Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance

[rubberhead]

Taking care of sick people is the right thing to do.

Making money off of sick people is the wrong thing to do.

It's a little more complicated than that. When you say "right" and "wrong" do you mean that the former should be mandated and the latter should be outlawed? If so, then to what degree? If not, then who gives a shit. People are free to do both and you are free to say they are right or wrong and the rest of us are free to agree or disagree with you.

He doesn't think that way....In fact, he doesn't think at all.

If your don't want socialized medical services, then you want people to die in the streets....End of discussion.

Well, yeah, as long as they're minorities dying in the streets of those ghettos where I spray carcinogens daily. Actually I have a quota that I must fill to maintain my standing in my local KKK chapter. Why would I want to give 'those people' health care after I spent all that time funneling poison into their water supply?

Oh yeah, you forgot to mention that those who disagree with Obama are racists.

 

[rubberhead]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

So why the **** don't you move to one of those countries?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.

Awesome pic, by the way. Hilarious!

 

[NO!bama08]

Those other countries are not melting pots and do not have socialist idiots trying to destroy their country from within. irrelevant.

 

[mightypeon]

Haha, no "socialist idiots"?

are you aware that, baring the Arab street, amusingly enough the majority of the worlds population is to the left of Obama?

Case in point: Germany
The CDU (which would be the left end of your repoblicans, they are in general in favor of state subsidies and limits to manager money) gets around 30%.
The FDP (which is the only party that is market liberal) is around 8-10.
The SPD (Socialist party, think of democrats slightly to the left of Obama) has roughly 20% overall (10% in east Germany)
The "Linke" (which means left, as a matter of fact they are so far to the left that they have no analogon in the US) gets around 10-20% overall, much more in the east, they are in several state gouverments, including Berlin.
The green party is solid at around 10%, they would be Al Gore in the US spectrum.

If a party with a US-like republican agenda (which would have to be Germanised) would in Germany, theyd get around 10-15 percent tops, maybe even less.


Basically, if "socialist idiots" would destroy nations, Europe would be much worse off, however it isnt, specifically concerning health care.

Secondly, Germany is likely the best example.
-A: The population is quite big, still around 82-85 million around 1/3-1/4 of the USA
-B: 15 millions of them are migrants. 2007 the number of migrants in the US was 37 million.
This means, per capita, Germany currently has more Migrants the the US.


Basically, Germany has more socialists (propably even in absolute numbers) and more migrants (relative to the total population) than the US, and doh, it works a fair bit better for us than yours does for you.


However, yes the administrative costs are quite significant, however, that is also the case for private insurances (as a matter of fact, the differences between the relative resources that German state and private insurance use for "administrative tasks" are suprisingly small), apart from that, state run insurances tend to be more lenient concerning paying for damages, however, due to the state concurence that is also true for private insurances, especially compared to US ones.

Last but not least:
Personally (mind you I am a student, so not that representative) I am using up around 8% of my funds for healthcare. How much do you pay?

 

[NO!bama08]

"Haha, no "socialist idiots"?

are you aware that, baring the Arab street, amusingly enough the majority of the worlds population is to the left of Obama?"

The United States did not become the richest and most powerful nation in the world (yes even our poor are rich, they just don't know it) by trying to be like the rest of the world. Screw the rest of the world. Capitalism made us great. People can work as hard as they want, get as rich as they want, etc. In the process of getting rich they create jobs for others. I wish we had a thousand Bill Gates, socialist idiots hate him because he's rich. He's created more jobs than anyone and also spreads his wealth through his philanthropic efforts.
I've said it before, i've worked all my life for what i have and the health insurance i have. I don't want it screwed with in some socialist experiment.

 

[Bern80]

Haha, no "socialist idiots"?

are you aware that, baring the Arab street, amusingly enough the majority of the worlds population is to the left of Obama?

Case in point: Germany
The CDU (which would be the left end of your repoblicans, they are in general in favor of state subsidies and limits to manager money) gets around 30%.
The FDP (which is the only party that is market liberal) is around 8-10.
The SPD (Socialist party, think of democrats slightly to the left of Obama) has roughly 20% overall (10% in east Germany)
The "Linke" (which means left, as a matter of fact they are so far to the left that they have no analogon in the US) gets around 10-20% overall, much more in the east, they are in several state gouverments, including Berlin.
The green party is solid at around 10%, they would be Al Gore in the US spectrum.

