NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, according to the new study out, Canadians have better access to health care, and, in turn, have better general health:

A new study comparing the health and health-care access of Canadians and Americans suggests that Canadians are in general healthier and have better access to health care than their neighbours to the south.

Sure, Canadian wait times are bad, one of the authors admits. But the inherent inequity in the U.S. system and its failure to cover a huge swath of the American populace is worse, says Dr. David Himmelstein, of Harvard Medical School and the Cambridge Health Alliance.

"I think what our data . . . clearly shows that for any given level of expenditure, you get far more and far better care from a Canadian method of going about financing it (health care) than from the U.S. method,'' said Himmelstein, a specialist in primary care internal medicine.

(article continued at link)


http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=861775e5-9657-40de-9eaa-023fe853b880&k=59558

What do you think? Does this support a socialist system of equality? I think so, but I'm sure there are capitalists willing to argue with me...

Yay Canada?

P.S. Sorry, going for first post in a TC thread, I'll make a real response.

Yay Canada?

Yes.

Canada? Socialist? Hardly

...I'd say something about our willingness to pay taxes, but apparently we pay more...Where's it going? And how many more people do we have...

Canada? Socialist? Hardly

Just a socialist policy.

...I'd say something about our willingness to pay taxes, but apparently we pay more...Where's it going? And how many more people do we have...

Your money is going towards the war in Iraq, that's what.

Just a socialist policy.

Exactly. It was developed by Tommy Douglas, Canada's most famous socialist politician.

Your money is going towards the war in Iraq, that's what.

Does the article mean we pay more in all taxes, or we pay more for our healthcare?

OK, it was a TV show, but an American TV show once followed three people going into hospital for broken limbs, 1 in the US, 1 in Canada and 1 in Cuba.

Who came off best when quality of treatment, waiting time and cost to the individual were all taken into account?

The Cuban.
Then the Canadian
And then the American.

But it was decided by the channel that they couldnt have Cuba coming first, so they fixed the competition so that Canada came first.

Cuba. NOt a good political system, but damn good health care.

In fact so good that after cigars doctors may be their major export.

Does the article mean we pay more in all taxes, or we pay more for our healthcare?

Find the quote, and I'll tell you.

All the extra money Americans spend don't seem to be buying them better health.
they get care a bit more easily than Americans, despite spending so much less than we do.'
Despite being less healthy and having less access to a vastly more expensive health-care system, Americans are happier

*nod*

Does the article mean we pay more in all taxes, or we pay more for our healthcare?
The article doesn't address taxation levels, just the cost of healthcare and healthcare outcomes.

The article doesn't address taxation levels, just the cost of healthcare and healthcare outcomes.

It mentions our major problem being that we can't pay, how would that be us paying more then?

*nod*

What it means is that you pay for your healthcare. As in, forking over a straight 20 grand for delivering a baby, etc.

What it means is that you pay for your healthcare. As in, forking over a straight 20 grand for delivering a baby, etc.

...So...It's comparing what we pay directly, to what Canadians pay directly?

OK, it was a TV show, but an American TV show once followed three people going into hospital for broken limbs, 1 in the US, 1 in Canada and 1 in Cuba.

Who came off best when quality of treatment, waiting time and cost to the individual were all taken into account?

The Cuban.
Then the Canadian
And then the American.

But it was decided by the channel that they couldnt have Cuba coming first, so they fixed the competition so that Canada came first.

Cuba. NOt a good political system, but damn good health care.

In fact so good that after cigars doctors may be their major export.

TV Nation by Michael Moore.

...So...It's comparing what we pay directly, to what Canadians pay directly?

Yeah, I guess so.

Yeah, I guess so.

So...if this is a socialist policy...Don't they pay more in taxes for it than we do? And then, do the direct payments and taxes added together still show Canadian < American?

So...if this is a socialist policy...Don't they pay more in taxes for it than we do? And then, do the direct payments and taxes added together still show Canadian < American?

What would you rather do: pay a steady rate, in direct porportion to the amount of money you earn, and be guaranteed almost any healthcare you need, OR pay nothing untill you are injured or sick, at which time you pay an inordinate sum of money, regardless of your financial situation?

What would you rather do: pay a steady rate, in direct porportion to the amount of money you earn, and be guaranteed almost any healthcare you need, OR pay nothing untill you are injured or sick, at which time you pay an inordinated sum of money, regardless of your financial situation?

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the healthcare, but I'm trying to make sure what the article states is true in reality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the healthcare, but I'm trying to make sure what the article states is true in reality.

I suppose the truth is that sick Canadians pay less than sick Americans, while unnaturally healthy Canadians pay a bit more than Unnaturally healthy Americans.

I suppose the truth is that sick Canadians pay less than sick Americans, while unnaturally healthy Canadians pay a bit more than Unnaturally healthy Americans.

Make sense. And allows me to return to my orginial point somewhat. You want health care reform? Pay some freaking taxes, eh?

Make sense. And allows me to return to my orginial point somewhat. You want health care reform? Pay some freaking taxes, eh?

I'm willing to pay taxes. Remember, I'm Canadian....

I'm willing to pay taxes. Remember, I'm Canadian....

I know. General "you".

I know. General "you".

Use "one" or "we." It eliminates the confusion.

Use "one" or "we." It eliminates the confusion.

Well, I'd prefer it if more than one person paid...:p

Well, I'd prefer it if more than one person paid...:p

Aren't you the clever one. :rolleyes:

Aren't you the clever one. :rolleyes:

Eesh, I guess I'm not...Very well then, one.

