Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lumin]

Anyone can get healthcare in the United States.  It's against the law to deny it.

...?

Healthcare is not just emergency treatment.

Doesn't have to be emergency treatment.  You can walk into the emergency room with a cold and get treated, homeless or not.

[DJ]

Capitalism produced the wealth, sure, but it poured it all into hands of the wealthy.

That's not true.  Even the poorest in the US would be considered middle-class in some countries and rich in others.  Like I pointed out, the "median" household income in the US is surpassed only by Switzerland.  Considering all of the devastating wars we've been a part of (unlike the Swiss who've been neutral), the high, diverse population, and the number of illegal immigrants putting a burden on the system (12 million by lowest estimates), that's pretty darn good.

Reread my post. You only have median households because of workers' unions. If they didn't brave violence from the factory owners, you'd be a nation of robber barons and dirt farmers.

[Leafsnail]

Anyone can get healthcare in the United States.  It's against the law to deny it.

...?

Healthcare is not just emergency treatment.

Doesn't have to be emergency treatment.  You can walk into the emergency room with a cold and get treated, homeless or not.

So health insurance is completely pointless, huh?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Anyone can get healthcare in the United States.  It's against the law to deny it.

...?

Healthcare is not just emergency treatment.

Doesn't have to be emergency treatment.  You can walk into the emergency room with a cold and get treated, homeless or not.

Which, you know, is a waste of expensive emergency facilities, not to mention the utter lack of preventative treatment (which, hint hint, is cheaper than treating a problem after it's already become serious enough to be noticeable) in such a case. Were healthcare to be socialized, you could raise taxes by less than people already pay for health insurance, and leave everyone completely covered, instead of having a bunch of parasites sitting in the middle, trying as hard as they can to not have you treated, while taking your money, and dropping you if you get sick enough. The only problem is that it makes "not dying" an affordable luxury, meaning more people will be given healthcare, so unless you also manage to increase the capacity of the system, you have a problem treating them all in a timely fashion.

[Aqizzar]

Doesn't have to be emergency treatment.  You can walk into the emergency room with a cold and get treated, homeless or not.

It's not getting it that's the question (although if you've been to an emergency room, you'd know they can certainly turn you away for anything they consider frivolous, and unless you're actually bleeding to death you'll probably be waiting for several hours), it's paying for it.  Yeah, you'll get into the hospital regardless of economic status, but after getting slapped with a six figure bill you'll probably be paying for it the rest of your life.

[Creaca]

http://www.cms.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/

There are plans that at least help.

[Nikov]

So you're all saying if I earn a few hundred thousand dollars and buy a few hundred acres of farmland, then retire and had that farmland tenant-farmed, I don't deserve to earn money because I'm not doing anything?

On the other hand are you ok with being tenant farmer that has no chance of ever being more than slave due to a total monopoly on land. This is a reality in many African and middle eastern countries and seems like the worst fear come true of capitalism devolving into something resembling medieval Europe.

See its funny, because my great grandfather starts mining coal until he can afford some land and opens a coal mine on it, my grandfather starts mining coal in that mine until the Korean War drafts him and he gets the GI bill, becomes a school principal and then a textbook salesman, my father starts as a farmhand and goes on to sell ag chemicals and now he plans to retire renting farmland, and now Jimmy Boyd's son is out tenant-farming. You think he calls us 'massa' and intends to stay at that rung on the ladder his entire life? Do you think he doesn't have any other options for a career than what his father did? Do you think he wasn't born noble and therefore cannot own land?

And you never answered my question, although you did answer another. You believe there is risk involved in owning and renting land. Does one deserve rewards from risks? Particularly risks that employ someone else?

Doublepost:
Quote from: Aqizzar on July 01, 2010, 06:38:42 pm
but after getting slapped with a six figure bill you'll probably be paying for it the rest of your life.

A life you wouldn't have had without the service. And six figures? Uninsured childbirth came up to a whopping three grand. My daughter, with all of her complications, cost a little more than my '97 Blazer, but I'd say that's a fair price for a child who would have died and possibly a dead wife as well.

[Nikov]

Doublepost, huuuuuurr.

[kuro_suna]

You think he calls us 'massa' and intends to stay at that rung on the ladder his entire life? Do you think he doesn't have any other options for a career than what his father did? Do you think he wasn't born noble and therefore cannot own land?

If he can move up capitalism is working but it seems like if we ever run out of non monopolized new frontiers then capitalism becomes monarchy.

You believe there is risk involved in owning and renting land.

What is this risk that I apparently believe in? Land renting seems like the least risky business imaginable.

[HideousBeing]

Capitalism rewards people who increase the value of their labor (more education, personal risk, etc.) and people who risk their money. As we all know, people don't always start at the same point due to genetics, culture, wealth or whatever. Monopolies or near monopolies don't help the gap (and are likely to form in pure capitalism) because they can control large percentages of wealth with their existing wealth and power.

On the otherhand...

Socialism is more beneficial to people with low valued labor. There are decreasing rewards for working beyond what is required or taking risks. Instead of monopolies holding power/wealth, the government usually holds power/wealth. Wealth/benefits are generally more balanced, but business is usually less efficient because of lack of incentive and competition.

