Medicare for all.

[Staidhup]

That is the whole point, in that socialism is collective, cooperative, and communal, so then can not possibly be mandatory.
Anything mandatory is automatically being done for a corrupt motive, which then is always capitalist.

The only time a collective, cooperative, and communal society needs any ability to use force, is to protect from external invasion by capitalists.

Another graduate of Professor Elizabeth Warren’s school of nonsense.

 

[Rigby5]

Unsupported claim.

Horseshit. The point of socialism is state control of the means of production. And the ultimate means of production is the human mind. What you advocate for is slavery. Ultimate subservience to majority rule. Thanks, but no thanks.

Yes. I agree. Any worthwhile community can, and should, do that. But don't be coy, you're not talking about voluntary communal action.

Unsupported claim.

Wrong.
Humans all start with the instincts for sharing and cooperation in our DNA, because that was essential to our survival during our evolution.
Primates started out as arboreal, and therefore needed no defense, like claws, fangs, speed, armor, etc.
But for some reason, we came down out of the trees.
In which case, our survival then became dependent upon group action.
When a predator attacked one, all has to jump to its defense, like with Meerkats now.
And the problem with capitalism, is that it totally violates our inherent instincts, that allowed for human survival.
It is the law of the jungle, solitary predator, not social primates.
It is not an "unsupported claim" that ALL abuses in history are profit motivated, and therefore the unavoidable result of capitalism.
Every murder, theft, enslavement, invasion, and every crime (except crimes of passion), are due to capitalism.

The point of socialism is NOT state control.
If the people do government right, it IS the people.
In fact, it is supposed to be BETTER than the people because by selecting the best as our representatives who vote on legislation for us, they are supposed to be able to know better what works and does not work.
The people DO create, cause, and control what government does, if done correctly.
It is not supposed to be and should not be allowed to become a separate and abusive entity.
When that does happen, like Stalin murdering all the socialists, that is never the fault of socialism, but capitalism.
Stalin did not murder all those people in order to create a system that was collective, cooperative, and communal, but one where he as a single person had all the control and all the profits. That is exactly the ideal capitalism always leads to.
Capitalism is inherently antisocial and becomes criminal if not checked and prevented.
Capitalism is anti democratic because the highest profits are gained by authoritarianism.
Socialism is inherently democratic, because the people as a whole will always share inherently and instinctively.

The socialism I am talking about is voluntary group action by the community.
Like the community deciding to do things they do now, like public roads, schools, libraries, harbors, museums, police, fire, etc.
Why not extend that to health care safety net, minimal housing dorms, soup kitchens, garbage collection, vocational training, employment like CCC for agriculture, parks, free mass transit, etc.?
These are minimal costs that have high payback in terms of better quality of life for all.
As far as extremes, like where gov owns factories, that is not necessary as long as we have labor laws, unions, etc.
And you always need those regulations because otherwise capitalism has always resulted in slavery.
History is proof of that.
There is no exception.
History mostly has slavery, as soon as humans had currency, property, and excess production.

 

[Rigby5]

Speaking for myself, I don't care whether it's "linked" to socialism or not. The point is that I don't like state controlled health care for the same reasons I don't like socialism -> both inject coercive state control where it isn't necessary.

Socialism is not state control.
You only have the state controlling the people when you do not have a democratic republic.
Like right now the US has things that are not possible in a democratic republic, like the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, foreign invasions, etc.
Abusive gov is always profit motivated capitalism.
It is the profits from private prisons, bail, fines, munitions sales, etc.
When you have a real democratic republic, you do not have those things because the majority does not profit from these abuses.

Group involvement IS necessary with health care.
Its like a reverse lottery, where the unlucky few need the huge amounts of care.
The only good way to do that is communally, collectively, and cooperatively.

 

[Rigby5]

Another graduate of Professor Elizabeth Warren’s school of nonsense.

