Related Posts
-
Barack Obama doesn't care about white people
+95 points / pics -
Staring at women's breasts is good for your health!
+225 points / videos -
For all who care about Halo. . . . . . Here coms reach
+14 points / pics -
I don't care
+129 points / pics -
Public Health Warning.
+49 points / pics -
Few Memes For Your Health
+160 points / pics -
Baby Care
+84 points / pics -
Im Eating A Cookie!
+16 points / videos -
Observation on health.
+26 points / misc -
health and saftey issue
+18 points / pics
Communism and Socialism have next to nothing to do with each other.
ex. In true capitalism the govt would have no influence at all on businesses. Our govt does have influence such as regulations on safety just to begin on how deep our govt regulations reach into our economy.
Sorry for the slight attack below Ertrov, I just often find it hard to be told I don't care about the same human race that contains my loved ones. I am sure it was just a simple misunderstanding though, and I don't think this is the place to bring up evolution. If you wish to do so, I'd be happy to go again in one of the old threads, just let me know : P.
Off to bed! I am tired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture — a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD
Jackson , MS
I don't have a fancy video rebuttal, but I do have a few points to make : ):
1.) According to Snopes that never actually happened : P.
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
/>
2.) We have no documented examples of this occurring in the real world. The video proposes a hypothesis about human nature. That, in a society, people would care so little about their own survival and loved ones that they would refuse to work and succeed. I don't know about you, but in the event that a B average was received on the first test, I would study extremely hard to try and help out all of my friends and myself. And I know almost all of those in my classes would do the same. Obviously I can't speak for those I don't know, but from my experience, the example above is simply not practically applicable.
3.) To equate grade distribution with wealth distribution is almost correct... however, it ignores a very large difference: the difference in base motivation. A student's life is not effected very much by a single low grade. So, the choice is between a high grade and a low grade, and that is ultimately not exactly a big difference in the grand scheme of things. However, in the real world, the choice to work or not is between survival and economic/financial collapse, and the stakes are much, much higher.
Essentially, this video is conjecture and nothing more: conjecture I strongly disagree with.
Unearned extravagance should equate to a death sentence?
I disagree...
I think it's more complicated than socialism=laziness, but I think the simplest idea ever is that saving lives=an honorable pursuit.
And ignoring that for now, I essentially support the general socialist ideal over the capitalist idea because of the base principles of each system.
"Capitalism" is about capital, the financial health of a community and the respect of the class system.
"Socialism" is about social goals, the social health of a community and the equalizing of the class system.
I'm a liberal idealist who chases equality far past the realm of practicality. Which is why I love socialism: the journey for equality. : D
The Fire Department, as well as other agencies, and especially look at:
VA Health Care, extremely good.
Medicare, doing just fine.
Sweden, ROCKING it! : ).
Taking greed out of health care is the way to go in my opinion. For people, not profit.
And Social Security provides:
Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
What's so bad about it?
(And I still would believe that Gov. Healthcare systems are the best comparison to use when discussing a possible Gov. Healthcare system... but that's just me?)
Then why don't we let Health Care be in existence?
There should be some type of help for people when they need it but what we have now is way too overused.
Which is why this type of discussion is so great. +1 Jofus.
We are sitting just behind Costa Rica. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
/>
First is in fact France : ). With Public Health Insurance. : ).
The rankings rely on five factors:
Responsiveness
Fairness of financial contribution
Overall level of health
Distribution of health in the populations
Distribution of financing
That help?
1. They say " Well my immune system is a tank i dont need any healthcare". this is fine because we live in the Fucking USA. Do you know what that means? it means we have to make our own choices once in a while.
2. They can't afford it. (which is the only people we should help pay for.
3. They're illeagel!!!!!!!! Most of the "Americans" that don't have insurance aren't supposed to be here in the first place.
Anything to say?
The amount of charitable organizations currently active dealing with health care situations can't even come close to covering the cost of the impoverished. Also, these charitable organizations rely on direct donation, then distribute that money out to the poor. How is this different from allotting your personal money to the government, through taxes, who then distribute some of it to pay for health care? You can't really advocate one and not the other.
Very few don't have health insurance? That's preposterous. In fact, 45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of coverage. This figure is horrifying.
http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
/>
1.) I don't support giving people who can afford health care but choose not to purchase it health care. When they want health care, they should get it, I don't intend to infringe upon their freedoms.
2.) This is extremely common. A third of Americans (86.7 million people) went uninsured for some of or all of the past 2 years. Because they could not afford it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5233QM20090304
/>
3.) I am still undecided as to how to deal with illegal immigrants and health care. However, I don't think they deserve a de facto death sentence just because they don't have the right signed paper. But, let's not debate this last point, because I am really on the fence (haha) about it. Thanks.
Health care pays you!
Bad "In soviet Russia.." Parody :P
I do not base my choice just on the movie, but rather my beleif that the current sysytem is broken and needs to be fixed (if you want to debate that fact, go ahead, make yourself look like a dumbass)
I have some faith in humanity at least.
Except you and Jofus right above this comment...
Let me quote:
Jofus: "We still have the best health care in the world."
Ertrov: "Yeah."
I'm getting tired of you, Ertrov, using strawmans to misrepresent my position, attacking me and my worldviews personally, then dismissing my arguments without addressing them or reading the sources I provide. Soon I will have to cease discussion with you, for it is proving fairly fruitless and frustrating.
Jofus, I have absolutely no issue with you, as you take what I say into consideration, concede points when necessary, do not when it is not necessary, and are a generally well-meaning person. Let us continue the discussion : ). Thanks for being on point.
