What If Everything Worked the Same as American Healthcare?

[magma]

people getting paid the same = communist
people getting the same healthcare = socialist
american system = capitalist

until people stop doing as i have done by giving something a label... nothing will change!

No matter what a lot of American commentators might like to say, they have a great deal of socialist infrastructure - they have a national armed defence force, a police force, a benefits system... but you're bang on, it's this weird obsession with forcing people into narrow political profiles based on one opinion - oh, you support free health care? Well you must be a bleeding heart socialist who wants to see the private enterprised squeezed into oblivion by the curse of high taxes and BIG GOVERNMENT... it's ridiculous.

I'm a fucking capitalist. I just happen to conform to the lowest possible common denominator of human decency - a sick human gets treated until it's not possible to treat them, end of fucking story. Everything else comes second unless we've forgotten why the fuck we did any of this "society building" in the first place.

[nowaysj]

I don't know bro. Go ahead and criticize me for believing in a zero sum reality and the illusion of scarcity, but this all for one, one for all mentality can have pretty negative consequences for the all and the one. $250,000 to save some white cancer kid in the western world, while how many black and brown children expire in the dirt for the simple lack of food and water...

[the acid never lies]

I don't know bro. Go ahead and criticize me for believing in a zero sum reality and the illusion of scarcity, but this all for one, one for all mentality can have pretty negative consequences for the all and the one. $250,000 to save some white cancer kid in the western world, while how many black and brown children expire in the dirt for the simple lack of food and water...

It's not a 'simple' lack of food and water - there are geopolitical reasons why the world is at it is, and it has nothing to do with a lack of resources. I get the idea that people have about general scarcity, but where on earth has this 'all for one, one for all' approach had a negative effect re: universal healthcare?

[nowaysj]

Well, it would have a devastating effect if applied to America because the population has been very profitably sickened to such an extent that all the world's resources could be poured just into the treatment of diabetes, let alone all the cancers and other genetic damage. This is, of course, a bit tongue and cheek, but can you not feel me?

[johnkimble]

trolol free healthcare yeeahh

[borrowed]

Well, it would have a devastating effect if applied to America because the population has been very profitably sickened to such an extent that all the world's resources could be poured just into the treatment of diabetes, let alone all the cancers and other genetic damage. This is, of course, a bit tongue and cheek, but can you not feel me?

Have you ever opened a medical textbook?

[nowaysj]

Yes, but only to see deformed body parts.l

Do you have a medical opinion, doctor?

[borrowed]

Yes, but only to see deformed body parts.l

Do you have a medical opinion, doctor?

Dipshit.

[nowaysj]

Think you're going to need a second opinion.

[Sirius]

I don't know bro. Go ahead and criticize me for believing in a zero sum reality and the illusion of scarcity, but this all for one, one for all mentality can have pretty negative consequences for the all and the one. $250,000 to save some white cancer kid in the western world, while how many black and brown children expire in the dirt for the simple lack of food and water...

you raise a good point! but... why does it cost $250k to possibly save him?

!!chea

[nowaysj]

How the fuck else are the cocksucks going to afford 80 acre estates and the armed security teams?

[the acid never lies]

Let the expropriation begin!

[magma]

Well, it would have a devastating effect if applied to America because the population has been very profitably sickened to such an extent that all the world's resources could be poured just into the treatment of diabetes, let alone all the cancers and other genetic damage. This is, of course, a bit tongue and cheek, but can you not feel me?

If you believe modern society should put up with letting people go sick, then you have a different idea of what modern society is to me. We didn't build this shit over thousands of years in order to claw each others eyes out on our way to the top for a couple of decades... we did it so that everyone, no matter what their circumstance was afforded the dignity of human existance. Yeah, the strongest and most motivated will and should find their way to the top, but the weak, sickly and disabled can't be forgotten in the process.

That extends absolutely to the developing world and there's absolutely no reason why you can't improve both situations - there are a lot of things to cut before you start cutting international aid (in fact, in our recent savage cuts the International Development budget is just about the only one NOT being cut!). If you make it to Britain from anywhere in the world and walk into a hospital, you'll get treated with no questions asked. That makes us an OK society... it's the baseline... the least you can do before you have to ask serious questions about your personal humanity.

It's not a socialist conspiracy that Europe pretty much entirely nationalised healthcare in the 20th century... it was absolutely common decency.