I'd rather pick my own doctors, insurance, hospitals.....

I would rather choose my own health care provider instead of the government picking one out for me. Capitalism creates competion, competion means that in order for a business to survive, they have to have better product/services/goods than their competitor. Ahh the wonders of capitalism.

I would rather choose my own health care provider instead of the government picking one out for me. Capitalism creates competion, competion means that in order for a business to survive, they have to have better product/services/goods than their competitor. Ahh the wonders of capitalism.

...Maybe you missed the article she posted, but Canadian healthcare is better.

Also, for a fun story, direct your attention here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484658&page=37, because you can.

I would rather choose my own health care provider instead of the government picking one out for me. Capitalism creates competion, competion means that in order for a business to survive, they have to have better product/services/goods than their competitor. Ahh the wonders of capitalism.

You can pick your own doctors, your own hospitals. And, contrary to the popular opinion, Canadian doctors must fit certain requirements, so it's not like an incompetent person is going to treat you.
Besides, private health care probably seems all fine and dandy to you, since you're probably in a nice, comfy financial situation. But what if you were a single parent working three jobs, and one of your kids got sick? Wouldn't you like to know that you at least had options?
Besides, read the article. If capitalism is so wonderful, why aren't American's healthier? Surely, by your logic, American doctors are more committed, because they can charge more, and therefore Americans should be healthier. So, why aren't they?

I'd rather die then be perfectly heathy and have the goverment suck me dry so people I've never met can get free heathcare. Just saying.

I'd rather die then be perfectly heathy and have the goverment suck me dry so people I've never met can get free heathcare. Just saying.

I'm thinking...Do Not Feed? *shrug* Meh, not like it ever stops anyone.

I'd rather die then be perfectly heathy and have the goverment suck me dry so people I've never met can get free heathcare. Just saying.

And I'm sure that you would feel the same way if you were broke, homeless, and dying of cancer.

Go Socialism!!!!

It mentions our major problem being that we can't pay, how would that be us paying more then?

Because the US pays more for it's healthcare system, despite the fact that not everyone can access it. The US pays nearly twice what Canada does, per capita.

Because the US pays more for it's healthcare system, despite the fact that not everyone can access it. The US pays nearly twice what Canada does, per capita.

I think I've made it through that. More paid directly or more in total?

I'd rather die then be perfectly heathy and have the goverment suck me dry so people I've never met can get free heathcare. Just saying.

But what if you were really sick and cannot pay for your medical bills? Wouldn't you appreciate the fact that other people are pulling through for you and helping you pay for the thousands of dollars?

I suppose the truth is that sick Canadians pay less than sick Americans, while unnaturally healthy Canadians pay a bit more than Unnaturally healthy Americans.

Tell me exactly what is so unnatural about being healthy? Thats a great way to twist words in order to make them sound bias toward your opinion.

I'd rather die then be perfectly heathy and have the goverment suck me dry so people I've never met can get free heathcare. Just saying. You prefer to pay twice as much and ultimately get poorer outcomes?

Your choice buddy. But that's not one I'd make.

...So...It's comparing what we pay directly, to what Canadians pay directly?
No. It's comparing what the system costs in each country, both public and private, not just the cost to the individual.

Tell me exactly what is so unnatural about being healthy? Thats a great way to twist words in order to make them sound bias toward your opinion.

Organism gets infected, immune system fights it off. Nature, I suppose. And how exactly does that bias it?

No. It's comparing what the system costs in each country, both public and private, not just the cost to the individual.

Per capita, of course? Where are the numbers...

Been there, done that. Spent a week in the hospital with massive blood clots. My health insurance lapsed about the time I got out(was laid off and couldn't afford it on my own). When I tried to set up a payment schedule, the hospital wrote off the entire bill.

Tell me exactly what is so unnatural about being healthy? Thats a great way to twist words in order to make them sound bias toward your opinion.
I think she meant those who almost never get sick as "unnaturally healthy". I'm one of them and I don't mind paying so more people could live.

Per capita, of course? Where are the numbers...
Not in this article, but I'll give you some links to some OECD numbers shortly.

Not in this article, but I'll give you some links to some OECD numbers shortly.

M'kay...

Tell me exactly what is so unnatural about being healthy? Thats a great way to twist words in order to make them sound bias toward your opinion.

What I meant is, you might lose money if you're a multi-millionaire who never gets sick. Which is the majority of Canadians, I'm sure.

Hey, TC, do you know if the Albertan premier is still trying to change the universal health care into the two-tier system?

Hey, TC, do you know if the Albertan premier is still trying to change the universal health care into the two-tier system?

I didn't know that, but it makes sense*. Alberta is the home of Canadian conservatism. It just proves my philosophy, "Oil Breeds Conservatism."

*as in, I can see him doing that, not as in it's a good idea.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense*. Alberta is the home of Canadian conservatism. It just proves my philosophy, "Oil Breeds Conservatism."

*as in, I can see him doing that, not as in it's a good idea.

Hmph. Can't even do anything with the oil anyways...conservatism in vain...

That's another point for government health care, not socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the economy, not provision of social services; socialism doesn't work, but social democracy does if applied properly. If anything, this is a prime example of the ability to blend a strong social net and economic growth

Sorry but Canada is nothing close to socialism

Per capita, of course? Where are the numbers...

