host

They do....this is a forward thinking discussion...they want it...they've been ripped off and abused to the point that there will be an extreme, if delayed reaction.....they want a socialistic economic system....if wanting similar "balance" to what exists in Canada and continental Europe is socialistic....

Americans are an aging, increasingly ailing and poorer population....soon to be foreclosed on in unprecedented numbers as the housing bubble pops....it's just beginning to unwind now, and they already poll this way:
Another year has gone by since the following article was written and nothing has been accomplished....is it any wonder why the party that controlled both house of congress, and the presidency during the past four years, polled so poorly?

dc_dux

Perhaps most Americans understand the political divergence that exists in the country and are sick and tired of the extremists at both ends, as expressed here, and just want their political leaders to act with principled compromises that serve the greater good rather than any one special interest or ideology.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

Perhaps, dc_dux, but consider how great the excesses have been....first, in the direction that the recently industrialized economy went in during the Rockefeller, Jay Gould robber baron era, countered first by the 1913 income tax and the 1916 inheritance tax, and.....after the crash of the DJIA from 393 in Sept. 1929 to 41 in July, 1932, and the rash of bank failures that followed....and 25 percent unemployment, came the "New Deal"....SSI and unemployment insurance, and the confiscation of gold.

The backlash reached it's height with the 91% top income tax bracket in the early 1960's, and....even with that, there was a 30 percent poverty rate when Eisenhower left office in Jan. 1961. The backlash was Johnson's "war on poverty", and the phenomena, even it was primarily coincidental....who knows.....of the poverty rate being cut in half by the mid 1970's.

Beginning with the "Reagan revolution", interrupted only by the Clinton 1993 rollback of the 12 years of Reagan/Bush '41 tax "reform", and the remarkable, one year end of steadying accumulating US treasury debt in 2000, the excesses have moved "full tilt" in the other direction.

These bastards have intentionally attempted to destroy the fiscal integrity of the federal treasury, via deep preferential tax cuts for their wealthy patrons and needless, wasted expenditures on military/intelligence, a sham pharma gift to that industry with the medicare prescription fiasco, no-bid contracts in Iraq and in Katrina relief, and record pork barrel spending....only time will tell if they've succeeded in destroying the currency itself....because they saw it as the only way to dismantle the "New Deal" entitlement obligations that they believe is the main justification for progressive income tax and for an inheritance tax.

This mugging of the budget and the soundness of the treasury, is all the more extreme and easy to notice, because the budget was, for the first time in 30 years, acutally "in balance" when they renewed their assault, beginning with the 2001 tax cuts and the mailing of checks to every taxpayer.

No....dc_dux, if history is any guide, the backlash will be at least as extreme as the mugging by the rich and their republican pol puppets has been. The loss of the only equity most Americans have gained in the last 15 years....via the implosion of real estate valuations, along with the steady drop off in the numbers who can afford private health insurance premiums, aggravated by the tough provisions of bankruptcy "reform", will come together to inflict enough pain and militancy among the sheeple to push the backlash much further in the direction of a French or Italian type of entitlement society, and the taxes on the rich that come with it, than most will predict.

...and they brought it on themselves, IMO.

shakran

This is too black and white. Americans don't want pure socialism any more than they want pure capitalism. We need to find a healthy mix, and right now we're skewed too heavily in the direction of capitalism.

The trouble is that when you socialize something - healthcare is a good example of something that desperately needs socialization - taxes go up, and people immediately panic. Oh shit! My taxes will go up! I'll be broke!

They fail to realize (and those opposed to socializing a given system are only too happy to keep them in the dark) that while taxes will increase a bit, they will not increase to the point where the tax increase is more than the money the average person will save on healthcare. If I could drop insurance, not have any copays for my meds, not have to pay outright for my kid's braces, etc etc etc, I'd more than make up for the tax increase, because the burden of healthcare would be shared across the entire country.