If a party with a US-like republican agenda (which would have to be Germanised) would in Germany, theyd get around 10-15 percent tops, maybe even less.


Basically, if "socialist idiots" would destroy nations, Europe would be much worse off, however it isnt, specifically concerning health care.

Secondly, Germany is likely the best example.
-A: The population is quite big, still around 82-85 million around 1/3-1/4 of the USA
-B: 15 millions of them are migrants. 2007 the number of migrants in the US was 37 million.
This means, per capita, Germany currently has more Migrants the the US.


Basically, Germany has more socialists (propably even in absolute numbers) and more migrants (relative to the total population) than the US, and doh, it works a fair bit better for us than yours does for you.


However, yes the administrative costs are quite significant, however, that is also the case for private insurances (as a matter of fact, the differences between the relative resources that German state and private insurance use for "administrative tasks" are suprisingly small), apart from that, state run insurances tend to be more lenient concerning paying for damages, however, due to the state concurence that is also true for private insurances, especially compared to US ones.

Last but not least:
Personally (mind you I am a student, so not that representative) I am using up around 8% of my funds for healthcare. How much do you pay?

Depends on what you consider worse off. We think the sky is falling if unemployment hits double digits, where that is typically normal over there.

 

[Douger]

Naturally they left out Costa Rica since the dumb asses that make this stuff available are mostly from the Land of FreeDumb and think CR is an Island.......No chillunddz B giddin leff behine Nchit.
Ours was implemented in 1949.


List of Countries with Universal Healthcare « True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

 

[Maple]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Their health care costs are hidden in higher taxes, 8.00 for a gallon of gax, higher taxes on everything, and a higher unemployment rate to boot..

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

 

[mightypeon]

Haha, no "socialist idiots"?

are you aware that, baring the Arab street, amusingly enough the majority of the worlds population is to the left of Obama?

Case in point: Germany
The CDU (which would be the left end of your repoblicans, they are in general in favor of state subsidies and limits to manager money) gets around 30%.
The FDP (which is the only party that is market liberal) is around 8-10.
The SPD (Socialist party, think of democrats slightly to the left of Obama) has roughly 20% overall (10% in east Germany)
The "Linke" (which means left, as a matter of fact they are so far to the left that they have no analogon in the US) gets around 10-20% overall, much more in the east, they are in several state gouverments, including Berlin.
The green party is solid at around 10%, they would be Al Gore in the US spectrum.

If a party with a US-like republican agenda (which would have to be Germanised) would in Germany, theyd get around 10-15 percent tops, maybe even less.


Basically, if "socialist idiots" would destroy nations, Europe would be much worse off, however it isnt, specifically concerning health care.

Secondly, Germany is likely the best example.
-A: The population is quite big, still around 82-85 million around 1/3-1/4 of the USA
-B: 15 millions of them are migrants. 2007 the number of migrants in the US was 37 million.
This means, per capita, Germany currently has more Migrants the the US.


Basically, Germany has more socialists (propably even in absolute numbers) and more migrants (relative to the total population) than the US, and doh, it works a fair bit better for us than yours does for you.


However, yes the administrative costs are quite significant, however, that is also the case for private insurances (as a matter of fact, the differences between the relative resources that German state and private insurance use for "administrative tasks" are suprisingly small), apart from that, state run insurances tend to be more lenient concerning paying for damages, however, due to the state concurence that is also true for private insurances, especially compared to US ones.

Last but not least:
Personally (mind you I am a student, so not that representative) I am using up around 8% of my funds for healthcare. How much do you pay?

Depends on what you consider worse off. We think the sky is falling if unemployment hits double digits, where that is typically normal over there.

I was thinking of worse off in terms of health, which was what the OP was about.

I defintly agree that Europeans consider beeing unemployed differently than Americans. In Europe (Germany at least) beeing unemployed will not directly threat your survival (due to still existing safety nets), what happens if European unemployed persons are, well, treated in the American way, is evident in France, they start kidnapping Managers and threatening to blow up factories. Vive la revolucion!