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p1793062.gif

An OECD paper from 2004 (link is the forum where I posted it):
http://invisionfree.com/forums/Wysterian_Forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=1793071

And the 2005 OECD data:

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2649_37407_2085200_1_1_1_37407,00.html

And last but not least, a graph of total expenditures as percentage of GDP:

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p1920002.jpg

That's another point for government health care, not socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the economy, not provision of social services; socialism doesn't work, but social democracy does if applied properly. If anything, this is a prime example of the ability to blend a strong social net and economic growth

A point for a major socialist policy, close enough. It's like the Pistons winning being a point for Detroit (even though they're gonna lose...).

I didn't know that, but it makes sense*. Alberta is the home of Canadian conservatism. It just proves my philosophy, "Oil Breeds Conservatism."

*as in, I can see him doing that, not as in it's a good idea.
Damned Albertan hicks...Remember, our lovely prime minister is Albertan born and bred. :headbang:

Sorry but Canada is nothing close to socialism

Remind me where it is stated that Canada is Socialist.

Sorry but Canada is nothing close to socialism
Compared to the states it is. Also, nobody every said Canada's socialist country. Our health care policy stems from socialist principles though.

That's another point for government health care, not socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the economy, not provision of social services; socialism doesn't work, but social democracy does if applied properly. If anything, this is a prime example of the ability to blend a strong social net and economic growth

How do you know socialism doesn't work? Bring me some unsuccessful examples (no communisms, as that's another issue).

That's another point for government health care, not socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the economy, not provision of social services; socialism doesn't work, but social democracy does if applied properly. If anything, this is a prime example of the ability to blend a strong social net and economic growth
Thank you. Even in Canada, social democrats are often accused of being socialists or communists. It's nice to find someone who recognizes the difference.

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p1793062.gif

An OECD paper from 2004 (link is the forum where I posted it):
http://invisionfree.com/forums/Wysterian_Forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=1793071

And the 2005 OECD data:

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2649_37407_2085200_1_1_1_37407,00.html

And last but not least, a graph of total expenditures as percentage of GDP:

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p1920002.jpg

Ah, thaat's what I like to see...even some public-private seperation...Alright, that basically takes care of my on topic comments...less trying to correct people...

How do you know socialism doesn't work? Bring me some unsuccessful examples (no communisms, as that's another issue).

Ethiopia, Ghana, pre-1990's India, 1970's Britain, Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea...and the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe.

Socialism was often used interchangeably with Communism during the Cold War, so the USSR and other Communist states fall under the socialist umbrella due to government ownership of the e conomy.

Damned Albertan hicks...Remember, our lovely prime minister is Albertan born and bred. :headbang:
Incorrect. Mr. Harper was actually born in...wait for it...Ontario.

Honest.

Incorrect. Mr. Harper was actually born in...wait for it...Ontario.

Honest.
O_O

But he ran in Calgary, the heart of redeck-ism!

Oh boy, now I'm obliged to hate Torontonians now. (I checked, he was born in Toronto.)

Ethiopia, Ghana, pre-1990's India, 1970's Britain, Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea...and the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe.

Socialism was often used interchangeably with Communism during the Cold War, so the USSR and other Communist states fall under the socialist umbrella due to government ownership of the e conomy.

But no capitalisms have ever failed, right?

O_O

But he ran in Calgary, the heart of redeck-ism!

Oh boy, now I'm obliged to hate Torontonians now. (I checked, he was born in Toronto.)
Kinda shatters the preconceptions, don't it! :P

There's a lot of people in Toronto. I don't think you're obliged to hate them all because of Stevie.

Kinda shatters the preconceptions, don't it! :P

There's a lot of people in Toronto. I don't think you're obliged to hate them all because of Stevie.
Well, I'm waiting for him to be kicked out of office in the next election, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. As much as I disagree with and despise his policies, at least his government has a spine. Besides, there are no good Liberal candidates so far. The reign of Stevie is almost definite to come. :(

But no capitalisms have ever failed, right?

It's had a lot better track record, seeing as how the entire OECD is capitalist and the capitalist nations comprise almost the entire world economy. Also, capitalist nations have overall higher living standards than socialist nations and are overall freer and more democratic than the command economies.

Even income distribution tends to be fairer in capitalist nations; the socialist system turns so corrupt that it produces a binary system of haves and have-nots structured according to political connections, but it lacks even the most basic social mobility possible in capitalist nations.

How do you know socialism doesn't work? Bring me some unsuccessful examples (no communisms, as that's another issue).

It's a trade off. The only real problem with socialism is that it doesn't encourage strengthining of individuals. Which is why capitalism is needed in the United States. Forcing people to go it out on their own makes the rich and sucessful. Shouldn't we be rewarded for our money derived from our hard work? Sure there are some people that get freebies from their dead uncles will, but thats not the point. Point is that in canada you can't strike it rich.

Where do canadians go to make their money? The U.S. Theory of a Dead Man, Nickelback just to name 2.

Socialism forces wealth to be distributed among everyone. Including people who don't pull in their fair share.

Keep in mind the U.S. in the very begining was a socialist nation. It didn't work for us. So we decided againsted it.

The land of oppertunity does have its ugly side. But you can't have everything. And for me, the ideals in capitalism promote strong individuals.

And it really has alot to do with what you believe in. For you to use words like sick and unnaturally healthy leads me to believe your out look of the world is grim.

I believe that anyone can be a millionaire in america even in the worst of circumstances. A good number of rappers in this country came from places so bad in this country, but they over came the adversity and became rich and famous.

