Socialism

[Typhoid]

B+.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Oh to come to this thread....

Anyone want to start another religion thread? Ahh the one from like 5 years ago was amazing.

Anyway...

I agree, why the hell can the US not get it's shit together? There's no reason that everyone shouldn't be afforded health care here. I'm not saying that there's an easy way to do it at all, but everyone should have it.

Education is another thing that really burns me. I have a semester of college until I can graduate and I'm just absolutely tapped out. I can get nothing more to help me finish, and I can't go back right now. All because A.) My Parents were like "Oh hey you're gay? Oh hey f you." and B.) SCHOOL COST TOO FUCKING MUCH.

There's no reason except for ass tons of money, that college shouldn't be free for everyone. Ya know?



Now for my opinion on Socialism:

Ok so the "Socialist Company" example. I get it. Although you're saying everyone gets paid equally sharing the profits so the person who works hardest and all that gets the same, well that's ok. Everyone does their part, and if the Company was doing so incredibly well they're all going to be doing well, you see? Plus, isn't the fact that the company does so well only because of you rewarding in and of itself?

I think my main problem with society is that everyone thinks they're doing more than someone else.

I really just think how much could we actually accomplish as a Nation and world if everyone was equal? What if everyone was afforded the same opportunities no matter to whom they were born and where? Eliminating a capitalist society ideally would eliminate poverty. Sometimes I sit and wonder, like seriously how many intelligent, capable people get fucked their entire life because they were born to a family who only makes 20K a year and is poor? Stuff like that. How limited has our Nation and world become because the majority of it is in poverty for the gains of a capitalist society? I mean think if we missed out on the next, I dunno... Einstein, because he died when he was 3 because of some totally curable disease that his family just couldn't afford to cure or Prevent?

Honestly I would be happy with my life if everyone was equal in society. I would be able to go to school, not have to worry about whether it was ok for me to study something because I might not make that much money when I graduate, but it could be something I actually love doing. I mean honestly what I would love to do with my life is research Abnormal Psychology (Schizophrenia, Bi-Polar Disorder etc.), but I chose Software Engineering because it was less school time for the same amount of money (Although I really do enjoy coding too).

Anyway I'm rambling now.

I saw Socialism all the way.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

I really just think how much could we actually accomplish as a Nation and world if everyone was equal?

Therein lies the core problem with Socialism. It treats everyone as if they are the same, and this is untrue. Even Marx recognized this:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The basic principle of Socialism/Communism/wealth redistribution is that those that achieve have the rewards of that achievement taken from them and given to those who do not achieve/achieve less, or even worse, given to those with no desire to achieve.

So in the end, where is the motivation to achieve? There is none, and those that the socialist construct depends on (the achievers) stop producing to the level that is needed. When you punish success, expect people to stop succeeding.

I would recommend everyone to take a Myer-Briggs self-analysis or D.I.S.C. to examine what your motivations are. I found mine very enlightening and it's helped me succeed by understanding what my strengths and weaknesses are.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

If anyone is curious, I'm an ENTJ (Extrverssion, iNtuition, Thinking, Judgement).

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So in the end, where is the motivation to achieve? There is none, and those that the socialist construct depends on (the achievers) stop producing to the level that is needed. When you punish success, expect people to stop succeeding.

I agree, that is the main problem. If everyone is the same, and nobody gets praised for doing a better job than someone who's barely trying - the person who should be getting attention will get angry with the situation.

There needs to be some sort of meshing between socialist ideas (aside from the "everyone is equal in every way" part, and more to the "things should be affordable nomatter who you are") and capitalism in the sense of rewarding those who achieve more, without alienating those who don't.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

There needs to be some sort of meshing between socialist ideas (aside from the "everyone is equal in every way" part, and more to the "things should be affordable nomatter who you are") and capitalism in the sense of rewarding those who achieve more, without alienating those who don't.

That's what North America is now.. just depending on what you mean by the "things" that should be affordable.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I agree, that is the main problem. If everyone is the same, and nobody gets praised for doing a better job than someone who's barely trying - the person who should be getting attention will get angry with the situation.

There needs to be some sort of meshing between socialist ideas (aside from the "everyone is equal in every way" part, and more to the "things should be affordable nomatter who you are") and capitalism in the sense of rewarding those who achieve more, without alienating those who don't.

I agree with this, and I think socialist constructs can work in limited situations.

My whole belief when it comes to socialized healthcare is that it should fill in the gaps left by private care. But thats not what the healthcare bills are trying to do. The healthcare bills are trying to directly compete with private healthcare by offering their own comprehensive plan, and thats not the government's place. In fact, it's downright cannibalistic and counter-productive to creating a robust economy (which you can argue a strong economy is the most important aspect of healthcare as wealthier countries are healthier countries as a whole).

Identify the problems/gaps, and address them, but to view the US healthcare system as THE problem is just fallacious and an attempt to use the healthcare issue as a means to gain more control over the private sector.

Socialism should be a band aid for capitalism's cuts and bruises, not the other way around, IMO.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Identify the problems/gaps, and address them, but to view the US healthcare system as THE problem is just fallacious and an attempt to use the healthcare issue as a means to gain more control over the private sector.

(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)

I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention. They're about to get their toes stepped on if there's going to be real healthcare reform, no matter how the government goes about doing it.

To me its a question of would you rather throw tax money away into a system that the private sector controls the bottom line on, or would you rather throw money away into a system that the government controls the bottom line on.. Do you trust the government to do te right thing with tax dollars, or do you trust the private sector to do the right thing with tax dollars?

No matter what, there's going to be "more government control" over the private sector in the healthcare industry. Or there's simply not going to be healthcare reform and everything will stay the same for people who are currently insured.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)

I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention. They're about to get their toes stepped on if there's going to be real healthcare reform, no matter how the government goes about doing it.

To me its a question of would you rather throw tax money away into a system that the private sector controls the bottom line on, or would you rather throw money away into a system that the government controls the bottom line on.. Do you trust the government to do te right thing with tax dollars, or do you trust the private sector to do the right thing with tax dollars?

No matter what, there's going to be "more government control" over the private sector in the healthcare industry. Or there's simply not going to be healthcare reform and everything will stay the same for people who are currently insured.

On the surface, your argument seems to be plausible. But I believe you're operating under a faulty assumption.

Why must one assume that increased government control is necessary for health care reform? As I have clearly shown in previous threads (using actual numbers as part of my evidence) it is very likely that increased government control is in large part to blame for the increased price of health care goods.

Remember, in the 60s, when there was much less government control and regulation of the health care industry, the majority of health care payments were made out of pocket, ie. they were affordable.

You also forget that the federal government created today's PPOs and HMOs that have become much maligned by those in favor of the public option. How do you defend against those two points?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)

I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention.

Government may be able o do many things, but cutting bureaucracy is not one of them. Maybe government intervention in healthcare is necessary, but expect it to increase bureaucracy, not decrease it. Government IS bureaucracy.

I realize this current administration is promising many things such as cutting bureaucracy and costs, but if they were to achieve that it would be the first time in history federalizing something made it cheaper and simpler. I think Bond illustrated that point very well.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

I think my main problem with society is that everyone thinks they're doing more than someone else.

Socialism would not resolve that problem, it'd only add to it. Not only would people still feel like they're doing more then someone else, they'd be getting paid the same for it. Unfortunately not all people give equal imput into a society or even into a buisiness.. and not all people share equal responceability. Thus I don't think everyone should share equal rewards.

However I think health, education, and security are some main things that need to be handled by society collectively to an extent.