It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Please explain Socialism to an idiot.

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by red_leader

Yes but, what if as in the current economic slump in your country, you can not find a job that offers such benefits, now you and your whole family face bankruptcy if one of you has a severe medical condition.

People keep saying this, but it is just NOT TRUE!

I had a heart attack last year - no insurance. I was first treated by EMT's, then in the emergency room at the PRIVATE hospital, then flown AirLife to one of the best heart hospitals in this area and given EXCELLENT treatment. I made it clear to everyone that treated me that I DID NOT have insurance or any money to pay them and knowing that, I didn't expect them to treat me.

Five days later, I have a $100,000 medical bill. I had a choice of three things. I could fill out all sorts of government paperwork, giving them info that was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS and they would pay my bills, I could
file bankruptcy or I could pay a bit each month. I chose the latter. Each month I pay them something. They don't harass or bother me and won't as long as I pay them something each month.

As long as one is making a "good faith" effort to pay their med bills, it's pretty hard for them (doctors and hospitals) to do much. They would rather have a little bit at a time than have nothing, as would be the case in a bankruptcy.

This may not be the case other states, but that's how it is here in Texas.

I think one reason they don't get too pushy about the bill being paid is because when one REALLY examines their bills, they will find a huge amount of overcharges on it. You would not believe the stuff I was charged for, didn't need and never got. Every time I have had followup blood work done, the hospital lab charges me $258.00. My doctor ALSO charges me $258.00 and the only thing they do is order the tests and get the results. Then, I am charged $128.00 for the office call where I step on a scale, have my BP taken, the doctor tells me the results and talks to me for maybe five minutes! They have themselves quite a little racket going.

I'll probably croak before I get the bills all paid, but with all their overcharges, I really don't give a flip. They can eat the rest of it. But, til then I will make a "good faith' effort to pay.

A couple of the ER doctors used to send me FINAL BILL - THIS MUST BE PAID IN FULL BY SUCH AND SUCH A DATE. Everytime I got one of those, I just lowered the amount I paid them. Now I get a normal bill, "Thank you for your payment. Balance due XXXXXXXX."

People don't have to file bankruptcy, most do because they get so overwhelmed by financial distress don't really THINK through and try to figure out the best way to solve the problem. Yes, there are some folks who really need to file for bankruptcy, but I think alot do it just because it's easier than actually taking responsibility and solving the problem themselves.

My life would be so much easier if I would have let the government pay my bills or filed for bankruptcy, but since I am able to make payments, I think it would be rather tacky of me to expect somebody else to pay them.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:28 AM
[edit on 1-11-2008 by norskie]

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by red 5

I prefer the two cow principle to explain political ideology.
Capitalism:This is, you have two cows you sell one and buy a bull.
Communism:This is you have two cows the government takes them and gives you the milk.
Socialism:This is, you have two cows the government nationalises them and sells you the milk.
Fascism:This is,you have two cows the government takes them and shoots you.
Obamism:This is, you have two cows Obama says you have to change them both for one black and one white one('Bless you my brother change is good')Then you may sell the milk at a fixed price,whilst we tax you so much that you'll have to sell the farm.('All power to the great god of change)

Hitler's slogan: "Alles muss anders sein!" ("Everything must be different!")

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."
Pope Benedict

Argumentum ad populum ZAPGAIA

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by LogicalExplanation

I'm sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

I live in Canada, which is about as socialist as Obama wants to make America. Nothing of what you say there is true.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:40 AM

The problem is, in this country the rich actually work hard for their money and deserve it.

Not all of 'em! I can quote and cite a good deal of thieves who have built their empires on the backs of the poor. Petty and otherwise. I'll start with my ex landlord and work my way up to every stuffed shirt pig we have lounging around in Washington soaking up our tax dollars.

I am not a socialist- just pointing out the flaw in what was said- tho THOSE people should be stripped of everything and have it distributed to their victims first, paying double what was taken, then to everyone else. Think of it as 'honesty socialism'. ;-)

[edit on 1-11-2008 by wylekat]

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by LogicalExplanation

huh? what gives you the impression that socialism = third world country?