Not to mention even in a nation such as ours, look at how many people came together when planes crashed into our W.T.C. or how many people did we help with the sunami victoms? I think there is alot more heart in america then people give us credit for.

It's had a lot better track record, seeing as how the entire OECD is capitalist and the capitalist nations comprise almost the entire world economy. Also, capitalist nations have overall higher living standards than socialist nations and are overall freer and more democratic than the command economies.

Even income distribution tends to be fairer in capitalist nations; the socialist system turns so corrupt that it produces a binary system of haves and have-nots structured according to political connections, but it lacks even the most basic social mobility possible in capitalist nations.

Healthcare in more social countries is apparently better, and the education system is more fair. But, there's got to be something more to quality of life, right? After all, if all citizens are rich, like they certainly are, they can afford to buy rights and health, right? Unfortunately, homeless people, and those with mental illnesses, don't do so well, but do they really count? I mean, they can't function, so why not just leave them on the street? Or better yet, cull them?
In addition, the military is certainly a huge part of quality of life. Who doesn't want to know that the muslims are being killed, eliminating the sense of fear?
Besides, those socialist countries are just killing themselves with their foreign policy. Obviously, if they're spending money saving those goddamned heathens in Africa, they need to tax people a bit more, which is infinately unfair.
Yeah, you're right. Man, you really swayed me. I'm about to correct my cruel socialist ways and convert to a life of peaceful, caring, wonderful capitalism. After, success isn't how many people you help, it's how much power and influence you hold over other nations.

It's a trade off. The only real problem with socialism is that it doesn't encourage strengthining of individuals. Which is why capitalism is needed in the United States. Forcing people to go it out on their own makes the rich and sucessful. Shouldn't we be rewarded for our money derived from our hard work? Sure there are some people that get freebies from their dead uncles will, but thats not the point. Point is that in canada you can't strike it rich.

Where do canadians go to make their money? The U.S. Theory of a Dead Man, Nickelback just to name 2.

Socialism forces wealth to be distributed among everyone. Including people who don't pull in their fair share.

Keep in mind the U.S. in the very begining was a socialist nation. It didn't work for us. So we decided againsted it.

The land of oppertunity does have its ugly side. But you can't have everything. And for me, the ideals in capitalism promote strong individuals.

And it really has alot to do with what you believe in. For you to use words like sick and unnaturally healthy leads me to believe your out look of the world is grim.

I believe that anyone can be a millionaire in america even in the worst of circumstances. A good number of rappers in this country came from places so bad in this country, but they over came the adversity and became rich and famous.

Not to mention even in a nation such as ours, look at how many people came together when planes crashed into our W.T.C. or how many people did we help with the sunami victoms? I think there is alot more heart in america then people give us credit for.

1) Canada is not socialist, I'm fairly sure you can be rich there.
2) When exactly was America socialist? I remeember when we couldn't collect taxes, and that's basically the opposite of socialism.
3) Tsunami. With a T.

It's a trade off. The only real problem with socialism is that it doesn't encourage strengthining of individuals. Which is why capitalism is needed in the United States. Forcing people to go it out on their own makes the rich and sucessful. Shouldn't we be rewarded for our money derived from our hard work? Sure there are some people that get freebies from their dead uncles will, but thats not the point. Point is that in canada you can't strike it rich.


Generalize much?

Rock stars and actors go to the US because there is a larger population and thus a larger market to sell to. Don't mistake that for Canadians being "unable to become wealthy". Canada has plenty of home-grown millionaires.

It's a trade off. The only real problem with socialism is that it doesn't encourage strengthining of individuals. Which is why capitalism is needed in the United States. Forcing people to go it out on their own makes the rich and sucessful. Shouldn't we be rewarded for our money derived from our hard work? Sure there are some people that get freebies from their dead uncles will, but thats not the point. Point is that in canada you can't strike it rich.

Where do canadians go to make their money? The U.S. Theory of a Dead Man, Nickelback just to name 2.

Socialism forces wealth to be distributed among everyone. Including people who don't pull in their fair share.

Keep in mind the U.S. in the very begining was a socialist nation. It didn't work for us. So we decided againsted it.

The land of oppertunity does have its ugly side. But you can't have everything. And for me, the ideals in capitalism promote strong individuals.

And it really has alot to do with what you believe in. For you to use words like sick and unnaturally healthy leads me to believe your out look of the world is grim.

I believe that anyone can be a millionaire in america even in the worst of circumstances. A good number of rappers in this country came from places so bad in this country, but they over came the adversity and became rich and famous.

Not to mention even in a nation such as ours, look at how many people came together when planes crashed into our W.T.C. or how many people did we help with the sunami victoms? I think there is alot more heart in america then people give us credit for.

1) I believe you may be confusing my policy of moderate socialism with radical communism.
2) Do you even know that there are people in the world besides musicians? You don't have to be in a band. I know lot's of wealthy doctors and lawyers who work in Canada.
3) Yeah, you can't have everything, unless you're a trust fund baby. But that's an earned priviledge, obviously.
4) My outlook on the world is anything but grim. In fact, scarcely a day goes by when I'm not called an idealist by some captialist or another. My use of the phrase "unnaturally healthy" signified, as previously discussed, my knowledge that it is very rare never to need some kind of medical attention over one's life. Everyone burns themselves baking, or gets bad food poisoning. It's a fact of life.
5) Everyone can be a millionare, except of course, the homeless people. And the ones with mental or physcial disabilities. Or the ones with mental illnesses. Or the ones with no access to proper education. Or the ones with three kids and no partner to help them make ends meet...The list goes on. Not everyone has a hollywood-marketable talent, which seems to be the only solution to poverty in America. Some people might make good mechanics or hairdressers, but if they don't have a permanent adress and therefore can't get a job, their talent becomes worthless.
6) If everyone came together during 9/11, why is the US more at odds about politics than ever?

