NationStates Jolt Archive

NBA OR NFL?





36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault




71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit





14 have been arrested on drug-related charges





8 have been arrested for shoplifting





21 currently are defendants in lawsuits. and





84 have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year









Can you guess which organization this is?





Give up yet? . . . Scroll down, citizen!















Neither, it's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws
each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

What, it's common knowledge that politicians, like capitalists, priests, and so on, are full of corruption. I mean, even supporters of government often admit that the people in power are hardly ethical beacons, even by their own standards. Note that this proves little about the possibility of socialism, though (it's not as though going into business rather than politics somehow makes you a paragon of virtue).

The proof that socialism can't work is in humans inherent corruptness. We are weak creatures and our drive for success will always make us impure. The same things that make us powerful and "intelligent" beings are the things that will always keep us from being in a natural state of happiness. My dog can't have fun on this computer like I can, but he would be just as, if not moreso content licking himself.

What, it's common knowledge that politicians, like capitalists, priests, and so on, are full of corruption. I mean, even supporters of government often admit that the people in power are hardly ethical beacons, even by their own standards. Note that this proves little about the possibility of socialism, though (it's not as though going into business rather than politics somehow makes you a paragon of virtue).

capitalists provide jobs

without such people, it would be up to individuals to go into business for themselves (call them mini-capitalists or simply entrepreneurs)...

or it would be up to government to provide jobs

and how is government going to provide jobs?

by taking all your money and redistributing it as they see fit.

i hate that concept.

as for those stats, i'm not surprised. They're people, and people make mistakes. (though perhaps the fact that they're all politicians makes them a bit more suspect than most)

capitalists provide jobs

Pimps provide jobs. That doesn't prove they are good.

capitalists don't provide jobs, consumers and demand create opportunities. Capitalism is the most efficient way to mee those needs.

What, it's common knowledge that politicians, like capitalists, priests, and so on, are full of corruption. I mean, even supporters of government often admit that the people in power are hardly ethical beacons, even by their own standards. Note that this proves little about the possibility of socialism, though (it's not as though going into business rather than politics somehow makes you a paragon of virtue).

Actually, it prooves quite a bit. Without broad and rich competition quality declines and corruption increases. Socialism and communism are the epitome of limited or no competition.

Yup this free health care in socialist Canada sure does suck. U.S. is Capitalist not socialist. The title should be why Capitalism doesn't work, then again every system is screwed by corruption at some level.

Vigilantly justice!!!

Actually, it prooves quite a bit. Without broad and rich competition quality declines and corruption increases. Socialism and communism are the epitome of limited or no competition.

I'm sorry how does it prove that?

ummm, ok, tell me how many different federal governments there are in the US?

Yup this free health care in socialist Canada sure does suck. U.S. is Capitalist not socialist. The title should be why Capitalism doesn't work, then again every system is screwed by corruption at some level.

Vigilantly justice!!!

*hands Boo Diddly a cookie*

ummm, ok, tell me how many different governments there are in the US?

And how much competition is there to get into the one you've got?

What, it's common knowledge that politicians, like capitalists, priests, and so on, are full of corruption. I mean, even supporters of government often admit that the people in power are hardly ethical beacons, even by their own standards. Note that this proves little about the possibility of socialism, though (it's not as though going into business rather than politics somehow makes you a paragon of virtue).

Well, if government is so obviously corrupt, it is utterly incapable of maintaining an economic system that is on par with capitalism in terms of providing and sustaining economic growth, opportunity, efficency, production, and gainful employment. Short of a miracle, there is no way socialism will ever evolve beyond corrupt, state run USSR-style "communism".

Yup this free health care in socialist Canada sure does suck. U.S. is Capitalist not socialist. The title should be why Capitalism doesn't work, then again every system is screwed by corruption at some level.

Vigilantly justice!!!

You are correct, the 'free' healthcare (paid for by userous tax rates' sure dues suck. That is one of many reasons why the liberals lost power up there and why many many Canadians opt for treatment in the US.
If you want to be pithy, try to be accurate.

I'm sorry how does it prove that?

Why it's obvious of course. "Look how corrupt our system is. That is concrete proof of the corruption of other systems":rolleyes:

And how much competition is there to get into the one you've got?

Absolutely none.

Absolutely none.

Ummm....right...ok....

And how much competition is there to get into the one you've got?

