have equality will just lead to arbitrary rules. Do you not see the fact that communism doesn't overcome very simple economics?

[KC]

I'm from the United States, and I covered your value argument with the two-yolk egg.

[quincunx5]

The United States is big, you cannot be any more specific? No pressure.

You covered my value argument poorly. You simply evaded it by telling me
"that argument is based in capitalist thinking" when I tried several times to say that it is based on just human thinking.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by Hieronymus [email protected] 7 2005, 02:58 PM
This subject might seem very easy when viewing it from a socialist point of view. Still I will give it a try to explain why healthcare should NOT be free. First I will explain why it should be.

Everyone needs healthcare at one point or another. When you are born a couple of weeks to soon, when your mother hit you with a pan, when you drive your first car against a tree, when you got cancer in your balls...
At that point you want to go to see a doctor to 'repair' you. If you do not have the money for it you do not want to let that cancer eat your balls fe. That is why in socialist and social-democratic countries as well as in refugeecamps healthcare is free.
But this costs a lot of money, to much I say. I will tell you why, because the government has it's chequebook ready when you are hurt medics spend to much money on patients, and because of the willing-to-pay government they even do that when you are not sick at all (breast-implantats etc) My solution is cut government subsidiaries to hospitals and other medic institutions. After you did that you could cut taxes so the people have more money to spend. Now healthcare insurance could take this over, people get an assurance OR do not get it and are willing to pay for themselves. When doing this the following would happen:

1. Taxes get lower so people can spend more of there money to whatever they like.
2. Because hospitals are not kept alive by the government anymore they will have to make their service more healthy. They will kick al unnecessary services and they might look at other ways of making money, for example they should rent adspace in the hospitalhalls.

:)
I completely disagree. Medicine as a field is about saving lives not contributing to the elitism in society. If you are poor you should not be denied healthcare based on your income....I mean, its anyones right to recieve the basics! I live in a country which has a Socialised healthcare system. It has been working for 50 years, non stop. Sure, its not a perfect system but it works. A user pay system like the US healthcare system in my mind goes against everything I have lived with and everything I believe.

A two teared- healthcare system already exists in my country. One private...one public... the pro-Worker Groups like WCB already have private clinics that take care of injuries.

[quincunx5]

its anyones right to recieve the basics!


No actually it is no one's right to receive a service from another. That is called slavery. There is however a right to give.



A user pay system like the US healthcare system in my mind goes against everything I have lived with and everything I believe.


In the US, something like 60% of health care is covered by the public. This very fact is one of the reasons is why private health care is so expensive.



Sure, its not a perfect system but it works.


Yet you can say for certain that completely privatized health care would not be as good?

I get the feeling it would be better.

[colombiano]

quincunx5 --------> SWEDEN

Look it up the facts speak for themselves.
Also there is yet another interesting facet to European medicine known as Parallel Trading.

[KC]

The United States is big, you cannot be any more specific? No pressure.

No I can't.



You covered my value argument poorly. You simply evaded it by telling me
"that argument is based in capitalist thinking" when I tried several times to say that it is based on just human thinking.

Actually I covered it quite well with the two-yolk egg analogy, which I said in my last post. With my analogy I tried to show you what value is, and that nobody is going to think something is valuable if it is just "rare".

[quincunx5]

Actually I covered it quite well with the two-yolk egg analogy, which I said in my last post. With my analogy I tried to show you what value is, and that nobody is going to think something is valuable if it is just "rare".


Everyting is rare, there is a finite amount of things on this planet. Some things can be added only if other things are removed. Law of conservation of enery. Some people are not going to get the resources other will, simply because there is not enough to share. No societal system will address this basic problem. I just happen to believe that the competitive profit motive of the market gets things to people better.

You showed me what value isn't. I guess we will not agree.

[KC]

You're attaching the words "rare" and "value." And could you please give some examples of resources that are too rare for everybody to have?

[quincunx5]

It's not just to "have" it's also to "use". Once you use it you still need more.

All the elements are rare. Because there is a finite amount of them on this planet.
Don't tell me that communism will be so progressive that everyone will be able to leave this planet and colonize others. I see it as a very stagnant social system.

Talent is rare. Those with more talent will be the most "valuable". But in communism they will be the most abused.

[KC]

Whats your point that all the elements are rare? You're answering my question horribly vaguely. I asked for examples. Give me examples of something so rare and non-renewable that will be a problem.

