Why be so anti Democratic Socialist?

[Theodore Kurita]

I have been reading loads of materials by many authors of the constructs of Democratic Socialism.

You people that go around bashing me for being one have apparantely not looked into governments around the world that actually incorporate such a system.

List of Current Democratic Socialist Nations:

Canada
France
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Denmark

and many others.


It seems that people like "Skeptic" want to bash Democratic Socialism at any costs.

Why do this?

You have Democracy, with Socialistic Reform.

Capitalism still exists, and there is still profit incentive.

Healthcare becomes more readily avaliable.

Fewer are exploited, unless you count the very wealthy.

Your education is paid for through college and university if you choose to do so.


Sure, the incomes taxes are high, ranging from 1/3 of your income to 1/2 just depending.


Give me one valid reason why a Democratic Socialist society will not work in the long run!

That is right, one valid lousy sticking reason why it would not work.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I have been reading loads of materials by many authors of the constructs of Democratic Socialism.

You people that go around bashing me for being one have apparantely not looked into governments around the world that actually incorporate such a system.

List of Current Democratic Socialist Nations:

Canada
France
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Denmark

and many others.


It seems that people like "Skeptic" want to bash Democratic Socialism at any costs.

Why do this?

You have Democracy, with Socialistic Reform.

Capitalism still exists, and there is still profit incentive.

Healthcare becomes more readily avaliable.

Fewer are exploited, unless you count the very wealthy.

Your education is paid for through college and university if you choose to do so.


Sure, the incomes taxes are high, ranging from 1/3 of your income to 1/2 just depending.


Give me one valid reason why a Democratic Socialist society will not work in the long run!

That is right, one valid lousy sticking reason why it would not work.


Well, since I am not psychic I can't give you why it will not work, but what may happen is that minority of people who are employed end up supporting the majority of those who are unemployed. This could happen when you have a system that gives you almost everything you need to have a good life with out getting a job.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Grammatron



Well, since I am not psychic I can't give you why it will not work, but what may happen is that minority of people who are employed end up supporting the majority of those who are unemployed. This could happen when you have a system that gives you almost everything you need to have a good life with out getting a job.


The problem with that argument though is, Canada has been a Democratic Socialist nation for a while, yet they have only a 10% unemployment rate.

It remains constant, and does not fluctuate much.


Like I said, there is PROFIT INCENTIVE in Democratic Socialist society, that is because Capitalism still exists within this type of a society.

[BTox]

I was looking for the "I suspect this poll has been plagiarized" option...

[plindboe]

Kurita, you left out Norway in your list, one of the most succesful countries in the world. ;) Socialist democratic countries are curiously enough among the richest and most succesful countries, so it's hard to imagine why anyone would be anti-socialist. Perhaps it's because of the recent cold war that some americans get the chills whenever they hear the word "socialist".

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita



The problem with that argument though is, Canada has been a Democratic Socialist nation for a while, yet they have only a 10% unemployment rate.

It remains constant, and does not fluctuate much.


Like I said, there is PROFIT INCENTIVE in Democratic Socialist society, that is because Capitalism still exists within this type of a society.

I can flip that argument and say that's why USA works so well is that some Socialism exists here; welfare, social security, unemployment. Not to mention -- as was posted on another thread -- $250 billion dollars worth of private donations.

I guess I can ask you a question, what's wrong with USA's society?

[shuize]

Originally posted by plindboe
Kurita, you left out Norway in your list, one of the most succesful countries in the world. ;) Socialist democratic countries are curiously enough among the richest and most succesful countries, so it's hard to imagine why anyone would be anti-socialist. Perhaps it's because of the recent cold war that some americans get the chills whenever they hear the word "socialist".

Yes, Norway is doing quite well. Thanks in large part to the oil.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I can flip that argument and say that's why USA works so well is that some Socialism exists here; welfare, social security, unemployment.

I guess I can ask you a question, what's wrong with USA's society?


Close to nothing. But "some socialism" doesn't quite describe the system. It's just that democratic socialist governments try to provide welfare for voting citizens.

Military Industrial Complexes - to quote one of your dead presidents - provide welfare for corporations and stock brokers. How many single moms could you support, craadle to grave, for the price of the S&L bailout?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by shuize
Yes, Norway is doing quite well. Thanks in large part to the oil.

Yup, they got that oil (Those thieving bastards :mad: ), but they have been doing just as great as Sweden and Denmark the centuries up to their oil success.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I guess I can ask you a question, what's wrong with USA's society?

I am not he, and this may not be the answer you're looking for, but the trouble with USA's society is that you get nickled and dimed to death.

Depending on where you live and/or work, you will be paying one or more of the following:

Federal income tax
State income tax
County income tax (residence and/or work)
City income tax (residence and/or work)
School district income tax (residence and/or work)

Not to mention payroll tax, which is like income tax that happens before the paycheck is cut, and social security tax.

This, of course, does not even begin to start on sales tax and property tax.

US taxes are divided into so many different chunks that they appear to be a better deal than European taxes, but in most cases they really aren't.

[peptoabysmal]

I think your poll says it all. In a socialist government I would only have the choices that government wants me to make;

Would you like to work for the State on the East coast or the West coast?

Would you like to work for the State in the North or the South?

Would you like to be sent to a reprogramming institution for the rest of your life?

Would you like to work for the State on Planet-X?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Sure, the incomes taxes are high, ranging from 1/3 of your income to 1/2 just depending.

Actually, in Sweden most people in reality pay about 50 % in taxes (including social security charges - which are in fact nothing but ordinary tax). Many of us pay something in the region of 60 - 70 %.

The result? No incentive to do "honest work", because it simply isn't profitable. A lot of people benefit from other people's work by exploiting the Swedish social security system. We have brain drain and profitable companies leaving the country...

I firmly object against SD's focus on the collective rather than the rights of the individual against the state.

I for one have never voted with the Social Democrats and I never will.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by BTox
I was looking for the "I suspect this poll has been plagiarized" option...

:D

[Ed]

In the long run? Dunno. I recall reading that France is worried about the drain that their aging population will have and that some benefits will be dropped. It seems that the economies of these countries will have to accelerate over the coming years and one wonders if the individual can be motivated enough.

Personally, I dislike the notion of Government making any more decisions than is absolutely necessary.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Ed
In the long run? Dunno.

Personally, I dislike the notion of Government making any more decisions than is absolutely necessary.

Who said "I don't mind paying taxes. It buys me civilization." I'll go google that now.

What always puzzles me when I go to the States is how common is this gap between 'The Government' and us. There are many things that we can do as a society that would be nearly impossible as a separate effort.
Think sewers. Invented at least 5 times in human history, never established by free enterprise because the benefit is collective, not individual. That is, I get no benefit from removing my faeces from the gutter, because I've already got those diseases. I get the benefit when the poorest, sickest member of society is not defecating in the street.

We at least get to elect those who represent us in government. I don't see how we get from there to seeing The GOVERNMENT as some kind of external beast that rules us.

[Ed]

Another thought.

I have a number of Brit ex-pat friends. To a person they say that the working environment in the UK was stultifiying. That they viewed the ability to excell and be rewarded for it did not exist in the UK to nearly the same degree as the US. Dunno.

A good question is what are the stats on emigration to/from the US?

[Ed]

Originally posted by tedly


Who said "I don't mind paying taxes. It buys me civilization." I'll go google that now.

What always puzzles me when I go to the States is how common is this gap between 'The Government' and us. There are many things that we can do as a society that would be nearly impossible as a separate effort.
Think sewers. Invented at least 5 times in human history, never established by free enterprise because the benefit is collective, not individual. That is, I get no benefit from removing my faeces from the gutter, because I've already got those diseases. I get the benefit when the poorest, sickest member of society is not defecating in the street.

We at least get to elect those who represent us in government. I don't see how we get from there to seeing The GOVERNMENT as some kind of external beast that rules us.

My personal opinion is that it is an external beast. Regarding sewers, here in the sticks, we have septic systems. If we were to go to sewers, there would be a local vote.

The problem with government is when they intrude into your little local life.

[WildCat]

The European socialist model would implode due to demographics, the low birth rate combined w/ an aging population spells doom within the not so distant future. Too few workers supporting too many retirees. This is why they have such large immigrant populations from Africa, Eastern Europe and other places, because they're necessary! With the immigration backlash now occuring there, it's unlikely they'll be able to keep it up for long.

And since they (Europe and Canada) place a cap on prescription drug prices, US citizens end up subsidizing that w/ higher prices here in the US.

And people are howling here about a 5.7% unemployment rate, think what would happen if it approached Canada's 10%.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by WildCat
The European socialist model would implode due to demographics, the low birth rate combined w/ an aging population spells doom within the not so distant future. Too few workers supporting too many retirees. This is why they have such large immigrant populations from Africa, Eastern Europe and other places, because they're necessary! With the immigration backlash now occuring there, it's unlikely they'll be able to keep it up for long.

And since they (Europe and Canada) place a cap on prescription drug prices, US citizens end up subsidizing that w/ higher prices here in the US.

And people are howling here about a 5.7% unemployment rate, think what would happen if it approached Canada's 10%.

Excellent Point.
I think demographics are a nightmare for most "First World" countries.
Japan is already starting to feel the strain of low birth rates and longer life expectancy. It will only get worse.

I think another "problem" with democratic socialist form of government is that they tend to have lower GDP growth rates. I believe Germany's GDP actually shrank in 2003.

Why should this matter? Less GDP means less resources to give to pensions, health care, infrastructure, etc...
I think what will wind up happening is that you have groups then constantly fighting over their share of a stagnent pie.

[American]

Your system rewards laziness and bad values, and it punishes motivation and accomplishment. All with the goal of equality.

We are not equal. I am better than the person sitting at home surfing the internet while I post on my work break.

You seem to be under the delusion that I haven't earned my place and that a good portion of my annual income belongs to you and not me, so you can re-distribute what I earned to degenerate f-cks who don't deserve it. And you exploit the political system in a way that protects your own wealth, enslaving masses of victim-loser groups while you, as you stated, are an upperclassman and always will be.

[Margam]

Socialists governments take a large portion of money that you have worked for to give to other people without you having any say in the matter. How can that be justified? That money has been earned by you. I can't believe that so many people don't mind forking over money to a government as long as they are "taken care of". I work and use my money to take care of myself and my family.

Capitalism is what has made this the greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. It rewards innovation, production, and invention. This why it will always be better than any type of socialist government.

Think about this. This country has only been around for over 200 years. Yet we are the most powerful nation this world has ever seen. We have been free from dictators and oppresive governments. In this country, if you can reach whatever goal you want has long as you work for it.

I like Canada. It does have capitalism. I just think that the high taxing of its citizens limits what an individual can achieve. But hey, that got free health care, right?

[BillyTK]

I wouldn't work in the US because they reward style over substance. Doesn't matter how hard you work, it won't stop some talentless hack who's got a flashier suit and a degree in bum-licking from getting the edge on you.

And the president and his pals take a large portion of money that you have worked for to give to other people without you having any say in the matter, so they can indulge their hobbyhorses and cronies. I mean Halliburton, faith-based initiatives, Office of Homeland Defence, Mexico City gag orders, how's that for reqarding laziness and bad values?

If I've got to give free money to the state, I'd sooner see it go on tangible things like education, healthcare, support for the needy, that kind of thing, than being dolled out willy-nilly to a bunch of rich and greedy types.