For all intent and purpose it is split between two primary competitors. Point is, if they controlled everything it would only remove more of your choice, and choice is an intergral part of freedom.

You are correct, the 'free' healthcare (paid for by userous tax rates' sure dues suck. That is one of many reasons why the liberals lost power up there and why many many Canadians opt for treatment in the US.

With tax rates like that, you can AFFORD treatment in the US? I know a LOT of people in the US (with our oh so reasonable, capitalist tax rates:rolleyes: ) that can't afford treatment, so they go without and pray they don't get seriously ill.

capitalists don't provide jobs, consumers and demand create opportunities. Capitalism is the most efficient way to mee those needs.

of course demand creates opportunities... but without the incentive to create a company -- without the people to take the necessary risks -- demand would go unfed (lol, great word).

Russians wanted bread. There weren't enough companies making bread, or those companies weren't making enough bread... so there were mile-long lines out the door of the local grocer. Without the capitalist/entrepreneur, demand goes unmet.

For all intent and purpose it is split between two primary competitors. Point is, if they controlled everything it would only remove more of your choice, and choice is an intergral part of freedom.

What makes you think there wouldn't be two (or more) different parties to choose from in a Socialist state?

Ummm....right...ok....

96% of Congress was reelected in the most recent elections. Not to mention incumbents have massive advantages in fundraising, the finance laws are tailored towards incumbents, and they also have incredibly powerful priveliges that enable them to send out campaign literature for free.

With tax rates like that, you can AFFORD treatment in the US? I know a LOT of people in the US (with our oh so reasonable, capitalist tax rates:rolleyes: ) that can't afford treatment, so they go without and pray they don't get seriously ill.
name one person you know who has gone untreated for a serious illness.

You cannot. It is a farce.

THere is enough charitable and free services in the US (Medicare for one) that prove you to be intillectually dishonest.

And yes, you may keep the silver platter your ass is on.

96% of Congress was reelected in the most recent elections. Not to mention incumbents have massive advantages in fundraising, the finance laws are tailored towards incumbents, and they also have incredibly powerful priveliges that enable them to send out campaign literature for free.

But there is a lot of comptetion from people who want to get in.

What makes you think there wouldn't be two (or more) different parties to choose from in a Socialist state?

There would inevitably be a capitalist party that would want to dismantle the socialist infrastructure and that party would have to be outlawed to preserve the system. The only way socialism could be implemented is if there was a one party state, or if there were two parties advocating the same socialist principles.

But there is a lot of comptetion from people who want to get in.

There would be, if people wern't so apathetic towards primary elections. So few people vote in primaries that those elections effectively require the would be candidate to cater to special interests and activist groups from the beginning or they will be eliminated.

And that's hoping the contest is for an open seat rather than against an incumbent.

What makes you think there wouldn't be two (or more) different parties to choose from in a Socialist state?

IT does not matter - there would be only one government - and the more it controls the less choice ,and therefore freedom, you have. This example demonstrates that people with little capability still can get elected. Why had them more of your freedom? Why trust that in the future the leaders would be any more competent or even as capable. Centralizing power only makes it easier for a person to abuse it.

Gotta go now.

There would inevitably be a capitalist party that would want to dismantle the socialist infrastructure and that party would have to be outlawed to preserve the system. The only way socialism could be implemented is if there was a one party state, or if there were two parties advocating the same socialist principles.

1. Even if all parties wanted to continue Socialism there would still be many issues they might disagree on: foreign affairs, education, ho exactly the state is run, the list goes on....

2. In a working Socialist state the platform of a capitalist party would be pretty hard to sell to the people: "So basically we want you to start working more for lower wages so that we can go back to livng in luxury while doing little or no work. Vote Capitalist!" So no, we wouldn't ban Capitalist parties.

....What can I say, power corrupts:rolleyes:

There would inevitably be a capitalist party that would want to dismantle the socialist infrastructure and that party would have to be outlawed to preserve the system. The only way socialism could be implemented is if there was a one party state, or if there were two parties advocating the same socialist principles.

yep... because financial (and other types of...) freedom has a powerful pull. The working class might think they want to hate the man, but if any of them ever get an idea to switch jobs or move to another place or speak their mind or write a dissenting opinion or start their own business or save some money... suddenly freedom looks pretty good. Totally socialist economies cannot abide trade because they produce inferior products, or products in anemic supply... and communism requires an iron hand to keep the subjects in order... which is a roundabout way to convey that neither pure socialism nor communism could suffer competition.

name one person you know who has gone untreated for a serious illness.