Considering prices are so expensive argument:
I had a subrenter from the US who basically said that Fuel and McDonalds are the only things that are more expensive in Europe than in the US.
Also, you cannot look at price differences in isolation, in Germany, money going to unemployed persons and money going to pensions still outdoes health care costs by a significant margin.


Considering "America rocks everyone else sucks".
I would make a point that a huge country with no direct competitors, vast amounts of land and resources and near easily exploitable markets would perform well under nearly any system of gouverment.
The system of gouverment is not the only thing that shapes the well beeing of a nation (especially you anti gouverment republicans should know that ), lets just compare the UDSSR and the USA.

Situation at the outbreak of the revolution:
USA: Wealthy
Russia: Straight out of a lost world war

How did the revolution go?
USA: relativly civilised affair
Russia: Large scale civil war

How did other powers react?
USA: Significant help from France, other important states beeing friendly, some minor interventions from unimportant german pseudostates.
Russia: Everyone apart from Germany (who were at war with Russia anyway) intervenes on behalf of the counterrevolutionaries, UDSSR stays an international phariah.

Who got into charge?
USA: People who were up to the task
UDSSR: The greatest crook of the communist party, who suceeded in first killing the competent part, than killing other crooks, than killing everyone else.

What happened later?
USA: A minor power thinks that blowing up some ships is a good idea
UDSSR: the strongest military of that times starts a suprise attacks and kills 20million.

To sum it up, the UDSSR was fighting the equivalent of the war of independence, the civil war (one with a particularly nasty streak) and World war one, and got Pearl Harbored on a much much much more massive scale at the moment it was going to recover a bit.
Oh, and 2 of the most murderous bastards of the country were in charge for the entire time, since the constant state of warfare didnt permit to set up checks and balances.

 

[mightypeon]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Their health care costs are hidden in higher taxes, 8.00 for a gallon of gax, higher taxes on everything, and a higher unemployment rate to boot..

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

1. Agree, America got too many lawyers anyway.
2. What? You cant purchase insurances across state lines? Amazing, you can do that in Germany.
3. Seems like the "gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, but with less things included. What would be the fee you would consider as payable? below 1K per year?
4. What about reducing this outrageous premium coverages instead?
5. Sounds like a decent idea.
6. Not sure here but I think we have that in Europe too.

 

[GHook93]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

I would like to know where there data was complied from. I doubt France and others are higher than the US, Germany and Qatar (which I read has an extremely high standard living due to the fact the entire country is still on black crack!

 

[logical4u]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Can you tell me who pays for their defense? Who protects them, so they can have higher taxes and pay less of their GDP on health care?
Are you saying you would like to exchange GDPs with any of these countries?
Have you considered, their citizens would pay more for health care if there was health care available that is not government controlled?

Would this be similar to saying that the top 10 countries have deep water ports, that means that saltwater is responsible for their success (not trade)?

 

[rubberhead]

are you aware that, baring the Arab street, amusingly enough the majority of the worlds population is to the left of Obama?

Case in point: Germany
The CDU (which would be the left end of your repoblicans, they are in general in favor of state subsidies and limits to manager money) gets around 30%.

The republican leaders here are rapidly moving to the left to capture some of the votes that Obama's campaign brought out. Take a look at the policies of the last year and a half and the outrage of the people who elected those republicans.

The SPD (Socialist party, think of democrats slightly to the left of Obama) has roughly 20% overall (10% in east Germany)

To get any more left of Obama you would have to be an outright fascist. Obama IS a socialist (if not a marxist) and he believes in enforcing his policies through penalties and other negative reinforcement. He's also talked about creating a "civilian defense force" which would protect what he believes are our "national security." Bush used the term "national security" to dodge a lot of questions and now Obama is doing the very same thing to do god knows what with this public service initiative of his which we're beginning to see him try to sell as he declared 9/11 a day of service and remembrance. If your socialist party is to the left of Obama as you say, you and your countrymen should take care that history is not repeating itself.

The "Linke" (which means left, as a matter of fact they are so far to the left that they have no analogon in the US) gets around 10-20% overall

Oh, believe me there is an analog. Check out the Earth Liberation Front, or the Eugenics movement, there is also a movement that calls for the extinction of the human race in the interest of saving the earth. We have our nuts too, they're not 10-20% of us but that's because we keep them in check.

