I think many in the U.S., particularly on the right, view the UK and mainland Europe as socialist. I do not agree with that view. I do think opinion on government health care for those who need it has shifted a lot in the past decade or two, and most support it. Obama went wrong in the way he approached it and, in my view, by putting in place a system that disrupts the health care of those who already have it. If you want to get people on board with something like this, it is important that you don't negatively impact those happy with their own status quo (whose support you will need). A more narrow approach would have been better received. And he's got Constitutional problems, though it remains to be seen how the ruling on that will come out.
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. It is painfully obvious that this man wants to "Spread the wealth around" in his own words. He wants to punish hard work and success with ever higher taxes and give the benefits of their rewards to non productive citizens to keep them dependent on a cradle to grave support system that rewards not working. This assures their vote. He keeps saying that the wealthiest people need to pay their "fair share" when in fact the richest people paid the lion's share of the tax while the lower income people pay next to nothing, if anything. He has zero experience, the hardest he worked as a senator was being THE ONLY ONE who voted against the infant survival act. That is, if an infant survived a botched abortion, the debate was whether or not the child deserved every life saving measure to be taken to keep it alive as a sentient being, a human now outside of the mother. again, Obama was the only one to vote "no." All other years on the senate read as, "Assisted, worked with" He wants to have the government control health care, the auto industry, the banks and all other aspects of our lives.
What about the disabled, who can't work? Are they undeserving of assistance? What about those who genuinely cannot find work, and would otherwise not be able to get by? It's entirely artificial, in my view, to look at society in such black and white terms. Not everyone struggling is in that position out of laziness, just as not everyone swimming in money has worked hard to earn it. Sorry, I don't buy it. Even if that was a tactic, the poorer sectors of society are much less likely to vote than the richer sections. And I don't actually believe that everything politicians do is calculated to how it will benefit themselves most (an unpopular view, I know...). Numerically, perhaps, but those lower income people pay a greater share of their relative wealth than the richest, especially when one considers how much it costs to get by from day to day. Richer people can afford to lose more than poorer people, without it impacting on their living standards. Besides, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the poor janitors and shop workers who caused the financial crisis, but the rich bankers. I don't know enough about Obama himself and his history to comment on this, but I imagine that similar charges could be levelled against a lot of politicians. I've seen no evidence of any of that, to be honest. Bailing industries out to prevent them from going bust isn't "wanting the government to control them". It's not wanting the economy to go completely down the crapper. And actually, I think that healthcare is better off in public hands. Introducing a profit motive into healthcare seems dangerous to me, as it seems to lead to a situation where money is more important than people, and you're putting prices on lives. I believe healthcare should be a fundamental right.
Not the case in the U.S, at least in terms of income taxes, which is where the argument generally falls. Something like the lower 47% in the U.S. do not pay any income taxes whatsoever, so you can't say they're paying a greater share of their wealth.
People don't still think rich people actually pay taxes do they? If they did, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the position that the rich should be allowed to retain more of their wealth, but a huge number of corporations and individuals pay less tax than their workers on the factory floor, so to speak.
What about the disabled, who can't work? Are they undeserving of assistance? I never said anything of the sort. However, i have worked in the health care field for over 24 years and know for a fact that a lot of the "disabled" who are receiving assistance can in fact work, they just choose not to. What about those who genuinely cannot find work, and would otherwise not be able to get by? I find it funny that i held three jobs while others couldn't find work. the same is true today, immigrants come here by the thousands, not for the climate, but to find work, and they do. Even if that was a tactic, the poorer sectors of society are much less likely to vote than the richer sections. Blacks and women came out in droves to vote for him and will again, regardless of his dismal track record. Numerically, perhaps, but those lower income people pay a greater share of their relative wealth than the richest, especially when one considers how much it costs to get by from day to day. A Tax Policy Center report saying that 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Is it true? In a very limited sense, yes, about 47 percent of households are owed more in federal help than they pay in federal income tax. But it's not because they don't owe federal income tax. It's because they're owed other money that runs through the tax code. As far as his having no experience, I don't know how anyone could debate this. Most, if not all of his staff has never held a private sector job, actually worked for a living or met a payroll. Healthcare is not a fundamental right any more than housing or transportation is. It is obvious that he wants government to take over and run everything.