You cannot. It is a farce.

THere is enough charitable and free services in the US (Medicare for one) that prove you to be intillectually dishonest.

And yes, you may keep the silver platter your ass is on.

Oh, and because there are services available, automatically everyone who needs them is entitled or gets them? I PERSONALLY have had to just "wait out" being miserably ill for weeks(God only knows what I had, not like I could see a doctor). And I believe the phrase "silver platter" is used to describe someone that things are just given to. That wouldn't exactly describe me, now would it? Your lack of knowledge doesn't make me intellectually dishonest.

Okay, this is odd. We're implying, it seems, that having power in the hands of an elite is bad. We're then saying that this means we should never try to take back that power for ourselves.

[scratches head]

And what's all this about parties?

Is everyone just a bit slow? Can nobody understand that communism and socialism worthy of the names don't mean slightly tweaking the current way of things? Is nobody capable of even imagining a situation outside of the one in which they presently exist?

If communism doesn't work it will be because you people insist on butting in and spilling I-don't-understand all over the floor. But I expect that you'd just be expelled, anyway, so that probably doesn't hold, either.

I'm going to bed.

IT does not matter - there would be only one government - and the more it controls the less choice ,and therefore freedom, you have. This example demonstrates that people with little capability still can get elected. Why had them more of your freedom? Why trust that in the future the leaders would be any more competent or even as capable. Centralizing power only makes it easier for a person to abuse it.

Gotta go now.

I fail to see how centralisation can lead to reducing any freedom except the freedom to start businesses etc. And as long as the power is spread democratically an individual will still find it hard to abuse it.

1. Even if all parties wanted to continue Socialism there would still be many issues they might disagree on: foreign affairs, education, ho exactly the state is run, the list goes on....

Yes, but ultimately they would still fall under the broad umbrella of socialist ideology, so their viewpoints couldn't vary significantly from each other on domestic issues and even foreign issues.

2. In a working Socialist state the platform of a capitalist party would be pretty hard to sell to the people: "So basically we want you to start working more for lower wages so that we can go back to livng in luxury while doing little or no work. Vote Capitalist!" So no, we wouldn't ban Capitalist parties.

People want freedom; they don't want the government to tell them what to do all of the time, and they don't want the government telling them how to spend their money, time and talents. Ultimately, people would vote capitalist because they want freedom of choice and the ability to use their skills and education to get ahead rather than being placed in an occupation for life at a government-fixed wage.

Frikkin capitalist pigs (jokes)

*hands Boo Diddly a cookie*

*eats cookie*

Thankies. :)

I fail to see how centralisation can lead to reducing any freedom except the freedom to start businesses etc. And as long as the power is spread democratically an individual will still find it hard to abuse it.

Freedom to start a business is as important to democracy as anything else. It is that freedom to choose that has kept the media free from government control; otherwise, the government would control all of your decisions and would have the ultimate say in what information you could recieve.

Democracy is meaningless if the government controls all of the information about the candidates; what's to stop them from simply rigging elections and then propagandizing it in the media?

You are correct, the 'free' healthcare (paid for by userous tax rates' sure dues suck. That is one of many reasons why the liberals lost power up there and why many many Canadians opt for treatment in the US.
If you want to be pithy, try to be accurate.


Then tell me why many Americans opt for treatment in Canada? Why is Toronto the biggest immigrant import and most multi cultured city in the world? For those that do go to the U.S for treatment why are Canadians being treated before your own? Hmmmm?


http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7428/min1wf.png

Those tax dollars yes I weep when I get my checks back come tax time. Pay a percentage now and be taken care of for the rest of your life or bleed to death because you have bad credit. Tough choice.

Yes, but ultimately they would still fall under the broad umbrella of socialist ideology, so their viewpoints couldn't vary significantly from each other on domestic issues and even foreign issues.

There's still a huge difference between liberal socialists and conservative socialists. Individual socialists actually agree on very little which is one of the reasons we have trouble organising.

People want freedom; they don't want the government to tell them what to do all of the time, and they don't want the government telling them how to spend their money, time and talents. Ultimately, people would vote capitalist because they want freedom of choice and the ability to use their skills and education to get ahead rather than being placed in an occupation for life at a government-fixed wage.

What a beautiful strawman.

A socialist republic wouldn't mandate how someone should spend their money, time or talents beyond the confines of the job they work in. They certainly wouldn't be placed into an occupation and it wouldn't be for life.

