[Godstud]

Is there supposed to be a rebuttal in there somewhere?

Rebuttal to what? Your asinine comments? No thanks.

Evidence?

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.

edit- fix quote

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.

Those countries don't control the means of production. They still have private ownership of land, companies, etc.

Perhaps you don't understand what socialism is.

Republics having regulated, but privately owned, markets, and a few single-payer welfare programs are not socialist.

This is also a problem among many privileged westerners, they don't even know what they are advocating.

Rebuttal to what? Your asinine comments? No thanks.

Not surprised, if arguments are elevated beyond insults and words having more than two syllables, I suppose we can count you out.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, in view of the Soviet Union, nobody can claim that the state is very good at running commercial enterprises. With very few exceptions, private companies are more efficient and less wasteful.

Having said this, there is nothing to stop governments from funding drug development. For example, there are not enough drugs for tropical diseases because private companies focus on drugs that allow them to recover their investments.

And even patented drugs become generic drugs after 20 years.

[Godstud]

Perhaps you don't understand what socialism is.

You don't understand socialist policies, so you blather on about something, as an American, that's you'be been trained to hate.

Everything in the extreme tends to not work, when it comes to ideologies, including Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy work very well together. Totalitarianism and Socialism... not so much.

Ad hominems seem to be all the actual argument you have.

Despite what you might think, the evidence is clear that Universal Healthcare, as a socialist policy, is superior to Capitalist healthcare.

[Stormsmith]

The only way to drive down cost is competition. Regulating prices will reduce competition.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You have more competion then other countries, but your prices are outrageous. Doesn't really prove your point, does it.

If companies aren't able to recover their R&D costs, they won't develop new drugs. And if you think that new drugs are not necessary, nothing stops you from using generic drugs.

And yet pharmaceutical companies in other countries manage. Moreover, US pharmaceutical companies sell abroad for a fraction of the price. They aren't losing money. You should boycott US drugs until they smarten up. As for developing new drugs, turn the task over to state/federal universities and hospitals.


@Hindsite

I still don't believe that a state run healthcare like is done by the Veterans Administration is very good. There has been a lot of complaints by veterans and Trump has had to change some of their policies and even allow veterans the option to seek private healthcare because of long wait times for certain services

This is an administrative issue, and can be fixed. Vets complaints centre on accessing care in a timely fashion rather than on the care itself.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You don't understand socialist policies, so you blather on about something, as an American, that's you'be been trained to hate

Genetic Fallacy; you've dismissed my position or attributed it to my place of origin.

Everything in the extreme tends to not work, when it comes to ideologies, including Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy work very well together. Totalitarianism and Socialism... not so much.

I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that there exist countries that were both socialist and democratic; you gave examples of republics that are generally capitalistic but with a few welfare programs and some regulations. Both you and I defined socialism as the control of the means of production by the state/community.

So even by your own definition your example is not an example of coutry that is socialist and democratic; hence, you have yet to provide evidence for your claim that democracy works well with socialism.

Please do so.

Despite what you might think, the evidence is clear that Universal Healthcare, as a socialist policy, is superior to Capitalist healthcare.

Welfare programs are not necessarily socialist; indeed, many Marxists oppose welfare as such are the means of the bourgeois-controlled-state to placate the masses from seeking to take control of the means of production.

After all, if you have a nice standard of living, and a bunch of free stuff from the state, you are less likely to realize that you are an oppressed proletariat that needs to rise up in revolution.

So once again, you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about.

LET ME ALSO give you a very friendly warning about supporting socialism in your present state; please read the following carefully as I mean it as sincere advice as someone who prefers you alive and wishes you and your family well.

If you ever naively support a REAL socialist organization in Thailand and they get control of power; they would likely have you shot as a rich colonist who recently used his wife to bypass regulations and buy a rubber farm employing workers as wage-slaves; let me explain why:

1. they would have you shot because it was capitalism that enabled you to take advantage of the low cost of living in Thailand in order to maximize your own savings; which according to socialism would be a form of exploitation.