The green party is solid at around 10%, they would be Al Gore in the US spectrum.

So your green party members are hypocrites? Al Gore is, in my opinion the perpetrator of one of the largest frauds that we will ever see. A lot of what we saw in "An Inconvenient Truth" was fabrication and misrepresentation of fact and now-after we learned that Al Gore enjoys all of the evil energy products that he is supposedly fighting (big surprise)-we see that he has set up a huge profiteering apparatus so that he can reap the rewards of the panic he has incited (look up Generation Investment Management). All while global temperatures are declining on average according to the International Panel on Climate Change. Remember the last time the sky was falling and the world was cooling down back in the mid-70s? This is just another fake issue for idiots to crowd around and pretend that they can somehow control the temperature. Climate change is caused largely by solar activity and polar bears like to swim!! Yes, I believe that pumping poison into the air and cutting down all of the trees is bad. Yes, there is a certain capacity of human beings that the Earth can sustain. Yes, there is a finite amount of oil and thus a need to search for an alternative that is renewable. Unfortunately, there will be a catastrophe no matter what Al Gore says or what Obama signs into law, just like there was when we learned how to herd mammoths off of cliffs and they all migrated away or went extinct only after our population exploded because of the temporary prosperity. And then when we discovered agriculture and sedentary population with surpluses of food created ideal condition for pandemics of communicable disease. And we will face a population crash due to the industrial revolution whether or not we let Al Gore and his cronies profit from the fear that they have created. Outlawing carbon emissions in one country will only increase the prosperity of countries who aren't buying this garbage. And worse yet, it doesn't actually reduce pollution. My sentiment sounds fatalistic, but I prefer to call it naturalist.

Basically, if "socialist idiots" would destroy nations, Europe would be much worse off, however it isnt, specifically concerning health care.

Secondly, Germany is likely the best example.
-A: The population is quite big, still around 82-85 million around 1/3-1/4 of the USA
-B: 15 millions of them are migrants. 2007 the number of migrants in the US was 37 million.

This means, per capita, Germany currently has more Migrants the the US.

You don't have the same socialist idiots. Yours may be less corrupt. I don't know. I do know that corruption is rampant in the US and there is plenty of evidence to that effect in both parties.

Does your number of migrants to the US include illegals? Do you have that concept in Germany? We can only estimate how many illegals there are anyway because obviously there is no way to count them directly.

Basically, Germany has more socialists (propably even in absolute numbers) and more migrants (relative to the total population) than the US, and doh, it works a fair bit better for us than yours does for you.


However, yes the administrative costs are quite significant, however, that is also the case for private insurances (as a matter of fact, the differences between the relative resources that German state and private insurance use for "administrative tasks" are suprisingly small), apart from that, state run insurances tend to be more lenient concerning paying for damages, however, due to the state concurence that is also true for private insurances, especially compared to US ones.

What's the difference in estimated fraud rates between private and public? I would guess they're much higher in the public system. Also, how much are doctors getting paid? What are the wait times like for patient care? These questions don't have very nice answers in countries that have fully embraced socialized medicine.

Last but not least:
Personally (mind you I am a student, so not that representative) I am using up around 8% of my funds for healthcare. How much do you pay?

[/quote]

Cost is not the only variable. What about quality of care, wait times and survival rates? I'd be willing to sacrifice any wealth that I've accumulated for life saving care. You can't take money with you when you die. We probably could decrease the cost of health care in the US, but if we have to sacrifice any of the quality of care then it's not worth it.

 

[mightypeon]

Rapidly moving to the left?
Sarah Palin seemed like a move ot the other direction. This may be some kind of European bias on my part, but the only parties who employ the kind of antipersonal rethoric (just take the last school talk thing with Obama) in Germany are the extreme Nazi-Rightwing parties.


I would also remind you that fascist are on the far right of the political spectrum, and as someone who actually lived in a socialist country, Obama is about as socialist as Helmut Kohl (You know, the really fat German Chancellor who managed the unification).

A large factor in making Hitler suceeds was incredible support from German big Buisness, the fact that the Communists saw the Socialists, not the Fascists as their prime enemy and the fact that the central partys lacked guts.