Apart from that not bad.

There's still a huge difference between liberal socialists and conservative socialists. Individual socialists actually agree on very little which is one of the reasons we have trouble organising.

Yes, which is why there couldn't be two parties. One would have to eliminate the other to prevent the system from collapsing into factional struggles.



What a beautiful strawman.
A socialist republic wouldn't mandate how someone should spend their money, time or talents beyond the confines of the job they work in. They certainly wouldn't be placed into an occupation and it wouldn't be for life.
Apart from that not bad.

If a corporation from a capitalist nation wanted to employ people and set up a factory or store in the nation, would it be permitted to do so and would the people be allowed to work for it?

If people wanted to buy imported products from a capitalist nation, would they be able to do so freely at any time?

Freedom to start a business is as important to democracy as anything else. It is that freedom to choose that has kept the media free from government control; otherwise, the government would control all of your decisions and would have the ultimate say in what information you could recieve.

Democracy is meaningless if the government controls all of the information about the candidates; what's to stop them from simply rigging elections and then propagandizing it in the media?

The simple option is to say that once somebody's retired then they can volunteer to get a group together and use a printing press to create a newspaper. They wouldn't get paid for it and they'd have a free press.

Alternatively look at the BBC, it's state owned but it certainly isn't state controlled.

Anyway, I suspect that the ways of getting news will change drastically in the years to come what with blogging and similar. The issue may soon be irrelevant.

Oh, and because there are services available, automatically everyone who needs them is entitled or gets them? I PERSONALLY have had to just "wait out" being miserably ill for weeks(God only knows what I had, not like I could see a doctor). And I believe the phrase "silver platter" is used to describe someone that things are just given to. That wouldn't exactly describe me, now would it? Your lack of knowledge doesn't make me intellectually dishonest.

are you of working age?

if so, the vast majority of full-time jobs in the US come with benefits (you may elect them... medical, dental, vision, etc.)

The simple option is to say that once somebody's retired then they can volunteer to get a group together and use a printing press to create a newspaper. They wouldn't get paid for it and they'd have a free press.

[QUOTE]Alternatively look at the BBC, it's state owned but it certainly isn't state controlled.

But the BBC isn't part of a socialist government's economic infrastructure; Radio Moscow is a better example of government media control. Britain has socialist programs, but is still a market economy, and the BBC does have to compete. However, they are simply the best in the UK (and the world) because of their ability to compete and emphasis on truth in reporting.

Anyway, I suspect that the ways of getting news will change drastically in the years to come what with blogging and similar. The issue may soon be irrelevant.

Yes, and that is why the government should neverhave any ownership over the internet, anywhere. That's why Google's hypocrisy in China angers me so much, because they are sacrificing the freedom of information to make a profit, and that is an insult to liberalism.

Yes, which is why there couldn't be two parties. One would have to eliminate the other to prevent the system from collapsing into factional struggles.

In the same way that liberals and conservatives do now?:rolleyes:

If a corporation from a capitalist nation wanted to employ people and set up a factory or store in the nation, would it be permitted to do so and would the people be allowed to work for it?

Theoretically yes but the factory would be taxed to hell so it wouldn't be economical for them.

If people wanted to buy imported products from a capitalist nation, would they be able to do so freely at any time?

Hmmm, I suspect I'm walking into a trap here but I'll bite anyway: yes they could.

But the BBC isn't part of a socialist government's economic infrastructure; Radio Moscow is a better example of government media control. Britain has socialist programs, but is still a market economy, and the BBC does have to compete. However, they are simply the best in the UK (and the world) because of their ability to compete and emphasis on truth in reporting.

But that can happen in Capitalism too, in Italy Berlusconi owns 5 of the news channels. Anyway, just because the state employs the people in the news business doesn't mean they can't be impartial, we just need plenty of political blocks and restrictions on state influence.

Yes, and that is why the government should neverhave any ownership over the internet, anywhere. That's why Google's hypocrisy in China angers me so much, because they are sacrificing the freedom of information to make a profit, and that is an insult to liberalism.

That is why the government should never have control over the internet, we are in agreement here friend.:)

In the same way that liberals and conservatives do now?:rolleyes:

No, because political parties have little control over the economy. However, in a socialist nation, the economy would be totally owned by the government and politics would dominate every aspect of it beyond that of free-market nations.

