Democrat Debate

[oolatec]

OMFG... Please tell me I'm not the only one listening to this tragedy. These two turned into a giantic pretzel when asked about immigration issue.

And in case you missed make sure to watch the part about how are they going to pay for healthcare. ***RAISE TAXES*** was the resounding answer and they didn't try to hide it at all.

Ugh.

[gaia.plateau]

Universal healthcare is a boon to any country's economy... there's good debt and bad debt, and when you have a hundred thousand people each year going into bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills, you compile bad debt while getting rid of good debt. This is a major factor when a country goes into a recession.

Stronger economy = higher wages = more money with which to pay higher taxes.

[ahwahoo2006]

While this may be true in economic terms, what about the human cost? As a Canadian, how long does it take for you to get an appointment for a doctor? I know in the United Kingdom it can take weeks to get a doctors appointment.

[AKammenzind]

Universal healthcare is a boon to any country's economy... there's good debt and bad debt, and when you have a hundred thousand people each year going into bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills, you compile bad debt while getting rid of good debt. This is a major factor when a country goes into a recession.

Stronger economy = higher wages = more money with which to pay higher taxes.

I'm not entirely certain that universal healthcare would be a boon to any country's economy. I mean think about some of those african countries where a significant portion of the populace has aids, I'd think that it wouldn't really do much good for the country as a whole to treat them all... their healthcare budget would be in the red from the start.

But talking about the US, if we didn't tax the blood out of our people we'd probably have enough money to pay for our own insurance. Besides, if it was truly universal healthcare you'd have to provide for all the people who leech off the system... and that's just a wasteful drain on society. We already have overloaded hospitals without tossing a big bureaucracy on top of it. Besides, methinks that if people have to pay for a trip to the doctor's they'll be less likely to go there for the common cold, or a sprained ankle.

[gaia.plateau]

While this may be true in economic terms, what about the human cost? As a Canadian, how long does it take for you to get an appointment for a doctor? I know in the United Kingdom it can take weeks to get a doctors appointment.

You can walk into any clinic, make an appointment, and get seen by a doctor within 10-20 minutes... You might wait 30-90 minutes in the emergency room if your illness or injury isn't major.

Human cost is when American citizens get charged $10,000 to mend a broken leg, and have to ration food or even sell their home to pay for it... Your country's "spirit" is ostensibly one of freedom, but people aren't free when they are fundamentally shackled in death. If a state is supposed to provide security, shouldn't it provide security from injury and disease, as well as terrorists?

Besides, if it was truly universal healthcare you'd have to provide for all the people who leech off the system...

Yeah, up here in Canada people go out of their way to break bones and contract diseases just to leech off the system - it must be those fucking red lollipops that the doctor gives them. Edited February 1, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[AKammenzind]

Besides, if it was truly universal healthcare you'd have to provide for all the people who leech off the system...

Yeah, up here in Canada people go out of their way to break bones and contract diseases just to leech off the system - it must be those fucking red lollipops that the doctor gives them.

I didn't mean that people who used the hospitals were leeches man, I meant that pre-existing leeches would just have more to leech. The situation may be different in canada, but here in the US we have lots of people who don't contribute to the system. If you don't pay taxes, you aren't contributing money to the system, and if you make your money through illegitimate means (theft, drug trafficking, working illegally, etc.) and have a family getting support from the government be it healthcare, social security, food stamps, anything like that... you are actively stealing other people's money.

Personally, I think that theft is wrong and don't think that government should support it, even to save a life. If someone really needs help that badly, then there are charitable organizations they can contact. Edited February 1, 2008 by AKammenzind

[TheScotsman]

Universal healthcare is a boon to any country's economy... there's good debt and bad debt, and when you have a hundred thousand people each year going into bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills, you compile bad debt while getting rid of good debt. This is a major factor when a country goes into a recession.

Stronger economy = higher wages = more money with which to pay higher taxes.

I guess that is why so many of your fellow countrymen come to the USA for complex care... and why Canada is suffering a crisis in the number of physicians. That is a good plan, why didn't I think of it!

[Texico]

I think the easiest way for me to say it is this: I don't want my money to be used for other people unless I voluntarily give my money directly to said people. Basically I don't trust the government with the increased revenues they would recieve from taxes relating to socialized anything.

Also...