[Genevieve]

I do believe that everyone deserves the best healthcare that is available, but public healthcare is incapable of providing the best healthcare for everyone. Even if the government gets its budget in and priorities in order, you will not always receive the best possible treatment. A few of my friends are nurses and they complain about the quality of healthcare as well, stating that due to government involvement, they can't give the best possible care to the people who need it.

Now, I'm not saying that 'anything but the best help is bad', I'm really not. I'm glad that people are getting some help, which quite often, is succesful. I'm just saying that expecting the government to take care of the highest standard of health care for everyone is very naive. It's never gonna happen. Government has to compromise to accomodate their budget. They won't be able to deliver the best drug, best technique and so on for everyone.

Furthermore, living in the corporatist world that we de love in, with extended government involvement in the market (and market involvement in the government), it's also naive to believe that corporations have no control in how you're treated either. I'm not saying that it isn't good that you're being helped, it is. But whether it is public or private healthcare, it's still big pharma controlling your healthcare through the government.

Me? I think government and commercial healthcare are both vile for their own reasons and I wish there was an alternative to both.

people getting paid the same = communist
people getting the same healthcare = socialist
american system = capitalist

until people stop doing as i have done by giving something a label... nothing will change!

The best solution is a mix of the above.

The American system is not a capitalist system, period.

The economy is run by the the Federal Reserve, a central bank, which goes against the core principles of a free market capitalist society (establishing a central bank is even one of the steps of the communist manifesto). A central bank is even unconstitutional in America.

Look, it's like this. If a muslim suicide bombs the west in the name of Islam, does that mean that that's what all muslims are about, or that the suicide bomber is sullying their name?

Similarly, if Americans run their economy through the government, does that mean that that's what capitalism is about, or that they're sullying its name?

You said you're for a mix of communism and capitalism and this is exactly what corporatism is. It's a degree of free enterprise, a degree, controlled by the government and controlling the government.

In the USSR, the government told you what services and products you had to use and they provided them.

In Europe and the USA (and in the US to a larger degree even), the government spends your tax money to help businesses they agree with.

It's the same bullshit with another label and this concession of the free market and capitalism that has gotten the west into trouble in the first place and the big corporations in charge.

[nowaysj]

If you believe modern society should put up with letting people go sick, then you have a different idea of what modern society is to me.

Letting people go sick, hahaha, my society makes people sick then forces them to work for treatment. We do live in different societies. But something tells me, you will be joining us.

[the acid never lies]

Genevieve, you have to understand that you are coming from very much a libertarian ideological position, one which misunderstands the fundamentals of capitalism which have nothing to do with the relative 'freedom' of marets but everything to do with the idea of property.

Capitalism is a system primarily based on private ownership and the accumulation of private capital. Whether things are more or less mediated or controlled by the state is irrelevant - state ownership still upholds the idea of private property, an idea which didn't exist before the advent of capitalism! You are right to draw parallels between the USA and the USSR but the commonality is their dependence on the same idea of private ownership only one is state capitalism, and the other is a far more mixed economy.

Ultimately fascism saved capitalism in Spain, Italy and Germany by maintaining capitalist property relations, despite the fact they are modelled on the idea of corporatism. Capitalism and corporatism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they imply each other.

[the acid never lies]

It's not a socialist conspiracy that Europe pretty much entirely nationalised healthcare in the 20th century... it was absolutely common decency.

I wouldn't overstate how much it is the result of benevolence and decency - of course, the war changed everything both the emergency health system that had to be established for the war itself and the fact that its cataclysmic effects made it possible to have a massive change of system, rather than incremental change.

[the acid never lies]

How could anyone call the idea of universal healthcare naive when there are so many successful models all over the world?? Bizarre.

[Genevieve]

Genevieve, you have to understand that you are coming from very much a libertarian ideological position

Well, seeing as I've been identifying with liberterianism since well, forever, openly. I'm not likely to disagree with that? o.Ò

one which misunderstands the fundamentals of capitalism which have nothing to do with the relative 'freedom' of marets but everything to do with the idea of property.

Capitalism is a system primarily based on private ownership and the accumulation of private capital. Whether things are more or less mediated or controlled by the state is irrelevant - state ownership still upholds the idea of private property, an idea which didn't exist before the advent of capitalism! You are right to draw parallels between the USA and the USSR but the commonality is their dependence on the same idea of private ownership only one is state capitalism, and the other is a far more mixed economy.