This has been a "Tu quoque" fallacy brought to you by BTK Industries; we don't think, so you don't have to.

[Richard G]

Socialism is a cancer to individual liberty. Don't steal from me, and give my money to someone else...get off your ass and earn your own way. I will pay for my own education, healthcare, and retirement. It would certainly be alot easier if 1/3 of my money wasn't robbed by the goverment every year.

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I wouldn't work in the US because they reward style over substance. Doesn't matter how hard you work, it won't stop some talentless hack who's got a flashier suit and a degree in bum-licking from getting the edge on you.

.[/size]

The suggestion is that the management of US companies is talentless?

Frankly, it sounds more like you got beat out for a bigger job recently.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed


The suggestion is that the management of US companies is talentless?

Frankly, it sounds more like you got beat out for a bigger job recently.

It does miss the point that a good bum-licker can pull down much more coin than someone who just works hard. Welcome to the real world. Discouraging bum-licking just makes the skill more in demand, which makes the bum-lickers richer. Like it or not, "bum-licking," otherwise known as "having and using people skills" is a valuable asset. People with money to spend want bum-lickers, at least they will pay more for it...

This explains why I'm pretty much broke and a lot of my friends aren't. It also explains why I don't whine about it.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Suddenly:
It does miss the point that a good bum-licker can pull down much more coin than someone who just works hard. Welcome to the real world.

Brown-nosing is far more prevalent in government spheres than in private industry. Appointments to the boards of state run industries are in the gift of politicians, and the appointees are notable for their political affiliations rather than any noticeable business nous.

The problem is that the rules governing private enterprise don't apply to state owned companies. When the consequences of poor management become apparent, state companies don't go bust, instead they continue to gobble up taxpayers money.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Brown-nosing is far more prevalent in government spheres than in private industry. Appointments to the boards of state run industries are in the gift of politicians, and the appointees are notable for their political affiliations rather than any noticeable business nous.

The problem is that the rules governing private enterprise don't apply to state owned companies. When the consequences of poor management become apparent, state companies don't go bust, instead they continue to gobble up taxpayers money.

Which is a good point. Brown-nosing comes in many... err... flavors, as it were. Having the state fully run a company is usually an invitation to profound waste.

A particular example of what you suggest happens in my state's Employment Programs Division. It is at heart a large insurance company, but rarely does the governor appoint anyone with insurance experience, rather (as our governor is usually a Democrat, and there aren't a whole lot of Democrat Insurance Executives) some labor leader or other career politician is tapped for the job, and the thing runs poorly.

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:The European socialist model would implode due to demographics, the low birth rate combined w/ an aging population spells doom within the not so distant future. Too few workers supporting too many retirees.While the ageing population is of concern for Europe, it is also of concern for Japan and presumably the US. The type of social benefit programs in each country doesn't really matter in this regard. Fewer workers to support more non-workers is a problem, no matter what. The only answer, apart from increasing the population, is to increase productivity.
And since they (Europe and Canada) place a cap on prescription drug prices, US citizens end up subsidizing that w/ higher prices here in the US.Could you explain the mechanism involved? Aren't the US drug companies making money in Europe? If not, why are they doing business there?

That being said, I'd like to echo CWL's sentiments. Taxes are too high here in Denmark and I've never voted for the Social-Democrats in my life.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
While the ageing population is of concern for Europe, it is also of concern for Japan and presumably the US. The type of social benefit programs in each country doesn't really matter in this regard. Fewer workers to support more non-workers is a problem, no matter what. The only answer, apart from increasing the population, is to increase productivity.

Fertility rates in Europe and Japan are well below those in the US. Most European countries spend more on various welfare programs than the US. Specifically on pensions the issue seems to be not one of how much will have to be paid, rather
how will it be paid for. (www.no-euro.com/theeuroandyou/pension.asp)

[DanishDynamite]

Shane Costello:Fertility rates in Europe and Japan are well below those in the US. Not that I doubt you, but would you have some figures?
Most European countries spend more on various welfare programs than the US. Specifically on pensions the issue seems to be not one of how much will have to be paid, rather
how will it be paid for. (www.no-euro.com/theeuroandyou/pension.asp) Yes, as I said it is a concern. However, it would be a concern in the US as well if their fertility rates were similar. My point is that has nothing to do with Social-Democracy.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
the population, is to increase productivity.
Could you explain the mechanism involved? Aren't the US drug companies making money in Europe? If not, why are they doing business there?
The prices paid in Europe and Canada wouldn't pay for the investment the companies put in bringing the drug to market. They still do business w/ them because they fear those countries will simply pirate the drug (manufacture it w/o license) if they don't. Better to get something than nothing. The US consumer pays the difference.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I think your poll says it all. In a socialist government I would only have the choices that government wants me to make;

Would you like to work for the State on the East coast or the West coast?

Would you like to work for the State in the North or the South?

Would you like to be sent to a reprogramming institution for the rest of your life?

Would you like to work for the State on Planet-X?

What the smeg are you talking about? We can choose to work where we want to, as americans can. :confused:

[plindboe]

Originally posted by CWL
Actually, in Sweden most people in reality pay about 50 % in taxes (including social security charges - which are in fact nothing but ordinary tax). Many of us pay something in the region of 60 - 70 %.

The result? No incentive to do "honest work", because it simply isn't profitable. A lot of people benefit from other people's work by exploiting the Swedish social security system. We have brain drain and profitable companies leaving the country...


Yup, the Scandinavian Welfare Model has sure turned out to be a catastrophe. All companies has left, and people are dying in the streets from plague and hunger. :p

Despite all the dooms day talk, people here are among the happiest and richest in the world.

I agree though that we are heading towards darker times, but our societies will slowly adapt, so I'm quite confident it won't end in catastrophe.

[CWL]

Originally posted by plindboe


Yup, the Scandinavian Welfare Model has sure turned out to be a catastrophe. All companies has left, and people are dying in the streets from plague and hunger. :p

Despite all the dooms day talk, people here are among the happiest and richest in the world.

I agree though that we are heading towards darker times, but our societies will slowly adapt, so I'm quite confident it won't end in catastrophe.

I agree. The SD's both in Sweden and Denmark have indeed taken quite a few steps in a more liberal/conservative direction during the last decade - not because they wanted to but because they had to. So yes, our societies are adapting, but slowly (as you say). All this just goes to show however that Social Democracy is a thing of the past (and that's where it belongs IMO).

[Ed]

Originally posted by plindboe


Despite all the dooms day talk, people here are among the happiest and richest in the world.




Are they not the drunkest, too? Are they celebrating prosperity or reflecting that their lot is the same regardless of what they do. I wonder.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Ed



Are they not the drunkest, too?

No,, weere nott!! *Hiccup*

[Ed]

Originally posted by CWL


No,, weere nott!! *Hiccup*


Oh. Sorry:D

[Earthborn]

Of course we went over this in in other threads, and the people who want to argue that the most social democratic countries are worse off never seemed to have an answer for it...

The typical welfare states are doing very well in terms of global competitiveness (http://www.weforum.org) and economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html), according to economists around the world.

One could argue that social democracy is dead and these countries have adopted more capitalistic policies with a bit of a social twist (although isn't that exactly what social democracy is?). Or you can argue that apperently it is a good thing these countries have political systems that prevent social democrats to rule alone. Or maybe you favour the idea that social democracy is apperently a flexible enough political philosophy that it allows for adapting itself to changing in the 'politico-economic landscape' (something that should be true of all democratic political philosophies <acronym title="In My Humble Opinion">IMHO</acronym>).

Whatever your position, the fact remains true that whenever people try to argue how bad it is to strive for an extensive welfare state by pointing to countries that have them, they are pointing to countries that are doing about as well, or in some ways better than the USA. Which makes the argument a bit ineffective, I guess.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite:
Not that I doubt you, but would you have some figures?

Here's (http://www.childpolicyintl.org/contexttabledemography/table%20213.pdf) a nice link. It's interesting how traditionally Catholic countries like Spain and Italy now have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, while the heathen Scandanavians have fairly robust rates of reproduction. "The Economist" did a feature on the disparity between European and American fertilty a while ago, contrasting rising fertilty in the US with declining fertilty in Europe. I've seen it suggested that by the middle of this century there will be a hundred million more Americans and a hundred million fewer Europeans.

Yes, as I said it is a concern. However, it would be a concern in the US as well if their fertility rates were similar. My point is that has nothing to do with Social-Democracy.

Perhaps it does. I'd imagine the idea of pension reform is anathema to many of the socialist minded. Likewise countries that tend towards social democracy have a greater proportion of the workforce in state employment, where retirement ages are lower and pension provisions a lot more generous than in the private sector. Public sector unions wouldn't be receptive to proposals to reform.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Richard G
Socialism is a cancer to individual liberty. Don't steal from me, and give my money to someone else...get off your ass and earn your own way. I will pay for my own education, healthcare, and retirement. It would certainly be alot easier if 1/3 of my money wasn't robbed by the goverment every year.

Then again, there are several things you wouldn't have to worry about.

If you lost your job, the government would help you get back on your feet.

The government guarantees you get healthcare, even if you are living out on the street now.

Your education will be better funded, and you will have more course options, better textbooks, etc.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Of course we went over this in in other threads, and the people who want to argue that the most social democratic countries are worse off never seemed to have an answer for it...

The typical welfare states are doing very well in terms of global competitiveness (http://www.weforum.org) and economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html), according to economists around the world.

One could argue that social democracy is dead and these countries have adopted more capitalistic policies with a bit of a social twist (although isn't that exactly what social democracy is?). Or you can argue that apperently it is a good thing these countries have political systems that prevent social democrats to rule alone. Or maybe you favour the idea that social democracy is apperently a flexible enough political philosophy that it allows for adapting itself to changing in the 'politico-economic landscape' (something that should be true of all democratic political philosophies <acronym title="In My Humble Opinion">IMHO</acronym>).

Whatever your position, the fact remains true that whenever people try to argue how bad it is to strive for an extensive welfare state by pointing to countries that have them, they are pointing to countries that are doing about as well, or in some ways better than the USA. Which makes the argument a bit ineffective, I guess.

:clap::clap::clap:

[CWL]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


:clap::clap::clap:

That's maybe worth applauding until you've actually tried living in a state which takes 50 - 70 % of your income and then refuses to offer you proper health care and pensions.

Let me keep more of damn money and I'll pay for it myself. That way I at least get to make my own choices. There is something deeply disturbing about the mindset of many Social Democrats who believe that the state should make all choices for the individual. Bleeech.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BTox
I was looking for the "I suspect this poll has been plagiarized" option...
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported. It does not, as far as I can tell, break any of the forum rules.
[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by CWL


That's maybe worth applauding until you've actually tried living in a state which takes 50 - 70 % of your income and then refuses to offer you proper health care and pensions.

Let me keep more of damn money and I'll pay for it myself. That way I at least get to make my own choices. There is something deeply disturbing about the mindset of many Social Democrats who believe that the state should make all choices for the individual. Bleeech.


What is it taht you have against socialized medicine.

It's effective, and it works.

There is no less progress being made in a country with socialized medicine versus a country with a privatized medical system.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

What is it taht you have against socialized medicine.
I object in principle to "socializing" anything unless it is absolutely necessary (i.e. leads to better resluts than the same service provided through the market).