Schadenfreude. I love it. Edited February 1, 2008 by Texico

[Aettoh]

I have taken both micro and macro economic classes at college levels and the thing you always learn is universal healthcare is a big no no. The government is here to protect us, not take care of us like little babies. I will gladly take your viewpoint if you answer me these questions.

If I plan on having my own, better health plan, why should I be forced to pay taxes on a health plan I do not use?

If I don't want a health plan, why should I be forced to pay taxes on a health plan I do not use?

This is capitalism, not communism. Why should the government force a program upon us to make everyone feel equal?

Why should I be forced to help pay for other people's insurance? If you want to help, go right ahead, but don't make me.

Here is the big question: I have always wanted a pool in my backyard. Would you vote for a program to charge taxes to every citizen so I could have a pool?

[r1v3th3ad]

Besides, if it was truly universal healthcare you'd have to provide for all the people who leech off the system...

Yeah, up here in Canada people go out of their way to break bones and contract diseases just to leech off the system - it must be those fucking red lollipops that the doctor gives them.

I didn't mean that people who used the hospitals were leeches man, I meant that pre-existing leeches would just have more to leech. The situation may be different in canada, but here in the US we have lots of people who don't contribute to the system. If you don't pay taxes, you aren't contributing money to the system, and if you make your money through illegitimate means (theft, drug trafficking, working illegally, etc.) and have a family getting support from the government be it healthcare, social security, food stamps, anything like that... you are actively stealing other people's money.

Personally, I think that theft is wrong and don't think that government should support it, even to save a life. If someone really needs help that badly, then there are charitable organizations they can contact.

This is why we need a tax reform. I say throw out the current system and just make one steady national tax. For instance:Instead of wage taxes, why not set a steady sales tax everywhere, like a 7% or something. It would affect all classes equally and it would ween out those who cheat the system i.e. drug dealers and under the table employees.
I would just feel better knowing that someone who is very ill and cant afford treatment under the current system, could get it, and I'd be helping save a life.
On another note: It could be a bad thing. Just think of anytime you've been at the ER...I remember going there for my ex when she was having trouble breathing and having severe pain. But wadaya know, there were five weenie sniffers in front of her waiting because they twisted their ankle or had the flu...
Just imagine if it was free what the wait would be like, you'd have people in there for a runny nose...c'mon, we all know how much of pansies people are becoming today and how overworried parents are for something stupid and simple. Those who really need the help, would have to wait.

So I'm 50/50 with the issue of healthcare in America
Thats my 2 cents Edited February 1, 2008 by r1v3th3ad

[Bulldog_916]

I'm with Gaia on this one. Sure, some Canadians come down here for complex care, but guess why we have that technology? Because American corporations pay out the ASS to have their employees ensured. They have cheap medicine, we have complex care. I'd rather pay the lower cost of Canadian drugs than the RIDICULOUS price American pharmacies are asking. If you file a $150,000 medical claim, which is MINIMAL considering the wide range of treatments, all you really have to pay is the deductible, maybe $2500 bucks off that 150k. Under the health care for all system, people who cant afford the cost of getting treatment can get treated. Most people hate going to the doctor, men especially. Hospitals are only going to need to treat people who wouldnt have been able to afford a treatment otherwise. HMOs and medical insurance companies are making HUGE profits. Maybe their bottom line will be affected slightly when their systems are overhauled, but that's a good thing.

Oolatec, unless you make over 100K dollars a year, you wont be affected by the tax cut rollbacks. We're just getting BACK to where we WERE before Bush was elected. Were those horrible times or what? Seems like the economy was still doing well and the government had too much money to work with. I seem to remember the 4.5 trillion dollar surplus was a number that was often thrown around in 2000. We have to pay taxes in the first place to be able to afford the good things that the government provides, as well as the bad. If you take advantage of those things, you can get most of your taxes back. I am.

[gaia.plateau]

I will gladly take your viewpoint if you answer me these questions.

If I plan on having my own, better health plan, why should I be forced to pay taxes on a health plan I do not use?

If I don't want a health plan, why should I be forced to pay taxes on a health plan I do not use?

This is capitalism, not communism. Why should the government force a program upon us to make everyone feel equal?

Why should I be forced to help pay for other people's insurance? If you want to help, go right ahead, but don't make me.

Here is the big question: I have always wanted a pool in my backyard. Would you vote for a program to charge taxes to every citizen so I could have a pool?

Gladly.