2. They would have you shot because you bypassed anti-colonial regulations against foreigners owning land by having it in your wife's name; so that you could make money from a Thai rubber plantation.

3. They would have you shot because the land is privately owned for your own profit-goals (something socialism seeks to abolish)

4. They would have you shot because you will be hiring workers to harvest rubber on that plantation and thus you will be controlling the means of production and using people who traded their labor for a wage (by definition an act of oppression).

Thus, according to ACTUAL socialism, you are an example of a colonial bourgeois tyrant who is using the laws and economic conditions of Thailand to your own personal advantage.

I personally think you are a decent person who is using his money sensibly in beautiful country who only seeks to give his family a good life and possibly help others by providing them jobs on your future plantation; however, don't make the mistake of thinking that because you talk about the plight of poor people that makes you a sympathetic character to actual socialists; you would be one of the first to have their land and assets seized before being shot if you attempted to resist.

You are trying to make friends with the wrong people my friend. I assure you.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey, in view of the Soviet Union, nobody can claim that the state is very good at running commercial enterprises. With very few exceptions, private companies are more efficient and less wasteful.

Having said this, there is nothing to stop governments from funding drug development. For example, there are not enough drugs for tropical diseases because private companies focus on drugs that allow them to recover their investments.

And even patented drugs become generic drugs after 20 years.

The SU were quite good at space innovation. There is no reason to believe if their money was spent on health instead they couldn't have achieved similar standards.

Nonetheless I more or less agree with you. But there is no denying the price of drugs is a major factor in public healthcare finances and by default what can be afforded by a national health service. And as drug companies make vast profits, this suggests that price for drugs factors in more than just recooperating R&D. Having said that at least universal healthcare doesn't have to factor in insurance and their profits - which is perhaps why the US poor have an even worse deal for their healthcare than anywhere else in the Western world.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, the SU neglected the economy by funneling most resources into aerospace and defense. That doesn't prove that state-run enterprises are efficient. In fact, despite the enormous sums they spent on space, their satellites were always inferior to Western satellites. They only have effective launch vehicles because they spent them like fire crackers, boom, boom, boom, one after the other. Thus, there is even enormous waste in the field they are supposed to be excellent in.

There is no reason to assume that drug companies are more profitable than other companies. In fact, it is obvious that the most profitable sectors are monopolistic US IT giants like Apple and Google, and financial institutions in the City and Wall Street. Make them pay!

If you squeeze the shit out off drug companies you are going to get fewer drugs, less competition and higher prices.

[Rancid]

Universal Health Care is a scam.

[B0ycey]

@Atlantis, I am not suggesting that the SU is a good economic model. It failed. That is all people need to know about it. Also I am not against a free market. Just that vital services such as health should be nationalised and not for profit.

Nonetheless the SU won the space race. Although it does need to said that NASA isn't an enterprise. It is a state run program.

Also are you aware your argument could also be applied to universal healthcare Atlantis? The mere fact it is nationalised suggests you argument doesn't have foundation actually. Or are you suggesting privatisation as an improvement for cost and efficency?

There is no reason at all to believe a pharmaceutical state company cannot be more efficent than a privatise company. If you look at rail in the UK as an example you will see clearly that the drive for profits results in a worse service. Also if profits are going into R&D instead of the shareholders back pocket that means more spending where it matters. And the drive to create efficency within research can be made in bonuses for the employee instead.

[SSDR]

@SolarCross, Everything should be free from currency, and that nothing should be paid for. If one has to pay for food or health care, should they have to pay for love? Air? Or sex (Prostitution)?

It is sad and inhumane that people pay for sex, pleasure, water, and food.

Mass starvation has nothing to do with socialism. It only has to do with the context of the people who misused a socialist economy, and that they didn't produce/harvest enough food for everyone to eat. You do understand that starvation is very common place in Africa, and parts of the indigenous Americas. Starvation was more common place before socialism. The Russian Empire was a peasant and a nature wasteland composed of lazy, uneducated fuckers, and that the Russian Empire had high starvation rates. This is the same with Cuba before the Cuban Revolution. The majority of the workers in Cuba before the 26th July Movement had starving issues.