And how will talented people be abused? Because they're better at stuff than everybody else yet they receive just as much as everybody else? That's the point. You either have talent or you don't; you don't acquire talent. So why should talented people get more than others? Because they're lucky enough to be talented?

[quincunx5]

Whats your point that all the elements are rare? You're answering my question horribly vaguely. I asked for examples. Give me examples of something so rare and non-renewable that will be a problem.


There is no vagueness. There is a finite amount of matter on this planet. You cannot create new matter, even when you poop.

How about petroleum? How about Uranium-235?

Let me guess, you're going to say it's not needed, Vehicles in a collectivist society will be propelled by our own sense of feeling good. We don't need the plastics that are created from petroleum for medical equipment, packaging material, food containers? Nuclear reactors are not necessary?

Obviously there are alternatives to petroleum and uranium-235 but they are just that, they will be depleted too. And much faster than in Capitalism.

Collectivism is stagnant, ideas will not be developed because you need to seek out majority approval before you can take a share in the resources society creates. You can't get majority approval because you can't explain to them how your idea works, because you yourself are not sure, until you make some progrss yourself. Of course it might play out differently. You may actually finish your idea, but then be quickly banned from using your invention.



You either have talent or you don't; you don't acquire talent. So why should talented people get more than others? Because they're lucky enough to be talented?


Are you saying that people are lucky to be talented? So you do understand what "rare" is? Why do you insist on more examples if you understand the concept at hand.

In your society lucky/talented people will be enslaved by the majority of unlucky/untalented people. Plain and simple.

[KC]

There is no vagueness. There is a finite amount of matter on this planet. You cannot create new matter, even when you poop.

Are you kidding? You're actually offering this up as an argument? You can't create new matter, but guess what. You can't destroy it either. This is irrelevant. This is vagueness.



How about petroleum? How about Uranium-235?

How about them? There are alternate sources of energy.



Let me guess, you're going to say it's not needed, Vehicles in a collectivist society will be propelled by our own sense of feeling good.

Or solar power. Or some other form of alternative power. Know why cars aren't solar powered right now? Oil companies!!



We don't need the plastics that are created from petroleum for medical equipment, packaging material, food containers?

I can't discuss this as I don't know how these are made.



Nuclear reactors are not necessary?

Why are they necessary? Every house can generate its own power! Solar panels, solar shingles can be installed and will easily power the house independently of a power plant. It can actually generate more power than is needed. People that have these systems nowadays actually sell power back to the power company! That is how efficient these systems can be.
Granted, not all factories will be able to supply their own power from these systems; a power plant might be needed. But the amount of power needed will be so significantly less than the amount right now that it can be powered with solar power or wind power! Imagine that; a whole country running on solar power! Wouldn't that be great? It's possible.



Collectivism is stagnant, ideas will not be developed because you need to seek out majority approval before you can take a share in the resources society creates.

So what? That's about the same as what applying for grants are in capitalist society.


You can't get majority approval because you can't explain to them how your idea works, because you yourself are not sure, until you make some progrss yourself.

People aren't dumb, as you assume they are.


Of course it might play out differently. You may actually finish your idea, but then be quickly banned from using your invention.

Why would you be banned from using your invention?



Are you saying that people are lucky to be talented? So you do understand what "rare" is? Why do you insist on more examples if you understand the concept at hand.

Of course I understand what rare is. What you fail to understand is that the term "rare" and "valuable" aren't connected. I insist on more examples because all examples you offer are easily countered. If you want to prove your point, you will give me an example that I can not counter. I see this as the easiest way for you to prove me wrong, so I challenge you to try. And so far you haven't come up with a problem that can't be easily solved by me sitting here for a few minutes, much less a whole class thinking about it for months.



In your society lucky/talented people will be enslaved by the majority of unlucky/untalented people. Plain and simple.

How will they be enslaved? Because they don't get paid more? Again, they deserve more because they're lucky?

And I was thinking earlier today about rarity and value. Even if someone thought something was valuable and wanted to sell it to someone else, what are they going to sell it for?

[quincunx5]

Are you kidding? You're actually offering this up as an argument? You can't create new matter, but guess what. You can't destroy it either. This is irrelevant. This is vagueness.


You can't destroy it, but you can make it into an undesirable form. A form that is just too costly (other material-wise, not money-wise) to transform it back to a usable form.



How about them? There are alternate sources of energy.