Sure Europeans have markedly higher tax rates than we here in the States do, but they also get free healthcare. Period. No bullshitting about whether this or that cancer treatment is "medically necessary." If they need it, they get it, and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, pure socialism would suck. Say goodbye to your sportscars, your SUV's (well. . maybe that part wouldn't suck ), your conversion vans, whatever. We'd all drive cars that we needed, but nothing more. I like capitalism here. I don't wanna give up my sports car

Interestingly enough we already have a socialized system in some areas. Eldercare is partially socialized. That's what social security is. We all pay, old people get to eat. Works pretty nice, despite the scare tactics employed by Bush and his cronies when they were trying to convert it to capitalism because it doesn't directly benefit his rich friends.

Back to healthcare, I think it's absolutely pathetic that in the richest country on the planet, the most advanced country on the planet, we have people having to decide whether to buy medicine that they need to live, or to buy food that they also need to live. It's pathetic that people needlessly die from curable diseases because their insurance company won't pay for the treatment and they can't afford it on their own.

Frankly, if you argue against socializing medicine, you are arguing for letting people die from conditions that could be cured.

We should socialize the necessities for life. The rest should be bought with your own money and at your discretion.

FoolThemAll

Frankly, that's false. It's not an argument against people receiving such treatments, it's an argument against forcing other people to pay for it. You can disagree with this central aspect of the position - I wouldn't call the disagreement unreasonable either - but to ignore it is dishonest.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

roachboy

the idea that in a socialized health system "other people pay" is one that really encapsulates the effects of years and years of rightwing political/ideological domination and which demonstrates the claim that controlling how issues are framed is fundamental.

if for example you could argue that access to basic health care should be a fundamental human right--you know "life liberty pursuit of happiness" the inspirational memes dont really amount to much of anything if your health is not maintained: then the question could be whether we, as a society, as a social system able to generate very considerable wealth, find it morally and politically desirable to extend the benefits of that system to all in the form of basic health care. you could argue that such an extension of benefits to all would bring this society at the level of content into line with what it claims to be at the level of form. you could argue that such an extension would increase social solidarity, that it would benefit businesses, that it would benefit everyone except perhaps for the existing structures of student loan debt profiteering, the ama and the boards of privately run hospitals, and the shareholders of pharmceutical corporations. across the arguments that would be generated around what amounts to different conceptions of an ethical social order, the political issue of what kind of society do we want to be, do we want to live in, could be fought out.
conservative ideology in america is a fundamental obstacle to even posing these matters coherently
(1) because it effectively negates the idea that we--all of us--live in a society. following that tired old dysfunctional thatcherite logic, it replaces the notion of society with that of a bunch of individuals.
(2) it has persuaded folk that the state is some alien formation that persecutes, that obstructs the (fictional) well-functioning order of accumulated invdividuals. one effect of this ideological distortion is to remove the daily operation of the state from any association with democratic process. state policies are political policies: the redirecting of resources by the state is an effort to match that distribution with the "will of the people" as it expresses itself through electoral and interest group politics. the state can be seen as a mechanism whereby social decisions concerning the character of a desirable society are implemented.

conservative ideology is geared primarily around preventing coherent state action except in those areas that benefit directly the corporate interests that fund the conservative show (defense spending for example, which is n absurd squandering of social resources)....one of its central claims is that the state is already incoherent. the "demonstrations" of this claim rely on the false claim that society is just a bunch of individuals: you see this "logic" repeated over and over and over--in the setting up of fake symmteries (reverse discrimination for example, or questions of abstract "fairness" of tax rates)--these premises are important because if you buy them, conservative conclusions follow--that taxation is unfair because it requires more from those who benefit more from the existing social arrangement than it does from those who do not---when the same problem can be made to disappear from another angle: of course those who benefit SHOULD contribute more to the maintenance of the system that enables them to benefit BECAUSE they benefit from it. wealth is a SOCIAL fact, it presupposes the existence of a SOCIAL ORDER--it does not follow from abstract individual gumption, it is not a question of moral superiority--it is a function of particular distributions of SOCIAL ADVANTAGES and CONDITIONS.

