[civilian_number_two]

Yeah agreed. That's why I gave two examples, the one where damn! I better get a job or start cashing in them RRSPs, and the other where I am permanently unemployable (crippling injury and no one to sue) and need to collect some kind of social safety (in that case it would be disability bebefits, not welfare, and no way could I keep up that condo on disability).

[Spoon Poetic]

I'm too tired to argue everything that was said but I want to point out that I wasn't "fearing" cosmetic surgery being included in public healthcare, I've just seen it brought up a lot by supporters and that is one of the things I would not like to see implemented. And obviously there is a supporter of that here.
(Who of course didn't address my valid arguments against it - not just my opinions of how superficial it is, but how much money it would cost us, and how hard/weird it would be to regulate something like that.)

As for private and public healthcare coexisting, and your argument against that Jm, didn't I list out how current public healthcare sucks? Obviously I don't mean for them to coexist and public healthcare to still suck. It'd be fairly easy to give more money to medicare clinics etc., and have it so that people with a larger income qualify, and give those places better equipment and stuff. But we could still have private healthcare for those that would prefer it, and for people that very clearly can afford that and more.

And no I do not think welfare should pay for Mr. Whiney's leased Ferrari and his boat and his thousands of dollars of credit card debt. But that's not even why I brought up that guy. I don't even remember why I did because it was 3 a.m. and I haven't slept well since graduation. But anyway. Yes I do think that they should give up their gradiose assets and what not if they don't have the means to pay for it. After Civ said something about it you backtracked and pretended you didn't say that taxdollars should allow them to keep all that, but yeah.

I brought up socialism because when you bring up capitalism, well what is the other option? You can't effectively debate capitalism without talking about its counterpart.

And doctors actually don't get as much money as people seem to think. Because they have to go to SO much school (and here, they pay for it themselves), they have a lot of loans to pay off to start with. Then, now with how sue-happy everyone is, they have to pay so much malpractice insurance and stuff. On top of that, there are the nurses to pay, the receptionists, janitors and everyone else that works in an office. Plus the cost of equipment and equipment upkeep, and even all the little things like tongue depressors and things that they go through so many per day. So yes, doctor visits are expensive, but doctors don't see much of that. I mean doctors are well-off, sure, but they're not raking in the millions like people assume.
The money is in specialization, and even then it depends on your specialty and how many other people that money has to pay.
I am still tired so now I'm not sure what my point was with that. Something about private healthcare isn't making doctors into millionaires...

Anyway, I like most of how Canada has implemented things, but they are not completely socialist. They have a lot of elements of capitalism still. You can run your own business, do whatever job, do lots of jobs, etc... Government doesn't control all production and distribution and services. (Actually I am currently considering moving to the Gulf Islands.) The capitalism they have there is beneficial. But the move towards total socialism, which isn't like a big movement or anything of course, I oppose. And some changes/additions to these programs that are being talked about by some liberals, I oppose. And they call it socialism even when it's really not...

And I'm bored so I quit

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 26 May 2009 - 03:55 PM

[civilian_number_two]

My concern with the whole business/socialism thing is that the pendulum frequently swings too far. Say you run a grocery distribution warehouse. You pay guys to put boxes of food onto trucks, and you ask them to do it at a certain rate, with accuracy in mind. Say you determine that you can increase the rate to a point where guys can get the work done, but not especially safely, and where the pace is so demanding that guys age out around 25. The plus side is that no one makes it to top rate, because you keep firing them for working too slowly.

Well, the workers may get sick of this, and they may decide that they have a genuine reason to form a union. After all, without more reasonable productivity expectations, they will be looking for a new career. At 25. And I don't care how good they are at their jobs, their job is putting boxes onto trucks.

Well the thing is when you mention the union idea, folks will freak out about "socialism" and how businesses should be free to set their performance expectations according to their understanding of the needs of the business. They won't talk about how much money is lost on training, and errors, and damage, and how an experienced staff would do a better job over time; they just freak out about the application of a word they don't even understand.

