7 replies to this topic

[kobra500]

Now this isn't a long rant about America, I am not that arrogant, nor am I prone to classyfying people in one group as being the same, instead I am going to briefly speak about something which a large majority of people in America seem to feel.

You only need to look back in History to Vietnam to see how petrified the USA was of Communism, as if it was going to takehold, we're now approaching 2010 and has anything changed. To alot of people in politics, and people in general, Social reforms and socialism = Communism, this is not the case, it is a sad day when someones political beliefs that are in no way (Rasist or based on Nazi, Ideals, and other extremely negative things) are used as such an insult, communism is a dirty word, brought on I think through the telling of history, or implanted in the minds of children. The scary thing is, people with little healthcare, maybe no job and dirty clothes, living in the dirtyest trailer in the roughest parts, associate socialism with communism and therefore hate everything socialist, without realising socialism is there for them, this includes the disabled. Now socialism does not reward lazyness but what it does do is make sure people get a minimum standard of living which include healthcare.

ah yes you've zoomed in on the point of this topic, healthcare to those that need it, I am constantly shocked that the idea of a corperation being in charge of your health doesn't scare you more than the idea of rights for everyone, the corperations don't care about you, they want your money, and if you don't have insurance, you can't pay then they'll toss you on the street and leave you there. The government is/should be owned by the people, and therefore must care about you. Obama has wisely decided to take an unpopular action for change, wether you personally agree or not the hostility the idea has recieved has been shocking, the NHS has been used to show a negative however, wait times are now down to an acceptable lengh of time and everyone has healthcare, america's system see to it that millions of people don't get the help they need. Scrubs showed it best, the dr's sneaking patients without insurance on, is that a good system, I don't think so.

So please, social welfare reforms are not synonomous with communism, Robin hood isn't going to come steal all your money, tax may go up but it's going to need to go up regardless what with the economic climate. Please discuss.

[rvalkass]

kobra500, on Sep 3 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

You only need to look back in History to Vietnam to see how petrified the USA was of Communism, as if it was going to takehold, we're now approaching 2010 and has anything changed. To alot of people in politics, and people in general, Social reforms and socialism = Communism, this is not the case, it is a sad day when someones political beliefs that are in no way (Rasist or based on Nazi, Ideals, and other extremely negative things) are used as such an insult, communism is a dirty word, brought on I think through the telling of history, or implanted in the minds of children.

It seems to be the association in most peoples minds of communism with dictatorships. Communism, as a theory, is in no way related to dictatorships or the far-right, but in history communist nations have all ended up as right-wing dictatorships, and this is the association people get. Communism, they learn, is on the political left, and therefore anything on the political left is associated with communism. Now, obviously, that logic is incredibly flawed, but that is how a lot of people I've spoken to (both here in the UK and in the US) feel and think. Political theory even considered, at one point, that the very far left and very far right were one and the same. That theory has since been debunked.

kobra500, on Sep 3 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

ah yes you've zoomed in on the point of this topic, healthcare to those that need it, I am constantly shocked that the idea of a corperation being in charge of your health doesn't scare you more than the idea of rights for everyone, the corperations don't care about you, they want your money, and if you don't have insurance, you can't pay then they'll toss you on the street and leave you there.

The idea shocks me too. But then the idea that the electricity, gas and water in the UK was privatised also baffles and scares me. Things that fundamental and vital should never be operated for profit in the way the health industry works in the US. Everywhere privatisation has touched it has been a disaster, and yet governments never learn. If I ever get ill and need hospital treatment, there is no way that I could afford it on the spot, or afford the sort of bills people in the US have for health insurance.

kobra500, on Sep 3 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

The government is/should be owned by the people, and therefore must care about you. Obama has wisely decided to take an unpopular action for change, wether you personally agree or not the hostility the idea has recieved has been shocking, the NHS has been used to show a negative however, wait times are now down to an acceptable lengh of time and everyone has healthcare, america's system see to it that millions of people don't get the help they need. Scrubs showed it best, the dr's sneaking patients without insurance on, is that a good system, I don't think so.

A US paper recently made the following statement:

Quote

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

They clearly failed to notice that Hawking is British, received tons of help on the NHS and says he owes his life to the service he received.

Being able to get emergency and routine treatment when it is needed without the worry of massive bills is vital.

kobra500, on Sep 3 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

...tax may go up...

Tax may well go up, but medical insurance bills would plummet. Currently I pay £9.60 per month for the NHS. To get the same level of care in the US I have just been quoted a whopping $424.15 (£260) per month!!!

[sheepdog]

Tax may well go up, but medical insurance bills would plummet. Currently I pay £9.60 per month for the NHS. To get the same level of care in the US I have just been quoted a whopping $424.15 (£260) per month!!!

May go up??????? LOL, yea right. You know they will go up, HUGELY!!! Obummer has allready increased several different taxes.
And even if insurance premiums do go down, what if you don't have insurance now, and therefore are paying NO insurance premiums? Droping rates aren't going to help anybody that wasn't paying anything before. It is still going to take a big huge bite out of everyone's income. Obummer's idea of forced health insurance (like car insurance is now) is really going to hurt.

[rvalkass]

sheepdog, on Sep 11 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

May go up??????? LOL, yea right. You know they will go up, HUGELY!!!

What I pay in the UK for use of the NHS is a 96.3% reduction on the same cost for US medical insurance! Or, to put it another way, a 2708% increase if I were to move to the US. It seems like a drastic reduction to me. And it ensures that your medical treatment is completely free, always, wherever you choose to go.

sheepdog, on Sep 11 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

And even if insurance premiums do go down, what if you don't have insurance now, and therefore are paying NO insurance premiums? Droping rates aren't going to help anybody that wasn't paying anything before. It is still going to take a big huge bite out of everyone's income. Obummer's idea of forced health insurance (like car insurance is now) is really going to hurt.