Yes, but they will be depleted much faster than in capitalism. There are renewable sources of energy, but as of yet they are not practical (It would be great if they were). You are going to hear a lot from the greens that wind turbine farms are destroying the ecosystem by killing so and so birds a year. The greens will complain that ocean wave energy farms are destroying the ecosystem too.



Know why cars aren't solar powered right now? Oil companies!!


Yes let's blame everything on a specific group. Despite the fact that, yes, they have been a tremendous impediment, the real problem is that it is still not practical. Monopolies should be broken up.



So what? That's about the same as what applying for grants are in capitalist society.


Only if you are foolish enough to go to the government. Go out and get a personal loan from the bank, you'd be suprised it's not that hard.



People aren't dumb, as you assume they are.


I do not assume they are dumb. Ideas develop beyond their inceptional form.



Why are they necessary? Every house can generate its own power! Solar panels, solar shingles can be installed and will easily power the house independently of a power plant. It can actually generate more power than is needed. People that have these systems nowadays actually sell power back to the power company! That is how efficient these systems can be.
Granted, not all factories will be able to supply their own power from these systems; a power plant might be needed. But the amount of power needed will be so significantly less than the amount right now that it can be powered with solar power or wind power! Imagine that; a whole country running on solar power! Wouldn't that be great? It's possible.


I specifically didn't say anything about it, because I knew you would. You are very predictible.

It's possible. And it can be done through capitalism. That does not mean it will not have problems of it's own. I'm too tired to point them out to you. Why do we need communism for that?



Why would you be banned from using your invention?


Because there is only resources to build one. You've used up all the krypton in the earth. If it cannot be shared, you can't use it. Go back to the value argument.



What you fail to understand is that the term "rare" and "valuable" aren't connected.


Yes, in essence these words have no inherent meaning, only the ones we attach to them. Here is what dictionary.com tells me:

Value: A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.
Rare: adj 1: not widely known; especially valued for its uncommonness.

Stop bugging me for an example. I cannot give you an example that you can't counter. Because there is a counter argument for pretty much everything, regardless if it's realisticly correct. Especially when it comes to definition of words. Words that have their own evolutionary track.



I can't discuss this as I don't know how these are made.


So you can't counter this example because you do not know?



How will they be enslaved? Because they don't get paid more? Again, they deserve more because they're lucky?


The talented will be doing most of the hard work, because the talented are usually self-motivated. The untalented will be enjoying the fruits of talented labor.

That is what communism is. Accept it, you will feel better.



And I was thinking earlier today about rarity and value. Even if someone thought something was valuable and wanted to sell it to someone else, what are they going to sell it for?


In a communist society with no money, they can't sell it because everything is free.
some possibilities:

1) They would get the shit kicked out of them, then the next person will get the shit kicked out of them, and so on...
2) They would have to destroy it.
3) They would have to put it on public display, only to be stolen later on.

In a capitalist society they would sell it to the highest bidder. Who in turn may do the same.

(I make the assumption that this something is not divisible - i.e. it only has value as a whole entity).

[KC]

You can't destroy it, but you can make it into an undesirable form. A form that is just too costly (other material-wise, not money-wise) to transform it back to a usable form.

Now you've got it.




Yes, but they will be depleted much faster than in capitalism. There are renewable sources of energy, but as of yet they are not practical (It would be great if they were). You are going to hear a lot from the greens that wind turbine farms are destroying the ecosystem by killing so and so birds a year. The greens will complain that ocean wave energy farms are destroying the ecosystem too.

Solar power...solar power...solar power......




Yes let's blame everything on a specific group. Despite the fact that, yes, they have been a tremendous impediment, the real problem is that it is still not practical. Monopolies should be broken up.

Blame everything on them? I didn't know I was blaming everything on oil companies. Anyways, oil companies don't want these cars on the street, because they would lose a LOT of money. Know what happens? They're not on the streets. And they can be practically made now, they just havent been.




Only if you are foolish enough to go to the government. Go out and get a personal loan from the bank, you'd be suprised it's not that hard.


Why do scientists apply for grants then? Enlighten me.




I do not assume they are dumb. Ideas develop beyond their inceptional form.


Why wouldn't people want to fund it?



It's possible. And it can be done through capitalism. That does not mean it will not have problems of it's own. I'm too tired to point them out to you. Why do we need communism for that?

We don't need communism "for that". You're trying to offer up problems with communism and I'm countering your arguments. You offered up the problem of non-renewable resources as a form of energy and I countered with solar power.