Theoretically yes but the factory would be taxed to hell so it wouldn't be economical for them.

So the government would tell people whom they could buy from and work for through overtaxation even if the people want that company's factory or products?


Hmmm, I suspect I'm walking into a trap here but I'll bite anyway: yes they could.

Then how would socialism work? I mean, if people can buy whatever they want from whomever they want, doesn't it make it impossible for the government to control the means of production? This doesn't even take in to account the fact that they prefer capitalist produced goods to government ones.

It seems like they should just implement a social-democratic model and totally avoid socialist economics altogether.

But that can happen in Capitalism too, in Italy Berlusconi owns 5 of the news channels. Anyway, just because the state employs the people in the news business doesn't mean they can't be impartial, we just need plenty of political blocks and restrictions on state influence.

That's why competition laws are so vital; government-industry cooperation is as dangerous in capitalism as it is in socialism. A similar situation is in place in Russia, where the government controls the media and censors a lot of what is happening in Chechnya amongst other things.

That is why the government should never have control over the internet, we are in agreement here friend.:)

Yes, I think we are.:)

No, because political parties have little control over the economy. However, in a socialist nation, the economy would be totally owned by the government and politics would dominate every aspect of it beyond that of free-market nations.

I still fail to see how this would result in one of the parties being wiped out (I also don't see why there need only be two parties, frankly I see no need to have actual 'parties' at all. I quite like the idea of parliament filled with individuals who think for themselves rather than just toeing the party line).

So the government would tell people whom they could buy from and work for through overtaxation even if the people want that company's factory or products?

If they want those products so much then we can produce them ourselves, there is no need to buy them from other companies.

Then how would socialism work? I mean, if people can buy whatever they want from whomever they want, doesn't it make it impossible for the government to control the means of production? This doesn't even take in to account the fact that they prefer capitalist produced goods to government ones.

You're assuming that the people will prefer capitalist goods to socialist ones but nevertheless you do have a point. Bear in mind that this economic model is intended to be implemented on a global, or at least international, scale so it may well need adjusting to work in an individual country.

It seems like they should just implement a social-democratic model and totally avoid socialist economics altogether.

I plan to work for a social democracy at first, if it working well enough when we get there then there's no need to go on but I suspect we'll need to go all the way to socialism to make it all work properly.

What, it's common knowledge that politicians, like capitalists, priests, and so on, are full of corruption. I mean, even supporters of government often admit that the people in power are hardly ethical beacons, even by their own standards. Note that this proves little about the possibility of socialism, though (it's not as though going into business rather than politics somehow makes you a paragon of virtue).
Socialism and Communism would eliminate these people.

I still fail to see how this would result in one of the parties being wiped out (I also don't see why there need only be two parties, frankly I see no need to have actual 'parties' at all. I quite like the idea of parliament filled with individuals who think for themselves rather than just toeing the party line).

It has to do with the amount of wealth and influence the government has in socialist economics. The party that controls the government literally controls all aspects of the country, including the means of production. This sheer power would prove to be disasterous to a multiparty system due to the absolute power the system conveys to the winner.

If they want those products so much then we can produce them ourselves, there is no need to buy them from other companies.

The consumer would want the best product for the lowest price; it's a question of marginal analysis that determines the need for the product. Just because the government can produce it wouldn't mean that consumers would choose it over others; the government-produced good would have to be superior to the imported or capitalist good.

You're assuming that the people will prefer capitalist goods to socialist ones but nevertheless you do have a point. Bear in mind that this economic model is intended to be implemented on a global, or at least international, scale so it may well need adjusting to work in an individual country.

Which likely means it will not be implemented at all; the socialist system would have to be proven beyond a doubt to be superior to the capitalist one for this to be feasible. Also, the very nature of politics and human interaction would have to be changed.


I plan to work for a social democracy at first, if it working well enough when we get there then there's no need to go on but I suspect we'll need to go all the way to socialism to make it all work properly.

It all depends on what the people under the system want, provided their decision is rational (the definition of that is, of course, debatable).

Wait a second-

You have just posted a piece of evidence showing the corrupt nature of capitalist politicians.

And that is why socialism can't work?

I'm not going to bother saying anything else. You defeated your own argument in your first post.

communism and socialism can work and to say they cant is as hypothetical and insubstantial as a talking dogs ability to skate.

