Has Europe 'horribly failed' because of Socialism?

[Nono]

Quote by: A...guy America didn't get to it's greatness because of big and controlling government.

And that greatness is?? Fill me in here cos I'm bewidered.

[brien]

Quote by: westcoastdog Several contributors have commented on the high tax rates in Europe. Universal health care is a government expense there and this is an important factor for the high rates. Interestingly, Europeans pay less per capita and enjoy better health than Americans. Yes, there has been financial strain on universal health care, and a few countries offer private insurance, but overall their medical care and coverage is far superior to the U.S., where 15% of the population remain uninsured and, sadly, this percentage is increasing. The U.S. remains the only industrialized country without comprehensive health care.

I am interested in your statements:

You wrote: Yes, there has been financial strain on universal health care, and a few countries offer private insurance, but overall their medical care and coverage is far superior to the U.S.,

I ask: Far superior than the US? Any statistics to back this up? I have been under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that many people travel to the US to have medical treatment performed because in their own country, the proceedure is either inferior to the US Hospital's equipment on hand, or the wait is intolerable. I am interested in knowing how valid this somewhat prevalent idea is in US society today.

You wrote:where 15% of the population remain uninsured and, sadly, this percentage is increasing. The U.S. remains the only industrialized country without comprehensive health care

I write: Indeed it is and this crisis needs to be addressed now, not tomorrow. But US politicians are cowards. The US doesn't require State supplied health care. It requires the system we have in place now but reformed. The private sector in the US is in the best position to deliver health care. The US supplies State run health care system in the VA hospitals and it is a mess. Long waits for routine proceedures, dilapadated hospiatls, and personel who deliver the care, less than motivated.

Socialized Medicine may be the best answer in other countries but it isn't right for the US. The best answer for the US is to have health care remain within the privatized system it now occupys. Those that are without coverage need to be brought under the umbrella of this private system. I have outlined a system for the delivery of National Health Care in another thread termed "Wage Disparity". If you are iinterested you can go there to understand how best I think the US can treat this problem, but I can't restate it here.

What I can state is that Socialist Medicine is not right for the US. Our Physicians, our hospitals, and our insurance providers are all set up to deliver health care within the private sector and with some reforms, we can improve that system to include every last person in America.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Nono but the main thing is systematic redistribution of wealth, which means deciding what you consider excessive at both ends of the wealth-poverty scale and implementing means of making it flow in the desired direction.

Incorrect.

Wealth redistribution is a government function.

Socialism is not a form of government, it's an economic system.

It describes an economy where everything is owned by the govenrment. Something that will never happen.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: westcoastdog Interestingly, Europeans pay less per capita and enjoy better health than Americans.

Incorrect.

but overall their medical care and coverage is far superior to the U.S.

Incorrect.

, where 15% of the population remain uninsured and, sadly, this percentage is increasing. The U.S. remains the only industrialized country without comprehensive health care.

So?

Is it the tax payers responsibility to pay for the pill addicts to get their next fix? No.

[Nono]

Quote by: tman Socialism (...) describes (...) an economy where everything is owned by the govenrment.

Think you better be getting yourself a real dictionary there, t. You and I obviously aren't speaking the same language.

[Nono]

Quote by: Aquiet Americans have the freedom in the world.

You trying to tell me that I'm not free?

We have one of the best living standards in the world.

But the funny old thing is that the countrys with a higher standard of living than yours -- Canada and the Nordic countries, say -- are the ones with the socialist systems.
Now how you do figure that?

We give the most aid to other nations.

Well with a population of 300 million I should damn well hope it ain't peanuts.
But what is your per capita contribution? Your contributution in percentage of GNP?
Your contribution not tied to purchases of military hardware?
Eh?
That's where the US suddenly doesn't look quite so generous.

It sounds as if you are a shamed to be an American.

I ain't, cause I ain't. Jesus, man, you think everyone on this board is American?

It sounds to me as if you're chock-full of American propaganda.

[brien]

Quote by: Aquietguy1 Americans have the freedom in the world. Well that's the way it's suppose to be according to the constitution. We have one of the best living standards in the world. We give the most aid to other nations. Most major advancement was created in America. We have the constitution. I wouldn't want to live no where else. It sounds as if you are a shamed to be an American.

Sir: I think you are a little full of yourself in that you are: rah rah rah, sis cum bah, type American. With all due respect, there are many, many aspects of America that fall short of the "American Dream."

You wrote:Americans have the freedom in the world.

I ask: Maybe you should ask a few minority groups. African Americans, Jews, Asians, and Hispanics. You qualified your statement with a reference to the Constitution, but can you explain how the "freedoms" contained in the Constitution express and support your idea?

