Is America becoming Socialist ?

[JimboUK]

 

 

I am sorry to have to say so but you are, to my way of thinking, clearly biased. Yes, Labour Governments in the UK have done foolish things and socialist minded groups have also done stupid things but you brand all socialists and socialism with the same big brush.

 

As for trade unions, their rhetoric is often more left wing than is their actual politics, far more so.

 

Also I think you over simplify what many left wing influenced groups are trying to do, painting things black and white before coming up with the same sort of tired answers that have come from the right wing for far too long. Mind you the left wing is often guilty of the same sort of behaviour.

 

Conservative governments in the UK have also suppressed human rights, have also sent the police after crowds of peaceful protesters. There is a large, oppressive part of government that is beyond the real control of political parties, left or right wing, and this in many countries is often the real culprit.

 

I strongly suggest that you do what I had to do in the past and that is take a fresh look at history with out a lens of bias. I used to think everything left wing was good and everything right wing was bad. Now I am far more careful with my judgements or at least I try to be.

 

When did the Conservatives use the police to attack peaceful protesters? the miners were hardly peaceful and they were trying to bring down a democratically elected government. The unions has to be broken, they were destroying the country. As for human rights and civil liberties no party has ever abused them on a scale anywhere near the last government. They passed over 4,000 new laws, they set up databases to track people, wanted ID cards backed by a database straight from "1984", curtailed free speech, tried to do away with trial by jury, introduced 30 day detention without trail (after trying for 90 days), the list goes on and on. What did the new Tory/Lib Dem gov do when they got elected? scraped the ID card scheme on day one, set up a website asking people what laws they wanted rid of and set out plans for the "“great repeal bill” to do away with the myriad of new criminal offences created by the Labour Party.

[Vagrant0]

It's all about giving the lower tier workers a voice and support... Both Democracy and Socialism allow for this, but both usually end up ultimately failing.

 

Democracy is only an effective means of government when you have free elections and officials who are receptive of the wishes of the people. It stops being effective when those officials choose instead to listen only to large companies and other groups which make large donations, or when those officials blindly follow party instructions.

 

Socialism is the natural progression of Democracy in that the people, who are no longer being listened to, will rise up to reclaim their government and ensure that the needs of the people are met. But which quickly degrades when it comes to the matter of actually filling those needs with the limited resources available. Socialism can work in cases where you have a lower population density and properly manage those services, but totally fails when you have large population densities and officials who aren't fit to manage a little-league team. China, North Korea, and Russia are good examples of this. Even when you ignore the oppressive government as simply being an agent to prevent revolution, you have initiatives which are taken without an understanding of logistics, and a generally lower quality of life among all.

 

As long as scarcity is an issue, both will never be sustainable, and people will always be looking for an alternative, if only to feel good momentarily about the future under this changed system.

[Ghogiel]

When did the Conservatives use the police to attack peaceful protesters?

Well they still have their chance!

 

Wasn't police brutality during the 80s a running theme, yes police during thatcher administration is apparently guilty of brutality. and kicked the poo out of pole tax protesters. wasn't there a big thing about this at the time? you can probably pull up news paper articles and all sorts

[grannywils]

Lady Milla, please don't assume that all people with a right wing perspective are incapable of reading what the opposite point of view has written. Some of us went to university, and as part of our courses had to read Das Kapital. So Marx envisioned a certain kind of society under true socialism but so what? That was a THEORY and it all goes to prove my point - historically the practical application of Socialism has never matched the Utopian theory and has often been accompanied by strife and sometimes outright thuggery.

 

Exactly. And it is the same with theories about 'free market-regulated economies' and the theories about 'democracies based on universal suffrage'. Market is a splendid regulatory 'force' in theory. In reality, it is not so much. Especially, when it comes to health care where the interests of the involved parties (health care service providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and patient) are so contradicting. I will discuss it later.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that you try to draw unfounded conclusions from a president's attempt to introduce a universal health care system that you regard as a 'socialist' invention. (Is it? Just because universal health care was present in the former socialist countries, it does not make it a socialist invention. And because it is present in many Western-European countries, it does not make them socialist either in the sense of the original theory.)

 

"Personally I think a universal health care system should be made to work, simply because it is probably the right thing to do."

 

But it DOESN'T work as applied in the UK. Medicine is a constantly evolving discipline, meaning that the costs are continually mounting. To make it work, you would have to keep jacking up taxes to an unacceptable level.

 

So what's your solution? The rich who can afford expensive medicine shall live, and the poor who are obviously all losers, workshy scroungers, and social misfits shall die unless they have a family that can scrape together enough money to pay for the treatment? Because, if your reasoning is true, soon only the wealthiest will be able to afford medicine and operations that require advanced technology.