Mass starvation could only be the result if the majority lacked real consciousness, and needed their hearts to be bought in order to motivate them to work.

Money cannot buy anything in the material world. Things were conditioned by elitists to have money buy things, and the elites did this to keep the masses poor. Here are some examples:

Money Cannot Buy Air - Enterprises that contribute to the capitalist conditions would charge residents for air.

Money Cannot Buy Love - People were raised to think that money does buy love, so that when someone gives something to someone else, that someone else thinks that they love them because that was how they were raised!

Money Cannot Buy Food Tastes - Elites condition people to think that food that is more expensive, Tastes Better Because It Is Priced Higher! Due to this elitist conditioning that capitalists and Zionists, many people think that overpriced food tastes better, even though it may not (depending on which exact food from which company).

Money Cannot Buy Sex - Due to low paying jobs not paying livable wages, this enforces some women to get into prostitution in order to help them pay their bills. These capitalist and feudalist conditions force women to have purchased sex.

Everything that society thinks that what money can buy emotionally, is NOT TRUE. It is all manipulated by capitalists to keep people buying stuff from companies so that companies can get richer.

NOTHING is made because it is needed. EVERYTHING is made To Be Sold.

[SSDR]

@SolarCross, Even though a state monopoly is not the definition of pure socialism, it is far closer to socialism since a state monopoly's mode of production is Not Family Oriented.

You are against a state monopoly? Why?

From a right wing viewpoint, why is a state monopoly bad?

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross, Even though a state monopoly is not the definition of pure socialism, it is far closer to socialism since a state monopoly's mode of production is Not Family Oriented.

You are against a state monopoly? Why?

From a right wing viewpoint, why is a state monopoly bad?

Human beings are not ants. State monopoly might be a good fit for hive insects but it is not a good fit for humans. The burden of proof is not on me for why ant economics is a bad fit for human beings or why "family orientated" is not just fine for a species which is biologically "family orientated" anyway, no it is really on you to say why state monopoly is good. You are the one selling abnormality.

It is amazing how little effort commies put into selling socialism for mostly they just slander and strawman "capitalism" instead which says something right there.

[SSDR]

@SolarCross, Human beings are conditioned to support the family institution. A state monopoly is better than a family oriented economy because in a family oriented economy, your boss runs your life, and that they can do WHATEVER they want to you. Forced marriages, domestic abuse, just to name a few. In a state monopoly, people are too anonymous to enforce domestic family values. In a state monopoly, everyone has enough financial stability so that no one has to rely on family personally. It is far easier for a woman to leave her abusive husband in a state monopoly than it is for her to leave in a family oriented economy.

The less domestic the economy is, the more personal freedoms people have.

Socialism doesn't need to be "sold," since in socialism, nothing is sold. The term "sold" only exists in non socialist economics.

[XogGyux]

The USA has a healthcare system that covers everyone. Hospital emergency rooms will treat anyone that has a medical emergency, even illegal immigrants. There is Medicare for those over 65 years of age that retire under the Social Security system. The poor are allowed to sign up for Medicaid for their medical care. Many get employer paid health insurance and all others can pay for their own health insurance. The left wing radicals want everyone to have equal healthcare determined by the government, with what they call universal healthcare. Many others want the choice to choose what the government considers as elective healthcare procedures and do not want universal healthcare that would limit their ability to choose.