It's effective, and it works.
You will have to be more specific than that. Where does it work? "Effective" as compared to what? Please provide examples.

There is no less progress being made in a country with socialized medicine versus a country with a privatized medical system.

Well, the Swedish health care system certainly hasn't been "progressing" much during the last decades. On the contrary it has been the subject of extensive cut backs with long waiting times and deterioration in services as a result. Still we pay around 50 - 70 % of our salaries in tax. That isn't "progress" in my book.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
Whatever your position, the fact remains true that whenever people try to argue how bad it is to strive for an extensive welfare state by pointing to countries that have them, they are pointing to countries that are doing about as well, or in some ways better than the USA. Which makes the argument a bit ineffective, I guess.

Hmm, I'm sure that you've noticed Roman Prodi's admission that the EU's aim to become the world's most dynamic knowledge based economy by 2010 is losing steam, if it had any to begin with. There's also the brain drain of scientists from Europe to America.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita:
If you lost your job, the government would help you get back on your feet.

I don't think anyone would argue against there being some sort of welfare safety net. But welfare must never become so generous as to become a viable lifestyle choice, nor it's provision so extensive as to strangle economic growth.

The government guarantees you get healthcare, even if you are living out on the street now.

I doubt even the most rabid, foaming at mouth free marketeers would argue for there being no government involvement in healthcare provision. However the experience in Ireland has been that government spending on healthcare is chronically wasteful. Spending has increased something like 130% in the past six years. Healthcare provision has got steadily worse. Most of the spending has gone into wages, and even then more administrative staff than actual healthcare workers have been hired. Healthcare has turned into a massive bureaucratic nightmare, run by politicans all to eager to treat it as a means of currying favour among special interest groups and constituencies.

Your education will be better funded, and you will have more course options, better textbooks, etc.

And the evidence for this is.....?

Let me keep more of damn money and I'll pay for it myself. That way I at least get to make my own choices. There is something deeply disturbing about the mindset of many Social Democrats who believe that the state should make all choices for the individual. Bleeech.

What, and shop around for the best services at the best price?! ;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What, and shop around for the best services at the best price?! ;)

:eek: Horrid thought!

[Shane Costello]

Some facts about healthcare in Ireland (www.ibf.ie/news/2003/141203_a.shtml)

"The service currently costs €9 billion, which is up 125% on 1997; and employs 100,000, which is up 47% on 1997. Yet, inpatient discharges have gone up by only 4%. (p.19)
By 2001 the service employed almost 15,000 managers and administrators, a net increase over 1997 of 6,400 or 74%. (p.21)
Of the current total staffing of 100,000, only 6% are medical and dental staff. (p.27)
Average basic medical salaries are significantly higher in Ireland than in Finland (two economies with similar GNP per head): for example, €133,000 compared to €45,000 for a specialist in the public sector and €43,200 compared to €30,900 for a trainee (p.22).
The health sector is rife with anti-competitive practices. According to Barrett, these include the operation of a common recruitment pool for administrators (p.20), contrived shortages of places in university schools of medicine, pharmacy, dentistry and physiotherapy (p.21), and the requirement that new health insurance providers should compensate the previous monopolist for alleged loss of business due to competition (p.23).

The report goes on to point out that Ireland should be spending proportionately less on healthcare, because our demographics are more favourable than most other European countries.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
What is it taht you have against socialized medicine.

It's effective, and it works.

Dunno what his objection is, but mine is that it is ineffective, and it doesn't work.

Both my parents went through the British "health care" system within the past decade, and it's probably what killed my father. When they do three exploratory surgeries before they can even get time on a cat scan machine, it ain't working.

Don't even get me started on the intensive therapy unit ("intensive care unit" for Americans) with no air conditioning, where when it got hot they just opened the windows, and the windows didn't have screens. This is the same intensive therapy unit that was designated for Bush Sr. should he have heart problems during a trip to London.

The only European country with halfway decent medicine is Germany, and that's probably because it's the health insurance that's socialized, not medicine itself.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by epepke


Dunno what his objection is, but mine is that it is ineffective, and it doesn't work.

Both my parents went through the British "health care" system within the past decade, and it's probably what killed my father. When they do three exploratory surgeries before they can even get time on a cat scan machine, it ain't working.

Don't even get me started on the intensive therapy unit ("intensive care unit" for Americans) with no air conditioning, where when it got hot they just opened the windows, and the windows didn't have screens. This is the same intensive therapy unit that was designated for Bush Sr. should he have heart problems during a trip to London.

The only European country with halfway decent medicine is Germany, and that's probably because it's the health insurance that's socialized, not medicine itself.


The problem with British healthcare is that even though it is universal, they do not have the funding necessary for newer medical equipment.

Great Britain went under radical right wing change during the Thatcher years.

Income taxes are lower there now.

Income taxes were the primary source of funding for government social programs like Universal Healthcare.

Cutting the funding cuts the quality of care if you want to put it in a nutshell.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
The problem with British healthcare is that even though it is universal, they do not have the funding necessary for newer medical equipment.

Might have something to do with all the extra administrative staff hired.

Great Britain went under radical right wing change during the Thatcher years.

I'll search for a link, but I remember reading that spending on the NHS actually increased under Thatcher.

Income taxes are lower there now.

And this is significant because? BTW there's quite a lot of evidence to show that government revenues increase as rates of income tax decrease.

Cutting the funding cuts the quality of care if you want to put it in a nutshell.

Care to peruse the link I provided on healthcare in Ireland? Increasing, nay doubling health funding is no guarantee of improving the quality of healthcare, to put it in a nutshell.

[Bjorn]

The health care spending per person seems to be quite a lot higher in the US than in some other countries that have, shall we say, just as healthy a population and just as long life expectancy.

http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html:

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.
....
The study by Dr. Steffi Woolhandler of the Harvard School of Medicine found that Americans spend more on administrative costs because of the many private companies supplying insurance coverage. The multitude of companies create increased paperwork while Canadian doctors send their claims to a single insurer, the government. http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

The United States has by far the most expensive health care system in the world, per person as well as a percentage of GDP.
............
Infant mortality rate is the highest among the OECD countries
............
The US ranks very low (24th) on disability-adjusted life expectancyI'm not complaining about the US, I live here.

But as for which health care system is working and which is not, shouldn't we compare costs to what health we get for our money?

As far as I know, most Europeans are as healthy or even healthier than Americans, at a lot lower cost per person. :(

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by WildCat
The prices paid in Europe and Canada wouldn't pay for the
investment the companies put in bringing the drug to market.
They still do business w/ them because they fear those countries
will simply pirate the drug (manufacture it w/o license) if they
don't. Better to get something than nothing. The US consumer
pays the difference.

Until I can audit the books, I’ll assume the true cost is in fact
the generic price. Pirating of the drug results in no loss to the
company in your scenario. If a country offers them a price less
than the cost to produce, the company simply walks away from
the table. Since it always costs less for the company to expand
capacity than for a country to undergo the development process
necessary to pirate a drug, no deals will be underwater. The U.S.
consumer pays the highest price because he, as an individual, is
in no position to bargain.

[Ove]

I agree. The SD's both in Sweden and Denmark have indeed taken quite a few steps in a more liberal/conservative direction during the last decade - not because they wanted to but because they had to. So yes, our societies are adapting, but slowly (as you say). All this just goes to show however that Social Democracy is a thing of the past (and that's where it belongs IMO).

Fortunately people over here seems to be regaining their conscience and Fogh and his compagnions are on the way out and NO i do not vote social democratic. I would HATE to live in a society like the USA where egoism is the rule: "As long as i am allright i dont give a sh*t if the next door neighbour is starving". This kind of selfishness really makes me sad. They allways try to portray it as "fredom" but in reality it is "Rich people making sure poor people stays poor".
I think your poll says it all. In a socialist government I would only have the choices that government wants me to make;

Would you like to work for the State on the East coast or the West coast?

Would you like to work for the State in the North or the South?

Would you like to be sent to a reprogramming institution for the rest of your life?

Would you like to work for the State on Planet-X?

This statement only demonstrates your ignorance. :rolleyes:

[CWL]

Originally posted by Ove

Fortunately people over here seems to be regaining their conscience and Fogh and his compagnions are on the way out and NO i do not vote social democratic. I would HATE to live in a society like the USA where egoism is the rule: "As long as i am allright i dont give a sh*t if the next door neighbour is starving". This kind of selfishness really makes me sad. They allways try to portray it as "fredom" but in reality it is "Rich people making sure poor people stays poor".

Agreed. Still, I also take it we agree that we could do with a *little* more freedom from the meddlings of the state in Scandinavia...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ove


Fortunately people over here seems to be regaining their conscience and Fogh and his compagnions are on the way out and NO i do not vote social democratic. I would HATE to live in a society like the USA where egoism is the rule: "As long as i am allright i dont give a sh*t if the next door neighbour is starving". This kind of selfishness really makes me sad. They allways try to portray it as "fredom" but in reality it is "Rich people making sure poor people stays poor".


This statement only demonstrates your ignorance. :rolleyes:

That is a biased horsesh!t statement. What French speaking European country sorta forgot about it's old people during a recent heatwave resulting in massive deaths, to the point where their President scolded them? Real deaths, not a vague accusation.

Knee-jerk complain about the US in vague terms when you ignore something real on your social-democratic love thy meighbor doorstep.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
WildCat:While the ageing population is of concern for Europe, it is also of concern for Japan and presumably the US. The type of social benefit programs in each country doesn't really matter in this regard. Fewer workers to support more non-workers is a problem, no matter what. The only answer, apart from increasing the population, is to increase productivity.
Could you explain the mechanism involved? Aren't the US drug companies making money in Europe? If not, why are they doing business there?

That being said, I'd like to echo CWL's sentiments. Taxes are too high here in Denmark and I've never voted for the Social-Democrats in my life.

The difference is that Europeans feel entitled. I will be curious to see how the socially progressive folks react when they have to do with less for their neighbors benefit.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Ove:
I would HATE to live in a society like the USA where egoism is the rule: "As long as i am allright i dont give a sh*t if the next door neighbour is starving".

In the US your neighbour would be more than likely slowly expiring due to morbid obesity, rather than starving to death.

Originally posted by Ed:
That is a biased horsesh!t statement. What French speaking European country sorta forgot about it's old people during a recent heatwave resulting in massive deaths, to the point where their President scolded them? Real deaths, not a vague accusation.

Apparently most medical staff were on their month ling summer vacation, and those that remained at work couldn't work over 35 hours a week anyway. The rest of the populace have got so used to the omnipotent nanny state that it never occured to them to cut short theoir month's vacation to look after their "loved ones". Socialism in action?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


In the US your neighbour would be more than likely slowly expiring due to morbid obesity, rather than starving to death.



Apparently most medical staff were on their month ling summer vacation, and those that remained at work couldn't work over 35 hours a week anyway. The rest of the populace have got so used to the omnipotent nanny state that it never occured to them to cut short theoir month's vacation to look after their "loved ones". Socialism in action?

Certainly no self reliance and little evidence of caring. What pisses me off is the attitude about the US with no regard for palpable horrors in Europe. That qualifies as US bashing.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ed


The suggestion is that the management of US companies is talentless?