Perhaps you need to read up a little on socialism before you claim to understand the concept. There are pros and cons to a socialistic govt. or a socialistic democracy just as there are pros and cons to our own govt here in the US. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your list of socialistic countries so we can see how they all fit into the third world mold you speak of.

Not everything is so cut and dry / black and white

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:32 AM
Yet another reason America is NOT the greatest country on Earth!

Okay, first off. ANYONE who believes we are/have been a Capitalist country needs to go to a basic Economics class and then do some long and hard research about America the Beautiful. That is one point...

Point Number Two: Our "Capitalist," "Free Market" wielding leaders just bailed out ALL of Wall Street. Before that, they were bailing out companies anyway. In Capitalism, those companies fall and they fall HARD. Where's the invisible hand? It doesn't matter because we have the entirely visible hand of the government telling us it's necessary that we do this to save our economy and overall livelihood. Okay, if that's true and for the sake of argument let's say that it is, that we need the government to step in and oversee business and their regulations, enforce stricter business practices, is that Capitalism? The next argument might be "We the people didn't want that, the government did it!" HELLO, DOESN'T MATTER, NOT CAPITALISM!

Point Number Three: One ideology is not ultimately superior compared to the other. They each have flaws. One flaw of Capitalism, as already pointed out, is you end up with the power residing in the hands of only the wealthy. Okay, if this country is the country by the people for the people yadda yadda, why is it that we are now ran by corporations and big business such as the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, and Lobbyists? Why can't we move on to sustainable energy and why are we addicted to petroleum products? Why are things such as "Earmarks" and "pork" such a big deal? The economic/societal ideologies as they stand in America are corrupt, failing, and we allow it. Why do we allow it? Well, because were are super busy with my next point...

Three: Race, religion, ideologies... America is a country divided, definitely not united. We let ourselves fall into useless traps of back and forth bickering White vs. Any other Race, Christianity vs. Any other religion, Status Quo vs. any other thinking.... Personally, I think to understand ANYTHING you have to rationally look at both sides without any preconceived notions. I am not trained to think one thing is ultimately great and the other ultimately inferior. Get over that line of thinking. It's pathetic. Unfortunately, way too many people have been bombarded with so much stimuli that this is their ONLY way of thinking. Christianity = Best. White = best. Capitalism = Best. Democrat/Republican = Best. Pop Music = Best. Rap Music = Best. Country Music = Best. You're all nothing but jokers.

Seriously, I am falling further and further into disgust with ATS as well as the entirety of America because of all this B/S.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:58 AM
Socialism is a system that seeks to reward those less fortunate in life instead of punishing them. To the fortunate, who dosn't understand that god dosn't deal everyone the same hand to each individual, this might seem unfair. But in the end if you help the less fortunate you will have higher morale and production than you would ever have by punishing them.

Socialism is good for the unity. Capitalism is good for succesful individuals and bad for the rest.

I'm sad to see how most people seem to think that it is a bad thing.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by LogicalExplanation
If he does this, people will no longer want to try hard and become wealthy themselves, since their money will just be taken any way. So what would be the point in going out and making something of yourself? Absolutely nothing. With no one going out and forming businesses, hiring employees, etc, etc, our nation's infrastructure and economy would flat out collapse.

For anyone that believes in Socialism, I dare you to actually move to a Socialist nation and live there. Hmm, no takers? You would rather prefer to stay here in our capitalist paradise? That's what I thought.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by LogicalExplanation]

So, people won't actually live their lives in greed and chasing money? They will only go into a certain business for a better reason? Maybe people will actually go into businesses for the good of the community? or because they enjoy that area of study?

Hey, we might actually get somewhere as a community!!

No.. we want to have a completely corrupt political system that's ran by greed and servitude to the wealthy.

Obama's plan is unfair to some people, but it would actually encourage many to plan their life and careers around something other than greed and money.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:07 PM
what has capitalism got us? a screwed up economy due to greed. some say socialism isn't fair so does that mean capitalism is fair? is it truly fair that a blue-collar working busting his butt off day in and day out can only make enough money to get by even when he's usually putting in more effort per week than a high paid CEO? The people who rise to the top... do they really deserve their 'hard earned cash' over every one else? Is that what people call fair?