Because there is only resources to build one. You've used up all the krypton in the earth. If it cannot be shared, you can't use it. Go back to the value argument.

Why can't it be shared? And why would you use up all the krypton in earth? I don't think you could get an invention passed that uses all the krypton on the planet, simply because of the implications it could have on the environment/planet/everything inside the atmosphere.



Stop bugging me for an example. I cannot give you an example that you can't counter. Because there is a counter argument for pretty much everything, regardless if it's realisticly correct.

If my argument isn't realistically correct, then let me know.




So you can't counter this example because you do not know?

I can't even talk about that subject because I don't know enough about it to talk about it. I don't know how plastic is made. Is oil used as part of the formula for making plastic? Or is it used in the machines that make it? Educate me.




The talented will be doing most of the hard work, because the talented are usually self-motivated. The untalented will be enjoying the fruits of talented labor.

That is what communism is. Accept it, you will feel better.

So if the talented are doing more work because they want to, what's wrong with working overtime? If you had a job you liked, I'm sure you wouldn't mind working overtime either.




In a communist society with no money, they can't sell it because everything is free.
some possibilities:

1) They would get the shit kicked out of them, then the next person will get the shit kicked out of them, and so on...
2) They would have to destroy it.
3) They would have to put it on public display, only to be stolen later on.

In a capitalist society they would sell it to the highest bidder. Who in turn may do the same.

(I make the assumption that this something is not divisible - i.e. it only has value as a whole entity).

I still have yet to see what would make this example work; what would be rare that everybody would want? I just can't think of an example. If there isn't something that this is based on, then how is it relevant? And earlier you were talking about a trading system evolving even though there is no money. Did you realize that that couldn't happen? Is that why you changed your opinion on the subject?

I ask for examples because talking theoretically has no value unless it is based on something. Take, for example, how we're talking about something rare that everybody wants. If nothing exists that is rare that everybody wants, then why is it relevant?

[quincunx5]

Solar power...solar power...solar power......


So you keep telling me.



Blame everything on them? I didn't know I was blaming everything on oil companies. Anyways, oil companies don't want these cars on the street, because they would lose a LOT of money. Know what happens? They're not on the streets. And they can be practically made now, they just havent been.


Obviously the oil companies should not stand in the way. The only reason they do is because they have a powerful lobby that funds campaigns. Clearly there is work to be done in dismantling these unethical and illegal practices.

Practically made now? They are only practical in hybrid form. You cannot solely power a 2-ton vehicle with solar power, especially on a cloudy day when you are driving far. The battery that is charged by the sun must be constantly replaced as it can be recharged only a given number of times. The batteries are expensive.



Why do scientists apply for grants then? Enlighten me.


What exactly is a scientist? Is it one who believes in science or is it one that obtains a PhD from an institution? Is this scientist in the public or the private sector? If he is in the public sector then obviously he applies for grants.

I get so tired of enlightening you. You are exploiting me. (don't take offense - I just kid)



I do not assume they are dumb. Ideas develop beyond their inceptional form.


Why wouldn't people want to fund it?



Because people can't see the future.

Do you know what's the difference between theory and pratice?
I'll tell you:
In theory, there is no difference between theory and pratice. In practice there is.



Why can't it be shared? And why would you use up all the krypton in earth? I don't think you could get an invention passed that uses all the krypton on the planet, simply because of the implications it could have on the environment/planet/everything inside the atmosphere.


I assure you krypton is not that important. But you see that? You just stopped my invention from occuring, because the majority of fool like you thought it was important. Tell me lazar, did you not just assign value to krypton? You just proved to me and yourself that even without money people will assign value to things. There is no post capitalist society. End of argument.



So if the talented are doing more work because they want to, what's wrong with working overtime? If you had a job you liked, I'm sure you wouldn't mind working overtime either.


They are already working overtime slaving for you, they have other things they would rather be doing. Should they stop doing what they are doing, it will have serious repercussions. I do have a job I like. But every thing you do has some small aspect that kind of annoys you.



I still have yet to see what would make this example work; what would be rare that everybody would want? I just can't think of an example. If there isn't something that this is based on, then how is it relevant? And earlier you were talking about a trading system evolving even though there is no money. Did you realize that that couldn't happen? Is that why you changed your opinion on the subject?


I did not change my opinion. I just figured you were too stupid to understand.
There is no post capitalist society - money would take another form. Be it cigarettes, dung, or leaves, that does not matter. Just because everything is free does not mean it's available everywhere.