Frankly, it sounds more like you got beat out for a bigger job recently.
Psst Ed, I think you forgot to read the disclaimer. It was an intentionally fallacious hasty generalisation, albeit based on working for a US franchise a long time ago. And from watching The Simpsons.

:)

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Psst Ed, I think you forgot to read the disclaimer. It was an intentionally fallacious hasty generalisation, albeit based on working for a US franchise a long time ago. And from watching The Simpsons.

:)

Oh, sorry, never mind.

The Simpsons is a world class reference on business.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I'll search for a link, but I remember reading that spending on the NHS actually increased under Thatcher.
That would be on the whole new layer of management she introduced, with their £70k wages in order to make the NHS more competitive. Ironically, tendering out services like catering and cleaning didn't balance the books, although it did contribute to reducing patient lists. But not in a good way.

Apparently most medical staff were on their month ling summer vacation, and those that remained at work couldn't work over 35 hours a week anyway. The rest of the populace have got so used to the omnipotent nanny state that it never occured to them to cut short theoir month's vacation to look after their "loved ones".
I suspect it was rather more complex than that, what with the unusual weather conditions, the concentrations of the affected populations overwhelming local resources, that kind of thing.
Socialism in action?
In France? :eek:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita



The problem with that argument though is, Canada has been a Democratic Socialist nation for a while, yet they have only a 10% unemployment rate.


Only a 10% unemployment rate?!? And this strikes you as a satisfactory number?

Canada has had a higher unemployment rate than the U.S. for over 30 years, with the gap getting wider and wider.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
That would be on the whole new layer of management she introduced, with their £70k wages in order to make the NHS more competitive. Ironically, tendering out services like catering and cleaning didn't balance the books, although it did contribute to reducing patient lists. But not in a good way.

Which is why I argue that increased government spending and involvement in healthcare is not necessarily a good thing.

I suspect it was rather more complex than that, what with the unusual weather conditions, the concentrations of the affected populations overwhelming local resources, that kind of thing.

Which doesn't refute the notion that the efficient, caring French healthcare system isn't worth a curse. IIRC Mark Steyn and techcentralstation used this example.

[Ove]

Ed: When you start pulling two paragraphs out of my answer and putting them together in another context you go below the level i want to debate on. I thought better of you .:(

[Shane Costello]

France and the Summer heatwave. (www.techcentralstation.com/082703N.html)

Hospitals were so overwhelmed that their usually meticulous systems collapsed under the demands put upon them. The overload was exacerbated by the fact that staff numbers were down due to the annual rush to the beach, which in France occurs every August.

Perhaps most shameful for the French is the realization that this exodus, as usual sans grandpère et grandmère, left some of this society's frailest members at the mercy of record temperatures. Even more galling for concerned citizens were reports that some elderly were simply left by their families at local hospitals for the medical services to care for whether they actually needed it or not. Worse still is the fact that some families, despite the constant news reports on radio and TV, did not check on the whereabouts of their eldest members, giving authorities no choice but to leave the dead in morgues or bury them in paupers' graves so that the bodies can be reclaimed later.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
France and the Summer heatwave. (www.techcentralstation.com/082703N.html)


I agree that the capability to deal with a crisis is one measure of the efficacy of any health care system, but I wouldn't be surprised if such a crisis as this overwhelmed the capacity of private health care systems.

But your quote in no way supports your contention that the French health system is not worth a curse unless you can demonstrate that neglect of the elderly is a result of, and unique to "the omnipotent nanny state".

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ove
Ed: When you start pulling two paragraphs out of my answer and putting them together in another context you go below the level i want to debate on. I thought better of you .:(

Those were the only words you wrote. My issue was the off hand slam at the US. If I am misreading or misrepresenting please elucidate. I honestly don't get what you mean.

[Ed]

I brought up the French episode simply to call Ove on an all too typical demonization of the USA. For the record, I have no idea what the French healthcare system is like, nor do I particularly care. That episode had more to do with a general callousness than any system, government or private.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
I agree that the capability to deal with a crisis is one measure of the efficacy of any health care system, but I wouldn't be surprised if such a crisis as this overwhelmed the capacity of private health care systems.

There's no evidence to suggest it would, or has.

But your quote in no way supports your contention that the French health system is not worth a curse unless you can demonstrate that neglect of the elderly is a result of, and unique to "the omnipotent nanny state".

"Even more galling for concerned citizens were reports that some elderly were simply left by their families at local hospitals for the medical services to care for whether they actually needed it or not."[/QUOTE]

I think theres strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that a lot of French people saw their healthcare system as a convenient dumping ground for elderly relatives. Whatever the cause, I don't recall anywhere being as hard hit as France.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Only a 10% unemployment rate?!? And this strikes you as a satisfactory number?

Canada has had a higher unemployment rate than the U.S. for over 30 years, with the gap getting wider and wider.

Yes, and this in spite of having much more protective trade regulations than the US and not even sharing a border with a third-world country for jobs to easily flee.

I find it funny that a socialist would consider ANY unemployment acceptable, let alone a rate like 10% to be good. Are there no prisons, no work houses?

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:The prices paid in Europe and Canada wouldn't pay for the investment the companies put in bringing the drug to market. They still do business w/ them because they fear those countries will simply pirate the drug (manufacture it w/o license) if they don't. Better to get something than nothing. The US consumer pays the difference. They fear that European companies would pirate the drug? Aren't there international patent laws to prevent this?

[DanishDynamite]

Shane Costello:Here's (http://www.childpolicyintl.org/contexttabledemography/table%20213.pdf) a nice link. It's interesting how traditionally Catholic countries like Spain and Italy now have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, while the heathen Scandanavians have fairly robust rates of reproduction. "heathen Scandinavians". I like the sound of it.
"The Economist" did a feature on the disparity between European and American fertilty a while ago, contrasting rising fertilty in the US with declining fertilty in Europe. I've seen it suggested that by the middle of this century there will be a hundred million more Americans and a hundred million fewer Europeans.The increasing population of fundamentalists is indeed a problem. :)
Perhaps it does. I'd imagine the idea of pension reform is anathema to many of the socialist minded. Likewise countries that tend towards social democracy have a greater proportion of the workforce in state employment, where retirement ages are lower and pension provisions a lot more generous than in the private sector. Public sector unions wouldn't be receptive to proposals to reform. Whether the socialist minded like it or not is immaterial. The economic bottom line is the same. Which is my point.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:The difference is that Europeans feel entitled.Many feel ready to pay high taxes for a more even society, less disparity between rich and poor.
I will be curious to see how the socially progressive folks react when they have to do with less for their neighbors benefit. They'll react just fine. Assuming their neighbour is richer than they are.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Many feel ready to pay high taxes for a more even society, less disparity between rich and poor.


At what point is the disparity between the rich and the poor become acceptable?

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:At what point is the disparity between the rich and the poor become acceptable? I don't know. You'll have to ask the Socialists.

On a side note, I admit that I do find it preferable to live in a society where one doesn't need to step over too many beggars and homeless people on the way to work.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:I don't know. You'll have to ask the Socialists.

On a side note, I admit that I do find it preferable to live in a society where one doesn't need to step over too many beggars and homeless people on the way to work.

That sounds horrible! Who lives in such a society?

[Ove]

Those were the only words you wrote. My issue was the off hand slam at the US. If I am misreading or misrepresenting please elucidate. I honestly don't get what you mean.

Go back and read my post:
My sentence:This statement only demonstrates your ignorance. was answer to peptoabysma who seemed to imply that over here we all work for the goverment which is bullsh*t but i stand by my "USA slamming".

Using France as an example of a socialist state gone wrong is really shooting yourself in your foot. France and USA is ruled very much the same way, the only difference is that in USA the selfishness is more explicit, not many people in France f.inst. believes it is OK to kill somebody just to protect your property whereas a lot of americans find it perfectly acceptable to shoot burglars.That sounds horrible! Who lives in such a society?

Danes - Swedes - Norwegians - Finnish - Icelandic, it IS good to be Nordic. :D

[CWL]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
On a side note, I admit that I do find it preferable to live in a society where one doesn't need to step over too many beggars and homeless people on the way to work.

Agreed. An interesting (but not very pleasant) side note to that side note is however that the number of homeless people and beggars appear to have increased during the last years here in Stockholm (at least that's my impression), despite the Social Democratic rule both on the state and municipal level.

My main objection to the Social Democratic model is that it is to costly to be viable in the long term. I however certainly do not object to the concept of a social security net for those in need thereof - but such a net should not be subject to abuse by people who are not in need.

I work for my damn living and see no reason why all people who can work for their living shouldn't. The state should take care of those who can't. That's not really the case in the Nordic countries today. On the contrary, it would appear that many people who are in legitimate need of help do not receive it, whilst other people - who could/should work for a living - cheat their way through the system.

Also, in the long term, having the tax rates which have been imposed on Nordic countries by many years of Social Democracy is bound to function as a disincentive for starting up dearly needed new businesses and increasing productivity in the existing ones.

In my opinion the Nordic countries have no choice but to abandon Social Democracy - but that does not mean that we should strive to become USA (or for that matter France).

[DialecticMaterialist]

A lot of it has to do with the American macho psychology and the whole notion that they will be paying for others who are simply lazy. Basically the objections to socialist institutions are not so much based on greed, as they are more based on economic freedom and fairness. Welfare states are in many ways unfair because people can exploit the system.


The reason I still support social democracies more is despite all this, they are rated by scientific american as the happiest and most modern of nations.

A lot of people don't recognize that choosing government systems isn't an all-none (good vs. evil) selection, but a cost benefit analyses.

All systems have merits and flaws. You just have to pick the one that seems to have more benefits then costs. The best measure for this so far has been conducted by scientific american, so I follow accordingly. (The idea of a mixed economy is also very much in line with common sense imo, so intuitively appealing).

More capitalist nations, like market democracies for example might not have the levels of unfairness of their social democracy counter-parts in terms of welfare exploitation, but they do have increased unfairness by means of inheritence and luck.

Both can of course be reduced by means of certain checks set up (like a death tax for inheritance, and welfare checks/limits for social democracies).

It's all not so much picking the best system imo, as much as picking the least worst.

Edited to add: I think a lot of opposition to the idea stems from the Planck problem. A lot of older people are just too used to the current system, as well as the socialist-capitalist controversy being all or none.

I think young people, with fresher minds, will be far more open to the idea of social democracies. Many younger people I know (the majority of young people in know in fact) are for the idea, including those in the army. Guess we will have to wait and see.

Perhaps Social Democrats will simply have to outlive their political opponents.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by CWL


That's maybe worth applauding until you've actually tried living in a state which takes 50 - 70 % of your income and then refuses to offer you proper health care and pensions.

Let me keep more of damn money and I'll pay for it myself. That way I at least get to make my own choices. There is something deeply disturbing about the mindset of many Social Democrats who believe that the state should make all choices for the individual. Bleeech.


CFL, that's mere anecdotal evidence, and you should know better then to appeal to that.

Me and many of my friends live in the US, and let me say that if you think living in a Social Democracy where the government takes half your check is bad, trying living in a Market Democracy where the government takes a third, and then the other half (if you are very lucky) goes to necessities, like food, water, gasoline, and electricity. Doctor's bills you can't pay, rent you can't afford (that is also going up), school supplies you need to buy because the elementary schools are underfunded. After which you can have the neighbors kids come to your house a 3 in the morning, with a bowel of cereal, begging for milk (no joke). And here you don't get bad health care, or bad welfare, a lot of times people get none. Sometimes we have people on welfare, who have to work two jobs and STILL can't afford their rent.