We already have the technology and resources to feed every human on earth with a minimal amount of effort. it's just a matter of changing our priorities and 'sharing the wealth'. earth as a whole could be very wealthy, but the elitists out there only care about gaining personal wealth.

I'm pretty well off myself and I know that the main thing that keeps the economy going is the lower and middle class which usually do the hardest work. When the middle class suffers, everyone suffers. I'm glad to share my wealth and I do so by donating to charities. I'm not saying a pure socialist society is better than a pure capitalist society but I do think we need to have some sort of hybrid society where everyone's basic needs are given to them while everything else you gotta cough up some dough for.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by curiousbeliever]

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:44 PM

If we become a socialist nation, there will no longer be "The American Dream" and our nation will slowly wither away and become a third world nation. No one will have the desire to do anything anymore or to go out and make something of themselves, since their hard earned money would just be taken from them.
reply to post by LogicalExplanation

In a nut shell folks...

I am 43 years old, have worked hard since I was eleven. Had a paper route, cut grass, landscaped, worked at grocery stores since before 16, am now a blue collar worker who's only ever missed two days work since employed full time at the age of 16. Pay my taxes, donate to charity, understand the fact that those less fortunate do need help through social programs but...

I'll be damned if I want to to turn the US into the United Socialist States of America. Call me redneck, call me old school, but I love this country and everything it was founded on.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:11 PM
interesting thread, thought I'd come out of the shadows to put in my piece. FYI I live in Canada and think anyone in America happy with the direction the election has gone needs to get their head checked. It was blatantly obvious a year ago that Obama was the media's choice candidate, where is the democracy? They tell you the polls each day so that come election day no one freaks out when their choice is elected, everyone saw it coming. My point here is that Obama represents more of the same, his strings are pulled by the same masters regardless of his personal political/economic opinions. So the question of socialism good/bad is irrelevant. You already have corporate socialism, as many have already pointed out.

But in all this thread I was a bit surprised that no one mentioned what I consider the biggest reason pure socialism would not work in America: America is a giant target for every other country, especially right now. In an international system, countries pressure other countries, sometimes physically but usually economically, to gain a step and become more powerful. This is the reason the USSR failed, because socialism cannot exist in a nation within an international community. Everyone who thinks socialism is great and blah blah free health care blah blah equality, well what does that do to your countries standing in comparison to the others internationally? Socialism works in Canada in particular precisely because we don't have to be America. We don't have to spend money on defense (big one), we don't have a large homeless population (it gets too f-ing cold to stay on the streets all year). I can't speak for Europe, I'm not sure if socialism works there or not but I would guess if it does it is for similar reasons; most countries don't have the same international pressures as the US.

Socialism in America would lead to disaster because other countries like China India and Russia would pick it apart until there was nothing left. Socialism can only work if it is implemented globally, and even then I have my doubts.

Don't be fooled though, the republicans represent socialism just as much as the democrats, you have been tricked into choosing from heads or tails of the same coin (and the value of that coin is declining). They both want to take your money and give it to people who don't need it because they have this flawed idea that subsidizing an industry somehow helps it. It only promotes monopolies of lazy corporations whose profits are your tax dollars, and in some states they have the nerve to tax you again every time you use their services!

America can be great again if you get rid of these useless bureaucracies that soak up social spending dollars so that the money never even goes where the politicians intended. Cut the spending and you'll be lowering the incentive for corporations to get in bed with the government and maybe people can start thinking about creating useful products and services instead of the best way to get a piece of the tax pie. Continuing on the path that Obama and McCain both represent is only leading you towards fascism, maybe when the corporations collect your taxes directly you'll realize this.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:24 PM

(from ImaNutter
Point Number Two: Our "Capitalist," "Free Market" wielding leaders just bailed out ALL of Wall Street. Before that, they were bailing out companies anyway. In Capitalism, those companies fall and they fall HARD. Where's the invisible hand? It doesn't matter because we have the entirely visible hand of the government telling us it's necessary that we do this to save our economy and overall livelihood. Okay, if that's true and for the sake of argument let's say that it is, that we need the government to step in and oversee business and their regulations, enforce stricter business practices, is that Capitalism? The next argument might be "We the people didn't want that, the government did it!" HELLO, DOESN'T MATTER, NOT CAPITALISM!