And the worst thing about it is that it sells. People are so horrified of Stalinism that they fear any regulations on business or any form of collective bargaining. It should just be boards of governors and CFOs and the cult of management united against individual workers. Talk about creating a labour contract and you're a socialist. Why should you want a bargaining unit when you already have a "communications team" and an "open door policy?"

The American Worker and by extension the Americn Family are being phased out by a fiction. When typical Americans rail against Socialism, they are speaking of something done in other countries by corrupt governments. I find it necessary to get in on those conversations whenever I can.

[J m HofMarN]

(Who of course didn't address my valid arguments against it - not just my opinions of how superficial it is, but how much money it would cost us, and how hard/weird it would be to regulate something like that.)

Socialized medicine would have a high cost, and elective surgeries would be most likely a very small part of that. I dont believe in funding everything but, as I said, if someone has legitimate issues over their looks and it effects hteir quality of life or work performance (for instance, a kindergarten teacher with a giant mole on her nose that scares children, etc) then a doctor or psychologist should clear them for free surgery to fix the problem. Socialized medicine is not just about keeping human machines functioning to continue production, it should be about actually helping people to feel good so that they can function better.

It'd be fairly easy to give more money to medicare clinics etc., and have it so that people with a larger income qualify, and give those places better equipment and stuff. But we could still have private healthcare for those that would prefer it, and for people that very clearly can afford that and more.

So you want it to be the same way it is now, IE private and public poorly mixed, just it should no longer "suck" That's a good policy. I would prefer that the system be socialized. Because lets face it if elite clinics for the rich can get all the best doctors and personnel and utilities, then the clinics for the poor will be just that -- clinics for the poor. I like the idea of having one system with equal access and treatment for everyone.

Yes I do think that they should give up their gradiose assets and what not if they don't have the means to pay for it. After Civ said something about it you backtracked and pretended you didn't say that taxdollars should allow them to keep all that, but yeah.

Ok, admitted, if a guy has taken out a lease on, say, the empire state building and then loses his job, lets not pay him to keep that lease going. But most people do not have grandiose assets. They have a used or somewhat new car they make payments on and require to, ya know, live, and they have a house they also make payments on which they live in. Yes, there should be a cutoff point, but I don't think that homeowners should sell off their houses, or that people leasing a home should give up their dream of home ownership, simply because they fall on hard times for a while. In your scenario of a wildly rich guy abusing welfare to pay for his private jet, yes, I am against that. I would also be against him attacking homes with an assault rifle. Neither occurs that often.

I brought up socialism because when you bring up capitalism, well what is the other option? You can't effectively debate capitalism without talking about its counterpart.

Yes you can. You yourself have criticized capitalism. The problem is you offer no definate alternative, only a vague suggestion that the current system should not suck so much. When faced with a viable, systemic alternative, you go all Stalin and such.

And doctors actually don't get as much money as people seem to think. Because they have to go to SO much school (and here, they pay for it themselves), they have a lot of loans to pay off to start with.

Which is precisely what Civ pointed out with his examples of people getting cheap educations in Canada and coming down to practice in the US, where salaries automatically have to be enough to offset a 40000+ dollar student debt, living expenses, and still offer a profit. That looks appealing to an american who holds said debt, but what about to a canadian who owes nothing, and can therefore employ that 40000 dollars as disposable income?

As for this point about socialism requiring you to have a job decided for you by the POLITBUREAU I guess, or something, socialism doesn't work that way. You can't go and say that Canada gets off easy for not being completely socialist because you've already pointed out that no country is completely socialist, even Soviet Russia which you use as your prime example of a socialist country (they werent. Bolshevism wasnt even agreed to by the world socialist body. That's why the second intnl was disolved and the Russians set up the third.)

So, no, Canada and Western Europe are not at all completely socialist, and neither is Cuba, which also allows some degree of free enterprise. Or Vietnam, so forth and so on. So implying that the choice is between capitalism and true socialism is just not going to cut it. I would like us to be more socialist than capitalist, in other words, socialist.