3. the main issue then that conservative ideology as a whole eliminates from coherent discussion is the central fact of capitalism or any other socio-economic order: that it is a social system. that questions about capitalism are questions about the social system upon which it rests and which its logic produces and reproduces. that success owes its existence to a combination of social factors--educational advantages, capital access, networking, developing a business plan, etc etc etc--that individual actions are social actions, that a business is a social undertaking, that the relation of firms to consumers and other stakeholders are social relations.

it obscures the fact that questions concerning what kind of social order is desirable are fundamental questions. it tries to push back onto some abstract, ridiculous notion of morality what is in fact a matter of politics. and it is not like the corporate powers that pay for rightwing ideology in its present forms are not aware of how political these matters are: if they were unaware of this link, there would be no conservative ideology because no=-one would have funded its development, funded its systematization, funded the creation of a media appartus to disseminate it, funded its endless repetition.

within this ideological framework, it is extremely difficult to have a coherent public debate about fundamental questions: what kind of communities do we want to live in? are we to simply sit by and allow a system of highly centralized global production to redefine how we live where we live as if that redefinition was a natural fact? are we to have no say concerning what kind of communities we live in, whether they are to be functional or not? are we to be spectators of our own lives?
why should there not be universal health care?

why should all education not be free to all? if you care ANYTHING about the idea of meritocracy, it should follow DIRECTLY that all levels of education should be freely available to all and that wealth SHOULD NOT determine what kind of educational opportunities you have access to. in the united states, the central determinant of quality of education is class position. that is wrong. that is dysfunctional. that is the furthest possible remove from any illusion of democracy at the level of content.

why should kids have to acquire tens of thousands of dollars in debt to go to university? what are they paying for? why is 60-70% of the teaching labor pools within universities part time/adjunct? where the fuck is all the money going? why do university presidents have to make the salaries that they do? why are universities administrations as bloated as they are? universities should be seen as a public good. they should be free. funding should come from the public coffers. funding should be flat across localities at the elementary and secondary levels. the notion that the smartest get access to the best education should mean something. right now, it doesnt. i have spent many many years inside ivy league schools, and let me tell you that it is WEALTH not ability that determines the presence of the vast majority of the students in these schools. it is WEALTH not ability that determines the profiles of a significant majority of faculties. to claim otherwise is to smply not know what you are talking about, to look at the wrong things: this does not mean that this is 100% determinate in 100% of the cases, but in an overwhelming majority of the cases, it is--who has the social autonomy to deal with the financial pressures of graduate school, really? who has the financial resources to be able to deal with the 60-70% part time faculty hire rate? if you do not possess independent means, in such a context, very frequently you are fucked. why is there such an excessive production of phds? they are cheap labor. and 60-70% of them stay cheap labor. it is an unbelievable, idiotic squandering of resources and lives. why is that?
because in the united states, against everything the system claims to stand for, wealth enables access to better educational resources and these resources enable a better education and the profile of this obscene, ridiculous system repeats itself all the way through, repeating again in the internal labor markets that universities create and maintain for themselves, and again in the types of intellectual production faculties carry out. and there is NO REASON FOR IT, it stands in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of everything the united states claims it stands for as a society.

universal health care is tied to the costs of education: one major obstacle to implementing universal health care is the amount of debt people accumulate who go into med school. paying this debt back has an enormously coercive function in that it locks the perspectives of many who graduate from these schools into the existing income structure. but the practice of medicine does not presuppose access to great wealth, and nothing about its quality is guaranteed by the accumulation of great wealth.

the last ditch claim the right can make against this is "well, yer talking about socialism"---which is horseshit--we are talking about a coherent social system--this is not a coherent social system. two of the most fundamental aspects of that system----social reproduction and health maintenance---are organized in ways that have nothing to do with any of the principles this places claims as central. and the conservative response? run away. take the money and run, boys, things are getting hectic.

it is obscene.
it could change.
if it doesnt, it'll burn.
and it wont require some abstract "revolution" to burn it: it burn on its own, it will burn itself down as a social system.
of course, those who adequate exploit the system now wll get to watch it on tv from within their gated communities protected with private militias.
and it will all be blamed on those who are burning.
that's how it goes in conservativeland.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

then pray tell, who pays for socialized health care?

Place this blame where it actually belongs.....the health insurance industry.

any social system that legislates, regulates, and (en)forces the populace at large to contribute their own money to all services, whether they object or not, is nothing short of socialism/communism. No matter how you try to spin it, a spade is a spade, and socialism is socialism. The end result you'll be facing is the exact same thing you're all bitching about right now.....seperated classes by economics.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

host

rb....they "get it"....but their solution is to move all of their production investments, first to Mexico and Malaysia, and now....to China. "They" wouldn't live in those places themselves, their interest there is the same as it has evolved to, everywhere....exploit the opportunities....mine the labor, the natural resources....utilities roads and infrastructure paid for by others to "lure them" there.....pollute the water, soil, and air....and then move the fuck on......now....from coastal China to inland....where costs are even lower.

But, they themselves, have to live somewhere, and Mr. Prince creates Blackwater....to secure the "perimeter" for him and his friends in the CNP....so
they live in a global "Green Zone", where they're imprisoned in the world that they've made, and the rest of us can step over the bodies of the sick and starved, "have nots", until a few of us "move up", and the rest of us fall in the heap on the hospital steps.....

They refuse to come to grips, from where we are at Gini .44, that this is what Gini .50 can bring:
They won't give an inch, until they create the conditions that result in the
emergence of a Hugo Chavez or...... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva">Lula di Silva</a> .....under the best of circumstances......
...and they'll keep doing it, until they can't, until the backlash stops their arrogance....
The preceding article says so much about the direction that the US is heading in. One of the largest insurance companies has abandoned it's commitments to the community that it originated and is headquartered in. The winning bidder of an 11,200 unit, plain vanilla, 60 year old apartment complex, built cooperatively with public and private financing, and the former corporate benefactor, both opted out of even discussing the deal with NY city officials or with the long time tenants of the residential complex.

The mayor, a multi-billionaire who lives in an upper east side penthouse, but who rides the subway to appear to have something in common, with the common man.....decides "not to get involved".

The winning bidder pays $500,000 average per apartment for 11,200 60 year old units that will need major rehab and upgrades, and currently collects less than an average $30,000 per year rent per unit.

That is the America we live in, a land where wealthy conservatives make a smaller world for themselves, at the expense of the rest of us. It's none of our business.....it's their money. The folks in Brazil and in Venezuela woke up recently to realize that they were rich in one way....they had the votes, if they voted in unison, in their own best interests......

desal75

I love how so many people in this post seem to believe that the only rich people in America are ultra conservatives. I don't think Bill and Hillary Clinton ever had a problem selling out their $20,000 a plate fund raising dinners.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

desal75

sorry about the accidental repost

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

roachboy

dk:

i dont think you understand the center of the arguments i am making. it makes no sense to think that the world in which you live is made up of an accumulation of separate individuals whose interests pertain only to themselves. you live in a social system. you are of a system. and the people who make up that system have the power to decide what kind of system they want to live in and to institute measures that will tend to bring that system into being. they simply have to take that power. (i have more to say about this, but i'll defer it as this post went another direction and i am having fun writing it...)

you live within capitalism. i posted this before, but i took it down: one of the defining features of capitalism, still (though the distinction is more complex now than it was 150 years ago) is the division between those who control capital--who control the conditions that enable production--and those who sell their labor power for a wage--those who actually do the production. so long as that basic logic is in place, the system itself produces class divisions in terms of income and following from that everything else, at one level or another. redistributon of wealth minimizes these distinctions--reduces them--but does not eliminate them.

your idea of no redistribution wealth, if enacted within this context, would collapse this order almost immediately.
your idea would result in the maximum possible distinctions between the classes.
the only reason that is not clear to you is because you do not seem to have any working sense of capitalism as it actually exists and prefer to dream of some hayek-fantasy of free markets populated by nice small producers who hover together in relations of happyface equilibrium. this is what we call make-believe. fantasy land. capitalism does not and has not EVER worked like this. not in this construct we live in, the one that gets designated reality, so as to avoid complications (complications like the political in the old sense of the term).

you like to talk about tax revolt and so i imagine fancy yourself a kind of potential minuteman and that 2007 is somehow still 1774 and that the america economic system now and some jeffersonian utopia of yeomen farmers still have anything to do with each other.

i can see it's appeal: it lets you like the fact that you dont like taxes and imagine that there is something politically coherent and even radical in liking the fact that you dont like taxes and even more if you dont like taxes a whole lot. i mean, sure, why not?...if you like not liking taxes that much, you can make it the center of anything, really. and if liking not liking taxes is really what politics is about for you--well that and liking that you like guns---then i suppose that fitting what you talk about into anything like a description of capitalism as it actually exists is secondary--hey why bother, you got all the fun stuff without it, you get to like not liking taxes and like liking guns.

but that doesnt mean that what you say about contemporary capitalism is accurate or compelling, simply because you dont seem to take making what you say about capitalism accurate or compelling seriously.
so you dont.

i just hope that folk who think as you do never get anywhere near power.
and ideologically, the only thing that really separates your position from that of any run-o-the-mill american conservative is that you like not liking taxes more than they do.
o they dont like taxes, but they really dont like not liking them as much as you do.

same thing with your positions about socialism.
so far as i can tell, all socialism really means to you is Something Very Bad, and its only coherent content goes back to the same thing---again---this affection for your lack of affection for taxes.

you got to move outside your pet issues and the way they frame everything for you to see other kinds of arguments, dk.

i mean, i think that most right libertarians are reasonable folk who sense real problems but route them through a kind of crazy argumentative framework and land in very strange places because of the frame they use: but i have at least arrived at that conclusion by reading what they have to say and thinking about it.
also, for fun, i used to listen to alot of the far right libertarian movement's
fine radio broadcasts--like that guy saxon, i cant remember his first name, who used to have a survivalist call in shw on world wide christian radio shortwave before it decided, after oklahoma city, to stop broadcasting quite so much of that sort of thing--you know, brought to you by viking international, buy your gold now before paper money starts to collapse. i was quite fond of that station for a while: everyone was so entirely earnest and so wholly insane in what they said, and the station was very powerful wattage-wise so it seemed like these folk were EVERYWHERE--it was like watching a scary movie, particularly as i was in upstate new york and from what i could tell, once if left ithaca these folk WERE everywhere.

anyway, that is a little anecdote and i enjoyed telling it.
i notice that i am starting to use caps again.
strange.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ch'i

Strange times have bred stranger things, roachboy.

With you're ideas in mind, however, I am left with that ever-present question of how the general populace would ever have such a revelation. Even in a pile of their own denial it seems far-fetched. Are we going to just cycle along?

dksuddeth

roachboy, i see you've completely avoided the inevitable results of 'wealth redistribution' by merely stating that it will reduce the contrast between the classes, while at the same time trying to spin your way around what capitalism is by saying that I define capitalism by todays marketplace. Nowhere have I said that todays republican/conservative model of the marketplace is capitalism, in fact, it's closer to the socialist/communist/fascist side of socio-economic principles because of the numerous barriers placed in the way of any entreprenuer in the form of licenses, permits, and insurance.

the version of wealth redistribution that you wish to implement upon this country will warp and inhibit any, and nearly all, economic growth because it will take away any incentive for people to make advances in any market. Why should I, as a potential company starter, wish to work as hard as I can to make it successful when the people that I'm making a product for are going to have the government abscond even more of my profit margin for the people that DID NOT want to work as hard as I did?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ch'i

Why do you equate fascism with socialism?

filtherton

You're going to have to explain to me how universal access to healthcare and education will take away any incentive for people to make advances in any market, because i don't see it.

powerclown

Is this in regards to insects and reptiles, or human beings?

Ch'i

Sheep, actually.

dksuddeth

The question was asked 'how will socialized healthcare be paid for', and hasn't been answered yet, but I will give you my opinion on the answer, since you've asked. Education is already socialized and we can see how that's turned out, right? Healthcare will be much the same way and this is why.

There are two main reasons, currently, why someone enters the medical profession. That is chiefly from a desire to help people, but a secondary purpose is, or used to be, for a substantial amount of personal income/wealth. Let's face it, becoming a doctor is hard work. Practicing medicine is even harder, and thats without all of the state government meddling from beginning to end. An individual should expect to be financially rewarded for hardwork and personal contributions to society. By socializing, or universifying, healthcare, you will have to institute a government plan so that everyone gets access to healthcare, but it is going to have to be paid for. How is it going to be paid for? Through the government, obviously, and that means a tax......for everyone. So you will end up paying for someone elses medical care, just like I will, and everyone else. With the income for the entire medical field now coming from one single source (government), what's going to happen? costs are going to be fixed. No longer will you be hearing people saying they want the best doctor/surgeon for their wife or child because money is no object. You will see a 3 to 6 month scheduling issue for nearly every non-immediate critical impending death issue. With fixed costs, there is no incentive to be the 'best' doctor, since being the best will not place you in a higher income bracket, thus no incentive. The only ones you will see remaining in the medical field are the ones who are there because they WANT to be there. What will then follow is a serious shortage of doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. To deal with this, standards will be lessened, medical care will then become substandard. Why should it be any different? Government does not run anything well. This is historical fact.

Now, split your question apart. I didn't say that ONLY universal healthcare would limit ALL markets. I said that 'socialism' would limit all markets, BUT, universal healthcare WILL affect all medical related markets like equipment manufacturers, suppliers, pharmas, and it will trickle down to educational facilities as well. Without the incentive to be financially successful, you will retard the entire field and all related markets with it. Again, one need only to look at the public education system to see the results that socialism will bring about.

they are equated by structure alone. Call it a group thing. With socialism, the 'pact' is supported by forcing the populace to support it. With Fascism, you are forcing the business' to support it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

FoolThemAll

You know, nowhere in your post did you actually debunk the idea that "other people pay". You provided a possible rationale for making other people pay - that they benefit from the society they're in - but they're still paying. And like I said to shakran, the position that they should be forced to pay could be completely reasonable. I just preferred a more honest description of the opposition's position.

For my part, I don't buy your argument because it strikes me as too one-sided: wealth isn't just possible because of the society of individuals, wealth also requires individuals in the society. It's not like society itself is an autonomous being capable of making choices. The choices are all ultimately made by individuals. And sure, some (much?) of the wealth is rooted in theft - eminent domain immediately comes to mind as a contemporary example, though there's probably much better ones - and we should work to eliminate such thefts when we spot them.

But wealth can also come about honestly in a capitalist society, through hard work, investment, and gifts (most notably inheritance). There's nothing inherently wrong about any of these modes of property acquisition. They certainly would owe the government for services rendered - particularly legal protections - but the credit for the wealth itself belongs to an individual, not the society.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

desal75

Although our society does exist in socialism in one form or another (all modern systems do). If you completely remove capitalism from the equation and the possibility of great wealth with it you surely knee cap many efforts for progress.

Would people work long hours to make a new an innovative product just for the sake of everyone else if there was no monetary reward in it? Since we have spoken so much of health care, if medical doctors were forced to concede some of the wealth they accumulate from thier specialized skills would we still get the best and brightest people going into the fields? While I'm sure almost all of them do do it partially for the satisfaction they get from helping others I would bet the money doesn't hurt either.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

shakran

Actually it was, by me, just above.

You contradict yourself later when you dramatically predict a shortage of doctors because they aren't getting paid enough.


Great. Where are my millions? I work hard too bub. In fact, while doctors work a lot harder than me in med school and their residency, once they're out on their own, I work harder than them. They go home at about the same time every night, they spend the holidays with their families, etc. I don't, because I'm off doing news stories. By your logic, I should be a multimillionaire at this point.


Once again we see the Haves complaining about having to help the Have Nots. If you institute an income-scaled tax to pay for medicine,then the overall wealth distribution picture won't change. You'll still be richer than the guy down the street, and you'll still get to buy more stuff than him.

You mean they'll no longer charge $500 a day for hospital food? No more $5,000 charges for one Xray that doesn't cost anything NEAR that to perform? Wow, that's. . .awful?

Good. I'm tired of the poor and middle class having to settle for crap because they can't afford decent doctors.

You obviously read half of an article on European health care. What you fail to realized is that they DO have private hospitals over there. If you're willing to pay, you can bypass the wait.

Here's the contradiction. I thought the primary reason for becoming a doctor was to help people - logically you'd want to be the best at it. If you're in a field that you love, the incentive is there even if the money is not. I know a photographer who has 7 emmys and still only makes $40,000 a year. The cash isn't an incentive there - the desire to be the best at the field he loves is.

Good! Why in hell do you want some asshole that's only in it for the money, and who doesn't give a crap about his patients! That's why we have so many lousy doctors in this country. It's a lucrative career that you don't have to work very hard at if you don't want to once you get through with school.

There's already a shortage of nurses because hospitals work them to death while refusing to pay them even halfway decent wages because the wage budget is monopolized by the doctor-elite.

That's crap. No one's gonna lower the standards. They might, however, make some changes for the better. The residency system, for example. Do YOU want to be treated by some doctor who's been awake for 30 hours? I don't.


No, this is conservative crap. Government runs plenty of things well, especially if we keep idiots like Bush out of the picture. Or haven't you noticed that you can cross the entire country at no less than 55mph on long stretches of pavement called federal interstates?



Why the hell are you worried about equipment manufacturers? Hell they'll probably do better under the government. Haven't you heard of the $500 hammer?

Congratulations. You just insulted everyone who works in a job that doesn't make them rich. Obviously they must be idiotic incompetents, or they'd be in a job that paid them more. I'm sure our resident teachers and LEOs would have a few choice words for you at this point.

You're right. That's just absolutely horrifying. The idea! Low-income people being able to educate their kids. I can see where you might think this is a problem. I think we see very plainly where you're coming from at this point. Some of us have more of a social conscience than that, and aren't willing to let low income unfortunates die in the gutters just so we can have one more luxury.

dksuddeth

Then, by your 'answer', roachboy is doing nothing more than trying to hide the fact that all of the people would pay for socialized medicine by declaring that it's a red herring perpetrated by conservatives, would you agree?

There is absolutely no contradiction in my statement. I love the IT field, but I'm not going to design, engineer, manufacture, and maintain an enterprise network for the same pay that I'd get working at a fast food restaraunt, just like a neuro surgeon is not going to work hard to be the best when he's going to get paid the same as a general health practitioner.

Have you asked for that kind of pay? Would you get it if you did? I'm guessing that you'd be laughed out of the building by asking for it and expecting to recieve it....why? Because your choice of profession is not worth that much to the world market. Don't like that answer? Add something to your chosen profession to make it more valuable or choose a different profession. It's all about how you AND the market place value the job and performance, but socializing a field removes any incentive to change that.


If you're calling me one of 'the haves', guess again. I'm a 'have not', but having had a family member that was a doctor, owned her own medical practice, and related dozens of stories about how the medical industry is ruled over by the insurance industry through government regulatory boards, i've learned enough to know that no matter how you decide to scale taxes or redistribute wealth to 'equalize' society, you'll screw it up.


I'm not surprised that you can say all of this with, what I assume to be, a straight face and be willfully ignorant of just how substandard the medical care is going to be for all of the people that have to participate in this. It's that or you KNOW that it's going to be substandard and don't care about it.


You know of ONE person like that, yet you expect all of humanity to be like that? Talk about deluded. I want to be the best network engineer out there, but I expect to get paid well for the work that I do, otherwise there is no incentive for me to be the best. I love what I do, but i'm not going to do it for free and I suspect that YOU would'nt either.


What is it about personal accountability that you're not getting? If a doctor sucks ass and hurts or kills a patient, why bail his ass out with a malpractice settlement? Make the sorry assed individual pay for his mistake with his OWN personal pocketbook. If you do THAT, you'll end up with people who TRULY care about their patients and won't be making medical decisions based on the insurance industries bottom line. As for your not having to work very hard line, I suggest you become a doctor before you belittle the efforts of one.