If it is priced correctly, then it shouldn't take a massive bite out of everyone's income. Remember, as part of a welfare state it should be possible to tax the rich heavily and not tax those who are unable to find work or are on low earnings. That makes sure that those who can afford to pay, do, and those that can't don't have to.

[freshpub]

Someone corrects the poor French girl if she's wrong, and helps her understand it all...

Currently in the US, you have to have health insurance if you want to visit a doctor or the hospital to find out what is wrong with you, yes? So if you don't have insurance, you don't get diagnosed? Or you have to pay upfront for the doctor?

What about medicines? From what I see in movies, everyone pays for those, whether you have insurance or not. Do you get reimbursed or something?

Because if that's the case, then I would recommend the NHS format. Sure that will means higher taxes. But inform ne on this one: do people on no or low income pay taxes in the US? Because in the UK, they don't. Might be unfair to those who are working and earning a lot, but I think it could be far worse...

Just answer me these question, without shouting and preaching, and let me make my mind up.

[networker]

As long as there is poverty and economic inequality there
will be a need for socialism,which doesn't have anything
to do with communism at all.
Some essential services and and basic needs must be centralized to
a degree so society can function in a civil and orderly way.
I can't think of a better example than health care.
Some basic free kind of health care system for the poor is essential.
To control this , it must be centralized. Leave the privatization
for those who want botox and hair transplants and
Of course, allow the rich the right to buy their own specialized meds.
Never tell anybody to just eat cake though, as Marie Antoinette said.
Then we'll have a revolution alright.

[Watermonkey]

A quick search on Merriam-Websters reveals the definitions of socialism:

Quote

* Main Entry: so·cial·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Can someone point out the difference between that and communism? Let me help. Here's the definition of communism:

Quote

* Main Entry: com·mu·nism
* Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
* Date: 1840

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

I'm not reading any real difference in the two as defined by merriam-websters, an authority on definitions I think we can all agree upon. Here's what's really happening in America and, by default, other countries have experienced a similar situation albeit on a different timeline:

In the years proceeding the 1912 election in America (the exact year may not be right), powerful interests including the Rothschild family, a focal point of the emerging European banking cartel, began buying up large media interests in America's largest cities including the New York Times. By gaining control of the content published in these outlets, these bankers were able to manipulate the American public into electing Woodrow Wilson, a politician who they'd privately vetted as someone who would act in their interests, and in the following year, Woody passed the federal reserve act and removed our currency from the gold standard, mostly. Much later, in the early 70's, Tricky Dicky would complete the job, removing the dollar from any real gold or silver cementing its status as a total fiat currency. The free market was removed and communism installed in 1913 and, incrementally, every facet (condition) of the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and published first in February, 1848, as been put into place up to today:

Quote

10 Conditions For Transition To Communism

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[7]

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.

- from Wikipedia

And they (the media which they own and/or control -including especially those popular entertainment shows on TV like Friends, Scrubs, House, 24, ER, and virtually any other show you can think of) has convinced you ("useless eater" -their words, not mine) that it's the free market that has failed us and that we all need more government and higher taxes (and the spiraling effect they have on each other) to counteract this alleged failure when the reality is the free market hasn't truly existed here for nearly a hundred years. I don't really feel like spending time going through each of those bullet points quoted above, but if you can't see the modern effect of each, I'll point out the first one which may pass over some heads:

Quote

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

I can't think of anywhere, certainly not in N. America, one can go buy a piece of land, house, pay it off and still not owe money to the state every quarter, bi-annually, or annually in the form of property tax. If you stop paying that property tax, the state can come in, kick you out, and confiscate "your" property with no problem. What if you were convicted of some kind of drug violation? The DEA and Sheriff will share in the bounty and you'll be left without any property. There are a number of circumstances where you can lose your property. If you really owned your property, the state wouldn't have any power to come and take it from you. It's not really yours. Can you see what's happened? The communists never lost the cold war, they just took it underground. They won. America took longer to conquer because of our constitution, but it is lost now and nothing short of a violent revolution will win it back -and that's exactly the goal of these ghouls. They desire a world population one tenth of what it is today. They won't have to kill too many of us, we'll do most of the dirty work ourselves fighting each other. Grim, but true. Not theory. Fact. They've got this Obama character up there now who lies with no reflex of conscience whatsoever, who is not eligible to have run for any political office in the U.S. let alone President, to put into place the final finishing touches or, if you prefer, nails in the coffin, to their plans. And the masses cried when he spoke, worshiped him like the messiah, and wept when he lied right to their faces. The shame I feel, as an American, for this monster we've unleashed upon the world, can not be expressed.

[rvalkass]

The definition of socialism from the OED:

Quote

Any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy. The range of application of the term is broad. It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives.

And for communism:

Quote

A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community, and the organization of labour for the common benefit of all members; a system of social organization in which this theory is put into practice.

The difference is that socialism involves some power being vested in the workers through unions and co-operatives, nationalisation of certain industries and services (but not necessarily everything) and a welfare state (tax the grotesquely wealthy to help the poor). Communism makes everything publicly owned, and everything split equally - everyone gets paid the same, gets the same sized piece of land, etc.

Quote

the state can come in, kick you out, and confiscate "your" property with no problem.

The state do not own your property. It is that the punishment for the crime of not paying your tax is confiscation of something you own (property in this case). If it is a requirement of the law, and therefore a condition of your ownership of the property, that you pay that tax, and you choose not to, then some punishment would be enforced.