True, Canada doesn't have a fantastic health care system, and you are right to point it out. Kudos. However, they have a very rudimentary form of standardized health care, one I would not support being implemented in the US. They spend only 10% of the National GDP on health care, which I do not agree with. In 2006, 46% of the US health care was government funded, whereas 70% of Canadian health care was. However, the total US spending was more than double the Candian's on health care in total. All I propose is that we bump up government health care to 100% instead of 46%, and still spend the same amount. This doesn't change much except that everyone receives care.
2. I'm sorry for naming the wrong type of primate, but I don't see how that changes my point.
3. It would demean it because that means we are just animals, who at base level care only for our own survival.
4. I know that's what I said, and again, there is a difference between being good, and just being the best of a group of bad choices.
5. I did not attack you or use your views as a strawman. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I was merely pointing out that this philosophy might have contradicted with the way you normally debate.
6. I have addressed them, and I do read whatever material I have time to. The fact that I still disagree does not mean I ignored your evidence.
2.) It show that you haven't done further research since our last evolutionary discussion.
3.) We ARE just animals, through pure taxonomic classification (done originally, in fact, by a biblical literalist). That doesn't make us any less human.
4.) I see what you are saying, but the second part is still factually incorrect.
5.) Nothing in my worldview before in our discussions has dwelled on my feelings toward the human race... I simply spout hard fact when speaking of scientific principle. In this area of health care and economics, however, I serve out my belief. There is no contradiction, and to say a belief in evolution causes a carelessness for human life is to completely misunderstand the human peoples and the scientific principle.
6.) Yes, the fact that you still disagree has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not evidence is ignored. If, however, the same simple tag line is reiterated time and time again without change to accommodate evidentiary sources, that in fact does give a clue that you ignore my queries and propositions.
For example, a group of people are waiters and waitresses at a resturant. At this establishment all of them do not keep their own tips. They have to put all of their tips into a pool, which at the end of the day is divided evenly between all of them. But one of he waiters decides that he doesn't want to work hard and go out of his way to be nice to customers. That day he only recieves $25 in tips but another waiter made $60 in tips. Why should they both make the same amount of money? That sounds very unfair to me. The waiter who made $25 dollars in tips will have no motivation to improve his work and will continue to do the bare minimum. But if they didn't have to put their tips into a pool the bad waiter would have motivation to be a good employee.
It also doesn't include the right for black people to vote, it doesn't include abolishment of slavery, and it doesn't include any Disability laws. I think we can add things to the Constitution just fine, even though we are past the Bill of Rights ; ).
I see your scenario. However, you treat it in the wrong way: ignoring the true nature of competition. The same restaurant, one waiter makes $60, one makes 25$ in tips. They both put the tips into the pool. Now, from there, their boss takes all of that money, because he's the supervisor and thinks he deserves a higher salary. From that, his boss takes that money, then the boss above that, etc, etc, considering that the money has a snowballing effect as it reaches the top.
Thus, all of that money goes to the executive of the Restaurant chain, and none goes to either server.
This is what we see today, 95%+ of America's total wealth in the hands of less than 5% of the population. Talk about a rich poor gap.
Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is perfect... but Socialism is at least humane.
And we should stop that thread of conversation, because we aren't talking about base economic systems, simply preventing American deaths where we can (by employing health care).
The FDA?
NASA?
USDA?
FCC?
Whether or not things are a "right," we still have them, and they are still extremely beneficial to the American people. Simply because we don't have to pay for the Fire Department doesn't make them any worse, or Americans any less American for utilizing the system.
I realize you were, but either way, the ultimate output of Capitalism is greed.
Which is what I support, because I think equality, no matter how lofty a goal, should always be something to strive for.
And the problem with your argument there is that Capitalism has the exact same failing. Without the economic higher-ups injecting money into the economy (creating a system with fair pay, many jobs, cheap products, and not pocketing all of the money for themselves), a.k.a., working for America and not themselves, you arrive at a similarly faulty system.
If both systems have the same problem (relying too much on human decency) why not choose the one that's an equalizer, instead of the one thats a divisor?
www.cbsnews.com/stories/.../main682341.shtml
Please tell me if it doesn't work. But try to Google it first.
Sorry that is a topic for a whole new post.
2.) Welfare has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with base living costs. Receiving enough welfare to pay for treatment is preposterous.
3.) I think saying that every single person who can't afford health care made a bad decision is a gross oversimplification at best. Plenty of good people can't afford health insurance:
the statistic showing that 1 in 7-1 in 6 Americans go without health insurance. Do you really think that many people are worth left for dead?
4.) Many jobs don't provide adequate health care employees.
I'm sorry to say this, but your position seems at least somewhat uninformed, and you seem to not care about your fellow Americans' well-being. I find this frankly appalling... thinking that before you go touting ideals you should check the available facts and figures to see if your statements are accurate. Every day without public health care, more people die that could be saved. I just wish those deaths would cease.
Should employers be required to provide all employees with health insurance? I think not. If a business owner has to pay for health insurance for every employee he will have to lay off some employees because it will cost him more money to run his/her company but will not be making any more money. Also that would lower production.
No, I in no way think that employees should get health care by default. It's nice when that is true, but I think a base health care (universal) should exist for all members of this society. Simple recognition of the need of care for life to exist. My comment was in response to lingauno, saying that most jobs provide health insurance.
Like I said, I was not saying that. Just responding to an incorrect statement.
Universal health care is a completely different issue.