Duuuh... capitalism dont work. (looks round) whats wrong with you?
Duuuh... socialism dont work. (points to... U.K, Scandanavia, Russia, Cuba (... ok bad example) France and Germany.
Dude... some people need reducation.

communism and socialism can work and to say they cant is as hypothetical and insubstantial as a talking dogs ability to skate.

Duuuh... capitalism dont work. (looks round) whats wrong with you?
Duuuh... socialism dont work. (points to... U.K, Scandanavia, Russia, Cuba (... ok bad example) France and Germany.
Dude... some people need reducation.


It's all flawed as I stated but some seem to think they are right because of an economical status they live in yet had no influence on whatsoever. Funny.

ummm, ok, tell me how many different federal governments there are in the US?

In the parlance of almost every other democracy on earth, we have a new one every 2 years, when we get a new batch of Representitive elections.

In the parlance of almost every other democracy on earth, we have a new one every 2 years, when we get a new batch of Representitive elections.
I think bozzy was referring to the homogeneously conservative idealogies represented, not the people representing them

I fail to see how centralisation can lead to reducing any freedom except the freedom to start businesses etc. And as long as the power is spread democratically an individual will still find it hard to abuse it.
Ummm, ge I dunno - monopolies are sooo freedom oriented. I personally would rather vote daily with my money than every two years with one ballot when it comes to my consumer needs.

Oh, and because there are services available, automatically everyone who needs them is entitled or gets them? I PERSONALLY have had to just "wait out" being miserably ill for weeks(God only knows what I had, not like I could see a doctor). And I believe the phrase "silver platter" is used to describe someone that things are just given to. That wouldn't exactly describe me, now would it? Your lack of knowledge doesn't make me intellectually dishonest.
So apparently you've never heard the term 'had your ass handed to you on a silver platter'. Now you've heard it AND experienced it. Congratulations!

As far as 'miserably ill' - you've made a remarkable recovery! Obviously your need was not life threatening. Had it been, or even not, you are still eligible for healthcare through free clinics, medicare and others. That you chose not to is not anyones fault other than your own. That makes you intellectually dishonest - at least with yourself. There is no city in America where you cannot find a 24 hour clinic where you will see the doctor the same day for a small charge. Try THAT in Canada.

In the parlance of almost every other democracy on earth, we have a new one every 2 years, when we get a new batch of Representitive elections.
THat would be, only 30% new, and still from a limited gene pool. (two parties of any bearing)

*Takes out a pin, pops the OP*
Nice, B0zzy, restorting to email missives and urband legends to make points about unrelated topics now are we?

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm

There is no city in America where you cannot find a 24 hour clinic where you will see the doctor the same day for a small charge. Try THAT in Canada.
Wow, you are so terribly mis-informed.

How healthy is our health care? (http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_041002Reinhardt.html)

Fifth, on most measurable, population-based health status indicators — e.g., life expectancy at birth or at age 65, infant mortality, preventable years of life lost — the U.S. always has ranked and continues to rank rather poorly relative to the rest of the industrialized world. Neighboring Canada, whose age structure is similar to ours, and which spends less than 60% of the comparable U.S. figure on health care per capita, ranks higher than the U.S. on all of these indicators.......

Low-income families

On the other hand, low-income families without health insurance probably fare worse in the U.S. health system than they would in other nations.
At this time, more than 40 million mainly low-income Americans (about 7 million children among them) do not have health insurance of any sort, a number that rose from about 35 million in 1990, as America prospered. More than two-thirds of the uninsured are low-income, most are members of working families, and about half have been uninsured for two years or more.

The elderly

Between 12 to 15 million elderly Americans do not have any insurance coverage for prescription drugs.

The uninsured

While uninsured Americans usually do receive health care for truly critical conditions, either with their own funds or on a charity basis, it is well known to researchers that this care is not timely and that lack of earlier intervention can have serious consequences for the patient (see, for example, the Kaiser Family Foundation website www.kff.org (http://www.kff.org)).

Bankruptcy

Furthermore, recent research conduced by Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School suggests that medical bills are the second most frequently cited reasons for personal bankruptcy in the U.S., right after loss of job and ahead of divorce. Citizens in other industrialized nations would consider it morally unacceptable to let a family stricken by major illness go bankrupt over the medical bills.