Here the parasite isn't some welfare free-loader taking an extra 5-10k a year he shouldn't get. It's the super rich, inheriting billions and doing nothing for the rest of their lives but complaining about the poor.

I have a 20 year old friend for example who works, goes to school, helps take care of his family (who would otherwise be on the streets) and has to struggle with constant stress, debt and lack of sleep. He likely will not graduate college as he cannot afford it (he is currently funding school via credit card, as it is literally his only choice), and may have to quite school in order to provide more for his family (his mother and brother) who live in a small apartment.

I have another friend, born into a rich family who dropped out, doesn't really work, doesn't pay much rent, snorts coke and lives in a mansion. He will likely get his way paid for through UC Berkley...when he "feels" like going back. (Otherwise he can likely live off inheritence).

Using anecdotes you can create horror stories about any part of the world. That's why they are meaningless, they are all subjective. Hell the accuracy of astrology is "proven" by hundreds of dozens of anectdotes, as is testimony to alien abduction. That is why I go by stats, experts and evidence.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
There's no evidence to suggest it would, or has.
There's an argument that a centrally planned healthcare system would be more responsive than a (typically fragmented) private system, but as it's also an absence-of-evidence argument, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think theres strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that a lot of French people saw their healthcare system as a convenient dumping ground for elderly relatives. Whatever the cause,
Okay, I accept that it's anecdotal rather than factual, but this implies a correlation between attitudes towards the elderly and the healthcare system. For instance, is the situation as you assert, or is it that attitudes towards the elderly have changed because of other factors and people would neglect their elderly regardless of whether a system was available to pick up the slack?
I don't recall anywhere being as hard hit as France.
Like Italy, Germany or the UK? ;)

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that there is no 'pure' Social Democratic country, just as there is no 'pure' captialistic/market driven economy. All countries are a mixture of the two; even the free-marked based US economy has things like Medicare for the poor. That said:

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

The government guarantees you get healthcare, even if you are living out on the street now.


Here in Canada (which probably has the most socialistic health care of the western world), everyone is 'guaranteed' health care; however, there are many inefficiencies (hosptitals with more administrators than necessary, etc.) Plus, there are long waiting lists for things like MRIs or certain surgeries that you don't have in the U.S. Allowing a limited amount of 'free enterprise' in Canadian health care would be a big help, but because Canadian politics is so attached to 'universial' health care, it won't be done. And people suffer as a result.

So, socialized medicine makes everyone have the same standard health care, even if that standard is poor and you wanted to pay for extra coverage.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Your education will be better funded, and you will have more course options, better textbooks, etc.

I think public school funding is pretty universial in all western countries.

If you're referring to advanced education (college or university), having it all payed for by the government isn't necessary a good idea. Too many programs just don't have any practical applications. And call me a snob, but I just don't see the benefit of a college turning out dozens of English Literature majors who don't have any better job prospects after college than they had before college. Making people pay some (or most) of their education (through loans if necessary) should make sure they pick courses of study that will benefit them and society in the long run.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
[B]


The problem with British healthcare is that even though it is universal, they do not have the funding necessary for newer medical equipment.

Great Britain went under radical right wing change during the Thatcher years.[
/b]

Oh, thank you. I guess that makes it all better.

And how, exactly did Democratic Socialism make it so that people like Margaret Thatcher couldn't happen? Answer: it didn't.

Ronald Reagan was at lest as evil as Margaret Thatcher. Yet, even he did not manage to make it so that there were no catscan or MRI machines in the US. Hell, even now, a person with no money or health insurance can go into an ER in the US with belly problems and get a catscan that day. I know this because, lacking money and health insurance, I did it.

This is probably hard to grasp, but, however great an idea democratic socialism might be in theory, however great it might seem to academics with patches on their jackets sipping Chardonnay, it just plain doesn't work.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Here in Canada (which probably has the most socialistic health care of the western world),


It doesn't.


everyone is 'guaranteed' health care; however, there are many inefficiencies (hosptitals with more administrators than necessary, etc.) Plus, there are long waiting lists for things like MRIs or certain surgeries that you don't have in the U.S. Allowing a limited amount of 'free enterprise' in Canadian health care would be a big help, but because Canadian politics is so attached to 'universial' health care, it won't be done. And people suffer as a result.


Do you have any hard data proving that the US free enterprise system actually makes such things more available, or is that speculation?

A recent poll: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=75

By the Pew Research Center seems to indicate that health care is more readily available in Canada then in the US.

So basically, while the US may have the best doctors and in many cases quality of medical service in the world (HMO's hardly seem to qualify as quality imo tho), if nobody or very few can actually afford it, what's the point?


This imo, simply indicates that the issue is one of trade off, that of stability,cheapness and availability vs efficiency and quality. With lots of guess work and prefernce thrown in.

I think the deciding factors on such issues are as of right now scientific measurements on certain overall traits like happiness, or progress. And those lean towards social democracies.



If you're referring to advanced education (college or university), having it all payed for by the government isn't necessary a good idea. Too many programs just don't have any practical applications. And call me a snob, but I just don't see the benefit of a college turning out dozens of English Literature majors who don't have any better job prospects after college than they had before college. Making people pay some (or most) of their education (through loans if necessary) should make sure they pick courses of study that will benefit them and society in the long run.




I think having cheaper secondary education is an excellent idea. Basically because it provides the best chance for equal opportunity. I don't see why it is rich kids should have an easy time getting into any college they want, while poor or middle class kids have to more or less get lucky, or work much MUCH harder.


Yes colleges might turn out a surplus of certain technical personal, which isn't all that bad seeing as many more labor personal are actually becoming surplus. But to me the cost is worth the benefits.


Like you said, such cheap higher education isn't necessarily a good thing, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by epepke
This is probably hard to grasp, but, however great an idea democratic socialism might be in theory, however great it might seem to academics with patches on their jackets sipping Chardonnay, it just plain doesn't work.

You're like a creationist, sticking to your belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The evidence I'm talking about is the socialist democratic countries, which funnily enough has the richest and happiest people in the world. I'm living in a country which is direct proof that it does work, and quite good in fact. But I guess you will keep your ears and eyes closed to the evidence because anything that has "socialist" in the name must be wrong and evil. :rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

It doesn't.


I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'socialized medicine'. The Canadian government has pretty much eliminated all possibility of private medical care. (There are a few exceptions, such as some clinics in Quebec offering MRIs, but they are rare.) I had heard that most european countries do allow privately funded medical care, as an alternative to public health care, but everyone is still covered. (Anyone from europe have any actual experience with this?)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Do you have any hard data proving that the US free enterprise system actually makes such things more available, or is that speculation?


Yes I do. For example, in http://www.techcentralstation.com/101403D.html it states: The median waiting time in Canada from referral by a general practitioner to treatment was 16.5 weeks in 2002 -- up 77 percent from 1993. For cancer patients, waiting times for medical oncology have increased from 2.5 weeks to 5.5 weeks and for radiation oncology from 6.3 weeks to 10 weeks. In the United States, the waiting time is a week, and that long only because of the need to deal with paperwork.

Or how about from http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/11/section_12.html: Canada currently ranks a depressing nineteenth in a comparison of 25 OECD countries for MRI availability. A number of countries that spend less than Canada rank higher in the availability of MRI scanners.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

A recent poll: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=75

By the Pew Research Center seems to indicate that health care is more readily available in Canada then in the US.


I do have a few problems with the poll...

First of all, my original criticisms were not with general availability of health care, but with specialized treatments, like MRIs. (I don't necessarily think that Canada should go to an all-US system, but I do think our all-government-funded system is also broke.)

Secondly, I don't know what questions were asked. When people claim not to be able to 'afford health care', are they referring to regular check ups, or emergency services? And, according to their poll, if I had the ability to use Medicare, but didn't know about my options and thought I'd still have to pay, or was too "proud" to use government assistance, I'd be counted as "couldn't afford".

Thirdly, they talk about affordability, but not about availability. As I stated before, there are long delays for certain services in Canada. There are also doctor shortages in many areas. So, even if you can afford to see a doctor, you may not get to see one.

Lastly, some things seem wrong about their data. For example, they claim something like 13% of Canadians couldn't afford to see a Doctor; how can that be when doctor visits are 'free' here?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

So basically, while the US may have the best doctors and in many cases quality of medical service in the world (HMO's hardly seem to qualify as quality imo tho), if nobody or very few can actually afford it, what's the point?


Its a little bit of a stretch to say "nobody or few can afford it". Even by your own poll, the number of people who couldn't afford health care in the past year was 26%; that means the vast majority could afford it. That's not counting the people that get helped with government assistance.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I think having cheaper secondary education is an excellent idea. Basically because it provides the best chance for equal opportunity. I don't see why it is rich kids should have an easy time getting into any college they want, while poor or middle class kids have to more or less get lucky, or work much MUCH harder.


Although it is unfortunate that not everyone will have the same opportunity, keep the following in mind:
- The poor and middle class (which make up the vast majority of people...) can still go to university, they just have to be smart about what fields they go in to, and get loans or work while going to school
- Even if university education is 'free', it still gets paid for by someone. The student may not pay tuition, but thier parents do, in the form of higher taxes.

You brought up the 'rich kids'. Yet the number of people who fall into that class are likely relatively small, compared to the middle class and poor.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Like you said, such cheap higher education isn't necessarily a good thing, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

Its a bad thing if either:
- I have to help pay for that education through taxes, and the education doesn't help the student get a job or benefit society (Like the english literature major who ends up working at a donut shop)
- The student finishes their education but had to use loans to get through, but ended up taking a 'useless' course of study that doesn't help them get a job to pay off their loans.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'socialized medicine'. The Canadian government has pretty much eliminated all possibility of private medical care. (There are a few exceptions, such as some clinics in Quebec offering MRIs, but they are rare.) I had heard that most european countries do allow privately funded medical care, as an alternative to public health care, but everyone is still covered. (Anyone from europe have any actual experience with this?)

I had heard that the Japanese, and Northern European systems were far more socialized. Basic knowledge about such systems would seem to imply as much, as would the rantings of one biologist Massimo Pigliucci.

http://rationallyspeaking.org/







Yes I do. For example, in http://www.techcentralstation.com/101403D.html it states: The median waiting time in Canada from referral by a general practitioner to treatment was 16.5 weeks in 2002 -- up 77 percent from 1993. For cancer patients, waiting times for medical oncology have increased from 2.5 weeks to 5.5 weeks and for radiation oncology from 6.3 weeks to 10 weeks. In the United States, the waiting time is a week, and that long only because of the need to deal with paperwork.



Well I have some problems with the article. First off, it's not even by a medical expert, but by the president of the pacific research institute. A self-proclaimed free market think tank.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/

Also the tech central station, is also somewhat of a right wing free market group, to quuote the site:

We believe the opportunities free markets and technology present are nearly limitless. But amidst those opportunities are concerns about a variety of issues: the hi-tech military and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; biotech and pharmaceutical development and intellectual property; sound environmental and biological science; telecommunications and broadband technology penetration; energy development and global sustainable development; government regulation; and trade, to name a few.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/about.html

Such a group would of course have nothing but bad to say about Canada's health care system. Which it was actually doing in the above as part of a four part series.