Bingo! Right on the Money! now we know that it isn't Capitalism that is picking apart our economy, it's the government's involvement. If the government would allow Capitalism to work, then it would work. Those companies Should have been allowed to fall hard. The free market will take care of itself, no need to interfere. It's the socialist ideals that are already being put into place that are pulling our economy apart. Obama preaches change. People who support Obama feel he is right because we're in a bad spot right now. Wrong, it's the changes that have already been made that put us here. The slow and gradual ideals that have come over us Fat, Lazy, ungrateful Americans have led us to state of irresponsibility. Ask any young person what they want to do for a living. It typically consists of lots of pay and little effort. We expect things to be "fair" we expect Daddy Big(No) bucks to bail us out and spread the wealth so things are "fair". Some people talk about Greed being the Bane of the economy, well you're close. Greed is what led these companies to make these terrible business decisions. Now the government is "distributing the wealth" of the taxpayers (to idiotic CEO's) in the name of "saving our economy" via bailout plan. The government just needs to stay out of the way and let the We the People be in control like this country was designed to.

Final remarks: Law if natural selection. Theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest. Those that evolve, survive. Nature=Capitalism in it's truest form.


But wait, I thought that's what Capitalism is all about. Take it upon yourself and work hard instead of other people feeding you answers.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Pjotr
In Holland we seem to be the most productive per head per year, but we work less hours, so we are more effective. You would call outr country socialist (left from Obama), but we still don't, so it is a matter of perspective. The American dream is still an option in Europe. Strange HUH.
So we work harder in a smaller amount of time and are RICHER per head. also when you pay taxes there is a reason to work (I know, I work hard, earn a lot and am sill very happy, and proud to be contributing to one of the healthiest econimies of this world)

While that may be true, I'd just like to note that everyone in Europe is forced to take long holidays; that is what produces the lower level of working hours. And so when you compare what remains of work hours with those of countries such as the U.S. and Japan, you come to a substantially biased figure of productive output. However, the holidays might help efficiency in the long run. Holland and other closely related European countries may produce at much higher levels of the intellectual output than those of the aforementioned workaholic countries. So the difference between the two systems is either too subtle or untranslatable to give a fair perspective of differences in both societies in terms of levels of industrial and other producible outputs.


Look, the bottom line is that any political body truly does not take into account the well being of its citizenry. It will, however, make exceptions for its constituency, but then only the minimum in order to remain in power. The political body is only interested in preserving and strengthening in its own power base. This has been true for all of human social history. So the fact that a voter in this upcoming election would be torn between either party, on the basis of some feigned sense of Socialism and how it would apply to that individual directly, is being completely mislead. I'm not entirely sure how each party differs in their social policies, but I know the Republicans at this point in time simply aren't capable of providing any sort of social welfare to its national constituents. They just aren't in the position. The party itself isn't unified over the issue. Actually, if the Republicans do manage to make it into office this term, we can expect to see some violent infighting among the party, which could manifest in the 2012 election. The event might conjure images of Teddy Roosevelt and Taft, with the formation of a progressive Republican party, ultimately culminating in Republican defeat that election year. Actually that happened in 1912. Spooky connection anyone? The formation of a progressive Republic base seems to be occurring at this moment.

What hurts the most is that an individual will vote for some party based on ideological principles. This is absurd. It's like voting in a team captain for a soccer team; you get this figure head that represents your core values, but pragmatically accomplishes nothing except the mental cohesion of all the team members. Essentially the captain is an extension of the collective mind of the team, yet no one individual is willing to step out and put in the work in most cases... It's sad that a voter would make a decision like that.

To be honest, all you should be worrying about is exactly what either party will do for you personally. It shouldn't be a battle between parties, a battle over ideas with little or no substance. This is exactly what happened prior to the first American civil war. Now I'm not saying something like that would happen again, our peace keeping and diplomatic skills are infinitely better than in the past, however that raw conflict would manifest itself in other ways, such as crime, murder, political interest groups and corruption, (all of which is arguably happening now), etc.