LOL that only adds to the cost. Emergency visit? $1-2k if you are screened and discharged, close to 5K per day if you are admitted assuming no fancy surgery or procedures/tests. Once you are discharged you are on your own. So homeless guy comes to ER for hypertensive emergency, gets amitted to the ICU for a cardene drip, discharged the very next day and that admission costs someone $10K dollars (either taxpayers or other insured people) and we did absolutely nothing for that homeless guy who gets discharged with a "follow up with your PCP, take this medication that you cannot afford" note and he shows up 3 days later and addmitted for the same reason for another 10k. Eventually he gets a hemorrhagic stroke, ends up intubated in the ICU. Patient is homeless and undocumented so a case manager starts to track down family, in the even such family is found, most of then than not they feel guilty for being stranged from the patient for many years and do not want to participate in their care, or they want to participate but they feel guilty and do not want withdrawal of care and want to continue "full code". Even when no family is found, there is a lengthy procedure to appoint a health proxy so this means the patient can spend weeks in the ICU intubated. After 10-14days, you will have the ICU doctors pushing for tracheostomy and peg tube, because of complications for prolongued intubation. Surgical procedures vary significantly from hospital to hospital but you can expect a PEG tube placement to be around 2K at the low end and a tracheostomy $5-10K at the low end, they could end up costing 10x as much. Tube feedings are expensive, you can do a quick search for Glucerna, Nepro, Nsure, etc on amazon (they are sold to people because sometimes patients are discharged home with PEG tubes, for example throat cancer patients).
On top of everything, these patients have frequent pneumonias, after the 2nd or 3rd time they get pneumonia in the hospital, you end up having to cover for resistant organisms so you have to use multiple antibiotics simultaneously and you can google the prices of those yourself, Cefepime, Piperacillin/Tazobactam, Meropenem are by far the most common. During this hospitalization, the patient is likely to have dozens of CT chests (pneumonias) CT head, MRI head (stroke) and duplex of the arms and legs (because stroke messes up with your temperature regulation in the brain and patients will start spiking fevers, everytime they do spike fevers doctors freak out because they don't want to make a mistake because of this litigious society, so they will order broad spectrum antibiotics in case of infection and we will get ultrasounds to make sure there are not DVT which can cause fevers as well). This cycle will continue until the patient is either discharged to a long-term facility, or dies. The process can take months and the bills rack up very quickly. A few hundred thousand dollars per month would not be an understatement and by the time the patient dies, a couple millions could have evaporated alongside with his/her life.
All of this, preventable with a couple of blood pressure medications that could cost us $5/month and a couple visit to a PCP. And yes, some of these people are not going to be compliant, even when you give them meds they don't take it. That is a reality, but many are compliant and the cheer cost of just having a couple these useless admissions reduced will more than make up for the difference.
This is an example that I see on a weekly basis on my own hospital, there are plenty more just as wasteful and sad. If you don't want to do it to avoid the cruelty of having someone stroke out or have a heart attack, at least do it for the savings.

[Drlee]

I loved this post by Hindiste:

The USA has a healthcare system that covers everyone.

No it doesn't. So that is the first thing that is wrong.

Hospital emergency rooms will treat anyone that has a medical emergency, even illegal immigrants.

True to a limited extent. They will take steps to stabilize the patient and keep them from dying for the time being but they do not care for chronically ill patients. So that is the second thing that is wrong.

There is Medicare for those over 65 years of age that retire under the Social Security system.

Which does not pay entirely for health care and many are not covered by it. Like, you know, people under 65. So that is the third thing that is wrong.

The poor are allowed to sign up for Medicaid for their medical care.

Very few of them. The majority of the working poor cannot qualify. So that is the fourth thing that is wrong.

Many get employer paid health insurance and all others can pay for their own health insurance.

Provided they can afford it and a great many can't afford it. But you can thank Obamacare (and I expect you to do it because you are so interested in truth that you made this post) for at least giving them a shot. But tell me Hindsite. Without Obamacare ( which the republicans and Trump tried to repeal) how does a minimum wage worker in Georgia (terrible schools by the way) pay for his family's insurance? So that is the fifth thing that is wrong.

The left wing radicals want everyone to have equal healthcare determined by the government, with what they call universal healthcare.

Left wing radicals? 60% of Americans favor replacing the ACA with universal federal health care. (Gallup) So Hindsite wants us to believe that 60% if Americans are "left wing radicals". And that is the sixth thing that is wrong about Hindsite's post.

Many others want the choice to choose what the government considers as elective healthcare procedures and do not want universal healthcare that would limit their ability to choose.