This suggests to me that their research might be a little slanted and less then objective.

Second, the article presents no hard facts or statistics. Just a lot of claims. There are no references contained within, and since obviously I'm not going to take the word of a right wing think tank, in a right leaning magazine. I would really need some sort of statistical evidence.

Now I'm not saying this to be difficult. I for example would likewise not as readily believe a left wing source, with an author from a left wing think tank or president of a socialist group on the subject.


I will not for example present this:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/unin-o03.shtml

Or this:

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_efficiency_of_universal_health_care.htm


or this:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/reich-r.html


As evidence. Because such groups are left leaning and biased. And I would no more take their word for anything then I expect you would.


That is why I will try to appeal to more neutral and established sources.


Like for example the World Health Organization, which lists America's Health Care as number 37, and Canada's as number 30. France btw, got number one.

http://dir.salon.com/health/wire/2000/06/21/rankings/index.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html


The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems:

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar
191 Sierra Leone



And a suggestion for Universal Health Care from the National Academy of Sciences:


[b] WASHINGTON -- Given the growing stress being placed on the nation's health care system, the exacerbated health problems, and the substantial societal costs that result from more than 43 million Americans lacking health insurance, the president and Congress should strive to achieve universal health coverage in the United States by 2010, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. The committee that wrote the report offered five guiding principles by which all proposals for extending coverage should be judged.[b/]



http://www4.nas.edu/news.nsf/isbn/0309091055?OpenDocument



I aknowledge that Canada may not have the best in MRI availability. The key word is "may" as I don't find your sources completely reliable. (the second for example doesn't work).

But that is only a single issue. Health Care for a nation as a whole is I imagine a bit more complicated an affair then that. best measured by world health experts.



I do have a few problems with the poll...

First of all, my original criticisms were not with general availability of health care, but with specialized treatments, like MRIs. (I don't necessarily think that Canada should go to an all-US system, but I do think our all-government-funded system is also broke.)

I would agree with a more mixed system that does not outlaw of make public health care impossible, nor do I think social democracies do that. Such a system is not incompatible with universal health care imo.

Secondly, I don't know what questions were asked. When people claim not to be able to 'afford health care', are they referring to regular check ups, or emergency services? And, according to their poll, if I had the ability to use Medicare, but didn't know about my options and thought I'd still have to pay, or was too "proud" to use government assistance, I'd be counted as "couldn't afford".


The wording for the question was right underneath the poll. It read:

"Have there been times in the last year when you did not have enough money to buy food/medical and health care your family needed?"

Thirdly, they talk about affordability, but not about availability. As I stated before, there are long delays for certain services in Canada. There are also doctor shortages in many areas. So, even if you can afford to see a doctor, you may not get to see one.


I think affordability and availability are close enough to equate. Sure in Canada lines might be longer, but if you have to wait, and then recieve, you still recieve.

This is far more available then something you can't really get by waiting at all.

I think the issue can be complicated though, beyond many means of measuring. Which is why the best solution may well be to ask the people themselves, which is what Pew did.

Lastly, some things seem wrong about their data. For example, they claim something like 13% of Canadians couldn't afford to see a Doctor; how can that be when doctor visits are 'free' here?


I'm not sure. Perhaps the health care is simply not as free as many think. For example, I heard much of dental care, something obviously necessary, is sometimes labled "cosmetic". I'm not sure though, but I doubt Pew is conspiring, seeing is it is a fairly established and reliable source trusted by such prestidgious groups as the Council for Foreign Relations.



Its a little bit of a stretch to say "nobody or few can afford it". Even by your own poll, the number of people who couldn't afford health care in the past year was 26%; that means the vast majority could afford it. That's not counting the people that get helped with government assistance.


I agree. That would be an exageration. Obviously 3/4 of Americans seem to be doing fine when it comes to health care, given my own poll.


But that's still not as good as 9/10 Canadians being able to afford it, and it is pitiful to 25 out of 26 Japanese that can afford it.

I'm just illustrating that while having the best stuff is nice, its not as good as one would think if its unaivalable to most. I don't think it would necessarily be an exageration to say the best equipment and doctors, are often times in the US, closed to the vast majority.



Although it is unfortunate that not everyone will have the same opportunity, keep the following in mind:
- The poor and middle class (which make up the vast majority of people...) can still go to university, they just have to be smart about what fields they go in to, and get loans or work while going to school

This isn't always true. For example I know of a friend that does work and go to school, but he can't enter a university due to funds.

Also working while going to school greatly lowers GPA, again putting the middle class/poor at a disadvantage to the rich.




- Even if university education is 'free', it still gets paid for by someone. The student may not pay tuition, but thier parents do, in the form of higher taxes.


Well I guess in a very technical sense university education isn't absolutely free, it does take rescources.

But the people who pay will be the tax payers/society, who will also be the primary beneficiaries.

You brought up the 'rich kids'. Yet the number of people who fall into that class are likely relatively small, compared to the middle class and poor.


Yes exactly, which is why I don't think they should be the ones given much greater access to institutions society as a whole sets up and maintains. I doubt such a set up is very fair, or healthy for a democratic society where education is paramount.



Its a bad thing if either:
- I have to help pay for that education through taxes, and the education doesn't help the student get a job or benefit society (Like the english literature major who ends up working at a donut shop)

Well I doubt the above is that bad. At the very least, it helps build character and makes a wiser citizen imo, something I believe is a primary function of education. And it's not exactly like we have too many teacher's and too few students now at days. I'm also not even sure what the frequency of this is. It may happen, but does it happen more times then necessary or talented people are turned down simply do to lack of funds? Is the said cost of this way, equal or greater, then that of the current more private approach?



- The student finishes their education but had to use loans to get through, but ended up taking a 'useless' course of study that doesn't help them get a job to pay off their loans.

Well it depends in part on whether the study was actually useless.

I think we may have very different views of education. I believe the primary function is to give people general knowledge and thinking skills, things necessary to function in a democracy and build character.

I for example would not call someone who knew a lot about how to repair refigerators, and nothing about politics, literature, science or logic an "educated man" even if he had a succesful job who's skills he learned about at a university. Thus I would have to question precisely what kind of "education" he recieved.


That is why I see preparing for a career, though important, as somewhat of a secondary function in education.



Next while I agree some classes are useless as in frivolous, like pottery making for someone who need not know pottery, I must also note that the rich, who's parents pay for their schooling, are probably more likely to take "useless classes" as their parents can afford it. In which case, they are taking the spot of someone else who may be more deserving of the spot, or talented, or in need of the classes. I doubt someone who is on a loan will do this so much, because it will cost him in the end. For a rich kid however with the equivalent of a blank check from his or her parents, it costs nothing at all.


I believe in this case, since the wealth is ultimately society's wealth imo, society will be ultimately the ones who pay for the frivolous spending. Not just in terms of immediate use, but in terms of consequence and scarcity. Many middle class and poor kids will be denied entry, because some rich kid decided to waste time at college. And many talented people will not make it in, because the parents of the rich use their money to guarantee entry for the less deserving.


Ultimately again, its all a matter of cost-benefit analyses.

Is the cost of perhaps, some cheaper quality, worth the benefits of avaialibility when it comes to universal health care?

On this issue the experts seem to say "Yes."


Is the cost of cheap, university education, that may allow some people to waste time, worth the benefit of perhaps a more educated society and increased meritocracy?


I know of know expert testimony on this issue, but imo it is again "yes." Mainly because education is so enriching to a democracy, and second, because allowing the talented to be given such equal opportunity insures increased productivity and fairness for society as a whole.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


I had heard that the Japanese, and Northern European systems were far more socialized. Basic knowledge about such systems would seem to imply as much, as would the rantings of one biologist Massimo Pigliucci.

http://rationallyspeaking.org/

That's a very big web site.... care to point out where he actually makes the claims that Northern European systems are more socialized?

I'm going by what I've heard on the radio. Other countries may have public health care; the question is, do any allow private health care too (which Canada does not).

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Well I have some problems with the article. First off, it's not even by a medical expert, but by the president of the pacific research institute. A self-proclaimed free market think tank.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/

Also the tech central station, is also somewhat of a right wing free market group, to quuote the site:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/about.html

Such a group would of course have nothing but bad to say about Canada's health care system. Which it was actually doing in the above as part of a four part series.


I did a google search for MRI and availability in Canada and the US, and got a lot of articles. Those were just 2 of them; there were many others. (They had the best 'presentation' of the stats, in terms of how the articles were written.) I never bothered keeping any links to other articles on health care, because I've seen the same basic information (long waiting lists for treatment) over and over again.

Now, you're right, the articles may be slanted, but keep in mind that there are numbers associated with the articles. You can argue about whether its better to have 'public' or 'private' health care based on other factors, but unless you can point out where there numbers are wrong, you can't discount them.

And remember, some of the numbers come from the OEDC, which is neutral.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Second, the article presents no hard facts or statistics. Just a lot of claims. There are no references contained within, and since obviously I'm not going to take the word of a right wing think tank, in a right leaning magazine. I would really need some sort of statistical evidence.


But there are statistics, in both articles. Things like average lengths of time, and numbers of MRIs available per person. (You may not like the bias of the source, but can you point out alternate statistics to show that there aren't waiting lists in Canada?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Now I'm not saying this to be difficult. I for example would likewise not as readily believe a left wing source, with an author from a left wing think tank or president of a socialist group on the subject.

That is why I will try to appeal to more neutral and established sources.


I would have no problem if you quoted from those sources, if they presented numbers that could easily be verified or shown to be wrong. (And, its possible to use statistics in an article, without referring to the entire article.)

And the OEDC isn't a neutral and established source?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Like for example the World Health Organization, which lists America's Health Care as number 37, and Canada's as number 30. France btw, got number one.

Which is irrelevant to this conversation... I was not claiming Canada's system was better than the US system, or that the US had the best system in the world; I was arguing that there are improvements to be made in the Canadian system, by the introduction of 'private' health care options.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I aknowledge that Canada may not have the best in MRI availability. The key word is "may" as I don't find your sources completely reliable. (the second for example doesn't work).


That was a mistake in my entry of the URL. (There was an extra colon at the end of the address.) The proper URL is: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/11/section_12.html . Although the 'Fraser institute has a reputation for being 'right leaning', the data comes from the OEDC. Also, I believe they do a good job of statistics gathering.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I would agree with a more mixed system that does not outlaw of make public health care impossible, nor do I think social democracies do that. Such a system is not incompatible with universal health care imo.


But Canada does make private health care illegal.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

The wording for the question was right underneath the poll. It read:

"Have there been times in the last year when you did not have enough money to buy food/medical and health care your family needed?"

In that case, I have a problem with the question. If a person did not have the money, but got health care anyways at the local hospital (which does happen in the US, with Medicare, etc.), they have still been treated, even though they didn't have enough money to buy it.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I think affordability and availability are close enough to equate. Sure in Canada lines might be longer, but if you have to wait, and then recieve, you still recieve.

Unless of course you die while waiting for it.

Sorry, they are not close enough to equate. If you can afford it, but you can't get treated for a significant lenght of time, you are not any better off than if you simply can't afford it.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I think the issue can be complicated though, beyond many means of measuring. Which is why the best solution may well be to ask the people themselves, which is what Pew did.