You wrote: We give the most aid to other nations

I say: This is one of the prime examples in the core of the problems here in the US. The US runs around the world waving dollars around like a drunken sailor. Then people bitch and moan when they don' get what they want out their "investment". Eg, elections by the Palestinians. To make matters worse, the US gives to nations who perhaps don't deserve the money. If the US kept the Billions and Billions they spend abroad, either in military or in foreign aid, we could wipe out the deficit, begin to eliminate poverty and homelessness, and invest in the security of our own nation at the borders .If we weren't involved in Iran, and the rebuilding of their infastructure, we could use the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars earmarked for that project, to rebuild our own infastructure . We need to lead by example here at home, not by force abroad.

You wrote: I wouldn't want to live no where else.

I write: Well, this is your own view. I too, love where I live also. That said, perhaps you should make an effort to understand there is a whole world out there that is perfectly happy living right where they live. Not everyone agrees with American values and American standards of living.

[Acebass]

Quote by: SlantedFacts [CENTER] [/CENTER] I gotta answer this! YOU ASKED! YES!! They have failed BIG TIME! Let me present this analogical scenario - A person goes to work - the employer expects 10 things to be accomplished every day. Another employer in the same field of experience expects an employee to do (more or less) just 6 things. Basic human nature would dictate that more people would try to get a job with the second company than with the one with higher expectations COMMON SENSE would make a person wonder which one was more successful. Politics is like those employer's - the lower standards attract more employee's with lower goals and objectives. As I see it - Socialism is like the second company. Look at what has happened in this country already. People do not want to be responsible for their sexual outcome So there is a push for ABORTION and AIDS research and assistance on the taxes People do not want to be schooled So they expect the schooled to subsidize their poverty through taxes Homeless do not want to work So they expect handouts funded through taxes and donations People want FREE medical They wait for months to get special medical services paid from taxes. Socialism is a let down for producers - those who are willing to work for higher goals and standards. DON'T GET ME WRONG - I am all for helping the poor (the poor that are willing to help themselves). A big part of why the poverty level is as it is in the USA is due to the feverish need to play political Robin Hood. There is a reasonable solution to this . . . but it needs to go into a NEW THREAD! :)

What are your comparisons of? You speak of Europe then talk about the US. Do you have any idea what a true socialist society is? The health care system is paid for through tax dollars, it's not free...
The rest of your analogy doesn't make sense to me, but it could just be me...

[Acebass]

socialism; A system or theory of social organisation in which the producers possess both political power and production and distribution means...

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Nono Think you better be getting yourself a real dictionary there, t. You and I obviously aren't speaking the same language.

I speak english

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism:

a centralized government that controls the economy.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I speak english http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism:

You have managed to take a defintion posted on the internet, which is poor at best, and still get it wrong and take it out of context: -

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

This is what happenes when you don't quote fully and in context.

[Nono]

tman, you'd be hard-pressed to find many socialists who advocate public ownership of more than a selected core of economic linchpins. In other words -- brace yourself for a shock here, t. -- socialists don't advocate nationalizing Gramma's corner store. :)

[Acebass]

It's Humanized medicine not Socialized medicine, and the only difference is that higher taxes offset even higher medical bill that we have now...
Humanized medicine takes care of all not just the wealthy, and your not forced into bankrupcy if you just so happen to get sick...

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Nono tman, you'd be hard-pressed to find many socialists who advocate public ownership of more than a selected core of economic linchpins. In other words -- brace yourself for a shock here, t. -- socialists don't advocate nationalizing Gramma's corner store.

Then they're not socialists.

They've perverted the definition.

[Nono]

Quote by: tman Then they're not socialists.

Strange. That's what they call themselves.
I guess they forgot to check with you first for your semantic blessing. How negligent.

[brien]