Answer to your first, second, and fourth questions (which are the same, phrased differently).
- Because everyone has the right to life, and the right to security in a liberal democratic country, not only the wealthy.

Answer to your third question.
- Firstly, there's a major difference between socialist policies and communist polices. The former is economic, while the latter is political. Now, more importantly... there are many, many socialist systems already in place in the US. I don't see you complaining about paying taxes to fund your police forces, education systems, and infrastructure. Why should life saving and protecting healthcare be different?

Answer to your fifth, "big question".
- The state isn't here to fulfill every luxurious and/or whimsical wish and desire of its every citizen. What it is here for, at least in theory, is to provide security to its population. To paraphrase Hobbes, a man I generally disagree with vehemently, the state is here to keep life from being "nasty, brutish and short". That includes unforseen illness and injury.

If you're confusing the basic human right to life with owning a pool... I'm not sure that your perspective can be considered microcosmic of the greater population.

I guess you have to take my viewpoint now

[AKammenzind]

Answer to your first, second, and fourth questions (which are the same, phrased differently).
- Because everyone has the right to life, and the right to security in a liberal democratic country, not only the wealthy.

Answer to your third question.
- Firstly, there's a major difference between socialist policies and communist polices. The former is economic, while the latter is political. Now, more importantly... there are many, many socialist systems already in place in the US. I don't see you complaining about paying taxes to fund your police forces, education systems, and infrastructure. Why should life saving and protecting healthcare be different?

Answer to your fifth, "big question".
- The state isn't here to fulfill every luxurious and/or whimsical wish and desire of its every citizen. What it is here for, at least in theory, is to provide security to its population. To paraphrase Hobbes, a man I generally disagree with vehemently, the state is here to keep life from being "nasty, brutish and short". That includes unforseen illness and injury.

If you're confusing the basic human right to life with owning a pool... I'm not sure that your perspective can be considered microcosmic of the greater population.

I guess you have to take my viewpoint now

1. "and the right to security in a liberal democratic country"... that's simply a matter of opinion. Really, what we have is the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If you ask me, the second one (liberty) is severely lacking largely because of our drift towards socialism, but that's another matter. Also, you don't have to be wealthy to enjoy keeping what you earn instead of it being taken by the government and having a portion of it wasted in redistribution. If someone, or someone's parents or ancestors worked and became wealthy, they should be able to keep their possessions and be proud... what is wrong with that?

2. Well, the reason he didn't address the other socialist systems we have in place is probably just because we were talking more about universal healthcare specifically.

3. Although it is unlike me (I'm more of an idealist) I disagree with the idea of universal healthcare for mainly practical reasons. While it works great for some countries, it simply wouldn't work well for the US. I think it would severely compound the problems we already have: many of our poor kids have dads who are out of the picture because single mothers get more support from the government, the dads often get involved in crime because they're unemployed and have nothing else to do, and the kids grow up without any sort of guidance from a father. There are a ton of social problems caused by this, and it's one of the great failings of the social security system here in the US. I think that adding other socialized systems on top of what we already have would only further support this trend.

[gaia.plateau]

1. "and the right to security in a liberal democratic country"... that's simply a matter of opinion. Really, what we have is the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If you ask me, the second one (liberty) is severely lacking largely because of our drift towards socialism, but that's another matter.

Wait... I'm taking a left wing stance and quoting Hobbes... and you're taking a right wing stance and quoting Locke. Something is wrong here.

I respect your opinion, but this argument doesn't hold up. You don't have life if you're dying of gangrene. You don't have liberty if you're enslaved by debt. And the "pursuit of happiness" is overwhelmingly interpreted as the pursuit of property.

2. Well, the reason he didn't address the other socialist systems we have in place is probably just because we were talking more about universal healthcare specifically.

So we're only allowed to discuss one aspect of socialist systems at a time, because admitting that you love and make use of the others would make you a commie? You can't pick and choose which pieces of reality you want to accept, and which you do not. Unless you're a neocon.

3. many of our poor kids have dads who are out of the picture because single mothers get more support from the government, the dads often get involved in crime because they're unemployed and have nothing else to do, and the kids grow up without any sort of guidance from a father. There are a ton of social problems caused by this, and it's one of the great failings of the social security system here in the US. I think that adding other socialized systems on top of what we already have would only further support this trend.

So... people commit crime because they're bored...? Maybe they should come and post on hookahforum instead.