Sorry, but there are all sorts of problems with 'asking people' themselves; first, you have to ask the best question (not always easy), secondly, people's memories aren't necessarily the best. I find actual statistics (like the ones in the articles I pointed out, which point to actual things like lengths of waiting lists) are much more useful.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I'm just illustrating that while having the best stuff is nice, its not as good as one would think if its unaivalable to most. I don't think it would necessarily be an exageration to say the best equipment and doctors, are often times in the US, closed to the vast majority.

True, a super-rich persion could probably build a hospital just for himself. But lets ignore that tiny little fraction of the population, OK?

The 'average' persion in the US (most of that 75% quoted in your article) will have health coverage, and that coverage will be better than the equivalent group in Canada. The only question is, is it better to have the majority better off at the expense of a minority (as in the US), or is it better to have everyone at an equal (if lower) standard (as in Canada). Its a philosophical question though.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

This isn't always true. For example I know of a friend that does work and go to school, but he can't enter a university due to funds.

I had one friend who got a line of credit to go to Med school. I had another who got a loan to take computers at University.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Also working while going to school greatly lowers GPA, again putting the middle class/poor at a disadvantage to the rich.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any stats for that?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Well I guess in a very technical sense university education isn't absolutely free, it does take rescources.

But the people who pay will be the tax payers/society, who will also be the primary beneficiaries.

That assumes that there actually will be benefits.

I know someone who got an english degree and now works at a donut shop. The cost of educating her was basically money lost (and Canada partly subsidizes education). If she had to pay more for her education, maybe she woudl have chosen something a bit more beneficial.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Well I doubt the above is that bad. At the very least, it helps build character and makes a wiser citizen imo, something I believe is a primary function of education.
I don't know; I've talked to too many whiny university grads who finished their 'fine arts' degree and now whine "where's my job?" Not exactly a shining example of good character.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


I think we may have very different views of education. I believe the primary function is to give people general knowledge and thinking skills, things necessary to function in a democracy and build character.

Thinking skills should have been installed in people when they are in public/high school. University should be for getting people started on the rest of their lives. (Or do you think that people who didn't go to university don't have 'character'?)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Next while I agree some classes are useless as in frivolous, like pottery making for someone who need not know pottery, I must also note that the rich, who's parents pay for their schooling, are probably more likely to take "useless classes" as their parents can afford it. In which case, they are taking the spot of someone else who may be more deserving of the spot, or talented, or in need of the classes. I doubt someone who is on a loan will do this so much, because it will cost him in the end.

Which was exactly my point!!! If you give everyone a 'free' university education, they will take the useless courses because it won't cost them anything. (Please, ignore the 'rich kid' for a while; they really do make up a small percentage of the people.)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

That's a very big web site.... care to point out where he actually makes the claims that Northern European systems are more socialized?

My apologies, though its not a very large site. The specific article is here:

http://botany1.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/rationallyspeaking/RS03-01-virtue-ethics.html




I'm going by what I've heard on the radio.


Well then it must be true!


I did a google search for MRI and availability in Canada and the US, and got a lot of articles. Those were just 2 of them; there were many others. (They had the best 'presentation' of the stats, in terms of how the articles were written.)


Link me to the better ones. All you have so far is a broken (at least for me) link and a right wing think tank. Otherwise it's proof surrogate. Saying you have evidence somewhere in google is not evidence.

Now, you're right, the articles may be slanted, but keep in mind that there are numbers associated with the articles.


Numbers can be selectovely chosen, slanted, taken out of context, put in the wrong context, distorted and flat out msileading. That is why you need to consider the source. Simply putting numbers in an article gives it no more weight if the article is unreliable or untrusted to begin with.



I would have no problem if you quoted from those sources,

I usually do, can you be more specific? Though I don't see how it's always necessary, seeing is the whole article is no more then a click away.



if they presented numbers that could easily be verified or shown to be wrong. (And, its possible to use statistics in an article, without referring to the entire article.)


Which is exactly my problem with your articles, they aren't verifiable. I find it ironic that you seem to think my numbers, from the Pew Research Center, and Scientific American are "unreliable" but expect me to simply take the information you gave me from a broken link and right wing magazine at face value. The whole idea is kind of like using Fortune magazine to refute the claims of Skeptic.


Which is irrelevant to this conversation... I was not claiming Canada's system was better than the US system, or that the US had the best system in the world; I was arguing that there are improvements to be made in the Canadian system, by the introduction of 'private' health care options.


Ok, I apologize if I misinterpreted what you are saying. But weren't you trying to use Canada as an idea of why Health Care should be more private? And why the US should not adopt a more socialistic system?

If not, again I apologize, but in a debate over whether or not the US should pursue such ventures you should be prepared to make such a claim more explicit. As it easily looks like you are implying that free market health care is better.



That was a mistake in my entry of the URL. (There was an extra colon at the end of the address.) The proper URL is: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/11/section_12.html . Although the 'Fraser institute has a reputation for being 'right leaning', the data comes from the OEDC. Also, I believe they do a good job of statistics gathering.

Again, like I said numbers can be easily taken out of context, which is why I tend to look for primary sources. However the OEDC does look like a reliable source from what I've seen so far. (BTW, in the above you ask rhetorically "And the OEDC isn't a neutral and established source?", as if I dismissed it, I'm wondering what makes you think I could have had a chance to do that when you admit the link was broken?)

In any event this deals with one small subject in regards to health care-MRI's, and that is only in respect to Canada. This is hardly a representative standard for judging socialized health care as a whole.





But Canada does make private health care illegal.

Most unfortunate, could you perhaps gove me more information on this by chance?


In that case, I have a problem with the question. If a person did not have the money, but got health care anyways at the local hospital (which does happen in the US, with Medicare, etc.), they have still been treated, even though they didn't have enough money to buy it.

Well that would be somewhat of an ad hoc objection, unless you could somehow prove such cases were common.



Sorry, they are not close enough to equate. If you can afford it, but you can't get treated for a significant lenght of time, you are not any better off than if you simply can't afford it.


Since when?


Sorry, but there are all sorts of problems with 'asking people' themselves; first, you have to ask the best question (not always easy),


Why? IMO, all you have to do is ask a question that isn't misleading.

secondly, people's memories aren't necessarily the best.

I doubt all the people who said "yes" or "no" are really suffering from "mistaken memories" unless for some reason some countries just remember more then others.



True, a super-rich persion could probably build a hospital just for himself. But lets ignore that tiny little fraction of the population, OK?


Sure, and also ignore the goods and services reserved strictly for them as well, like 'the best' doctors, and 'best medical technology', which more often then not is the domain of the wealthy.

The 'average' persion in the US (most of that 75% quoted in your article) will have health coverage, and that coverage will be better than the equivalent group in Canada.

Ok, this is getting tedious. Now you are obviously equating one article concerning one issue (MRI's) and anectdotes with evidence concerning health care systems as a whole. You can't have your cake and eat it too Seg.

Either

1- You are simply talking about MRI's. In which case my sources measuring the US health care system against Canada's are relevant, and your evidence is insufficient.


or:

2- You are reffering only to the issue of MRI's, in which case I will say your evidence is "ok" (not too strong imo though).

Which is it?

Are you saying the US private system is better then Canada, Western Europe's, and Northern Europe's social democratic systems....or are you simply commenting on MRIs?



The only question is, is it better to have the majority better off at the expense of a minority (as in the US), or is it better to have everyone at an equal (if lower) standard (as in Canada). Its a philosophical question though.


No, this only the case if you reject what the National Academy of Sciences has to say, the Pew Research Center, World Health Organization and Scientific American


and instead go by right wing think tanks, anedcotes, and equation of the statement "Canada is low on MRI's" with "Socialized health care is bad as a whole."




I had one friend who got a line of credit to go to Med school. I had another who got a loan to take computers at University.

Ok, so we've established that we both have our own anecdotes.......


Just out of curiosity, do you have any stats for that?

Sure do:

http://www.brockport.edu/career01/upromise.htm

Other conditions should not come as a major surprise and are more or less common sense in how they effect education though, for example having to worry about health problems (when you can't afford it) or economic problems will obviously effect GPA.




That assumes that there actually will be benefits.

Well I've made arguments as to why I think there will be. And stats from scientific american seem to bolster my statement. Social Democratic nations, lthe data shows are happier, and more progressive. This is likely for a variety of reasons, but I think education is one of them.


Also one should consider the following.

Education is an intrinsic value, a good in itself I believe. All things being equal, I'd rather live in an educated then uneducated society, wouldn't you?


Second, labor jobs are becoming increasingly less relevant. As the economy becomes more global, and jobs move over seas where labor is much cheaper, the amount of such jobs will decrease in the US. The jobs then left will be more technical jobs, or academic jobs, which require an education.

Lastly, in democratic countries where the people set policy, it should be obvious to all that educated people, who have more knowledge and thinking skills, are more likely to make the right decisions then the uneducated. This is a matter of simple reasoning. Hence I'd rather live in a more educated society then less educated, and having cheaper universities would help this.


Lets not forget your claim at this point, that having these policies will "harm" our society. There is simply no evidence for this I'm afraid. Social Democratic countries, despite having such policies are hardly bankrupt.

And many are actually considered competitive in the Global Economy.

http://www.weforum.org
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/KB+Country+Profiles




I know someone who got an english degree and now works at a donut shop. The cost of educating her was basically money lost (and Canada partly subsidizes education). If she had to pay more for her education, maybe she woudl have chosen something a bit more beneficial.


Well it depends on what you for the most part consider "waste" imo, that's somewhat subjective. Someone for example might consider building expensive libraries and museums, that your doughnut shop friend goes to a "waste" because it's not necessarily productive, and she reads about poetry instead of how to sell doughnuts, I don't agree though. Secondly, you have 1 example from personal experience here, hardly the basis for generalization about an entire system and its potential costs.


I don't know; I've talked to too many whiny university grads who finished their 'fine arts' degree and now whine "where's my job?" Not exactly a shining example of good character.


.........Ok. You don't like some university graduate people, because in your opinion they are whiny. Am I really suppose to try and apply that to this issue?

I generally find such people more pleasant to be around and interesting then the unedcuated and anti-intellectual types, as they are usually better informed. I also for example, feel safer leaving my bag lying around at a college unattended, then at a church. Good thing for you and me that such issues are not decided by personal tastes and anecdotes though.


Thinking skills should have been installed in people when they are in public/high school.

Basic ones should be, but unfortunately aren't. However they can be greatly refined at a University, imo.


University should be for getting people started on the rest of their lives. (Or do you think that people who didn't go to university don't have 'character'?)


I disagree. I think the University is about educating people.

Also while I do think education helps build character, that doesn't mean I think all people who go to a University are of good character. Or all people who don't go are of bad character. That would be a non sequitur.


Which was exactly my point!!! If you give everyone a 'free' university education, they will take the useless courses because it won't cost them anything. (Please, ignore the 'rich kid' for a while; they really do make up a small percentage of the people.)


And my point is that's it's going to happen anyways. You yourself admitted it was happening. So my point is we may as well give the best able an equal opportunity to everyone else to waste their time. At least the time "wastes" won't be monopolized unfairly, and we can get those who are less likely to "waste time" in at the mean time.

I will admit the system will be open to exploitation, I am however simply making arguments why I don't think this exploitation is that new, and why I think the benefits in fairness and getting the talented in the schools outweighs this.