People that vote on ideological principle alone are either rich and bored, or poor and complacent. They need to something to fill themselves, to grasp on to, which could potentially fill the void where the individuality of a person usually resides.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by cognoscente]

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:54 PM

They all seem to think everyone can make it if they just work harder and then everyone can get rich and enjoy the great life, and that my friends is a lie.

this is so true. i mean, have people just seriously lost their freaking minds. we all cant be donald trumps, bill gates, etc.... there are going to have to be average joes, who sell you your cellphones, clean your poop, sweep your streets, teach your kids, fry your chicken, etc..., and these people are considered underachievers if they go the cutthroat route and start doing any and everything to be rich.

the worst part, is im sure alot of the people here posting about its stealing from the hard workers, are middle class themselves. if you cannot comprehend why someone making 3 million a year in salary, should not contribute A LITTLE extra for the betterment of the bigger picture, than you are retarded. thats what you are, you are a retarded person, and you need help.

not everyone is going to go to college, not everyone is going to become a ceo of a big company, not everyone is gonna become an overpaid superintendent, not everyone is gonna become a world class actor, or producer, etc... the list goes on.

even if every freaking kid in america went to college and got at least a bachelors degree, there would still not be tens of millions of high paying jobs available, and you would still have what you have now, which is over qualified people, working jobs at the same level as someone who only graduated from high school, and just got an opportunity to get in the companies door.

i mean, what do some of these ceo's need with 5 million dollar a year salaries, with stock options and stuff. i mean, you could give the average american a million dollars, and if they dont start living wildly beyond their means, they could live off of that for the rest of their life, and some. hell, the mere interest on it from your bank every month could pay rent at least.

so when do we say enough is enough, i know you worked hard from the day you were a poor child on a farm, to create your empire, but you sir need to spread the wealth, you have made your millions, do you need to make trillions before your happy, or better yet, just take over the universe.

i mean,its not like we're talking about taking turning millionaires, or hundred thousand'naires into people making the same salary as a mcdonalds worker. the middle man has to exist,or the rich cannot get richer. joe the plumber has to exist, and if joe is making 500 grand a year, and he aint eating scraps, then maybe joe should look out for the bigger picture, and pay a little extra, so that guy who fixes your cell phone, trying to take care of his child, and live in comfort, isnt going to have to start selling drugs to keep up with the cost of living, or just with lifes randomness.

i mean, you can close wiki, close the books, and common sense should allow you to deduce why it can be good to implement a PROPER plan to redistribute the wealth for the greater good, but then again, its not like our history has shown that human beings are nothing more then selfish meat sacks, running around pretending to be gods.

politics is just like religion and spirituality, you need a proper mixture to come up with something good,but you also have to be working with people WHO ARE NOT FUNCTIONING RETARDS. hell, democracy is almost idealistic garbage,but yet we believe in it so wholeheartedly.

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -cies.
1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

this is ideal, but as they say, as long as people are people, this is pretty much unattainable in its purest form, and we are doing nothing more than chasing democracy. but yet we stand by it as if its god sent. do you really think democracy in its purest definition is being exercised in the u.s.a right now. pffft. just a little rant. there is a reason we have all these different systems created, and they should start to try to work with one another, but i think the planet we live on, the government, corporations, etc.., are more about enslavement, and maintaining a certain position of power of the people, no matter what country your in, rather than seeking for some type of heaven on earth.

until people want to drop that no pain no gain attitude in life. you will always be dealing with the problems we face now, and have always faced. this is just history repeating itself. get over yourselves, and your programmed views of the world. we all bleed and love, just like the next man or woman. ugh, just the thought of how stupid people can be makes me barf.

the universe has more than enough to take care of even billions of people. the illusion that we are running out,is always maintained, as to give the simple minded something to chase after.

anyways, moving on. ill go back and read more of the thread later

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by red 5

If Obama was a socialist, which I doubt, it would be a good thing. Don't forget that Tony Blair, our ex-prime minister and your ally in the Iraq war, is a socialist. Communist dictatorships aren't socialism. Communist Russia as was, Cuba and north korea are not socialist, they're left-wing disctatorships. In my view, socialism is a regulated capitalism, where people are not prevented from accruing wealth and capital, but those that get extremely wealthy are asked to give some of that back to support publicly funded projects and schemes. Redistributive socialism and capitalism and democracy can and do co-exist.