Quote by: Chris the Chees 10% maybe 20%, tops, in perhaps the most extreme of examples. Well, you have got Anarcho-Capitalist written under your user name. I guess you are looking at it from a very, very different perspective from me. So do I, thus the failure of societies based on totalitarianism, I hope you don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism. No, socialism is a set of principals, both economic, political and social. It encompasses some ideologies which promote strong central government but it also encompasses some ideologies which promote the utter elimination of central government. What it is not is the rather petty policy's of pseudo-liberal democratic governments, designed only to preserve votes while attempting to not risk the vote of the middle class. Which only the most naive of people take seriously. Hitler was no socialist, nor was his party. The term socialist refers to the party's origins not how it was in reality, it was also used as a means of garnering support. The economic policy of Hitler ties in with the fascist policy's of Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." While Hitler certainly did not follow this as blindly as Mussolini, there certainly are obvious elements of this within Nazi Germany. I can only assume you fail to understand the nature of income tax, you are taxed in proportion to your earnings. This means that a tiny elite, who can easily afford to give 50% of there earnings if not more and still be far better off than everyone else in society by a significant margin. This means that on your tropical Island, which we will assume has a population of perhaps 1000 people, only one person will be being taxed that highly. That person who is still richer than everyone else on the Island and the only reason they are that rich is because they are taking advantage of the lucrative society which they live in. As they are the people who reap the benefits of society almost in the full, then it is hardly unfair to ask that they, who gain the most, give the most. The simple fact of the matter is, if this lone individual did not like the situation they can certainly leave everything behind move to another country and start again. However they rarely do, I wonder why....? But they won't though, the number of people who are in the maximum tax band are a very tiny minority. The majority of people will never be nearly successful enough to ever get taxed 50% of their earnings. Actually, the revolution started, like all revolutions of the period, because one social elite wished to replace another social elite. The late 18th and 19th century were marked by the attempts of the bourgeois elements of society attempting to wrestle power and influence from the aristocracy. The Boston Tea party have been a sparking point, as was the fornicating of one Lola Montez in Bavaria in the 1848 revolutions, but it certainly was not the cause of anything. You are a very confused gentleman, I must say. Communism, while certainly being a sub-species of socialism certainly is not being propagated by many people in this day and age. Unlike socialism which is a collection of principals, communism is a very specific ideology.

Chris: Point of information here.

You wrote: Actually, the revolution started, like all revolutions of the period, because one social elite wished to replace another social elite. The late 18th and 19th century were marked by the attempts of the bourgeois elements of society attempting to wrestle power and influence from the aristocracy. The Boston Tea party have been a sparking point, as was the fornicating of one Lola Montez in Bavaria in the 1848 revolutions, but it certainly was not the cause of anything.

I write: In one aspect you are correct here about the Boston Tea Party, but the Rebellion really was an extension of Colonial discontent stemming from 1747 over impressment of Colonists into the British Navy. Therefore, you are correct in the sense that the Tea Party didn't spark or cause the Revolution. This is a widely held superficial misconception. Furthermore the "revolt" didn't start over the Tea Party. This event was only staged to galvanize the people along the Boston waterfront into supporting the Colonists who were anti Bristish rule. There were many other issues more important than taxation on tea. Tea just made the statement. The main resentment by the colonists against taxation by the Crown was the tax imposed upon them by the Church of England. Taxation was merely one aspect of the reasons for the revolt.

Also, I am not in 100% in agreement that "one social elite wished to replace another social elite". This too seems to superficial a statement to be specificaly true. I suppose that one could generalize and adhere to your statement, but when one begins to dig a little deeper, one finds more than Social Elites at work in the government. Social elites may have framed the government, but the actual framework of the government included all free men. One must remember that when the government was functioning in the early 19th century, all elected positions were part time only. There were no professional politicans. Men came to Washington, did the business of the government, and returned home to their jobs, whatever they were in their daily lives. Government was a part time position, which pleased everyone, particularly because no one wanted to spend the summer in the swamps of MD. It was hot, humid and full of bugs, as oppossed to the original capital of Philadelphia.

For example, when General Jackson, who was born in 1767 into a not so "social elite" family, was elected President in 1829, and took possession of the WHite House, in 1830, he threw open the gates to the residence and invited every person who could make it, to one of the biggest drunken bashes ever held on the White House Lawn. He was the first President elected by a majority of the popular vote. Agreed, he made money after earning a law degree, and earned his reputation by defeating the British in New Orleans in the War of 1812, but he rather came from some very humble rooots as he was born in the backwoods of North Carolina to a very financially modest family.

You also wrote: can only assume you fail to understand the nature of income tax, you are taxed in proportion to your earnings. This means that a tiny elite, who can easily afford to give 50% of there earnings if not more and still be far better off than everyone else in society by a significant margin. This means that on your tropical Island, which we will assume has a population of perhaps 1000 people, only one person will be being taxed that highly. That person who is still richer than everyone else on the Island and the only reason they are that rich is because they are taking advantage of the lucrative society which they live in. As they are the people who reap the benefits of society almost in the full, then it is hardly unfair to ask that they, who gain the most, give the most.


I ask: What happens when your one "rich" guy dies? Furthermore, when you run the so called rich toward seeking tax shelters because the are unfairly targeted by the governemntment, who will you tax then? Taxes do need to be evenly applied which is why income taxes are a very poor way of supporting a governemnt that requires more and more from less and less contributors. I can easily go to the Bahamas, shelter my income from the US government, and pay no income tax at all. So, when your evil rich guys who don't pay their "fair share" move to shelter their income, I am neither surprised nor am I in disagreement.