Ethic of health care

The chronic and growing presence of the uninsured in the U.S. and their fiscal plight suggests that different nations posit different ethical goals for their health systems. Canadians view comprehensive health care as a social good that should be collectively financed and made available to all citizens on equal terms. The entire Canadians health system is structured to serve this explicitly articulated social ethic. By contrast, Americans have never agreed on a distributive ethic for their health system. While some Americans do subscribe to a purely egalitarian ethic for health care practiced in Canada, the politically dominant, policy-making elite in the U.S. has been content to treat health-insurance and health care as basically a private consumption goods whose content and quality can be allowed to vary with the individual’s income.

I think what the original post most clearly shows is the flaw in certain statist reasonings. Thoughts like, "corporations are evil power-hungry entities that only seek to gain from the exploitation of the working class, and therefore government is more trustworthy/incorruptible/pure/innocent/righteous/good/desserving of power."

Because it seems a good deal of anti-capitalists think that while businesses are not to be trusted, governments are.

I don't happen to agree with this sentiment.

I would just like to point something out to some of the participants in this thread...

"Socialism vs. Capitalism" is not a black-vs-white debate.

It's a scale, from more governmental intervention to less. There are ways to set up governments at many points on the scale, not just at the extremes.

Pure Communism, as tried by Soviet Russia, pretty clearly didn't work, and I'd certainly agree that it never will.

Pure Capitalism isn't a good state either - it generates enormous self-perpetuating wealth gaps between rich and poor, results in horrible working condition, and it was those things that prompted Marx to predict a communist revolution.

The best thing is somewhere in the middle. The US certainly isn't "pure capitalism" - we have laws against child labor, antitrust laws which regulate what companies can and can't do, and some public health care and welfare systems. Also things like public transportation.

I lean slightly more socialist than the US currently is - I would say that a better public health care system such as that in other countries would be a good thing. IMO, the government should provide, at a minimum, enough for ANYONE to have basic necessities - shelter and food, as well as adequate medical care. (As well as the taxes necessary to support such a system - I would much prefer taxes to the government just borrowing the money it needs and racking up the debt, like our current government is doing) .

Whether the government provides more services - such as the nice government-created highway system we currently have, as well as government-managed public parks and nature preserves - would be more of a pragmatic concern than an idealistic one, but I would like to think that those things justify their cost (which is pretty darn small compared to things like Defense and Social security, mere fractions of their size).

Wow, you are so terribly mis-informed
and you are so terribly mis-giuded. These articles do little to refute the line you quoted.

Medicare and free clinics do not require a patient have health insurance. Do people who accept free care get the same quality as those who pay? Of course not - I never made such a claim. I simply said that they do not get denied an essential service - as others here have implied.

Is the US healthcare system perfect - of course not. Is it better than Canada's - by a long shot.

NBA OR NFL?
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits. and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet? . . . Scroll down, citizen!
Neither, it's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws
each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.


Doesn't that just prove that they really are truly representative of their electorate? Ordinary people break the law all the time so why wouldn't there public officials?

NBA OR NFL?

36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits. and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet? . . . Scroll down, citizen!
Neither, it's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws
each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
You just proven that our system works. why? they did make the laws and they did pay for breaking those laws.

and the other thing you've proven is that those elected are not Gods, nor are they perfect. they're human. Just like me.

and you are so terribly mis-giuded. These articles do little to refute the line you quoted.
If you believe that, then you didn't read the whole article, especially about timeliness and affordability?

The uninsured

While uninsured Americans usually do receive health care for truly critical conditions, either with their own funds or on a charity basis, it is well known to researchers that this care is not timely and that lack of earlier intervention can have serious consequences for the patient (see, for example, the Kaiser Family Foundation website www.kff.org.

Bankruptcy

Furthermore, recent research conduced by Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School suggests that medical bills are the second most frequently cited reasons for personal bankruptcy in the U.S., right after loss of job and ahead of divorce. Citizens in other industrialized nations would consider it morally unacceptable to let a family stricken by major illness go bankrupt over the medical bills.

Medicare and free clinics do not require a patient have health insurance.
What about access and cost?

Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country.

Do people who accept free care get the same quality as those who pay? Of course not - I never made such a claim. I simply said that they do not get denied an essential service - as others here have implied.
So you are willing to accept that the US has first and second class citizens depending upon their economic circumstances at the time of their accessing the healthcare system?

Is the US healthcare system perfect - of course not. Is it better than Canada's - by a long shot.
I really don't think so and I believe that you will have a difficult time supporting your position.

The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States (http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm)

Obviously you are a first class American with full healthcare coverage and are actually unaware of the plight of the second class citizens in your country?