And this is the only thing he got right. Except that universal health care does not necessarily remove choice. Some abjectly stupid people think that this is a necessary result but it is not. Many of these same mental midgets forget that virtually every private health insurance program available severely limits choice. It only covers what it wants to consistent with state law. It limits which doctors one can see. It limits what hospitals it pays. It may not cover certain drugs and so forth. The only insurer that will pay any licensed physician or hospital willing to accept the payment is......wait for it......The Untied States of America Government Paid Healthcare insurance called.......Medicare/Medicaid.

And this folks is why it is reasonable to conclude that most republicans today are just not very smart. They actually believe the utter absurdity that Hindsite just posted.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Human beings are conditioned to support the family institution. A state monopoly is better than a family oriented economy because in a family oriented economy, your boss runs your life, and that they can do WHATEVER they want to you. Forced marriages, domestic abuse, just to name a few. In a state monopoly, people are too anonymous to enforce domestic family values. In a state monopoly, everyone has enough financial stability so that no one has to rely on family personally. It is far easier for a woman to leave her abusive husband in a state monopoly than it is for her to leave in a family oriented economy. The less domestic the economy is, the more personal freedoms people have.Socialism doesn't need to be "sold," since in socialism, nothing is sold. The term "sold" only exists in non socialist economics.

I like you @SSDR, for you are honest if nothing else.

You are honest enough to argue for socialism because of a root antipathy to the patriarchal (familial order) and its grounds in religion.

A truly rare gem on the forum; a socialist who is an actual old-school orthodox Marxist and a true advocate of egalitarianism against any and all natural hierarchies and their religious justifications.

I am greatly looking forward to debating you in the future where we can get to these more foundational presuppositions in metaphysics, ethics, and anthropology.

[Rancid]

Anyone that say's "The US already has healthcare for all" has probably not interacted with the system much. If you have an aging family member that is not in a good financial position, you would know such a claim is complete bullshit. If you grew up shit poor, you would also know that such a claim is bullshit.

True story, until about the age of 16-17, I had only visited a Doctor about 2-4 times. It was really hard getting an appointment with the free doctors and shit that volunteer their time.

The first time I went to the dentist I was 14. Again, hard to get in on a free dentist and such.

It can actually be harder if you are a part of the "marginally poor", like we were. That is, we were not shit shit poor below the poverty line, I had a home, water, electricity, etc. Both of my parents were employed (two shit jobs each). Thus, the benefits are minimal. No food stamps, no special healthcare, etc. etc.

It wasn't until I was in high school or so, that my dad landed a job with the city, at which point we could actually make regular visits to healthcare professionals.

Anyway, anyone that thinks "healthcare in America" is all good, is plain nuts.

Sidenote:
My poor upbringing is part of the reason I will never apologize for my personal success (some people have actually tried to make me feel guilty because I worked hard and got myself out of the ghetto). But that's a side story.

[Rich]

In fact, it is obvious that the most profitable sectors are monopolistic US IT giants like Apple and Google, and financial institutions in the City and Wall Street. Make them pay!

Doesn't seem obvious to me. Return on equity for financial institutions is still well below pre crash levels. Its the great Marxist lie of the new century, blaming the problems of over population on the banks. When people are poor, they are happy to live in cramped garden less terraces, extra income is not "wasted" on housing. Once people become comfortable in terms of basic food, clothes, heating etc then a huge percentage of additional income goes into property, driving property prices through the roof. Flooding our countries with millions of high breeding Muslims and poor people from sub Saharan Africa, is economic and social madness. The financial crisis was a fundamentally a result of souring property costs.

There is not a fixed lump of labour, but there is a fixed lump of land.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, the SU did NOT win the space race. Please read my post.

If you want to nationalize drug companies, you should nationalize all companies, starting with banks because they have a bigger impact on society and the economy.

There's a big difference between national health care and developing new drugs. Put a government in charge of billions worth of drug development and you are going to get a waste on a gigantic scale.

Anyways, your whole argument is pointless. Governments can fund all the pharmaceutical research they want, even without nationalizing drug companies.

@Rich, other than the financial sector, there is no industry in which managers get millions worth of bonuses a year. Not in a normal country anyways. That excludes turbo-capitalists in the US and the UK.