Unfortunately, we have a system in the UK now where the rich pay a smaller precentage of their hard-earned money in takes than those on middle incomes - I believe it's similar in the States. Is that fair?

A study showed that in countries where there is less of a gap between rich and poor, there is more social cohesion, whether those countries are poor overall or rich overall. Does it strike you as fair that a waiter on minimum wage can serve on a table where the cost of a meal is more than s/he would earn in 4 years? Or more than a nurse or a cop would earn? So they're taxed higher - one less yacht or car or what? They benefited and were able to grow rich through living in the land of the free...they made their profit in apart from all the minimum wage workers employed by them...

Isn't someone who works hard and becomes super-rich only able to do that because s/he lives in a society that is ordered, where the roads are maintained, where the people who work for his company are healthy and well-educated, where people can earn a living wage so crime is lower? Should a hard-working person who loses their job and home because they are in an accident and have no insurance, not be provided with a safety net in terms of free health care? It may cost the tax payer, but it will maintain them as a healthy worker and consumer, and so help the economy generally. No one wants to be poor - it sucks - so the idea of the feckless and lazy poor person is a myth, encouraged in order to make it acceptable for people to be abandoned by the state.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by red 5

...why don't you ask the South Florida Cubans, who risked their lives fleeing their Socialist/Communist paradise!

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by jimmy1200

You are passionate but I think you missed the point, socialism means more tax money given to an institution that is prone to screwing up, an institution that is patently inefficient. The government is just a money pit, it really doesn't matter how much we throw into it they will spend it and then some. And even good intentioned politicians always seem so short sighted and reactionary to say nothing of those in congress who are looking for personal gain.

The system is inherently flawed, the only thing we can do to try to keep it working is limit it's powers and scope. Why aren't we talking about community charities and shelters when we talk about the poor? Why is the solution somehow to give more power to this behemoth federal monster? The government has enough to screw up already with national defense and infrastructure. Many of the problems that we see today are caused by government involvement (socialism), the system is too convoluted and policies constantly change, only large companies can afford to keep an open dialog with the government and as a result they are typically the ones that get the money.

There are many other institutions who help level the playing field for the poor in society, give them your money instead if you care so much (apparently you do).

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by red 5

Let's put it this way. It would be like a child going trick or treating and he gets a lot of candy. His older brother decided he didn't want to go. When the little brother came home with his candy, the older brother took half of his candy. The little brother, in tears, asked "Why did you take my candy?" The older brother replied,"Because I don't have any. We have to be fair and make sure we are equal in ownership." There's socialism in a nutshell.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Gateway
Canada has a better health care system than the U.S?

If this is better, than you Canadians can have your health care system...

Thanks but no thanks...

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Gateway]

How can you post this nonsense, I could not watch more than 60 seconds saw that is a crappy commercial.
This guy doesn't know his economics.

Demand does not rise with availability on several goods, one of them is healthcare. I am nearly fifty, can go to a hospital any second for anything and I never go. Case closed. I am healthy and take care of it.
Please use the walnut in the skull. There are different goods in this world and differnt demands.
Free tickets for Disneyland, that produces cues.

The fact that there are hospitals (yes, i watched the rest) that are bending or breaking rulesfor whatever reason is of course something to look over for the Canadians.
That doesn't say anything about the other countries with different rules.

In my country strangely enough it is often economical for some hospitals to have their beds filled to get sufficient funds. Of course, that problem has been tackled too, when it appeared. But whenever I visit a hospital in the Netherlands (with a private health insurance system [for me 200 euros a month]), I notice the neatness, and the fact that the only people that I see waiting are just a few for a respetiondesk or on or two for an x-ray. Of course there are waiting lists, but they vary. Urgent matters are attended quickly and less urgent less quick.

There are a lot of different models the US could choose from to better the system an make it moer affordable.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Pjotr]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in