It is basic.
Humans are inherently social because it is what works best.
When one individual in the jungle is attacked by a leopard, the best result is if all rush to their defense.
Otherwise all get picked off, one at a time.
It is not conscious altruism, but what evolution selected for in our instincts, because it works best.
We do not really have a choice.
Those who do not act collectively, communally, and cooperatively, are genetically defective and a threat to the continued survival of the whole species.

 

[Orangecat]

Good point, but those conditions usually do not cost much.

I don't care if they "cost much", which is a subjective opinion.
Your health is greatly affected by the choices you make.
Any detrimental consequences of those choices are your medical bill, not mine.

They cause heart attacks and cancer, both of which usually can't have much done.
They just shorten life span.

You think cancer treatments are cheap and brief? REeally?

The main cost of health care likely are car accidents.

So the government "provider" can take away your license if you cost too much?

And the point is that no one person can or should have to foot the bill for an accident, alone.

If you fall asleep while driving and hit a tree, why should someone else be responsible?

When one person is unlucky, it is ethical for all those who happened to be lucky, to pitch in a tiny share.

That's a subjective opinion, as well. You and like-minded people are free to pool your money and pay other people's bills. Don't force me into your risk pool, though. You said socialism doesn't require force, remember?

That is why the fire department does not give you a bill for putting out the fire in your house.
Health care should be the same.

No, it shouldn't be the same. Some of us want to keep socialist policies to a minimum. Your agreement isn't required.

That is the way ancient Egypt did health care.

We don't live in ancient Egypt.

You pay each month you are healthy, and the doctor pays you when you get sick or injured.

That's called insurance, and the doctor doesn't pay you. Your risk pool pays the doctor.

 

[Orangecat]

When one individual in the jungle is attacked by a leopard, the best result is if all rush to their defense.

When one individual in the jungle is attacked by a leopard because he continually aggravated said leopard, the rest of the tribe isn't obligated to rectify his stupidity.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't care if they "cost much", which is a subjective opinion.
Your health is greatly affected by the choices you make.
Any detrimental consequences of those choices are your medical bill, not mine.

You think cancer treatments are cheap and brief? REeally?

So the government "provider" can take away your license if you cost too much?

If you fall asleep while driving and hit a tree, why should someone else be responsible?

That's a subjective opinion, as well. You and like-minded people are free to pool your money and pay other people's bills. Don't force me into your risk pool, though. You said socialism doesn't require force, remember?

No, it shouldn't be the same. Some of us want to keep socialist policies to a minimum. Your agreement isn't required.

We don't live in ancient Egypt.

That's called insurance, and the doctor doesn't pay you. Your risk pool pays the doctor.

Sharing medical bills is over half the expense of letting private insurance companies extort each individual into prepaying, decades in advance.

At my age, I have had many friends and relatives die from cancer, and there was so little that could be done, that is was relatively cheap and brief.

If a community can take away a driver's license, then the community should come up with an alternative, like mass transit.
That is the minimal health care safety net.
You do not have to spend huge sums, but all people should have some level of free health care.

If you make a rare mistake in driving, that anyone could have made as well, like falling asleep, then it is only fair to share the cost.
What would be a disaster to one, is nothing when distributed to many.

I would like to find some way to make it totally voluntary, but unfortunately I think then the most evil people would take unfair advantage of the system.
They would try to avoid their share, but then demand freebees if they happen to become a victim.

Insurance is NOT like the Egyptian system because you are forced to pay decades in advance, over ten times what you will ever need, by an insurance company that adds ZERO to your health care. They just skim off profits and then try to not pay out if you do need medical aid. They try to create monopolies on health care by over paying providers if they lock out the uninsured. By prepaying, you lose all ability to threaten to with hold payment, over complaints of quality or cost. It is an evil and corrupt system.

 

[Rigby5]

When one individual in the jungle is attacked by a leopard because he continually aggravated said leopard, the rest of the tribe isn't obligated to rectify his stupidity.

