Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoid
A few socialist policies, not all-out socialism.
I'm aware of what the definition is. I know what socialism is.
Why are a few socialist things that might be better for the "greater good" threatening your way of life and scaring your children while they sleep.
|
That depends on what you define as few and and what you consider the "greater good". Personally, even the idea of a "greater good" is terrifying. Most of the horrors of the 20th century were a result of trying to achieve a "greater good".
Quote:
|
I agree, enacting some socialist ideas in a large population will be hard. Not everything, however will be socialized. The main issue, is obviously healthcare. It's nearly ludicrous to have private healthcare with a population as large as the U.S.
|
Actually the size of the US is one of the reasons I'm so against public healthcare. The larger an institution is, the worse it is in meeting demands and the more likely it is that the customers will become a number rather than a person.
Quote:
|
I'm not talking about full-blown everybody's completely equal communism. But an everybody-at-least-deserves-to-be-treated-for-their-wounds system.
|
I've yet to hear anyone say they were against everyone getting healthcare. We'd like the people to be empowered to make those decisions, have less of their money taken from them so they can decide what they'd like, reform lawsuits to lower insurance costs for providers (that we pay in the long run), and allow companies to compete against each other to create competition and lower cost.
As for those who are left who wouldn't be able to afford any healthcare at all, well, they already qualify for the healthcare programs we currently have and those programs would be greatly relieved by having many of the people on them be able to matriculate to private healthcare systems that give better luxury care options. (Yes, I consider a doctor's visit paid by my insurance company to be a luxury as most people could easily afford their yearly check-up).
The problem is that we're trying to cure a problem based on a lack of choices by inevitable reducing those choices to one, and any public plan, I don't care what anyone says, has the inevitable goal of becoming single payer. It doesn't work otherwise.
Choices creates competition and competition lowers cost and fuels advancements. Fewer choices equals higher prices and low rates of advancement because there are fewer people to compete with and the motivation to innovate and serve is reduced.