Healthcare in more social countries is apparently better, and the education system is more fair. But, there's got to be something more to quality of life, right? After all, if all citizens are rich, like they certainly are, they can afford to buy rights and health, right? Unfortunately, homeless people, and those with mental illnesses, don't do so well, but do they really count? I mean, they can't function, so why not just leave them on the street? Or better yet, cull them?

Social countries are not socialist countries. To be considered socialist, the government has to have a commanding stake in all aspects of the economy or even a full centrally planned economy. The key aspect of socialism is the public ownership of all major industries. There is no conflict between capitalism and social democracy, and nations like Canada, the UK, the Scandinavian nations and Spain have all been able to provide these services without compromising economic growth or the proper functioning of a capitalist market economy.

In addition, the military is certainly a huge part of quality of life. Who doesn't want to know that the muslims are being killed, eliminating the sense of fear?Besides, those socialist countries are just killing themselves with their foreign policy. Obviously, if they're spending money saving those goddamned heathens in Africa, they need to tax people a bit more, which is infinately unfair.

Socialist nations spent billions of dollars and bankrupted their economies trying to support huge militaries, both to keep their population from rebelling and to project their power over other nations. The highest per capita military spending and highest share of GDP spent on the military are both dominated by socialist nations and that plays a huge role in their economic downfall.

Yeah, you're right. Man, you really swayed me. I'm about to correct my cruel socialist ways and convert to a life of peaceful, caring, wonderful capitalism. After, success isn't how many people you help, it's how much power and influence you hold over other nations.

Capitalism combined with social democracy and free trade is the most powerful tool to improve living standards we have today. It maximizes personal and economic freedom while providing the people with affordable services and the social mobility that comes from a well-designed mixed capitalist system.

Social countries are not socialist countries. To be considered socialist, the government has to have a commanding stake in all aspects of the economy or even a full centrally planned economy. The key aspect of socialism is the public ownership of all major industries. There is no conflict between capitalism and social democracy, and nations like Canada, the UK, the Scandinavian nations and Spain have all been able to provide these services without compromising economic growth or the proper functioning of a capitalist market economy.



Socialist nations spent billions of dollars and bankrupted their economies trying to support huge militaries, both to keep their population from rebelling and to project their power over other nations. The highest per capita military spending and highest share of GDP spent on the military are both dominated by socialist nations and that plays a huge role in their economic downfall.



Capitalism combined with social democracy and free trade is the most powerful tool to improve living standards we have today. It maximizes personal and economic freedom while providing the people with affordable services and the social mobility that comes from a well-designed mixed capitalist system.

That's a whole lot of absolutely nothing. Guess what! You didn't say anything remotely factual, and you made no attempt to address most of the major issues I present, both in my last post, and in all other posts this thread! I guess that means you really can't dispute the fact that capitalisms have weaker health care systems, less fair healthcare systems, and a lack of empathy towards people in unfortunate situations (both within the nation, and in other parts of the world).

Terrorist Cakes, are you trying to say that Canada isn't a capitalist country?

Cause we are, even if we have a little social democratic flavour to go with it.

Terrorist Cakes, are you trying to say that Canada isn't a capitalist country?

Cause we are, even if we have a little social democratic flavour to go with it.

No, I'm not trying to argue Canada's political orientation (though I believe we are more easily pegged as a centralism than a capitalism). What I'm trying to do is suggest that moderate socialist policies are effective and positive.

That's a whole lot of absolutely nothing. Guess what! You didn't say anything remotely factual, and you made no attempt to address most of the major issues I present, both in my last post, and in all other posts this thread! I guess that means you really can't dispute the fact that capitalisms have weaker health care systems, less fair healthcare systems, and a lack of empathy towards people in unfortunate situations (both within the nation, and in other parts of the world).

Canada has a pretty good healthcare system, as does the UK, Japan Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and every other nation in Western Europe and the OECD. Even the US isn't that bad compared to the horrible healthcare present in the "socialist" nations. All of the socialist nations rank at the lower end or the bottom of the Human Develop Index and the Gini Index of income inequality and all of the social democratic capitalist nations are at the top.

Socialism is not an empathic system; social democracy is, but socialism is not. It is inherently dysfunctional because government ownership of the economy leads to repression and stagnation, and no socialist government has ever been able to match the level of social services or economic opportunity in the social democracies.

Canada has a pretty good healthcare system, as does the UK, Japan Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and every other nation in Western Europe and the OECD. Even the US isn't that bad compared to the horrible healthcare present in the "socialist" nations. All of the socialist nations rank at the lower end or the bottom of the Human Develop Index and the Gini Index of income inequality and all of the social democratic capitalist nations are at the top.

Socialism is not an empathic system; social democracy is, but socialism is not. It is inherently dysfunctional because government ownership of the economy leads to repression and stagnation, and no socialist government has ever been able to match the level of social services or economic opportunity in the social democracies.

Firstly, what is your definition of Socialist nation? Last time I checked, Sierra Leone wasn't a viable socialism.
As for healthcare, the Canadian system, which is socialist, and was established by a socialist, has been proven more effective than the American system, which is two-tiered and capitalistic. Is that is or that not evidence supporting socialist policies?