"Blacks and women came out in droves to vote for him and will again, regardless of his dismal track record." I find it hard to see past this sentence. Why would they do so purely because they're black or female? There are many female Republicans, and I suspect there will be a higher vote from the Black community but mainly because that vote always falls to the Democratic party it seems, the Republican party holds too many racist views from the more extreme sections, and sometimes in the general supporters too. Seems a very strange sentiment to make. And on the health care issue, it IS a fundamental right. If we have the medicine to fix something you deserve to have access to that treatment without having to pay, atleast with more serious issues (anything that requires medical attention from a doctor/nurse etc, paracetomol etc of course is fine over the counter). It works fine in Britain, everyone deserves the right to that care regardless of financial situation. To think otherwise is frankly absurd, atleast in my opinion.
Actually I know black Republicans who voted for Obama the first time because he was black, and were very candid about it. I can't say that I blame them.
What do you base that on? Modern medical care requires the expertise of professionals who have years of training, it often requires high-tech equipment and expensive drugs. Where would a "fundamental right" come from that entitles you to the work product and efforts of other people?
Because we're human and we've got a brief sneeze of time before we die. If we therefore create a vacine/cure for an ailment that might alter your life for the worse or even worse, kill you, then why shouldn't you have a right to that medicine? It's a fundamental right in Britain that if you're British, regardless of financial situation or position in Society, you have access to the very best healthcare. If you have the ability to heal something, you should, you shouldn't be basing on who to heal or help on the size of their wallet. And yes, it requires others to help, but isn't that more work and perhaps more breakthroughs with more researchers etc? Are we really that cruel that we would reject someone getting vital help just because they can't afford it? If that were going on where I lived i'd be disgusted.
It doesn't have to be a fundamental right to avoid that. Saying one has a fundamental right to the work product or time of another person is a mistake, in my view. If I have a fundamental right to your time, then at some level you are a slave. It is a terrible way to go about looking at it. A government can certainly provide health care to citizens in need without it being a "fundamental right" of the citizen to receive it. The government or society does so because it is right to do it, not because the other person is entitled to it. The entitlement mentality is a poor one, in my view, and devalues the individual. The exact same end can be achieved without making it a fundamental right.
But it isn't slavery or taking someones work away from them is it? (I realise the slavery line isn't meant as literal slavery). It is right that anyone are entitled to it, if you're human you deserve access to healthcare, and so it is your right to have that medicine available to you. It works over here, it is something that the country and society itself is hugely proud of. A place where whoever you are, and whatever you do in life, you have the same level of healthcare as those in the highest corners of government, the military etc. To treat everyone as equal and have no-one worry that they couldn't afford to merely get medical help is a truly wonderful thing to have. I see no argument against it, I couldn't believe the reaction of some Americans when it was put forward.
No one is entitled to anything simply "Because we're human and we've got a brief sneeze of time before we die." This line of thinking also entitles people to "free" housing, food, day care, transportation and all of the other things that actually require money to achieve. This line of thinking is exactly what Obama promotes, take from those who have and give to those who do not, regardless of why they don't have it. I've seen many able bodied people milk the system for all it's worth and pass this knowledge down to their children crying, "there is no work." Meanwhile, on any given day, hundreds of illegals risk their lives crossing deserts to take all of the jobs that these "entitled ones" feel too good to do.
I see what you're saying, and I do believe we should provide for those who need it, but I still can't see it as a right. In my view, your rights are only to those things that spring from you. You have a right to free speech and expression, to your own religious observances (or not to have any religion at all), the right to protect yourself, the right to your property and personal effects, etc. If you are human, you may deserve health care, and it is right for you to receive it, but that doesn't mean you have a fundamental right to it. I can't see anyone having a fundamental right to anything that requires someone else to provide something to them or do something for them. To me, you can't have a fundamental right to someone else's labor. We probably come out in roughly the same place in practice, but I feel that the distinction between whether something is a right or not is an important one, and I think rights are things that the government can't stop you from exercising, but not things that you can force someone to do for you.
Food I agree with along Healthcare to a degree, housing to a degree too, though shelters for the homeless rather than just giving them houses because they happen to be homeless. What are we taking when you propose healthcare? You pay nurses, doctors etc, hospitals are full of people paid to do the work. Why then should someone not have access to the care to keep them alive? Are people really that selfish that they would say "No, you don't deserve it?". In what circumstance could you say "No, you do not deserve this healthcare, you're on your own?". Just because you have seen people do that does not mean all people are the same does it. The trick is to make sure these people cannot do it, rather than denying the numerous more people who actually need that care and can't afford it. And yes, i'm sure they do, i'm not arguing that at all. I suspect several also arrive in America and don't work at all, attempting to get any benefits they can. Does that mean you should make sure that no-one could cross into America? Of course not. Same idea.