The idea that people become rich at the expense of someone else is class envy and couldn't be further from the truth. Thomas Edison became rich from selling his alternating current to the power industry and brought the electric light to millions of homes. How did that act "take advantage" of society? This business of class envy which is mainly supported by the Republicrats, is a old whore in an old dress, and being bought by those who don't know any better. They fall prey to Socialist rhetoric like the "rich get richer as the poor get poorer", and the statement you made about those who are successful in society, do so at other people's expense. This is just plain socialist propaganda. Taxes need to be eveny spread across the entire social sprectrum to include all people who benefit from the governement under which they live and work.

[Boetie]

Just a thought for those of you whom bash socialism.

Take a state like Nebraska where the power is public owned. The people elect the board that will run the operation. What this means is that the members of the board cannot do anything to gouge the citizens otherwise they will not be elected next time around. On the other hand a CEO of a private company can gouge it's customers and the customer cannot do anything about it.

If the public power of Nebraska collects more than the cost the surplus is set aside so when a mild increase in cost of power happens the surplus money is used so as to prevent an increase in the peoples bill. This is something no private company will do. Note: Nebraskan citizens had not had a raise in their bill for ten years.

Given the success of a public owned power. There is not a single private company that could do better and not a single private company has ever dared to approach Nebraska with such a claim they could do better, because private companies is all about profit and not about power to the people, pun intended.

[brien]

Quote by: Boetie Just a thought for those of you whom bash socialism. Take a state like Nebraska where the power is public owned. The people elect the board that will run the operation. What this means is that the members of the board cannot do anything to gouge the citizens otherwise they will not be elected next time around. On the other hand a CEO of a private company can gouge it's customers and the customer cannot do anything about it. If the public power of Nebraska collects more than the cost the surplus is set aside so when a mild increase in cost of power happens the surplus money is used so as to prevent an increase in the peoples bill. This is something no private company will do. Note: Nebraskan citizens had not had a raise in their bill for ten years. Given the success of a public owned power. There is not a single private company that could do better and not a single private company has ever dared to approach Nebraska with such a claim they could do better, because private companies is all about profit and not about power to the people, pun intended.

Please explain to us how a CEO can "gouge" its customers? You are leaving out the element of competition. Where there is competition there are alternatives and choices. There is no need for government to become involved to regulate goods or services.

What Nebraska has set up is simply a government run monoply that restricts and prevents competition. This is fine if you want your companies run by the government. I prefer not to allow government to compete with private enterprise for obvious reasons.

Edit: Please keep in mind my orginal statement that Socialism may be good for the countries where it seems to work, but I think it not appropriate, nor in the best interest, of the US economy or the society on which it is based. Competition is the bedrock of the economy of the US.

[Boetie]

brien posts: Please explain to us how a CEO can "gouge" its customers? You are leaving out the element of competition. Where there is competition there are alternatives and choices. There is no need for government to become involved to regulate goods or services.

Make it Private Company rather than CEO if that suits.

There were nine states that was sold on your idea. Those nine states decided to take your idea and got goverment out of power, pun intended. The results was the price of power skyrocketed no cheaper power, just a higher bill.

A tenth state saw what happened to the nine states and dropped the cow confetti speech of how privatizing will be cheaper. The tenth state was glad they saw what happened because once you get that privatization crap going it's hard to get back to more sane plans.

Nebraska even sells its surplus energy to Florida at a profit of course. Gee I wonder who the governor of Florida is? I'll bet the governor of Florida is a privatizer.

[brien]

Quote by: Boetie Make it Private Company rather than CEO if that suits. There were nine states that was sold on your idea. Those nine states decided to take your idea and got goverment out of power, pun intended. The results was the price of power skyrocketed no cheaper power, just a higher bill. A tenth state saw what happened to the nine states and dropped the cow confetti speech of how privatizing will be cheaper. The tenth state was glad they saw what happened because once you get that privatization crap going it's hard to get back to more sane plans. Nebraska even sells its surplus energy to Florida at a profit of course. Gee I wonder who the governor of Florida is? I'll bet the governor of Florida is a privatizer.

And how long has the deregulation "experiment" been allowed to function. And is it really a private company? I'll lay wager that each of those "private" companies are subject to a myriad of government regulations that force them to charge the higher prices you use for an example. The deregulation of the electric companies of which I think you are referring to, has only recently been allowed by government and there has been little time to judge their effectiveness. Recent utility rate hikes across the nation are not a reflection of the true nature of the success or failure of deregulation, which by the way is merely re-regulation by the government.

How fair is it to allow the government to compete with a private company?