Pages:
Author

Topic: Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story - page 3. (Read 10283 times)

legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions.

Hmm...

Then explain why socialist health care treats better everyone and costs less?
That's kind of the whole point of the study... To show that capitalist health care is costly and inneffective...
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?
Everyone knows capitalism is better for the super wealthy.  That was never part of any debate. 

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions. You might be able to keep warm for a night by setting your apartment building on fire, giving equal heat for all, but then the next day everyone has no where to sleep.
full member
Activity: 952
Merit: 175
@cryptocommies
private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?
Everyone knows capitalism is better for the super wealthy.  That was never part of any debate. 
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I think the key point is that any responsible system of government needs to have checks and balances built in.
The worst excesses of communism/socialism were where it descended into a system where the man is charge is effectively a god. Stalin, etc... and what we see right now in North Korea.

Capitalism is fine so long as the companies aren't allowed free rein over everything. Their purpose is to gain profit, especially for shareholders. Unrestrained, they are vampires, and they will bleed everything dry. Strong capitalism is a system where the government is also strong, and acts as a brake on inequality and greed. The US and the UK I think are failing because they allow business to rule without any real checks on their power.

The problem in the last couple of decades especially is that companies have got too powerful. The incessant lobbying is bad, but worse is the revolving door we see so often between the higher echelons of government and those of business, where top government officials create business-friendly legislation, and then move straight out of politics and into corporate directorships.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.

What people want or deserve is not a viable metric. The fact is there aren't enough resources to treat everyone equally, especially when they aren't paying into the system. Even if there were enough resources, any time you take away the cost of a product or service, corruption and inefficiency always follows, eventually resulting in reduced services for everyone.
member
Activity: 224
Merit: 62
Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

It already is, I live in Canada which is suppose to have some of the best health care, I cannot fix my broken spine because I have no money. They want a large sum to fix my spine that is broken from feeding millions of my own kind from wearing a harness on my back from ages 4-31 picking fruit so people can live, from doing roofing and bricklaying and building over 50 homes. Yet I still do not own one. I can`t even get ODSP for my broken back even though the MRI`s show some seriously bad news for me. Someday`s I cannot get out of bed for hours, I can not sit in the same position for more than 20 minutes before it feels like someone is shoving 2 swords in and out my back repeatedly. The only thing that helps ease the pain for me is large does of cbd and thc, but it only mask it, They want to give me Oxycontin but that also only mask it as well, like putting a bandaid on something that need stitches, it just makes the problem worse, I refuse to take heroin and the other option cost me a arm and a leg I do not have.
sr. member
Activity: 1470
Merit: 325
damn socialist, because of them not all are money earning cattle to the financialists
sr. member
Activity: 546
Merit: 256
Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.
copper member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1899
Amazon Prime Member #7
private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.
socialist countries you cite pay less for the same service provided. They are not operating a free market.

There are also pervasive incentives for healthcare consumers in the US that are mainly caused by a third party payor system. The government gets to decide what healthcare services their citizens receive.
member
Activity: 980
Merit: 62
private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

In my opinion private Healthcare systems work better in any way.
Indeed it works better along with private insurance elements because this way the spending is balanced. But socialism is not connected with that at all...
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
It was interesting to see the reaction in the UK when the US ambassador said they wanted to get their claws into the NHS as part of a trade deal.

Everyone from every end of the spectrum apart from a couple of certifiable psycho assholes went absolutely fucking ballistic at the idea.

All you have to do is look at American government spending per capita. It's the highest in the world by a very, very significant margin yet you can still die from neglect or wind up bankrupted by it. Ergo American opinions are less than worthless on this subject.

American citizens have been conned into paying vastly more tax than anywhere else and having to pay out of their own pocket too. How did the medical industry manage that trick? If nothing else America serves as a superb example to rest of the planet on how not to end up.

At least we can pay to see a private doctor and get treated in days to weeks and not months or years as you die on a waiting list. IMO both systems are pretty broken, but Socialism is always a countdown to inevitable failure, private healthcare can be effectively managed.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
It was interesting to see the reaction in the UK when the US ambassador said they wanted to get their claws into the NHS as part of a trade deal.

Everyone from every end of the spectrum apart from a couple of certifiable psycho assholes went absolutely fucking ballistic at the idea.

All you have to do is look at American government spending per capita. It's the highest in the world by a very, very significant margin yet you can still die from neglect or wind up bankrupted by it. Ergo American opinions are less than worthless on this subject.

American citizens have been conned into paying vastly more tax than anywhere else and having to pay out of their own pocket too. How did the medical industry manage that trick? If nothing else America serves as a superb example to rest of the planet on how not to end up.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."
Absolutely.mate since poor people are dying because of being denied from basic necessities most specially in the third world countries and those who are in mountain places
They are the one whose mostly needs this services but the sad thing is they are not in priority for health services..because just like what the poster above said that doctors are aiming for higher payments than to serve poor with small income at stake

Anyone can point at a problem. You aren't providing a solution, you are just saying what is, is not good enough. Socialism is not a solution, as history shows. In the end even more people end up lacking basic necessities. Way to fix it.
full member
Activity: 2492
Merit: 212
Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!
Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."
Absolutely.mate since poor people are dying because of being denied from basic necessities most specially in the third world countries and those who are in mountain places
They are the one whose mostly needs this services but the sad thing is they are not in priority for health services..because just like what the poster above said that doctors are aiming for higher payments than to serve poor with small income at stake
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

No it doesn't have to take away.  Socialism can start by fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward.
That would be taking away the means of production from those that own it. If someone previously invested in equipment that produces goods, "fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward" would reduce the value of that equipment down to zero.

See Venezuela. American companies funded a large portion of their refining infrastructure, they nationalized it, then it rotted into a completely useless state because Communists are not good business managers and are totally inefficient. Now they are all starving because the nation depended on that refining capacity and Maduro is blaming the US for doing this to them. What a joke.
copper member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1899
Amazon Prime Member #7
Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

No it doesn't have to take away.  Socialism can start by fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward.
That would be taking away the means of production from those that own it. If someone previously invested in equipment that produces goods, "fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward" would reduce the value of that equipment down to zero.
full member
Activity: 952
Merit: 175
@cryptocommies
Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

No it doesn't have to take away.  Socialism can start by fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 302
Let me tell a secret: free healthcare system doesn't work.

image loading...

image loading...

Sadly, healthcare is an expensive service, who promises it for free is lying to people.
We need to be realistic and look for real solutions to solve issues. Demagogy like offering free stuff to the poors doesn't help us fixing any problems.

Isn't this how the socialist regime in Venezuela started? Free this, free that. All was well while the oil money keeps coming but then the oil prices plunged. They nationalized their oil sector and it degraded to the point that they don't even refine oil now, they just sell crude.
Pages:
Jump to: