Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Willem]

I'm not familiar with the Canadian health care system, the extent its socialized, or how/who runs it.

It's completely socialized, no private billing outside the National Health Care Act is allowed. Each provincial government is responsible for managing their own systems. Some provinces charge a nominal monthly fee in order to help finance it while others charge nothing at all. Here in the province I live in, the maximum monthly fee is $55 and anyone that earned less than $20,000 in the previous year pays nothing at all. And we're all entitled to any procedure that we may require, regardless of how costly it may be.

Free market itself does not cause these conditions, however.

You should read up on the history of the labour movement sometime. You might just change your opinion.

 

[caketastydelish]

We were talking about healthcare in America where the individual has little say because of insurance companies. For example I don't have health insurance and Iwent to the emergency room last year. They billed me for 1300 dollars and I was irate. I went down there to find out what the hell was going on. When they billed me they thought I had insurance for some reason and when the mistake was fixed my bill was changed to 400 dollars. Now we want to erase what little competition there is by giving the government the reigns. Governments typically create 10 problems when they try to fix one.


All of the prisoners at Club Gitmo are given every basic human right and religious freedom to worship. They are being held as a enemy combatant during a time of war. Sorry ACLU and the likes that believe they should be treated with the same due process as a US Citizen. These are Islamic extremists that are brainwashed with Martyrdom since birth in some cases. We are treating them a hell of a lot better than they treat our soldiers and media when they are captured. How you people can take the side of terrorists over the most PC military campaign in history is beside me. Bush is always the bad guy and those poor Jihadists ......



The Pakistan Gov't, and its military has little control in the Tribal regions. Though the tribes are becoming more moderate overall and their support for the Taliban is in decline.


USA Today
ABC News
CNN
I only used left-wing media sources to throw away any notion that it is a right wing conspiracy. If you didn't know Iran has been training and Arming Shiite Militias in Iraq then you should not be discussing World Politics.

I have no time left at the moment but I will return after work to combat all false statements and Propoganda being hurled at my great Country. BTW If you have watched Sicko and believe it then there may not be any hope for you. Hundreds of thousands of people have and continue to flee Cuba to come to the US. The proof is in the pudding.

EDIT- One more thing, you can't have MAD deterrence if one country is so hell bent on destroying the other and fulfilling a prophecy. Read up on the Religion of your enemy, and yes he is your enemy too like it or not.
Although Shiites and Sunnis often battle against each other, as is currently the case in Iraq, Wagner noted common efforts among both groups of Muslims to destroy Israel, which is a critical part of Islam taking control in the world and thus ushering in the Mahdi.

I agree that Cuba sucks. I never denied that. Infact, if you read earlier in the thread you'll see me bashing there government! But thats besides the point. Why do we have to compare ourselves to CUBA? America is a WESTERN country! We are devloped! We should compare ourselves to countrys like us! Such as France, Canada, Germany, England, etc.

I never said 100% of Sicko was correct, but they definintly had a at least a few good points. For example, if a house is on fire, would the fireman be like, oh this is a middle class or lower class house. Who cares? But then when a rich person's house is on fire they save them and put the fire out. Its not like that. They would equally try to save the lives of anyone.

Healthcare should be the same way. I find it a very basic human right for good health. Just because you believe in universal health care does NOT make you communist. For proof of it, look earlier in the thread and you'll find me bashing communist sympathizers. Infact, in the long run, it may not even cost us that much money. How is that? Because:

When people have health problems, and they have to put all the money out of there own pockets to go to the doctor and take care of there health, they don't have money for other things. I know some people that spent so much money on operations and such, they don't go out to eat like they used to, buy things for entertainment, etc. In the free enterprise economy that the both of us are big fans of, it is devestating for the middle class to not afford things. However, when the government pays for the health care, citizens can do more with there money thus helping small buisnesses and such. Economics 101.

And you know what? The health care of other western countries health care is all 10 times better than ours!

The war is Iraq is costing this country a fortune. Before too long we'll go into recession. If any country truly has weapons of mass destrucion, the UN will stop them. The United States does not know more than the UN. We are just one part of it. Our most immediate problem, perhaps outside of illegal immergraion, is the value of the US dollar going down. Our nationial debt increasing all the time. This is killing us. George bush has increased spending and decreased taxes. Apparently, he fell asleep during high school economics class.

Having a big military is nice and all don't get me wrong. But we might want to think about not having so many wars with Iran and Iraq and such and let the UN take care of it for a while. With the exception of healthcare and education, I think we need spend LESS. And increase the taxes. On the upperclass, that is. And tax the hell out of the oil companys. I heard they make over 1000 dollars per second!

 

[Willem]

Finally, I'd like to say that Japan does NOT have that big a military. Infact, there about 20,000 US marines stantioned in Japan the last time I checked. There military is pretty small. We have a deal with Japan. We protect them, and they limit there military to a pretty small number. That agreement has been made in world war 2 and has been in effect ever since.

It's not a deal, it's a condition of the peace treaty the US imposed on Japan. They're not allowed to have a large military, only one big enough for self-defence, and that regulation was incorporated into their constitution.

 

[caketastydelish]

It's not a deal, it's a condition of the peace treaty the US imposed on Japan. They're not allowed to have a large military, only one big enough for self-defence, and that regulation was incorporated into their constitution.

And with that being said, how can they have such a huge military?

 

[Willem]

And with that being said, how can they have such a huge military?

They don't. They only have about 2-300,000 military personnel, including reserves. Compare that to the 1.5 million or so in the US military.

 

[josephstalin]

No; he does belong in the game. He is extremely powerful leader, rallying a nation and impacting a country positively. Mind you, most capable leaders would of just surrounded to Hitler. And the ideology is not a problem, but a driving force that allowed him to stand up against Germany and conduct the industrialization process. Have you heard about a Third World nation catching up and then beating the US in something... But Stalin took the USSR from a similar place and was tremendously successful.

 

[caketastydelish]

They don't. They only have about 2-300,000 military personnel, including reserves. Compare that to the 1.5 million or so in the US military.

Exactly! They have a small military but a good economy! Thats what I'M saying! For example, south korea has a smaller military (than the north) but a better economy.

Under the Clinton administration, the US was in surplus. We had a smaller military. Bush increased the size of the military, and now we're in debt. I'm not saying economics is always 100% having to do with the military, but you can't deny the fact that having an excessivly large military eats up government money that could be spent elsewere.

 

[caketastydelish]

No; he does belong in the game. He is extremely powerful leader, rallying a nation and impacting a country positively. Mind you, most capable leaders would of just surrounded to Hitler. And the ideology is not a problem, but a driving force that allowed him to stand up against Germany and conduct the industrialization process. Have you heard about a Third World nation catching up and then beating the US in something... But Stalin took the USSR from a similar place and was tremendously successful.

Whatever. You just want Stalin to be in the game because YOUR HIM.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So what does all that have to do with the 500 million a year federal deficit, your trillion dollar national debt, and the huge amount of personal debt that American citizens owe?

Because if the US government (and China's) actually followed the tenets of free market, we'd not see those things. Conservative economic policy emphasized MINIMAL government spending. I don't know what the hell you'd call what Bush did spending-wise. Some people call that neo-conservatism. I call it bad leadership.

You can't possibly tell me that the ridiculous national debt was caused by adhering to capitalism...

Two things went into it: war and government spending. Neither of those has anything to do with free market. Rather, ANY system will run into trouble by spending more and borrowing constantly.

 

[caketastydelish]

Because if the US government (and China's) actually followed the tenets of free market, we'd not see those things. Conservative economic policy emphasized MINIMAL government spending. I don't know what the hell you'd call what Bush did spending-wise. Some people call that neo-conservatism. I call it bad leadership.

You can't possibly tell me that the ridiculous national debt was caused by adhering to capitalism...

Two things went into it: war and government spending. Neither of those has anything to do with free market. Rather, ANY system will run into trouble by spending more and borrowing constantly.

We had a BIG surplus under the Clinton administration. This is proof enough that free enterprise is NOT bad. Bush lowered taxes and raised spending. It dosen't take a rocket scientist to find out how that will play out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree that Cuba sucks. I never denied that. Infact, if you read earlier in the thread you'll see me bashing there government! But thats besides the point. Why do we have to compare ourselves to CUBA? America is a WESTERN country! We are devloped! We should compare ourselves to countrys like us! Such as France, Canada, Germany, England, etc.

I never said 100% of Sicko was correct, but they definintly had a at least a few good points. For example, if a house is on fire, would the fireman be like, oh this is a middle class or lower class house. Who cares? But then when a rich person's house is on fire they save them and put the fire out. Its not like that. They would equally try to save the lives of anyone.

Healthcare should be the same way. I find it a very basic human right for good health. Just because you believe in universal health care does NOT make you communist. For proof of it, look earlier in the thread and you'll find me bashing communist sympathizers. Infact, in the long run, it may not even cost us that much money. How is that? Because:

When people have health problems, and they have to put all the money out of there own pockets to go to the doctor and take care of there health, they don't have money for other things. I know some people that spent so much money on operations and such, they don't go out to eat like they used to, buy things for entertainment, etc. In the free enterprise economy that the both of us are big fans of, it is devestating for the middle class to not afford things. However, when the government pays for the health care, citizens can do more with there money thus helping small buisnesses and such. Economics 101.

And you know what? The health care of other western countries health care is all 10 times better than ours!

The war is Iraq is costing this country a fortune. Before too long we'll go into recession. If any country truly has weapons of mass destrucion, the UN will stop them. The United States does not know more than the UN. We are just one part of it. Our most immediate problem, perhaps outside of illegal immergraion, is the value of the US dollar going down. Our nationial debt increasing all the time. This is killing us. George bush has increased spending and decreased taxes. Apparently, he fell asleep during high school economics class.

Having a big military is nice and all don't get me wrong. But we might want to think about not having so many wars with Iran and Iraq and such and let the UN take care of it for a while. With the exception of healthcare and education, I think we need spend LESS. And increase the taxes. On the upperclass, that is. And tax the hell out of the oil companys. I heard they make over 1000 dollars per second!

The $ HAS to go down . We made that bed long ago. In fact, our economy was overheated by its inflated value. This is in part due to China's exchange rate manipulation, but mostly due to US policy. You're absolutely right about overspending...long, costly wars across the globe can't be waged forever. Domestic spending efficiency has been spotty too.

You can make the argument that government spending on healthcare would drive its costs down, but I wonder if it could truly compete with a well-regulated system run by private organizations pricewise - especially in the US. The middle class still has to pay taxes toward healthcare regardless.

Basically: Having the government run healthcare can't possibly lower its basic cost (i'm talking the materials expense, labor hours, and operating times). They're going to be fixed regardless of the system run. All other costs come from how it's organized. Clearly, it's organized poorly in the US. Granted, the US is bigger than many countries, and the way local/state/federal levels interact isn't seamless. Problem is, it would be even harder to change the government infrastructure into something more efficient, because the people running it don't want to! Regulated private organizations would start to very much resemble the Canadian system described above if handled properly (competition would be necessary in this scenario I think). Hell, you could still give vouchers to people who need care (basing it on whatever) so that tax money goes to support them if you want, but I DON'T want to see the government RUNNING it. It's been a terrible mess and it keeps getting worse.

Personally, I believe government should be involved as little as possible while still ensuring that the standards of care demanded by the public are consistently met. Businesses focus on core competencies, and in government this suggests national security, laws, agreements with other nations, etc. It does not mean dipping hands into specific elements of business/personal lives past what is necessary to make sure the country meets the standards the voting public desires. It certainly does not mean MICROMANAGEMENT of various industries. If the only reason the government fails is because it is set up improperly, so be it. However, good luck changing THAT.

Education is a mess too. Throwing more money at it won't fix it...non-collegiate education needs a fundamental overhaul, perhaps starting with our society's cultural view of it in general (it really irks me how 70% of the American people I bump into or more are "bad with math". Has it occurred to them that this is a fabricated weakness based on bias as they were raised? Likely not). Studying doesn't have to be one's life, but at the same time the system here seems to miss the point. Colleges are still pretty good at least, though I wish they wouldn't dilute bachelor's degrees so much. Actually, more money would probably help if it exists in the form of incentives to teachers (or would we do away with the classroom setting and go for a different approach entirely? It's and option worth exploring with technology available).

 

[Lord Civius]

The greatest economy in the world is one that is sustainable in the long run, and yours isn't. Sooner or later it's going to crash and burn as the huge debt load you're accumulating catches up to you. You're seeing a glimpse of it now with the mortage crisis you're facing. And it's all because of your love of the free market.

You can't be serious. The mortgage crisis has to do with people borrowing more money they could afford to repay and serious over-construction. Simple supply and demand drives down costs. People used the equity in their homes as credit and when the value of your house decreases you no longer have that source of income anymore. On top of this the demand on oil has skyrocketed due to the radical environmentalist movement and Asian consumption. Couple the two and any market will slow down. We must cut taxes in the middle class and on small businesses to increase revenue. Then take the handcuffs off the oil companies.

 

[caketastydelish]

You can't be serious. The mortgage crisis has to do with people borrowing more money they could afford to repay and serious over-construction. Simple supply and demand drives down costs. People used the equity in their homes as credit and when the value of your house decreases you no longer have that source of income anymore. On top of this the demand on oil has skyrocketed due to the radical environmentalist movement and Asian consumption. Couple the two and any market will slow down. We must cut taxes in the middle class and on small businesses to increase revenue. Then take the handcuffs off the oil companies.

I say cut middle class taxes, and tax the rich. Republicans have the "trickle down theory" I have the "trickle up" theory. The theory is, you tax the rich, and give that money to the middle class with health care benefits and such. Then, the middle class has more money. Then they can spend that money on products owned by the rich upper class. So in the end, everybody makes money.

 

[caketastydelish]

The $ HAS to go down . We made that bed long ago. In fact, our economy was overheated by its inflated value. This is in part due to China's exchange rate manipulation, but mostly due to US policy. You're absolutely right about overspending...long, costly wars across the globe can't be waged forever. Domestic spending efficiency has been spotty too.

You can make the argument that government spending on healthcare would drive its costs down, but I wonder if it could truly compete with a well-regulated system run by private organizations pricewise - especially in the US. The middle class still has to pay taxes toward healthcare regardless.

Basically: Having the government run healthcare can't possibly lower its basic cost (i'm talking the materials expense, labor hours, and operating times). They're going to be fixed regardless of the system run. All other costs come from how it's organized. Clearly, it's organized poorly in the US. Granted, the US is bigger than many countries, and the way local/state/federal levels interact isn't seamless. Problem is, it would be even harder to change the government infrastructure into something more efficient, because the people running it don't want to! Regulated private organizations would start to very much resemble the Canadian system described above if handled properly (competition would be necessary in this scenario I think). Hell, you could still give vouchers to people who need care (basing it on whatever) so that tax money goes to support them if you want, but I DON'T want to see the government RUNNING it. It's been a terrible mess and it keeps getting worse.

Personally, I believe government should be involved as little as possible while still ensuring that the standards of care demanded by the public are consistently met. Businesses focus on core competencies, and in government this suggests national security, laws, agreements with other nations, etc. It does not mean dipping hands into specific elements of business/personal lives past what is necessary to make sure the country meets the standards the voting public desires. It certainly does not mean MICROMANAGEMENT of various industries. If the only reason the government fails is because it is set up improperly, so be it. However, good luck changing THAT.

Education is a mess too. Throwing more money at it won't fix it...non-collegiate education needs a fundamental overhaul, perhaps starting with our society's cultural view of it in general (it really irks me how 70% of the American people I bump into or more are "bad with math". Has it occurred to them that this is a fabricated weakness based on bias as they were raised? Likely not). Studying doesn't have to be one's life, but at the same time the system here seems to miss the point. Colleges are still pretty good at least, though I wish they wouldn't dilute bachelor's degrees so much. Actually, more money would probably help if it exists in the form of incentives to teachers (or would we do away with the classroom setting and go for a different approach entirely? It's and option worth exploring with technology available).

I am not sure that government regulated healthcare would necceserily drive cost DOWN, but the point I'm trying to make is they wouldn't bring prices up as much you you'd think.

The fact of the matter is, 40 million americans are without health care. This has to stop. In my opinion, things that are basic human rights, should have the government helping those that don't have it. For example, being defeneded is a human right. Thats why we have the military, and police. being rescued is a human right. Thats why we have fire fighters and such.

We could have privatley owned police and firefighters, that you have to make contracts with. Then, those that can't afford the police and firefighters would be without them, and the wealthier people would have twice as many around them.

The health care is like that. Its ridiclious. I understand that some people deserve to be poor. Some people don't work hard. Some people made bad choices in life. Some people are smarter than other, etc.

But I think EVERYONE deserves health care. Seriously, why not? Just about all other western countries are doing it, and they love it. That amazing thing about the health care, is you'd expect the people without health care is the lower class. The poor people. But believe it or not, there are loads of MIDDLE CLASS people without it. And they "make to much money" to recieve vouchers.

 

[Napalm102]

I say cut middle class taxes, and tax the rich. Republicans have the "trickle down theory" I have the "trickle up" theory. The theory is, you tax the rich, and give that money to the middle class with health care benefits and such. Then, the middle class has more money. Then they can spend that money on products owned by the rich upper class. So in the end, everybody makes money.

Welcome to the communism, tax the rich until they don't earn anymore then the poor Besides there aren't that many rich people around, even if you think that the guy who earns million a year is rich, taxing him more, will not make a dent in the income of the huuuuuuge middle class.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I say cut middle class taxes, and tax the rich. Republicans have the "trickle down theory" I have the "trickle up" theory. The theory is, you tax the rich, and give that money to the middle class with health care benefits and such. Then, the middle class has more money. Then they can spend that money on products owned by the rich upper class. So in the end, everybody makes money.

This cuts into the incentive to be rich. A lot. Enough that they'll either make less money by working less or find some tax shields. What's the point of being rich if you're penalized really heavily for it?

That's the problem with this kind of thinking, eventually everyone loses. Trickle down isn't a theory, but "trickle" is the right word. The poor see benefits very, very slowly as the rich get richer. But at least they do get better off. Repeatedly removing incentives to work harder/invest in order to get richer has the opposite effect - everyone will be worse off (the rich moreso, but everyone nonetheless).

That isn't "trickle up", it's "drag everyone down towards a lower equality". It would damage a struggling economy further.

As for healthcare, the training for doctors is a bit different than firefighters/police etc, and so is the nature of the care provided. I wouldn't care so much whether the system is public or private, as long as everyone had means toward healthcare and it is handled efficiently (which could be accomplished either way, but rarely have I seen government be an exercise in efficiency, especially the 2 party BS craptastic blockades we see in the US). It just seems to me that the US government has already stretched itself too thin and should retract intelligently. If this means essentially "outsourcing" healthcare, so be it. Like you, I don't want to see people die just because they can't afford it...it just doesn't seem like the government can handle it the way it's trying to.

 

[WICKLC1]

I agree with what Napalm 102 and ThemeinTeam said, plus, why should rich people, 70% of whom worked hard for their money, be forced to give their money to poor people who did not work hard through taxes? YOU NEED TO EARN YOUR OWN MONEY THROUGH HARD WORK!

 

[Pitman]

Is this on topic?

 

[caketastydelish]

This cuts into the incentive to be rich. A lot. Enough that they'll either make less money by working less or find some tax shields. What's the point of being rich if you're penalized really heavily for it?

That's the problem with this kind of thinking, eventually everyone loses. Trickle down isn't a theory, but "trickle" is the right word. The poor see benefits very, very slowly as the rich get richer. But at least they do get better off. Repeatedly removing incentives to work harder/invest in order to get richer has the opposite effect - everyone will be worse off (the rich moreso, but everyone nonetheless).

That isn't "trickle up", it's "drag everyone down towards a lower equality". It would damage a struggling economy further.

As for healthcare, the training for doctors is a bit different than firefighters/police etc, and so is the nature of the care provided. I wouldn't care so much whether the system is public or private, as long as everyone had means toward healthcare and it is handled efficiently (which could be accomplished either way, but rarely have I seen government be an exercise in efficiency, especially the 2 party BS craptastic blockades we see in the US). It just seems to me that the US government has already stretched itself too thin and should retract intelligently. If this means essentially "outsourcing" healthcare, so be it. Like you, I don't want to see people die just because they can't afford it...it just doesn't seem like the government can handle it the way it's trying to.

If other western countries can have great government healthcare, why can't we? If anything, we need to be MORE like our European friends not less. Have you noticed that the value of the Euro is beating the crap out of the dollar lately? The government does NOT have universal health care, so I don't think it would be true to say the government is trying to handle it. They're not trying. If they had universal health care, and it is failing, then it can be proven that it dosen't work. But this is not hte case.

I am not saying the rich have to be taxed BIG time, but way more than they are now. The rich are being taxed equal or less than the middle class, and that is absurd. Believe me, no matter how much the rich are taxed, there lifestyle is 100 times better than the middle class, or espically, lower class lifestyle. No matter how much the rich are taxed (and I'm not saying it has to be THAT much) I would still rather be rich than poor.

I would rather be rich and be taxed than be poor and be tax free. And I think 99 percent of the population would agree with me. For one thing, the time period we HAVEN'T seen universal health care is from the beginning of the United States history, until now. You could be right. It might not make things better, of make things even worse.

But wouldn't it be a shame, if it COULD make things better, and we didn't even try? I think they should give universal health care a chance for a few years or so, and see what happens. If it improves things, keep it. If it dosen't, chunk it and go back to the way things are now.

If I was president, this is how my health care plan would be:

Everyone that is working 40 hours a week or more, is guranteed to get the universal health care no matter what. Otherwise, you don't get it.


However, there are some exceptions of people NOT working 40 hours a week that can still get universal health care, however. These exceptions are:

-anyone 18 or under
-college students
-people with a physical/mental problem preventing them from working
-people that are retired(and of coarse, that is legally retired, meaning they've already worked the required number of years to retire)

If someone claims they "can't get a job" they can go to the government, and the government will find them a job for them, so everyone that wants a job will have one.

This policy would prevent people from intentionally not getting a job, so they could sit back on the couch while sipping the tea of government benefits. At the same time, all people that are working hard are guranteed to be insured.

What do you think?

 

[WICKLC1]

Someone should just start a new thread. I don't think anyone is discussing Stalin anymore!