Firstly, what is your definition of Socialist nation? Last time I checked, Sierra Leone wasn't a viable socialism.
As for healthcare, the Canadian system, which is socialist, and was established by a socialist, has been proven more effective than the American system, which is two-tiered and capitalistic. Is that is or that not evidence supporting socialist policies?

Socialistic policies, a part of social democracy, yeah. The entirety of socialism, not as much. Not enough to assume we should try for anything beyond social democracy.

No, I'm not trying to argue Canada's political orientation (though I believe we are more easily pegged as a centralism than a capitalism). What I'm trying to do is suggest that moderate socialist policies are effective and positive.
Then, believe it or not, you and Vetalia agree more than you disagree. You're saying the same things, you just don't agree to the definitions of the terms you're using.

Damned Albertan hicks...Remember, our lovely prime minister is Albertan born and bred. :headbang:
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that he was born and raised in Ontario and didn't move to Alberta until university. I could be wrong though.

Then, believe it or not, you and Vetalia agree more than you disagree. You're saying the same things, you just don't agree to the definitions of the terms you're using.

No! I refuse to agree that I don't really disagree with him/her, but just generally enjoy arguing with people!

Hey, TC, do you know if the Albertan premier is still trying to change the universal health care into the two-tier system?

I think he backed down under pressure on that one... in a province that's balanced it's books and eliminated it's debt, it didn't make a whole lot of sense to switch to two-tier...

Firstly, what is your definition of Socialist nation? Last time I checked, Sierra Leone wasn't a viable socialism. As for healthcare, the Canadian system, which is socialist, and was established by a socialist, has been proven more effective than the American system, which is two-tiered and capitalistic. Is that is or that not evidence supporting socialist policies?

Socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production; in other words, the public indirectly owns all land, labor, and capital through its government. There may be personal ownership of goods or services, but no private ownership of any goods, services, or means of production.

Public healthcare is a socialist idea, but it is not an example of socialism due to the fact that the means of production are still privately owned. This is an example of mixed capitalism, not socialism.

There are so many different models of "socialism" its are to say whether or not they can work in the long term.

Soviet Socialism or Soviet Communism is a failed ideology. Marxist Socialism was never really applied, but unlikely to occur given that our system is much different then mid-19th century.

Yugoslavia enjoyed a long period of socialist economic growth.

"The economy was organised as a mixed planned socialist and market socialist economy: factories were nationalised, but they were not owned by the state — they were rather socially owned"

"Privately owned craftshops could employ up to 4 people per owner. The land was partially nationalised and redistributed, and partially collectivised. Farmer households could own up to 10 hectares of land per person and the excess farmland was owned by co-ops, agricultural companies or local communities. These could sell and buy land, as well as give it to people in perpetual lease."

"In 1970s, the economy was reorganised according to Edvard Kardelj's theory of associated labour, in which the right to decision making and a share in profits of socially owned companies is based on the investment of labour."


Overall Yugoslavia's socialist system was the most successful until its break up. After which the economy crashed and war broke out.

Well, according to the new study out, Canadians have better access to health care, and, in turn, have better general health:
Actually, there are quotas and waits for certain things. There was a 92 year-old lady who had to wait a year and a half for a hip replacement! Doesn't sound like a great system to me.

Especially since it's based on force--stealing money from people to subsidize the health care of others is utterly immoral.

This is overall healthcare. I think that the top ten percent of America's doctors are better than the top ten percent of Canada's doctors. By the way, a mixed economy is the only way to go.

Especially since it's based on force--stealing money from people to subsidize the health care of others is utterly immoral.

Unless you're a complete anti-statist, that's kind of an absurd statement. By that rationale, any collection of taxation is utterly immoral.

Unless you're a complete anti-statist,
I am. I'm an anarchocapitalist (as opposed to those silly self-contradictory left-anarchists).


that's kind of an absurd statement. By that rationale, any collection of taxation is utterly immoral.
It is.

I am. I'm an anarchocapitalist (as opposed to those silly self-contradictory left-anarchists).

no you aren't

no you aren't
Oh go play in your little utopic sandbox. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

Canada, socialist?

No. They are a capitalist nation with a relatively healthy welfare state. Good for them.

Canada, socialist?

No. They are a capitalist nation with a relatively healthy welfare state. Good for them.
No, Canada is a quasi-socialist interventionist state.

No, Canada is a quasi-socialist interventionist state.
Sure it is.
And my toaster is the Space Pope.

Sure it is.
It is, your misplaced sarcasm to the contrary notwithstanding.

Actually, there are quotas and waits for certain things. There was a 92 year-old lady who had to wait a year and a half for a hip replacement! Doesn't sound like a great system to me.

Especially since it's based on force--stealing money from people to subsidize the health care of others is utterly immoral.
Don't be stupid. There aren't quotas, although there are some wait lists. But at least everyone gets health care. I know of 92 yr old American ladies who can't get a hip replacement at all, to borrow from your example.

And it's not based on force. We pay for it with our taxes. If you look at some of those links I posted earlier, you'll see that Americans pay nearly as much in taxes as Canadians for healthcare, you just service fewer people.

You can be an anarcho-capitalist all you like, but if no one can afford decent healthcare, even those who can are less likely to be healthy, what with the plague-ridden poor folks breathing your air and all.

Oh go play in your little utopic sandbox. The adults are trying to have a conversation.
So you were planning to pipe down and let Vetalia and Undelia speak then?

Don't be stupid.
I'm not.