True, but does that really happen?
Self preservation instinct usually can be relied upon to prevent that.
When people do stupid things like drugs, you really can not blame them all that much.
They are stressed out by an unnaturally harsh society, and are essentially trying to self-medicate.
We could make society much less stressful, like they do in Scandanavian countries, and that would seem to help a lot.
But I think those who want to maximize profits, deliberately make society as stressful as they can.

 

[Orangecat]

I would like to find some way to make it totally voluntary, but unfortunately I think then the most evil people would take unfair advantage of the system.
They would try to avoid their share, but then demand freebees if they happen to become a victim.

There is a way to make it voluntary. Convince those who would be funding others that it's in their best interests to do so. Then they would voluntarily join. You have yet to convince me, but I'm willing to listen to any plan that does that.

 

[Rigby5]

There is a way to make it voluntary. Convince those who would be funding others that it's in their best interests to do so. Then they would voluntarily join. You have yet to convince me, but I'm willing to listen to any plan that does that.

Lots of things obviously are in the best interests of everyone to fund.
Like funding public education means a more productive work force and less crime.
But some people will never see that or care.
They are just too greedy.
There are many who would refuse to chip into public education if it were voluntary.
Knowing that others would fill their void, they would avoid their responsibility, while still gaining all the advantages.
The only way it has ever worked voluntarily is if linked to a religion, like Islam has welfare financed through tithings paid voluntarily at the Mosque.

 

[Orangecat]

Lots of things obviously are in the best interests of everyone to fund.
Like funding public education means a more productive work force and less crime.
But some people will never see that or care.
They are just too greedy.
There are many who would refuse to chip into public education if it were voluntary.
Knowing that others would fill their void, they would avoid their responsibility, while still gaining all the advantages.
The only way it has ever worked voluntarily is if linked to a religion, like Islam has welfare financed through tithings paid voluntarily at the Mosque.

These are your words:

That is the whole point, in that socialism is collective, cooperative, and communal, so then can not possibly be mandatory.

Yet you keep providing examples of things you call socialism that are mandatorily funded: education, police, fire.
If you recall, this conversation started when you responded to a meme I posted that said “socialism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory”.

 

[Rigby5]

These are your words:

Yet you keep providing examples of things you call socialism that are mandatorily funded: education, police, fire.
If you recall, this conversation started when you responded to a meme of mine that said “socialism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory quotation”.

The meaning of that is that socialist systems where everyone has to pay, is voluntary.
Everyone wants it.
In that since everyone knows that since some would cheat, it has to be universal.
Even those who would cheat and not pay in if they were allowed to get away with it, realize that the system where everyone pays in is better than no system.
The system is not mandatory, but the paying in under the system, is mandatory.

 

[Orangecat]

The meaning of that is that socialist systems where everyone has to pay, is voluntary.
Everyone wants it.

And what happens to those who don’t want it? ****’em?

 

[Colin norris]

Speaking for myself, I don't care whether it's "linked" to socialism or not. The point is that I don't like state controlled health care for the same reasons I don't like socialism -> both inject coercive state control where it isn't necessary.

Thats odd you should have that attitude when you have experienced neither.

How could yo u possibly know? You don't. You just hate everything that appears socialism but plunge into the hypocrisy of accepting it every day.

Your ignorance on the matter

Good point, but those conditions usually do not cost much.
They cause heart attacks and cancer, both of which usually can't have much done.
They just shorten life span.
The main cost of health care likely are car accidents.
And the point is that no one person can or should have to foot the bill for an accident, alone.
When one person is unlucky, it is ethical for all those who happened to be lucky, to pitch in a tiny share.
That is why the fire department does not give you a bill for putting out the fire in your house.
Health care should be the same.
That is the way ancient Egypt did health care.
You pay each month you are healthy, and the doctor pays you when you get sick or injured.

Under the government health care in Britain and Australia (2.5 % levy on the tax you pay) no one pays anything else to any one.
You get treated and walk out. The government pays the doctor. No more.

How do I know? I experienced it.
In Australia, if any government attempts to interfere with that system, they cop it election time.
Proven many times in my life.
Not one person there objects to it.