Ultimately fascism saved capitalism in Spain, Italy and Germany by maintaining capitalist property relations, despite the fact they are modelled on the idea of corporatism. Capitalism and corporatism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they imply each other.

Capitalism isn't ideology. It's a propertarian system. This propertarian system can be applied to any number of philosophies and ideologies.

To say that capitalism and freedom are mutually exclusive is like criticizing communism because of the way that the USSR was run. I'm well aware that the USSR wasn't communist and was going through an adapted process to convert from capitalism to communism as theorized by Marx (having said that, the USSR did prove that transitioning to communism wouldn't work, or at least, not in the way, seeing as it relies on handing off power to a government who are then expected to be kind enough to give it all up at the end).

Simply put. You're not seeing capitalism in the libertarian context, but in the modern, corporatist context. Which, in the contrary to what you claim, are two completely different systems. Corporatism requires 1) corporations (which do not exist in a libertarian society, because taking 'personal responsibility for your actions' is the second cornerstone of the ideology) 2) large intrusive goverments.

And lastly, there are several definitions of 'capitalism'. One that roughly equates to 'free market capitalism', another that basically equates to 'right to private property' and a third that is defined as 'right to own capital and to make profit off of it'.

Not all of these are economic systems per se and 'capitalism' is not a political ideology.

Libertarianism seeks to establish as much personal, individual freedom as possible. Socially and in the market. The system we have today is not a free market. Never has been and likely never will be.

Corporatism and capitalism are mutually exclusive because corporatism implies direct, government coerced control of the market. In part through the central banking system we have in place today (a communist invention).

To blame 'free market capitalism' as the culprit of anything in the world today, even though it has never existed before, is very naive. I am very open to discuss its merrits or merritlesness with anyone. But you seem to have a lack of understanding of what libertarianism is actually about.

[noam]

Genevieve, you have to understand that you are coming from very much a libertarian ideological position

Well, seeing as I've been identifying with liberterianism since well, forever, openly. I'm not likely to disagree with that? o.Ò

one which misunderstands the fundamentals of capitalism which have nothing to do with the relative 'freedom' of marets but everything to do with the idea of property.

Capitalism is a system primarily based on private ownership and the accumulation of private capital. Whether things are more or less mediated or controlled by the state is irrelevant - state ownership still upholds the idea of private property, an idea which didn't exist before the advent of capitalism! You are right to draw parallels between the USA and the USSR but the commonality is their dependence on the same idea of private ownership only one is state capitalism, and the other is a far more mixed economy.

Ultimately fascism saved capitalism in Spain, Italy and Germany by maintaining capitalist property relations, despite the fact they are modelled on the idea of corporatism. Capitalism and corporatism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they imply each other.

Capitalism isn't ideology. It's a propertarian system. This propertarian system can be applied to any number of philosophies and ideologies.

To say that capitalism and freedom are mutually exclusive is like criticizing communism because of the way that the USSR was run. I'm well aware that the USSR wasn't communist and was going through an adapted process to convert from capitalism to communism as theorized by Marx (having said that, the USSR did prove that transitioning to communism wouldn't work, or at least, not in the way, seeing as it relies on handing off power to a government who are then expected to be kind enough to give it all up at the end).

Simply put. You're not seeing capitalism in the libertarian context, but in the modern, corporatist context. Which, in the contrary to what you claim, are two completely different systems. Corporatism requires 1) corporations (which do not exist in a libertarian society, because taking 'personal responsibility for your actions' is the second cornerstone of the ideology) 2) large intrusive goverments.

And lastly, there are several definitions of 'capitalism'. One that roughly equates to 'free market capitalism', another that basically equates to 'right to private property' and a third that is defined as 'right to own capital and to make profit off of it'.

Not all of these are economic systems per se and 'capitalism' is not a political ideology.

Libertarianism seeks to establish as much personal, individual freedom as possible. Socially and in the market. The system we have today is not a free market. Never has been and likely never will be.

Corporatism and capitalism are mutually exclusive because corporatism implies direct, government coerced control of the market. In part through the central banking system we have in place today (a communist invention).

To blame 'free market capitalism' as the culprit of anything in the world today, even though it has never existed before, is very naive. I am very open to discuss its merrits or merritlesness with anyone. But you seem to have a lack of understanding of what libertarianism is actually about.

how is Central Banking a communist invention???