There aren't quotas,
Then my canadian friends must have been lying to me. Which I highly doubt.


although there are some wait lists. But at least everyone gets health care.
.....or they die waiting for it.


I know of 92 yr old American ladies who can't get a hip replacement at all, to borrow from your example.
I know of 92 year old people who can't buy a Ferarri. So what?


And it's not based on force. We pay for it with our taxes.
What do you think taxation is? THEFT VIA THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT!

So you were planning to pipe down and let Vetalia and Undelia speak then?
Ooooh...what a crappy retort. Got something that shows your intellectual prowess? Or were you just going to let your fingers type something that your brain won't be able to cover?

What do you think taxation is? THEFT VIA THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT!
By deciding to live and work in a country where the contract between the government and its people consists of taxes, among other things, you condone the government's action, thereby stopping it from being theft.

By deciding to live and work in a country where the contract between the government and its people
No such contract exists. No, "implicitly accept" doesn't work, either. Find some other way to make theft moral. But you won't be able to.

So you were planning to pipe down and let Vetalia and Undelia speak then?

nah, he'll just whine for a bit and then get himself banned for flaming. again.

nah, he'll just whine for a bit and then get himself banned for flaming. again.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. As if somehow "whining" (which really means "Explaining things properly and demonstrating that socialism relies on the initiation of force") is not good. Yeah, I'm naughty because I don't let the people who want to steal things from me get away with it. Yeah. Damn me. I don't let them have their veneer that they want. I strip it away. Damn me. I'm such a whiner for not letting them have their fantasy land. Damn me.

No such contract exists. No, "implicitly accept" doesn't work, either. Find some other way to make theft moral. But you won't be able to.
I have to ask, what right do you have to live in your country? It's not an implicit right by any stretch of the imagination. What right do you have to travel the roads? What right do you have to be protected by the armed forces? What right do you even have to be present on any land not your own? That's the contract right there.

I have to ask, what right do you have to live in your country?
Your question makes presuppositions which need to be addressed, such as: the government owns the land.


It's not an implicit right by any stretch of the imagination. What right do you have to travel the roads? What right do you have to be protected by the armed forces? What right do you even have to be present on any land not your own? That's the contract right there.
No, it's not.

Your question makes presuppositions which need to be addressed, such as: the government owns the land.
They stuck the flag in it first. Isn't that how things work around these parts?

They stuck the flag in it first. Isn't that how things work around these parts?
No.

No.
I didn't ask how they should work. I asked how they did work.

Anyway, how would you do it?

I didn't ask how they should work. I asked how they did work.
It doesn't work that way, anyway.


Anyway, how would you do it?
Do what, precisely? I'm unclear as to what the "it" properly refers to. Clear that up and I'll answer your question.

Okay. How does land property currently work and how should it work?

Okay. How does land property currently work and how should it work?
It doesn't work, properly, right now.

It should work like this (http://www.againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.html)

I've always felt that the state should hold people over the state of desperation. Desperation in people is caused by several things, including crime, hunger, inadequate shelter, and sickness. If my mother gets cancer, I should not have to consider knocking over a liquer store in order to pay the surgeon. The greatest cause of low wage workers dropping out and becoming homeless is an injury that keeps them from working long enough for the rent to come due.

That, and a healthy citizenry is a public good. If the streets are filled with homeless people who have horrible infections that they can't cure, or mysterious ailments that they can't afford to see a doctor about, it makes things generally worse even for the better off.

Finally, theres the sense of compassion. I can see that an Anarcho-Capitalist may have issues with that, but I suppose you can have tall fenses built to obscure the dying people from your view.

I've always felt that the state should hold people over the state of desperation.
Let me finish your thought:

"...by forcing others to give up their property".

There. That's more honest.

And if you don't mind, could you kill your lie about anarchocapitalists not having compassion? Thanks. I'd appreciate it very much if you stopped lying.

I like to think of taxation as a fine for civilized life.

And I'm not lying. In my experience, people describing themselves as Anarcho-Capitalists have had a severe lack of compassion. I may be mistaken, but I am certainly not lying.

I am. I'm an anarchocapitalist (as opposed to those silly self-contradictory left-anarchists).


Interesting.... Many anarchists would argue that capitalism and anarchism are incompatible.

And any form of anarchism is the most impractical form of government there is.

And anarcho-capitalism is just... evil. Down right evil. Its "I dont give a fuck about you and dont touch my stuff". Its "I dont care if there are people dying, it is more important I have 3 cars than they get health care".

And taxes are the payment for the use of government provided stuff. You use roads? Schools? Hospitals? Hell, even people who used these services? You ever use the police? Do you live in a nation's borders and so are protected by the military forces of that nation from outside users of force. You are using government provided (or enhanced) stuff. Therefore you pay for that priviledge.

Go, try and not use anything which the government has not had a role in creating. You wont be able to. In fact, that capitalist system you so adore is even supported by the government. Capitalism has always only worked in places with stable governments.

Oh, and social democracy is a form of socialism... just on the right wing of socialism. I allegedly fall in the "internationalist socialist" bracket, which is slightly left of social democracy, but not by that much. Communism is also a form of socialism.

But there are big differences between the different strands of socialism. You cannot criticise social democracy by looking at the USSR for instance, as it was not a social democracy.

Interesting.... Many anarchists would argue that capitalism and anarchism are incompatible.

Please don't start that debate here... :(

It just ends in flames.

And any form of anarchism is the most impractical form of government there is.