I'd say that healthcare is above all those you mentioned. Every human has a right to life (the most fundamental of all rights), and healthcare is linked to that. On the issue, I'm proud of the NHS. I've been a patient more than I wish to have been over the years (mostly for sporting injuries, it has to be said - huzzah for dislocated knees - but in the last two years I've been a patient for reasons entirely unrelated to sport), and the care I've received has been excellent. Apart from the paramedic from the ambulance who took one look at my knee and said, 'Bloody hell', because of the mess I'd made of it. It does have its failings, but they generally stem from privatised care systems and rare illnesses that the NHS can't afford the treatments for. As a system, it is a world-class provision for the people of the UK, and something no Briton should live without. The US may have utilised a different system, but to the untrained outside observer it looks a fundamentally unfair system, something the NHS could never be accused of being.
I am not saying you should be able to force doctors to treat you on the spot, but what I am suggesting is that if you're ill/sick or just in need of a check-up, you should be able to walk into a hospital and recieve that treatment. Nurses and doctors are paid and so are researchers, you wouldn't be demanding things from someone who gets nothing from the trade-off, it's paid work. Doctors work to save lives, it's an amazing thing to do, I don't think the doctors should mind an endless stream of patients. If they did, they wouldn't be very good doctors. But yes, after reading that comment I can see we're not too far off in ideologies, just the final terminology May I ask then, how would you implement it then?
All rights are imaginary. Have the means of production been seized in the name of the proletariat? No? Then there is not socialism in this country. Welfare capitalism does not socialism make.
I disagree. I believe you have a right to life in that you have a right to be free of the attempts of others to take your life from you. You do not have a right to the labor of others to provide for your life, whether it comes in a form of health care, food, or anything else that has to be provided to you through the work of others. In a compassionate society, we provide those things for those in need, which is as it should be, but that does not make it a right. As with most systems, the U.S. system has its good points and bad points. I've known more than one person from Canada, for example, who has come here for treatment because of the long wait they would have had to get care there, or to get care that they weren't approved for under the government system. The U.S. system's advantages are speed, patient choice, and high quality resources. Of course, if you can't afford these things and do not have good health insurance, then those advantages mean little because you will not be able to access them. In those cases, we should see to it that you do in fact get the care you need. What the government should do here is put a system in place to address the 10-15% of people who want health care and cannot get it, while leaving the larger percentage of people who are relatively happy with their current health care alone. There is no reason to turn the entire system on its head to address the needs we have.
Ah, we were on the same wavelength when I posted earlier. I'd leave most people's health care alone, since most people have coverage and most express that they are relatively happy with their coverage and do not want government-run care. If the status quo is working for the majority, then leave the status quo in place for them. At the same time, put in place a system whereby the government helps those who do not have health care get the treatment and care they need. I think we waste so much money here that we could definitely afford to do so if we were smart. And even though I think we're over-taxed on the whole, if they needed some sort of tax in place to fund just this sort of health care for the needy, I'd go along with that and I think most others would as well.
Ah, I see. Personally, I would install the British version as it resolves anyone paying anything and the quality of care is much the same. Just transfer it over to America, I suspect it would work, I can't see anyone being unhappy with it after the settling in period. It's a strange thing that America has never had this, I wonder if people are unhappy to stop paying for their own care or rather they would rather not change system as they're not fond of change?
Steerpike is right. I'm afraid, as much as I admire the NHS, simply transplanting it over to the US won't work. People over there wouldn't accept it. There's been so much conditioning that socialised healthcare is evil that there would be a revolt. Just look at what has happened with Obama's reforms, and they were fairly modest. Any improved healthcare system would have to be introduced gradually. Starting with a safety net, to catch those who are at present without insurance, and moving it gradually further upwards to catch more people. Just glancing at the US budget, I reckon you could do it with the fat shaved from the defence budget alone.
I believe that a fair percentage of that 47 percent are paying _payroll_ tax, or Social Security tax, even though they're too poor to pay income tax. The presumption is that Social Security isn't really a tax, because you'll get it back when you're old. But the fact is that Social Security is in trouble; I'm certainly not counting on ever seeing a penny of the money that I put into Social Security. Now, _some_ of those people are getting some of that Social Security money back, but certainly not all of them. In general, that 47 percent doesn't mean that there are lots of people who are living high and luxuriously and not paying taxes. It means that there are lots of people in poverty, many of whom are nevertheless paying payroll taxes that they may never see any benefit from. We should not be condemning those people, we should be apologizing to them.