 

Do you think an attempt to correct this situation where people are denied access to health care based on profit related consideration is really a socialist invention? Or rather a last-minute recognition that market is not the magic wand that can bring everything under control?

 

Unfortunately, bringing health care under state control seems to unavoidable due to the deep rooted contradiction between the interests of the health care service providers (medical facilities, pharmaceutical companies, health care insurance companies) and the interests of the consumers of said services. What are the interests of the consumer? To regain health as quickly as possible. It's not just that nobody likes to be ill: you have a family to support, you are restricted in what you are able to do, and from the point of view of the society (except in extraordinary cases, like Stephen Hawking), you are unable to contribute to the society as a whole. What are the interests of the health care service providers? To prolong the period during which the consumer requires their services, in order to increase their revenues. The pharmaceutical companies are not interested in providing a cure, they are much more interested in prolonging the period of consumption, that is, they prefer medication that needs to be taken on an ongoing basis in order to sustain a symptom-free condition. The health care insurance company is interested in... what a surprise... securing a profit for the shareholders. Profit requires cutting back on costs and expenses, including payments to the insurance holders, eliminating risks related to case histories that reveal the increased probability of insurance covered events (an example, I am unable to take out any health care insurance that would cover spine related operations because in my childhood, I was suffering from a fairly common childhood syndrome called scoliosis). So, in the end, the only one who is royally screwed in this fabric of interwoven interests is the consumer/patient. And don't tell me that proper legislation would be able to regulate these simply market/profit based interests. When governments are taken hostage by corporate giants, who can blackmail them to provide emergency assistance from taxpayer money ("If we fall, thousands of subcontractors will fall with us, and tens of thousands of jobs will be lost, you don't really want the loss of popularity that comes with the increase in unemployment, not to mention the state budget will take a severe hit due to increased spending on unemployment benefit. Sure, there will be a short-lived uproar against saving the culprits who brought this calamity on us, but soon the public will relax, hoping that things will go back to normal") hoping for proper legislation that is actually enforced is a far fetched idea.

 

As to your complaints about Labour Party governments turning England into a police country... I assume that street cameras and such are now being dismantled by the Conservative government., aren't they?

 

 

Wow. Just wow!

[Burnagirl]

Well I managed to catch about 30 minutes of the Labour Party - Pick a P...., uh leader today on Sky News ... heaven help Britain.

I can remember how I'd hardly leave the telly during the Brittish Elections ... it felt like I was personally involved, well with the bravery of the new government it will most certainly

impact on my life here in ZA as well as the rest of the world.

I'm just so glad that David Cameron came through ... (the Coalition with the Libdems is a small price to pay), Britain to all intents and purposes is a better off and so is the world.

How so you might ask ?

Well read on ...

 

In a recent copy of "The Economist" (Aug 14th to 20th 2010), the cover reads as follows - "Radical Britain" - The West's most daring government. -

The headline inside the magazine reads - Britain has embarked on a great gamble. Sooneer or later many other rich-world countries will have to take it too - end quote.

 

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/36789_424806849059_6013004059_4660010_7094249_n.jpg

 

 

I'd love to quote the entire article but I'll at least quote this much;

 

" ... throughout the rich-world government has simply got to big, and Mr Cameron's crew currently have the most promising approach to

trimming it. Others and not just the tottering likes of Greece and Spain - will surely follow. That includes America. At present, unlike in the 1980's

there is no reaganesque echo from the other side of the Atlantic: despite the "Tea Parties" zeal, the Republicans seem as clueless as Mr Obama

in producing a credible medium-term plan to balance America's budget. But pretty soon, as in Europe, somebody will have to come up with one -

and Britain for better or worse, is likely to be the place they will come to for ideas ..."

Socialism means spending increase ... Labour is too late, cuts, that horrible word is the only way forward and the United States is going take a

hard fall if they decide to embrace their new Social programs.

[evilneko]

Let me remind you all that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act establishes absolutely nothing even remotely similar to the UK's NHS. What it is is a collection of new regulations and consumer protections levied on the health insurance industry, as well as an optional state-run insurance plan or "public option" which may not survive (along with several other things) if the Republicans win like they think they will in November. (I kinda doubt it, given the candidates they're putting up..) In any case, this is not socialized medicine folks. Not by a long shot. If you want to talk about America becoming socialist (which, personally, I think is a joke) you should look elsewhere.

[LadyMilla]

...set out plans for the "“great repeal bill” to do away with the myriad of new criminal offences created by the Labour Party.