Why are you allowed to talk about social welfare systems in relation to healthcare, but others aren't allowed to refer to public security, education and infrastructure?

[Texico]

Wait... I'm taking a left wing stance and quoting Hobbes... and you're taking a right wing stance and quoting Locke. Something is wrong here.

I respect your opinion, but this argument doesn't hold up. You don't have life if you're dying of gangrene. You don't have liberty if you're enslaved by debt. And the "pursuit of happiness" is overwhelmingly interpreted as the pursuit of property.

So we're only allowed to discuss one aspect of socialist systems at a time, because admitting that you love and make use of the others would make you a commie? You can't pick and choose which pieces of reality you want to accept, and which you do not. Unless you're a neocon.

So... people commit crime because they're bored...? Maybe they should come and post on hookahforum instead.

Why are you allowed to talk about social welfare systems in relation to healthcare, but others aren't allowed to refer to public security, education and infrastructure?

This debate is a matter of interpretation and opinions. It is not a matter of facts. I think we can all agree on that. Differences in interpretations of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the reason that the left wing and right wing exist.

And guess what! You're right that communism and socialism are different. In a socialist state goods and wealth are distributed according to work done. In a communist state goods and pay are distributed equally, regardless of the amount of work done. Both of these definitions are from Marx.

So maybe you're right, and we should distribute pay and goods on the basis of work done. I know that many people consider bigwig CEO's, CFO's, etc on down to mid level managers to merely earn a large sum of money and then are able to spend it on extravagant vacations which no lower class person would be able to afford. I know from second hand experience (my Mother is the Global Director of IT for a large chemical company), however, that these execs are constantly working. My Mother does not want to be promoted because of the increase in her workload that she would inherit in the new position.

Now, who would benefit most from socialized healthcare? People who are below the poverty line would profit most, and people under the $100,000 yearly salary would also be greatly helped. I know that many jobs paying less than $100,000 a year also require great deals of time to be devoted to work. However, if we were to truly institute socialized healthcare as a *socialist* principle, then the unemployed would see no benefit, and those working in fast food, in call centers, in retail, etc would still not see a large benefit from the system. Socialized healthcare, as we are discussing it, is a communist practice according to Karl Marx.

The fact that we support the police force is out of our interest for the protection of private property. This is the *pursuit of happiness* as you have already mentioned.

Government run education is largely a joke now. The national government gives so little money to federal schools that they might as well not give any at all. It's up to the local (read city and state) governments to tax in order to fund the schools. We have private schools, too, which recieve no federal funding, so this is just like my idea of people wanting socialized healthcare can pay into that, while people who want privatized healthcare can keep their plans.

As for government infrastructure, that's hardly related to socialized healthcare. Everyone does not benefit equally from the infrastructure of our country. So it is socialist in that the rich who do more work benefit more, while the poor who do less work benefit less.

As to your statement on people committing crime because they're bored: wow...just....wow... Obviously you're trying to be funny or you didn't really read what AKammenzind said.

You know, after writing all of this I think that I could support a Marxist socialist state. Those who do work would benefit, and those who don't would not. This would be very hard to implement, though, and we would have to come up with an exact definition of the word "work" so there would be no confusion.

[AKammenzind]

Wait... I'm taking a left wing stance and quoting Hobbes... and you're taking a right wing stance and quoting Locke. Something is wrong here.

I respect your opinion, but this argument doesn't hold up. You don't have life if you're dying of gangrene. You don't have liberty if you're enslaved by debt. And the "pursuit of happiness" is overwhelmingly interpreted as the pursuit of property.

Noone lives forever, and the government simply can't give us eternal life, or save us from natural occurences. It does suck, but shit happens.

You don't have liberty if the government determines what happens with your earnings either. Debt results from either unfortunate circumstances, or personal choices... often both. Debt is very much connected to the system, and the system is a mess. But because debt results from either personal choices, or unfortunate happenings I don't see why it would be the government's task to address it.

And yes, "pursuit of happiness" is often interpreted as the pursuit of property, and going along with that interpretation one really shouldn't have a socialist system, because how can you pursue property if the government decides what you can keep?

Personally, I think that "pursuit of happiness" is open to interpretation. It's meaning is subjective: for some people it may be wealth, others might want a family, friends, fame, you name it.