Apart from that, a last survey I saw regarding corruption (regarding normal buisness) still had the US and western Europe as relativly honest compared to most developing countries.
I would guess that the Political establishment in the US is a bit more corrupt than in Germany, because of 2 reasons:
A) They are more powerfull, corruptness of anyone strongly correlates with the power he/she/it has.
B) The US has 2 parties which have been established for a very very long time. This means that corruption had a lot of time to set in (or even marry). In Germany, 2 of the 5 main parties are quite young (the "Left party" formed recently, the green party is around 25 years old), so they may not be a thoroughly "infiltrated" as the main parties CDU and SPD.


It is interesting that your concept of the left/far left is supposing that they like Eugenics (which were mainly implemented by the parties on the political right) and uhmm, traditionally socialist are relativly indiferrent about the enviroment.

The basic tenet of socialism is that wealth means power, and power has to be controlled by checks and balances. It was communism that had the strange idea that making everyone poor was a nice way to prevent "powerabuses" by the rich.
To quote Hammurabi, founder of the first documented code of law in ancient Babylon: "It is time to give the land laws so that the rich may not supress the poor".
My favorite is Thucydides: "In war, the strong enslave the weak, in peace the rich enslave the poor."

Oh, btw. our green partys leadership consists of politicians, so of course they are hypocrites.

 

[rubberhead]

Rapidly moving to the left?
Sarah Palin seemed like a move ot the other direction.

Sarah Palin is not occupying any political office at present and was actually chased out of Alaska by both parties because she routed out corruption without considering the party of the perpetrator. She is truly post-partisan (like Obama claims to be) and therefore I don't think she can fall anywhere but the center on the scale. There's a lot of misinformation about Palin out there because she has made a lot of enemies, so be careful what you believe.

 

[rubberhead]

Rapidly moving to the left?
I would also remind you that fascist are on the far right of the political spectrum, and as someone who actually lived in a socialist country, Obama is about as socialist as Helmut Kohl (You know, the really fat German Chancellor who managed the unification).

Wrong again... the extreme right is where anarchy lies. The right and conservatism is all about smaller government. Big business likes them because smaller government means less regulation. What's the smallest government you can have? The left is all about preserving and protecting the rights of the disenfranchised and this cannot be done without more rules and apparatuses and thus larger government and more bureaucrats. Bureaucrats like Obama's diversity czar Mark Lloyd who praises Hugo Chavez for his hard line policy on stifling dissent in Venezuela. Lloyd proposes that radio stations that don't meet his diversity requirements be taxed 100% of their operating costs. Wow, German schools do suck.

Also, it seems like you are unfamiliar with Obama's policies and his "redistribution of wealth" rhetoric. Perhaps the reason that Obama doesn't seem socialist to you is because he is not taking a hard line pushing his policies. This is because Americans will not tolerate that because we value our freedom. In fact, we are barely tolerating what's going on now. There are still some who are infatuated with Obama, but they are gradually receding to New England, Southern California and college campuses across the nation.

It is interesting that your concept of the left/far left is supposing that they like Eugenics (which were mainly implemented by the parties on the political right) and uhmm, traditionally socialist are relativly indiferrent about the enviroment.

Once again, wrong. At least in the US, those who surrounded president FDR-the author of the 2nd bill of rights and perhaps the furthest left leaning leader we have ever had in the US-were very much in favor of eugenics. In fact, when Hitler was sterilizing people in Germany the intellectual elite over here were complaining that Germany was beating us at our own game. On the contrary, most on the right, especially social conservatives, are against abortion and in some cases even birth control and condoms.

About businesses: some big businesses like Obama also (GE, GM, and anyone else who he has showered federal money on), it has nothing to do with his political orientation. It is a common misconception that if big business likes you, then you are on the right. If big business likes you it's because you are in power and making life easier for them and harder for their competitors.

Liberalism/Progressivism seems to be about feeling superior. Taking on the role of the benevolent provider/savior and demonizing all those who question the unsustainable growth of government. Eugenics fits in nicely here because who but the most arrogant would believe that they can decide who is fit to reproduce?

The basic tenet of socialism is that wealth means power, and power has to be controlled by checks and balances. It was communism that had the strange idea that making everyone poor was a nice way to prevent "powerabuses" by the rich.
To quote Hammurabi, founder of the first documented code of law in ancient Babylon: "It is time to give the land laws so that the rich may not supress the poor".
My favorite is Thucydides: "In war, the strong enslave the weak, in peace the rich enslave the poor."