I mean what's worse, having someone go into the university and waste their time, or having someone that it would be more valuable to have attend the university not be able to do so?

Also I do agree there should be limits on University education and how many can attend of course. I am not advocating and never had total free and universal coverage on this issue. Thus I doubt the amount of abuse in this system will be that much greater then it is now.

[epepke]

Originally posted by plindboe


You're like a creationist, sticking to your belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Thanks! I'm being called all sorts of things by the right-thinking skeptics of this forum. I'll add yours to the list.

But I guess you will keep your ears and eyes closed to the evidence because anything that has "socialist" in the name must be wrong and evil. :rolleyes:

Of course, it must be! My dead father is only a figment of my imagination. Even if I took some of his ashes in a syringe and blew them up your nostrils, there is no chance that it would possibly be real to you.

Have a nice life!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

My apologies, though its not a very large site. The specific article is here:

http://botany1.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/rationallyspeaking/RS03-01-virtue-ethics.html

That article talks about how 'happy' people are in the world. I never claimed that Americans (or any other group) were 'happier' than anyone else.

My original statement was that Canada has (probably) the most socialized health care (at least in the western world, or compared to Northern Europe countries). You disagreed, and used the above web site as 'proof'. It, however, doesn't even adress Canada.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Well then it must be true!

I get most of my news from the radio. I find it to be a relatively unbiased source (they have very straight-forward news casts, and commentators from both the right and left side of the politcal spectrum.) The draw back is that I don't always have a web link available.

Are you discounting radio just because its not a 'good' news source? Or do you not believe that I actually heard the reports?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Link me to the better ones. All you have so far is a broken (at least for me) link and a right wing think tank. Otherwise it's proof surrogate. Saying you have evidence somewhere in google is not evidence.

I corrected the link the second post.

One of the links I provided (the one talking about waiting lists for various treatments) you criticized as not being written by a doctor. But guess what? You don't need to be a doctor to be able to look at statistics like average waiting times.

To be honest, nobody up here in Canada is denying that we have longer waiting lists than they do in the US. The argument here is what to do about it.

Still, since you want a more 'unbiased' set of sources:

From http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/findings.htm (Statistics Canada, i.e. our governemt... unbiased enough for you?): An estimated 4.3 million Canadians reported difficulties accessing first contact services and approximately 1.4 million Canadians reported difficulties accessing specialized services such as specialist visits, non-emergency surgery and selected diagnostic tests .... Among those waiting for specialized services, between 21.7% of those who waited for non-emergency surgery and 26.7% of those who waited for specialist visits indicated that their waiting time was unacceptable.

Or how about from http://chealth.canoe.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=53&news_id=3990 : Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Henry Haddad said the waiting lists are unacceptable and called for more investment in technology. (This is from one of our main newspaper chains)

Or how about: http://www.canoe.ca/Health0108/21_cancer-cp.html : More than a third of cancer patients treated by Ontario regional cancer centres had to wait an inappropriate length of time for surgery, reported one study, the first attempt to track cancer surgery waiting times in the province.


Or how about: http://www.petscan.ca/news_nationalpost_nov17.htm There are only three public PET scanners in Canada. There are more than 250 in the United States..."We have very limited access to current modern imaging techniques in Victoria, particularly," said Dr. John Mathieson. "For relatively routine tests in other parts of the world, we have a waiting list going beyond reason. Our waiting lists for MRIs and CAT scans is going into next summer. People are being booked for June and nobody even has calendars for next year yet."


Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Numbers can be selectovely chosen, slanted, taken out of context, put in the wrong context, distorted and flat out msileading. That is why you need to consider the source. Simply putting numbers in an article gives it no more weight if the article is unreliable or untrusted to begin with.

I usually do, can you be more specific? Though I don't see how it's always necessary, seeing is the whole article is no more then a click away.

A number (such as "the US spends $X per person on health care", or "Canada has Y MRI machines per person") is a number which, assuming the source at least bothers to check its numbers, can be assumed as correct (even if you disagree with any analysis after the fact.)

As for being 'right wing', the unfortunate fact that, in Canada, the 'left wing' isn't actually looking into statistics on MRI waiting lists, etc.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Which is exactly my problem with your articles, they aren't verifiable. I find it ironic that you seem to think my numbers, from the Pew Research Center, and Scientific American are "unreliable" but expect me to simply take the information you gave me from a broken link and right wing magazine at face value. The whole idea is kind of like using Fortune magazine to refute the claims of Skeptic.

Are you suggesting that a writer from "fortune" magazine wouldn't be able to write an article with numbers and/or facts which are correct?

As for Pew research center, I pointed out specific problems with their poll (such as how the question may not relate to actual medical treatment given, or its analysis that some Canadians couldn't afford doctor's visits, even though they were "free").

As for scientific American, are you referring to your earlier link where they mentinioned that people in certain areas were "more happy"? (if it is, its a bit off topic.)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Ok, I apologize if I misinterpreted what you are saying. But weren't you trying to use Canada as an idea of why Health Care should be more private? And why the US should not adopt a more socialistic system?

Close... I was using my data to show that a pure socialistic health care system (paid for by the government or taxpayers) is not an optimal solution and that a certain amount of private health care can be a good thing. As for the US, I'm sure their system could use some tinkering, but I'm not going to make any suggestions.

Although most comparisions are with the US, it would likely be more appropriate to compare Canada's system with those in Europe (which probably provide a better public/private mix). Unfortunately, such comparisons are lacking.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

In any event this deals with one small subject in regards to health care-MRI's, and that is only in respect to Canada. This is hardly a representative standard for judging socialized health care as a whole.

There are also PET scanners, access to specialists, Cancer treatment, etc.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Most unfortunate, could you perhaps gove me more information on this by chance?

Health care in Canada is provided by the provinces, with some money coming from the federal government (from the Canada health act). At one point, the federal governemt paid 50%, but that's dropped to aroudn 15-20% lately. Under the rules, if there is a particular treatment mentioned in the Canada health act, it must be provided 'free'; otherwise, the federal government will reduce its health payments to the province for any 'extra' amount charged to patients. (So, while the provinces have to pay a larger share, they are limited in their ability to control things.)

Doctors are reimbursed for their medical care by the province. I don't believe there's an option for them to 'opt out' and charge patients directly. There are a few 'private' services offered (for example, a few MRI clinics have appeared), but its only a matter of time before the government cracks down on them.

Any suggestion that Canada allow private health care (called "two tier") is immediately dismissed, regardless of the arguments for it.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Why? IMO, all you have to do is ask a question that isn't misleading.

That's not exactly easy. Given a choice, I'd rather rely on 'raw' numbers (such as "the waiting list is X days") instead of opinion surveys.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Sure, and also ignore the goods and services reserved strictly for them as well, like 'the best' doctors, and 'best medical technology', which more often then not is the domain of the wealthy.

In Canada, if they allowed private medicine, the 'poor' would still have access to decent medical care. In fact, what would happen is that the 'rich' would be diverted to their private system, and the poor, although they would probably have to wait longer than the rich person, would still get attention sooner than before.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Ok, this is getting tedious. Now you are obviously equating one article concerning one issue (MRI's) and anectdotes with evidence concerning health care systems as a whole. You can't have your cake and eat it too Seg.

I concentrated on MRIs for a number of reasons:
- They are a key item in diagnosis
- Its easy to count MRIs and compare them to the population
- Although I did link to some information on waiting lists for things like surgery, in Canada waiting lists are not centerally controlled. (Its up to private organizations to gather the statistics.)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

No, this only the case if you reject what the National Academy of Sciences has to say, the Pew Research Center, World Health Organization and Scientific American

Lets see what's wrong with your data:
- Pew research center: Already explained why I have problems with their survey
- World health organizaiton: I looked at your link, and, well, I'm rather suspicious of its actual results. If you look at the article, it says: Instead, the WHO report basically measures bang for the buck. (i.e. it doesn't really factor in things like waiting lists, etc.) It also states: "Any set of rankings that puts Finland at 31 and Italy at 2, or even France at No. 1, raises questions," said Nick Bosanquet, health policy professor at London University's Imperial College, noting that previous studies have been highly critical of Italy.. So your own link kind of contradicts itself.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Sure do:

http://www.brockport.edu/career01/upromise.htm

Other conditions should not come as a major surprise and are more or less common sense in how they effect education though, for example having to worry about health problems (when you can't afford it) or economic problems will obviously effect GPA.

Did you actually read your link?

While the article did point out that people who work full time while going to school have problems (lower GPA, dropping out, etc.), it also states: Research suggests that such work may not be harmful, and may even be helpful for undergraduates if it is limited. Students who worked from 1-20 hours per week actually had a higher GPA than those that didn't work at all.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Also one should consider the following.

Education is an intrinsic value, a good in itself I believe. All things being equal, I'd rather live in an educated then uneducated society, wouldn't you?

Define 'educated'.

While I want to live in an 'educated' society, I want the education to be given to students in public school/high school, rather than when they have entered a more expensive college/university.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Second, labor jobs are becoming increasingly less relevant. As the economy becomes more global, and jobs move over seas where labor is much cheaper, the amount of such jobs will decrease in the US. The jobs then left will be more technical jobs, or academic jobs, which require an education.

Which is why I don't think University should be 'free'... If university were 'free', there'd be less incentive for people to take the 'technical' courses at school.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Lastly, in democratic countries where the people set policy, it should be obvious to all that educated people, who have more knowledge and thinking skills, are more likely to make the right decisions then the uneducated. This is a matter of simple reasoning. Hence I'd rather live in a more educated society then less educated, and having cheaper universities would help this.


You keep assuming that people who go to college actually get 'useful' knowledge and thinking skills. College and university courses tend to be focused around a core area of study, so they aren't actually getting a broad education to make them 'better citizens'. That broad knowledge should have been taught in High school.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Lets not forget your claim at this point, that having these policies will "harm" our society. There is simply no evidence for this I'm afraid. Social Democratic countries, despite having such policies are hardly bankrupt.

YOu don't have to be 'bankrupt' to be harmed. (In fact, it would have a very negligable impact on the economy as a whole.) Still, I personally don't want to see my tax money "wasted". You might, but I don't.

As for the economic success of Social Democratic countries: From the CIA world fact book: Per capita GDP
U.S. : 36k
Canada: 29k
Sweden: 26k
Finland: 26k
France: 26k
Germany: 26k
Now, I know that doesn't necessarily make people in the US happier, but it does mean the average person in the US is wealthier than in more socialist countries.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I generally find such people more pleasant to be around and interesting then the unedcuated and anti-intellectual types, as they are usually better informed. I also for example, feel safer leaving my bag lying around at a college unattended, then at a church. Good thing for you and me that such issues are not decided by personal tastes and anecdotes though.

I find people are people. Many bright, honest people never went to school. And if there's one think that you should have learned from the JREF, its that education doesn't necessarily help you think well (witness all the 'scientists' involved in the paranormal.)

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:I had heard that most european countries do allow privately funded medical care, as an alternative to public health care, but everyone is still covered. (Anyone from europe have any actual experience with this?)I don't know what the situation is in other European countries, but here in Denmark private hospitals are allowed. Currently there are only 4 or 5 of these hospitals and they specialize in certain procedures (i.e. they don't cover all sorts of ailments).

I think the idea of a mixed public/private health care system is a good idea.