So we're only allowed to discuss one aspect of socialist systems at a time, because admitting that you love and make use of the others would make you a commie? You can't pick and choose which pieces of reality you want to accept, and which you do not. Unless you're a neocon.

Hehe, well I'm definitely not a neocon. Socialism can be fixed, but in the case of neocons... I'm afraid stupid is forever

I wasn't saying that we should ignore the other systems, just saying that he probably didn't address them because they weren't mentioned yet. Or maybe he does agree with them, I'm not sure.

So... people commit crime because they're bored...? Maybe they should come and post on hookahforum instead.

Hehe, agreed on the hookahforums. I was thinking more along the lines of Strain Theory, which tells us that when deprived of a legitimate means (A job) of achieving society's goals (In our case, wealth), an individual will turn to illegitimate means (crime). But really, that wasn't my central point. My point was that the way our system is set up it encourages the man not to live with his family because they get a greater benefit from social security, and if you offer even more... it would just get worse. It's not about preserving the "traditional family", it's about the breakup of urban society, and the tendency towards crime caused by it.

Why are you allowed to talk about social welfare systems in relation to healthcare, but others aren't allowed to refer to public security, education and infrastructure?

Again, I might have not been clear enough in my last post. I wasn't saying not to address them (indeed, it's best to look at the whole picture), I was just giving a possible reason for why he might not have addressed them.

[gaia.plateau]

Noone lives forever, and the government simply can't give us eternal life, or save us from natural occurences. It does suck, but shit happens.

They can save us from natural occurences in countries with universal healthcare.

You don't have liberty if the government determines what happens with your earnings either.

You don't have liberty, then you pay taxes for the education system, police forces, and infrastructure.

And yes, "pursuit of happiness" is often interpreted as the pursuit of property, and going along with that interpretation one really shouldn't have a socialist system, because how can you pursue property if the government decides what you can keep?

You're dramatizing... no one is suggesting communism, and your government already decides to a great extent what you can keep. What it comes down to is the desperation of the needy and the obscene greed of the wealthy. If it were possible, would you vote for legislation that entitled police services for only those who could pay? You may as well be living under gang rule.

when deprived of a legitimate means (A job) of achieving society's goals (In our case, wealth), an individual will turn to illegitimate means (crime). But really, that wasn't my central point. My point was that the way our system is set up it encourages the man not to live with his family because they get a greater benefit from social security, and if you offer even more...

There is a big difference between a government providing for their people security against disease and injury, and providing handouts. No one is going to turn to crime because the government was able to reattach his daughter's leg.

[gaia.plateau]

communism and socialism are different. In a socialist state goods and wealth are distributed according to work done. In a communist state goods and pay are distributed equally, regardless of the amount of work done. Both of these definitions are from Marx.

flipping through the manifesto, and I can't seem to find those definitions. Could you point me to a page number?

Communism and socialism are as different as democracy and capitalism. Communism is a centrally-governed political system whereby all people are equal in social prestige, which in practice has been abused by intelligencia. Socialism is an economic philosophy whereby sacrifice and effort mean more than capital possessed, and whereby money can't buy political power and influence.

To help you understand... Canada is a democratic, capitalist country. Cuba is a communist, socialist country. Venezuela is a democratic, socialist country. China is a communist, capitalist country.

So maybe you're right, and we should distribute pay and goods on the basis of work done. I know that many people consider bigwig CEO's, CFO's, etc on down to mid level managers to merely earn a large sum of money and then are able to spend it on extravagant vacations which no lower class person would be able to afford. I know from second hand experience (my Mother is the Global Director of IT for a large chemical company), however, that these execs are constantly working. My Mother does not want to be promoted because of the increase in her workload that she would inherit in the new position.

That isn't what I'm saying - my point has been that a state protecting its population from disease, famine and death is no different from a state protecting its population from terrorists and outside aggressors. The differentiation is one constructed by the greedy affluent, clinging to every penny possible.

Now, who would benefit most from socialized healthcare? People who are below the poverty line would profit most, and people under the $100,000 yearly salary would also be greatly helped. I know that many jobs paying less than $100,000 a year also require great deals of time to be devoted to work. However, if we were to truly institute socialized healthcare as a *socialist* principle, then the unemployed would see no benefit, and those working in fast food, in call centers, in retail, etc would still not see a large benefit from the system. Socialized healthcare, as we are discussing it, is a communist practice according to Karl Marx.