Collectivism ensures that shortages and surpluses will be the norm.



If nothing exists that is rare that everybody wants, then why is it relevant?


I guess it will become obvious to you when some people will have something that others don't.


P.S. Do you think we should stop this? It's pretty much just me and you going back and forth. We are so off-topic.

[Hieronymus Erasmus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:26 AM
I completely disagree. Medicine as a field is about saving lives not contributing to the elitism in society. If you are poor you should not be denied healthcare based on your income....I mean, its anyones right to recieve the basics!
I do not agree with that. Where do you want to draw a line? Should monkeys get healthcare too? There is not a whole lot of difference between a worker or a chimp. Still, chimps can live without healthcare. If you are really poor and have just fucked it all up for yourself, then you might just die of your consequences, father state should not rob other people to help you. <_<

In some cases, organisations like the Red Cross might help you.

[quincunx5]

Interesting, Hieronymus, do you agree with me that health care should be free for emergency cases?

Obviously on the grounds that you hurt yourself physically in an accident, or someone else hurt you either accidentally or intentionally (hence violating your freedom).

It seems that this is desirable since accidents happen to all types of people all the time.

If you sue and win, should you be required to pay for the health care you received? I&#39;m thinking YES.

[red_orchestra]

As I said....public healthcare is Socialised in my country. I believe in Socialised healthcare and what it can do for the people. I will not allow my system to become like the US...which is elitist. It is the right of the common person to recieve healthcare basics.

The Government pays the doctors in the Public System...

[quincunx5]

I believe in Socialised healthcare and what it can do for the people.


So you believe in something because that&#39;s the way your country does it? Does every single person in your country agree with this?

How about the ones that do not get the organs they need in time? The have the means to pay for it because they allocated their funds for it (knowing they had a condition, etc), but they can&#39;t get it because they are in line, behind others?

Is being first in line, always fair?

Free health care is unfair and inefficient.



I will not allow my system to become like the US...which is elitist.


You alone cannot do anything, you don&#39;t have the maximum freedom to do as you wish. What would happen if all those people who pay most for free health care, got sick and tired of it and moved out of your country?

I would think that in your mind you would tell me, "no sweat, just raise the taxes."



The Government pays the doctors in the Public System...


Are you an idiot? The Government is not a magically entity that pays for things.

People pay for doctors in the public system.

And in private pratice:

Sick people pay for doctors in the private system.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:45 PM




So you believe in something because that&#39;s the way your country does it? Does every single person in your country agree with this?


One of the defining characteristics of a civilized nation is the ability of said country to look after all its people. You know not what you speak. More than anything else, we see our system inseperable from our National Identity.

You can find any number of surveys supporting this, here is one you may find of
interest (http://www.web.net/~ohc/Uqam31.htm):

However critical one might be of the concept of ‘social cohesion,’ there can be no doubt that health care is a prime site for the construction of cohesion in Canada. In public opinion poll after public opinion poll, Canadians express their strong support for what in English Canada is somewhat ambiguously called ‘medicare.’ In one poll, 92 per cent of Canadians indicated a preference for the Canadian health care system, while 5 per cent preferred a UK-type system and but 3 per cent preferred a US-type system. 2 In another, which sought to measure degrees of support for the five principles of the Canada Health Act, the range was from 93 per cent rating universality as being "very important" to 76 per cent rating public administration as being "very important."3 Every poll now places health care at the top of the priority list for public spending, over job creation, and public spending on health care is decisively favoured over tax cuts.4 Indeed, particularly in English Canada, the health care system is considered a "defining national characteristic."5 According to a poll commissioned by Merck Frostt and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations, a quarter of Canadians "cite the health care system as what makes us unique from other countries," more than three times more than cite any other factor, such as multiculturalism, freedom and tolerance.6

Does every single person need to agree in a democracy? :lol: I would say over 90% is solid agreement&#33;


How about the ones that do not get the organs they need in time? The have the means to pay for it because they allocated their funds for it (knowing they had a condition, etc), but they can&#39;t get it because they are in line, behind others?

Is being first in line, always fair?

Free health care is unfair and inefficient.

And the purpose of Universality is not to "stand in line", it guarantees equal access regardless of income, race, etc., but also operates similar to an emergency, most critical patients are seen first. Thus, your money wont do much good, unless you can "buy" an organ illegally&#33;

[eukreign]

Since privately run hospitals will have poor quality because they are market driven and doctors are inherintly greedy, how will the socialist system improve quality and encourage doctors to better care for their patients?