[Spoon Poetic]

Um...
I never mentioned Russia, like, ever

And I wasn't as vague as "it shouldn't suck" I said it'd be easy to give them more money for better equipment and staff salaries and blahdiblah...

Also I never said the choice was between pure capitalism or pure socialism, you are yet again putting words in my mouth when it is actually quite clear that I am in support of a balance between socialism and capitalism, considering I have said EXACTLY that previously at least once, and it is clear I am in support of making a bit more socialist stuff in here.

Sheesh.

I don't want a TOTALLY socialist state which I'm not fearing it's going to snowball into, but I do see a lot of people arguing for that to happen, or arguing that it's totally awesome for the government to pay for Mr. Rich's lease on the Empire State building or whatever (which isn't even really socialism but they pretend it is so that they can take advantage I guess), and I just disagree with THAT.

I quit because I'm tired of words being put into my mouth and being misinterpreted, even if my 3 am posts aren't totally comprehensible I know I never said anything about Russia but according to you I am using it as my prime example...

I think I like the Debate Club better when there's more people in here so it's not quite so predictable. Jm says some stuff, Spoon says some stuff. Spoon brings other topics into the debate because they relate, but then that gets interpreted as who knows what. Spoon gets totally misinterpreted and words get put into her mouth, even though she's agreeing with much of what is said. Civ says some stuff that mostly agrees with Jm but then also causes Jm to backtrack and pretend he didn't say some stuff he did say, and Spoon gets words put into her mouth again. The cycle repeats. Fun stuff, huh?

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 27 May 2009 - 02:06 PM

[Gobbler]

That's what she said.

[Otal Nimrodi]

That's what she said.

Now Gobbler's putting words in her mouth!

[J m HofMarN]

No, you didnt mention Russia, but a lot of the antisocialist stereotypes produced? Don't tell me that when you were complaining about some guy ordering you into what job you would do, that he did not have a Russian accent. We've all seen the propaganda comics that go out of their way to associate Russia and socialism in general (where did I leave my copy of This Godless Communism?) so yeah, I think its fair to say that your socialist stereotypes were based upon things said about soviet russia, considering its been the butt of most of the propaganda poured into the heads of the majority of Americans.

And I wasn't as vague as "it shouldn't suck" I said it'd be easy to give them more money for better equipment and staff salaries and blahdiblah...

Where will that money come from if the program is onlyh going to continue to cover the impoverished folks it currently does? Unless we expand the roles of people involved in these programs via a socialized medicine program for everyone, then the number of people helped will not justify the cost, especially if its, as it is now, largely utilized by the chronicly ill or the elderly, who dont generate as much for society. Were it to be made to cover healthy working and middle class adults, we would see the effects offset by higher productivity as employees became healthier and took fewer sick days, etc.

am in support of a balance between socialism and capitalism, considering I have said EXACTLY that previously at least once, and it is clear I am in support of making a bit more socialist stuff in here.

Then why is it that my attack on capitalism, especially supply side capitalism, raised your hackles so much if youre, as you say, basically a moderate socialist? I am not at all for a balance, I am for socialism with some capitalism mixed in. Allowing capitalism and socialism to exist side by side in competition without enough restrictions on capitalism will result in capitalism taking over or more exploitation than should be permitted.

Also, you yourself have said that a totally or true socialist state is impossible, so if that's out the window, we socialists have to settle for a partly socialist government with parts of capitalism mixed in. So according to you all this argument is about is whether we should go 50/50 or 75/25 depending on which one of us is asked. We both indicate that nationalization is required, but differ on the stop off point. Your thesis is that bad stuff will start to occur as the level of socialism increases, but that it should increase, only, maybe, not a lot?

I quit because I'm tired of words being put into my mouth and being misinterpreted, even if my 3 am posts aren't totally comprehensible I know I never said anything about Russia but according to you I am using it as my prime example...

Maybe start posting when you're in your prime then? I don't know, just some of the debate is a bit off, on both sides I'm sure. We'll just have to wait til the next Snake Logan drops by to have a proper trouncing.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 28 May 2009 - 04:20 AM