I'm not so sure. What about a hippocracy? Rule by hippos seems even more impractical than rule by a collective. ;)

And anarcho-capitalism is just... evil. Down right evil. Its "I dont give a fuck about you and dont touch my stuff". Its "I dont care if there are people dying, it is more important I have 3 cars than they get health care".

Depends on which ancap you talk to. Some are callous, yes. Some are not at all, and are quite in favor of charity.

And taxes are the payment for the use of government provided stuff. You use roads? Schools? Hospitals? Hell, even people who used these services? You ever use the police? Do you live in a nation's borders and so are protected by the military forces of that nation from outside users of force. You are using government provided (or enhanced) stuff. Therefore you pay for that priviledge.

That we do. The anarchist's problem here would likely be one of consent. They aren't necessarily going to accept implied consent as a justification for the situation you describe.

Please don't start that debate here... :(

It just ends in flames.

OK, I will be quiet about that issue from now on about that then.


I'm not so sure. What about a hippocracy? Rule by hippos seems even more impractical than rule by a collective. ;)

Hmm... ok, got me there.... though it would be a fun experiment. Hmm... I nominate to have Malta run by hippos in a controlled experiment.


Depends on which ancap you talk to. Some are callous, yes. Some are not at all, and are quite in favor of charity.

Well, yes, I guess. Just the entire thing seems to be intrinsically callous. As individuals almost any political/economic ideology has generally decent people who subscribe to it.


That we do. The anarchist's problem here would likely be one of consent. They aren't necessarily going to accept implied consent as a justification for the situation you describe.

Ah well... I just guess I will have to learn to seeth quietly about it then, as I am never going to agree with an anarcho-capitalist. I have an anarchist friend, but an anarcho-capitalist I would never get on with... I suspect.

OR pay nothing untill you are injured or sick, at which time you pay an inordinate sum of money, regardless of your financial situation?
Private insurance?

Private insurance?

What happens if you cant afford that?

Many people cant.

Hmm... ok, got me there.... though it would be a fun experiment. Hmm... I nominate to have Malta run by hippos in a controlled experiment.

We simply must videotape it and sell it for profit like good capitalists though. ;)

Ah well... I just guess I will have to learn to seeth quietly about it then, as I am never going to agree with an anarcho-capitalist. I have an anarchist friend, but an anarcho-capitalist I would never get on with... I suspect.

Well you're getting on alright with me. :)

Though to be fair, I have anarcho-capitalistic ideals, but don't think human society is even close to being ready to implement such a system at this point so my RL politics tend to be very moderate.

We simply must videotape it and sell it for profit like good capitalists though. ;)

Share the profits what? 50/50?

Wait... darn it. The corrupting influence of money and the chance getting to see a nation ruled by hippos.


Well you're getting on alright with me. :)

Though to be fair, I have anarcho-capitalistic ideals, but don't think human society is even close to being ready to implement such a system at this point so my RL politics tend to be very moderate.

Ah well, I am often wrong.

Well, according to the new study out, Canadians have better access to health care, and, in turn, have better general health:


What do you think? Does this support a socialist system of equality? I think so, but I'm sure there are capitalists willing to argue with me...


What you mean is that this proves yet again that there ain't no such thing as good as the classical European mix of Free Enterprise + Central social care.


Prescribing any other system = political malpractise.

Share the profits what? 50/50?

No. You see we have to move from capitalism to socialism, so we'll make the money and then divide it among everyone equally. ;)

Wait... darn it. The corrupting influence of money and the chance getting to see a nation ruled by hippos.

Ah well, I am often wrong.

Hehe. No worries, mate.

Well, Interesting thread this... Now I have to and play Deus Ex for a bit.

If health care was nationalized in the US, hundreds of thousands employed by private health care companies would become unemployed, investors would lose millions and the tax burden would rocket.

I like to think of taxation as a fine for civilized life.
Then you believe theft is fine for civilized life.


And I'm not lying. In my experience, people describing themselves as Anarcho-Capitalists have had a severe lack of compassion.
Liar.

Interesting.... Many anarchists would argue that capitalism and anarchism are incompatible.
And many would argue that there is a god. They have no evidence for that, either.


And any form of anarchism is the most impractical form of government there is.
What a wonderfully self-contradictory statement.


And anarcho-capitalism is just... evil.
And here comes the strawman...

Down right evil. Its "I dont give a fuck about you and dont touch my stuff".
Strawman.


Its "I dont care if there are people dying, it is more important I have 3 cars than they get health care".
Strawman.

Try again.


And taxes are the payment for the use of government provided stuff.
Wrong. Taxation is theft. The fact that people must be coerced into "paying" for these things means that they don't want them in the first place. It's like the mafia extorting protection money from people.

What happens if you cant afford that?

Many people cant.
...because the government regulations and bureaucracy has made it that expensive.

It's analogous to the confiscatory tax rates of various "social democracies" aka socialist states. Such as Sweden.

Was geeting interest until I realised I'd misread the title. I thought it said "Another Pint for socialism". . . must get new glasses.

Then you believe theft is fine for civilized life.



Wow, congratulations at completely failing to understand what I said. I said A FINE. If you want to live in darfur where no one will protect you unless you pay them, and there's no taxes to set up infrastructure, then go ahead.


Liar.
Thank you for adding to my experience.

Taxes are money coerced from the people to pay for government programs that usually don't affect them.

Back in 1912 or 13, SCOTUS ruled a Federal Income Tax to be unconstitutional. So Congress made an Amendment allowing for it. Bloody thieves.