 

You know, I really hope that their "Great Repeal Bill" will produce positive results. The road they outlined is something I can approve wholeheartedly... but I will only applaud them when their plan comes to fruition. Simon Davies from Privacy International said: "It is one thing for a government to repeal the most repugnant initiatives of its predecessors, and quite another to show sensitivity and restraint when future opportunities become available for new surveillance measures. Put simply, it is easy to condemn what has gone before, but it is infinitely harder for any government to resist the temptation to introduce new and even more intrusive initiatives." Anyway, I wish them good luck. They're gonna need it (terrorist threats and Bin Laden videos are known to pop up and disrupt pro-privacy efforts at the worst time).

[Balagor]

Lady Milla, please don't assume that all people with a right wing perspective are incapable of reading what the opposite point of view has written. Some of us went to university, and as part of our courses had to read Das Kapital. So Marx envisioned a certain kind of society under true socialism but so what? That was a THEORY and it all goes to prove my point - historically the practical application of Socialism has never matched the Utopian theory and has often been accompanied by strife and sometimes outright thuggery.

 

Exactly. And it is the same with theories about 'free market-regulated economies' and the theories about 'democracies based on universal suffrage'. Market is a splendid regulatory 'force' in theory. In reality, it is not so much. Especially, when it comes to health care where the interests of the involved parties (health care service providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and patient) are so contradicting. I will discuss it later.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that you try to draw unfounded conclusions from a president's attempt to introduce a universal health care system that you regard as a 'socialist' invention. (Is it? Just because universal health care was present in the former socialist countries, it does not make it a socialist invention. And because it is present in many Western-European countries, it does not make them socialist either in the sense of the original theory.)

 

"Personally I think a universal health care system should be made to work, simply because it is probably the right thing to do."

 

But it DOESN'T work as applied in the UK. Medicine is a constantly evolving discipline, meaning that the costs are continually mounting. To make it work, you would have to keep jacking up taxes to an unacceptable level.

 

So what's your solution? The rich who can afford expensive medicine shall live, and the poor who are obviously all losers, workshy scroungers, and social misfits shall die unless they have a family that can scrape together enough money to pay for the treatment? Because, if your reasoning is true, soon only the wealthiest will be able to afford medicine and operations that require advanced technology.

 

Do you think an attempt to correct this situation where people are denied access to health care based on profit related consideration is really a socialist invention? Or rather a last-minute recognition that market is not the magic wand that can bring everything under control?

 

Unfortunately, bringing health care under state control seems to unavoidable due to the deep rooted contradiction between the interests of the health care service providers (medical facilities, pharmaceutical companies, health care insurance companies) and the interests of the consumers of said services. What are the interests of the consumer? To regain health as quickly as possible. It's not just that nobody likes to be ill: you have a family to support, you are restricted in what you are able to do, and from the point of view of the society (except in extraordinary cases, like Stephen Hawking), you are unable to contribute to the society as a whole. What are the interests of the health care service providers? To prolong the period during which the consumer requires their services, in order to increase their revenues. The pharmaceutical companies are not interested in providing a cure, they are much more interested in prolonging the period of consumption, that is, they prefer medication that needs to be taken on an ongoing basis in order to sustain a symptom-free condition. The health care insurance company is interested in... what a surprise... securing a profit for the shareholders. Profit requires cutting back on costs and expenses, including payments to the insurance holders, eliminating risks related to case histories that reveal the increased probability of insurance covered events (an example, I am unable to take out any health care insurance that would cover spine related operations because in my childhood, I was suffering from a fairly common childhood syndrome called scoliosis). So, in the end, the only one who is royally screwed in this fabric of interwoven interests is the consumer/patient. And don't tell me that proper legislation would be able to regulate these simply market/profit based interests. When governments are taken hostage by corporate giants, who can blackmail them to provide emergency assistance from taxpayer money ("If we fall, thousands of subcontractors will fall with us, and tens of thousands of jobs will be lost, you don't really want the loss of popularity that comes with the increase in unemployment, not to mention the state budget will take a severe hit due to increased spending on unemployment benefit. Sure, there will be a short-lived uproar against saving the culprits who brought this calamity on us, but soon the public will relax, hoping that things will go back to normal") hoping for proper legislation that is actually enforced is a far fetched idea.

 

As to your complaints about Labour Party governments turning England into a police country... I assume that street cameras and such are now being dismantled by the Conservative government., aren't they?

Kudos

[grannywils]

Double kudos

[DarkZerker]

Health Care is worth the extra taxes. Heck, taxes should be like this:

 

If a person is rich, their taxes goes up and if they are poor, the taxes goes down. Enough so that the poor person doesn't get charged much and lives NORMALLY while the rich man gets charged a lot because he has enough money to pay for all that and still live well.

 

Socialism when it comes to Health Care is VERY GOOD.