Oh, btw. our green partys leadership consists of politicians, so of course they are hypocrites.

Socialism leads to communism and is one step in the process of power slipping away from the people who own it and thus a step towards a violent reckoning where the people demonstrate that they actually own the power.

Here's a quote from me: "Under capitalism, if you want something it's up to you to go out and get it. Under socialism, just complain until you get your country's crappy version of whatever it is you want, that is, unless it's anything expensive."

 

[rubberhead]

The basic tenet of socialism is that wealth means power, and power has to be controlled by checks and balances. It was communism that had the strange idea that making everyone poor was a nice way to prevent "powerabuses" by the rich.

Btw, communism came first and is actually more primitive than socialism. Everybody owns everything and therefore no one person owns anything. It is an inverse solution to the problem of ownership than what we see with capitalism where ownership is almost always individual. Socialism is a hybrid of the two. Marx believed that socialism was actually a transitional phase from capitalism to communism. So far Marx has been historically correct. His prediction was simple: A country becomes capitalist and prospers until the gap between those who control the wealth and those who produce it becomes so wide that the proletariat gather enough power to force the bourgeoisie to share their wealth.

The basic tenet of socialism is that everyone is equally entitled to wealth. That is to say, under pure socialism, the public owns the means of production and therefore wealth is distributed equally among them.

I'm not stupid, I was once a student like yourself. I remember thinking about how rich people were evil because they didn't need all that money and so why don't they give it to me and the rest of the people who want free stuff?

I have come to believe in my old age of 27 that those who are most responsible for creating wealth are most entitled to it. Of course they must be required to compensate those who assist them in creating wealth. But they must also have incentive to create it (it's often very difficult work). I'm not rich, and I don't need to be. I'll be happy to make a reasonably comfortable living and work for everything that I receive. And I would take comfort in knowing that my employer is paying me a certain wage because that is their way of expressing how much they value my time, not because Big Brother mandates that it is the fair wage and my time has a fixed value that is set by my benevolent overlords. The reason the proletariat are undervalued is that, in general, they do not possess or pursue unique skills. This is often times a result of paying more attention to frivolous things than becoming more valuable as a resource. Those who are successful, are often driven from an early age to be someone important. What reason would there be to be such a person in a state where everyone is equally entitled to all of the wealth generated by the people of that state (that is pure socialism)?

 

[Chris]

National health insurance is not socialism.

Doctors would still own their practices, and hospitals would still be privately owned.

Just another stupid Republican scare tactic. Republicans are all about fear.

Fear of people with brown skin mostly.

 

[rubberhead]

National health insurance is not socialism.

Doctors would still own their practices, and hospitals would still be privately owned.

Just another stupid Republican scare tactic. Republicans are all about fear.

Fear of people with brown skin mostly.

Fear, huh? You mean like the fear of people dying because they don't have health insurance? Or the fear of economic collapse because of the rising cost of health care? Or profiteering doctors sawing off my limbs just to make a couple bucks? Or remove my tonsils as part of some plot to do unnecessary procedures for beaucoup bucks? I'm not a republican, but there is one brown skinned person that I can think of that's been scaring me a lot. Just in case you don't understand:

Obama is a demagogue!

The funny thing is that he accuses everyone else of being one.

By the way, if medicine is a right, then doctors don't own their practice. If everyone has a right to medical treatment no matter how poor they are, then doctors don't control the means of production. If they did, then they would be deciding what the price of care is. Instead, under socialism the government decides what the price of medical care is since they are the ones paying the doctor. Ergo, the government decides how much a doctor's time is worth under socialized medicine.

Oh, and this conversation has become kind of moot, since it seems that disaster has been averted and the public option is dead. It appears we Americans will do socialism better after all. We'll do it better by not doing it.

 

[mightypeon]

Ahhm, in the Marxist doctrine, Communism was the ultimate thing, which was why several eastern block countries to to skip the socialism at all.

Concerning Hitler and big buisness, are you seriously arguing that a politician that basically outlawed trade unions is on the left?
The argument "Hitler was leftist" will not hold up with anyone who has a modicum of historical education, it is simply totally wrong.