Everyone would benefit, especially now that your country is headed into a recession. Historically, whenever a country has eliminated or given up universal healthcare programs, it has plunged into debt and economic failure. States that have them do far, far better in terms of HDMI, PPP, and happiness (yes, there is a global happiness index).

If you could be so kind as to again direct me to a page number in the manifesto... because I can't seem to recall Marx talking about universal healthcare. It's as socialist a practice as taxing a population for police services.

The fact that we support the police force is out of our interest for the protection of private property. This is the *pursuit of happiness* as you have already mentioned.

But why do you support the police force for other people? You could just stop paying taxes for police and hire your own private security, for far greater protection at a relatively lower price. By the logic of being against universal healthcare, there is no reason for a police force to protect everyone- survival of the richest, right?

As for government infrastructure, that's hardly related to socialized healthcare. Everyone does not benefit equally from the infrastructure of our country. So it is socialist in that the rich who do more work benefit more, while the poor who do less work benefit less.

Telephone companies, electric companies, water companies, road builders, bridge builders, garbage men, etc. etc. etc. are all paid for or subsidized by your socialist taxes.

As to your statement on people committing crime because they're bored: wow...just....wow... Obviously you're trying to be funny or you didn't really read what AKammenzind said.

he said that men go out and commit crimes because their wives receive money from the government, so they don't have to work.

[Texico]

I don't have a hard copy of the text, but this excerpt of the Communist Manifesto is from marxists.org:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

How is that politics and not economics?

::Edit::

I'm still reading the rest of the Manifesto, so I'll get back to this later.

The definitions for socialism and communism I found on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. It said they were according to Marx. I'm inclined to believe them. Edited February 2, 2008 by Texico

[gaia.plateau]

Communism and socialism definitely overlap, but they are not the same thing. Much more importantly, the handful of communist states the world has seen, The USSR, China, Cuba, etc. are largely perversions of Marx's vision, and not actually Marxist socialist states. Castro's Cuba and Tito's Yugoslavia have been the closest.

Ipso facto, the perception of communism by Westerners can be fairly characterized by those perversions... so when we're talking about socialism, we generally mean economic policies that draw at least something from what Marx was talking about, and when we're talking communism, we generally mean it in the perverse, political sense.

It may be important to bear in mind that the Cold War was not actually about Democracy vs Communism... the vast majority of military operations undergone by the US were against democratic states with socialist economic policies, and the majority of Soviet military operations were likewise about expanding their sphere of economic influence. This is prevalent today when we see amiable trade relations between the US and China, who are "opposed" in political ideology but common in economic policy. Edited February 2, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Texico]

Ok, I've finished reading the Communist Manifesto as it can be found here. I understand that every "communist" state that has existed since the publication of the Manifesto has been a perturbation of Marx and Engel's utopian ideal. That's a fairly well known fact.

While reading the Manifesto, I will admit that I was unable to find anything to support the definitions of communism and socialism which I put forth. However, I was also unable to find any support of your statements that socialism is economics and communism is politics.

Just because the perception of communism and socialism is wrong here in the West does not mean that we should prescribe to it's false ideals. What the Democrats want to do is create a state run system which would, in its inheritance of American governmental process, be fraught with bureaucratic red tape. The current systems of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid already have those problems.

That being said, after reading about Tito and Yugoslavia I must say that I am impressed with what he accomplished. It takes an extremely selfless person to stand up to the USSR and their style of communism. If we were to be forced to live under any form of communism, I would want it to be Titoism.

You are correct that we were fighting socialism in its western definition. The political practice of westernized Communism is why I disagree with communism as a whole, and the true form of communism is a utopia that I fear has no possibility of truely working. I just don't trust the government with the increased responsibility of running every business and industry. Rule by the people is just as ludicrous.

Lenin envisioned communism as it should be, but Stalin turned the country into an autocratic socialist state which by no means provided for equal distribution for wealth. The USSR is the extreme of this form, but every other communist state has been at least partially this way. Someone will always want more power, more wealth, more notoriety (as this is the way they will be percieved by the intelligentsia). It's just the way people are.

[r1v3th3ad]

the democratic way is pretty much a capitalist version of communism
From what I've read of Marx's works, he says things pointing to that...we just discussed it on weds in history

[AKammenzind]

They can save us from natural occurences in countries with universal healthcare.