A Socialist system requires that the government confiscate wealth from people to pay for all these services. There will be people who do not agree with the system and defend their property when the government comes to take their money. The government will shoot and injure or kill these people. Why is it that a sick persons rights are above a person who does not want to pay for them? What gives the authority the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?

Edit:

Another question I forgot to post earlier is that of incentives for people to stay healthy. If you smoke and drink a lot usually this means you will require more medical attention at some point in your life than someone who does not smoke and drink. I would prefer to spend some extra money to buy new books for my daughter than to pay for cancer treatments and a liver transplant of an alcoholic who just never quit drinking/smoking. Or are you going to ban smoking and drinking in a socialist society? What about eating poor diets?

[quincunx5]

One of the defining characteristics of a civilized nation is the ability of said country to look after all its people. You know not what you speak. More than anything else, we see our system inseperable from our National Identity.


So you think civilized nations should take the paternalistic stance of providing people with services done by other people. In trying to be objective it will trample on other people&#39;s rights. Not to mention that a "civilized nation" is a redundant term. Can you name me an uncivilized nation? A nation by it&#39;s definition has a government. Civilized is an absolute term. You just can&#39;t say that "ooh, my country is way more civilized than yours&#33;".

I am not defined by the nation I live in. I am not a nationalist. I wish central government control would be reduced. I prefer state laws to national laws, county laws to state laws, and town laws to county laws. This way should I feel unhappy were I live because of the local laws, I simply pack my bags and go where I would feel better. Do you not think that choice is more important?

You think you could post me a link to the poll, not someone&#39;s summary of the poll.
The actual poll was in Toronto Globe and Mail, and I need to purchase it to see it.
I can&#39;t debunk without the poll but I&#39;ll do my best.

from your link:



In one poll, 92 per cent of Canadians indicated a preference for the Canadian health care system, while 5 per cent preferred a UK-type system and but 3 per cent preferred a US-type system.


The assumption is made here that public health care is wanted. All three of these nations have public health care systems. Some more than others. Even in the US public health care accounts for 60% of all health care. Is it a surprise that Canadians prefer their system over anyone else&#39;s? Especially since you describe "National Identity.



2 In another, which sought to measure degrees of support for the five principles of the Canada Health Act, the range was from 93 per cent rating universality as being "very important" to 76 per cent rating public administration as being "very important.


Again the assumption is made that public health care is wanted. And if it is wanted through public means, it&#39;s no surprise that more people would choose to have more coverage.



3 Every poll now places health care at the top of the priority list for public spending, over job creation, and public spending on health care is decisively favoured over tax cuts.


So if we are going to spend the public&#39;s money, we should put more of it in health care. The amusing part is the "job creation". We want to spend the public&#39;s money on having more government employees. So that we can suck out as much money from the public as possible in the future. Government needs to expand so that everything is provided to it&#39;s citizens. There will be a critical point when the capitalists in Canada will run away...watch what happens to your precious health care.



4 Indeed, particularly in English Canada, the health care system is considered a "defining national characteristic.
"5 According to a poll commissioned by Merck Frostt and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations, a quarter of Canadians "cite the health care system as what makes us unique from other countries," more than three times more than cite any other factor, such as multiculturalism, freedom and tolerance.


freedom is slipping away.



Does every single person need to agree in a democracy? laugh.gif I would say over 90% is solid agreement&#33;


That&#39;s a crappy conclusion to make. You still did not give statistics that public health care is desired, all you told me was 92% of Canadians prefer their system. and if their system were to be put in place 93% said it should be available to everyone. You see? public health care was your premise.



And the purpose of Universality is not to "stand in line", it guarantees equal access regardless of income, race, etc., but also operates similar to an emergency, most critical patients are seen first. Thus, your money wont do much good, unless you can "buy" an organ illegally&#33;


It&#39;s not just about income, it&#39;s also about the allocation of your income. Let&#39;s say you were frugal when you were young, specifically so you could live a better old.
You are now old and you need to have an organ transplant, you are in pain. Unfortunately, there are many other people that need the same operation, but there is not enough organs available. You have to wait for others. The fact that you prepared yourself for this moment means NOTHING in your system. You have to wait for the 3 injured dare-devils to get their organs replaced because it is deemed more important.

[eukreign]

Haha&#33; The communists have put their tale between their legs and went in shame.