I'm sure I forgot plenty, but its 2:00 AM. I personally think that a mixed economy that leans towards capitalism is nice (a little more capitalist than the US). Lots of social benefits suck IMO (aka my family pays about 50% of our income in taxes in Texas), but there are some I think are important: education (it should go to college level; not highschool), limited unemployment benefits, but I don't really care for health care, particularly for the elderly -- they need expensive health care that generally doesn't allow them decent quality of life. My biggest issue that I can think of atm is that large corporations have too much control over the government. Their power needs to be more limited in order to ensure competition. Also the wealth gap still sucks, but I have no idea how you could get rid of it in a more natural way than giving everyone other people's money; someone else can figure it out.

That's kinda my 2:00 AM stance. I'm sure I make plenty of generalizations and say some ignorant things, but I'm also human. I also left out a lot of stuff such as private/public property and freedoms, but there are so many facets it's unreal.

Communism is completely different idea that actually sounds nice, but I wonder a truly classless society would continue to progress or if it's even possible given human nature. I would be happy to be proven wrong though. I don't think that a centrally controlled socialist government could ever achieve it; however, because the government simply controls too much power.

EDIT:

What is this risk that I apparently believe in? Land renting seems like the least risky business imaginable.

It ties up money (and is hard to sell sometimes, especially if people are renting it), you have to pay taxes on it and people might not want to rent it or be able to pay when they do. The property value could potentially go down. I don't think the risk is particularly huge, but the profit made from it probably isn't that great either in comparison to other more riskier ventures unless they do some real bullshit like they used to do (force farmers to buy supplies from their stores, etc.). All speculation, but anything that you invest money in isn't devoid of risk.

[Renault]

Jesus Christ, guys, there are some glaring mistakes everyone in this thread keeps making and it needs to stop before I go into a coma, linger a few weeks, rack up a huge bill, and eventually die of internet-debate-related trauma.
First, a welfare state has nothing to do with socialism. Okay? Socialism is about state control of the means of production. That's what Marx wrote about, its what Lenin fought for, its what Mao preached. NOT FREE HEALTHCARE. Okay? Repeat that. Welfare is not socialist. It's leftist, yes, but not socialist, so stop that. Capitalists can and do have welfare, likes the nordic states, and socialists definitely don't have to--look at the Khmer Rouge. Just because Cubans have free doctors doesn't mean socialists all do or have to.
In fact, Welfare laws in the west are almost entirely a response to socialist unrest. I can cite that if I need to, so don't bother arguing. So welfare actually opposes socialism. It's the socialists who have tried to co-opt and claim the idea in recent decades.
So everyone needs to cut the weird idea that welfare is inherently socialist. Unless you're nationalizing all the hospitals, its not. The prime difference between market and command economies are who controls the means of production. That is all. And this debate has had essentially nothing to do with that.

And unrelated, land ownership is extremely risky business. Stop saying its not. Its really easy to lose a lot of money on real estate.


Feel free to go on, though, about whether capitalism is oppressive and unfair or the only means to self-advancement and national prosperity. I'll just be over in the ICU.

[kuro_suna]

Ownership for renting and speculation aren't the same thing. You can lose money speculating on anything if you have no concept of buying low.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

[HideousBeing]

How about we stop arguing and just watch the Chinese for the next decade or two. If their standard of living becomes higher than the rest of the worlds, I'll be convinced.

[Muz]

Capitalism produced the wealth, sure, but it poured it all into hands of the wealthy.

That's not true.  Even the poorest in the US would be considered middle-class in some countries and rich in others.  Like I pointed out, the "median" household income in the US is surpassed only by Switzerland.  Considering all of the devastating wars we've been a part of (unlike the Swiss who've been neutral), the high, diverse population, and the number of illegal immigrants putting a burden on the system (12 million by lowest estimates), that's pretty darn good.

Reread my post. You only have median households because of workers' unions. If they didn't brave violence from the factory owners, you'd be a nation of robber barons and dirt farmers.

(replying a little to both posts)

Difficult to compare two countries. Don't compare median household income. What you do is compare living costs and other expenses. The cost of American colleges and health care are obscene compared to say, almost all of Europe. It's one of those few nations where people seriously consider whether or not to go to college because they might actually lose money from it. There's no point having a lot of money when you can't buy much with it.

Also, unions and high income = lots of outsourcing. I see a lot of Americans complaining about "sweat shops" in Asia where others get paid a fraction of the minimum wage in the USA. Guess what? Those "sweat shops" are luxury jobs. A rural kid dreams about graduating from high school to work in a Nike factory in some countries, where they can then live happily comfortably ever after. It also seriously increases the impact of unemployment in the USA.

There's a bit of good coming with every bad. America is a land for the rich. If I was skilled, educated, and had lots of contacts, I'd go there to steal your jobs. Capitalism (and privacy laws) are part of the reason why illegal immigration is so bad there in the first place.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

How about we stop arguing and just watch the Chinese for the next decade or two. If their standard of living becomes higher than the rest of the worlds, I'll be convinced.

The problem is China isn't communist in anything but name: they're more of a corporation given sovereignty over vast tracts of land. They're like Walmart: The Country.