You're dramatizing... no one is suggesting communism, and your government already decides to a great extent what you can keep. What it comes down to is the desperation of the needy and the obscene greed of the wealthy. If it were possible, would you vote for legislation that entitled police services for only those who could pay? You may as well be living under gang rule.

There is a big difference between a government providing for their people security against disease and injury, and providing handouts. No one is going to turn to crime because the government was able to reattach his daughter's leg.

Woah, I hope you're not misreading... because none of that is even close to what I said.

1. The government can't really save you if a tornado throws telephone poles through your house and you get unlucky, nor can they save you if you have aids (although they might be able to give you another decade or two if you're lucky, but I'd rather leave that to charities... because having sex is generally a personal choice. Why should the public be made to pay for your mistakes? There are other possibilities, but those would have to be addressed on an individual basis), and they can't save you if you're cut in half in a car accident.
In short, my point wasn't that they would be completely helpless, just that they can't perform miracles, and that their protection of life is severaly limited. Even if the police come fast to your aid if you're attacked in a dark alley... there's a good chance they might just have to take pictures.

2. I know that my government steals our money, and it pisses me of. Not all wealthy people are greedy, I live in Pittsburgh and we have public works funded by Andrew Carnegie, as do a lot of other cities.
And well, to be honest the police often do only serve those who are better off. If a policeman senses that the accused is of higher status, his treatment will almost always be much more positive than if he sense that he has more social power over the subject. I do think that we should have police, because when done right they would protect the populace... the problem is that they aren't currently done quite right.
A lot of people in the States ARE practically living under gang rule. There are places that police simply won't go. Maybe Canada is different though...

3. "No one is going to turn to crime because the government was able to reattach his daughter's leg."
Now that shows that my post HAS to have been purposefully misread. There is no cause and effect linking crime and the mending of legs. The only cause and effect presented is that between the social security system's giving more to single mothers, and the men of those families leaving the house for that purpose. The possibility of people turning to crime only comes in with Labeling Theory, because poor communities have less options for employment, and those who cannot attain a job, or hold one, often turn to illegitimate means. A lot of people might interpret someone else taking care of their kids as an excuse not to get a job. Especially if money comes faster via illegitimate means.

[gaia.plateau]

They can save us from natural occurences in countries with universal healthcare.

You're dramatizing... no one is suggesting communism, and your government already decides to a great extent what you can keep. What it comes down to is the desperation of the needy and the obscene greed of the wealthy. If it were possible, would you vote for legislation that entitled police services for only those who could pay? You may as well be living under gang rule.

There is a big difference between a government providing for their people security against disease and injury, and providing handouts. No one is going to turn to crime because the government was able to reattach his daughter's leg.

Woah, I hope you're not misreading... because none of that is even close to what I said.

1. The government can't really save you if a tornado throws telephone poles through your house and you get unlucky, nor can they save you if you have aids (although they might be able to give you another decade or two if you're lucky, but I'd rather leave that to charities... because having sex is generally a personal choice. Why should the public be made to pay for your mistakes? There are other possibilities, but those would have to be addressed on an individual basis), and they can't save you if you're cut in half in a car accident.
In short, my point wasn't that they would be completely helpless, just that they can't perform miracles, and that their protection of life is severaly limited. Even if the police come fast to your aid if you're attacked in a dark alley... there's a good chance they might just have to take pictures.

You didn't specify that you were meaning every natural occurence. The point that you should be paying attention to is that in countries without universal healthcare, the government can save the wealthy from many natural occurences, such as a dismembered limb or a brain tumour, but they will not save the poor or even middle class citizen. That isn't right.

2. I know that my government steals our money, and it pisses me of.

You pay taxes in exchange for services, it isn't theft. There are plenty of other nations to live in, and you can always move into the woods to remain in the states and keep all your money.

[r1v3th3ad]

I've somewhat seen the class thing. edit:here in pittsburgh
My dad was a councilman and speeding to a meeting(I think 75 in a 25 zone). Got pulled over. When asked for his license, he gave his council badge with it(kept it in there) and the cop says " ok mr.conley, keep your speed down next time." that was it.
But then again, my one buddy lives in a semi ritzy area(whithall, right by the local highschool), he got busted smoking NHT in his driveway.

On the national level, well, look where our tax money is going...to a war that was founded on false terms. WMO, where the fuck are they?
No one wants this war, yet we're sinking trillions into it and the people there want us out to. Edited February 4, 2008 by r1v3th3ad