So what you're really saying is that you feel the system is unfair because the lower salary people work harder, but get paid less, right? Instead of ruining the field by 'socializing' it, deregulate it. Remove the bureaucracy and watch it flourish. Also, nobody is making these people work as a nurse, just like nobody is making me work as an IT pro, or you as a journalist. If you're not making the money you think you should, change the way you do your job, or change your job.

nobody is going to lower the standards? that would be funny if you weren't serious about it. you need to pull your head out of the sand and see the truth of how the government will fulfill it's 'obligations'. To get more doctors, they will lessen the standards, they will not raise salaries, unless they raise everyones taxes to pay for it. The 'residency' system could use some changes, I agree, but how are you going to do that without more bodies? As an example of how this works, look at the technical support industry. They pay crap, lose good people because they won't raise pay rates, so they lower the standards and hire bodies just to answer the phones and give standard answers from FAQ databases. Lower standards.


you are much smarter than this. WHY was the interstate program made? To facilitate faster and more direct distribution for products and services and allow for easier evacuations for civil defense and military usage in the event of nuclear wars or attacks. How well does this work? I see traffic jams every single day here in dallas and fort worth and thats without national emergencies. Look at the hurricane rita evacuations. Government does not run ANYTHING well, never has, never will. It's not 'conservative' crap, it's reality.


yet you expect the government to pay LESS for more expensive equipment?

how the hell did you get that impression from what i've said? ridiculous. you're not comprehending well. Teachers work in a SOCIALIZED field, public education, and their pay is crap, why? LEO's work in a government payed position, yet you fail to understand that i've been telling you the GOVERNMENT will not run things well, hence low pay for LEOs, but you can rest assured that those council members, mayors, city managers, state reps and senators, governers, US reps and senators, judges, and other high level positions are getting paid well.

you see for crap and are too blinded in your desire for social equality to see the reality of how it's never going to be obtained by government enforcement. You read that i'm denigrating education for low income kids instead of what i'm really saying, which is the government run public education system sucks ass. Next you'll be telling me that all we need to do is fund it better, right? You better look up the financial numbers of public education first though.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

desal75

As far as socialized medicine. I have Canadian relatives who routinely have to wait months at a time for relatively basic medical procedures.

Health care does need to change but putting everything in the hands of the government is not the answer. I do not know the answer either.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

shakran

I'm not commenting on what roachboy wrote. I'm commenting on what YOU wrote. Quit trying to distract people from that.

Unless he genuinely WANTS to be a neurosurgeon. Besides, in the current system unless you're rich it doesn't matter how good the best neurosurgeon is. You can't afford him anyway, so it doesn't have any effect on you. I'd rather have GOOD medical care that I can actually use rather than GREAT medical care that I can't possibly afford.


No. I'm not an idiot.

Nope.

Pretty much, yep.

And yet, I do it anyway because I love the work. Thanks for proving my point for me.


You'll pardon me if I have trouble believing that, since a "have not" with any brains will want to have access to medical care.

Gee that's not a biased source at all is it! And if you talk to the farmers they'll complain about only clearing $80,000 before subsidies kick in. Cry me a river.

Well if you think having 5% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth while a much larger percentage of the country can't get drugs to cure their deadly diseases is better than the socialized medicine alternative, you need to relearn a few things.


Yeah, because Canadians are just dying in droves. DROVES I tell ya! because their medical care system is so bad. (so you don't have to assume, this was said with a sarcastic face)


I gave you ONE example of many and you assume I only know ONE? Who's deluded? Actually go take a look at everyone in the TV profession. With the exception of some anchors, a few reporters, and the general managers/news directors/salespeople, they're ALL making crap money. Every one of them.

Of course not. I have to eat and pay rent. But there are LOTS of jobs out there that I'm very qualified for that I could instantly triple (or more) my salary while getting all holidays and weekends off, guaranteed, and double my current vacation (at least). But I don't take them because I love what I do now. Money is not the only motivating factor.

Oh and BTW if you are a network engineer, and you're not incompetent at it, and you weren't stupid in the salary negotiation process, you are definitely NOT a "have not."


Do you have any idea how hard it is to collect anything on a malpractice suit? Despite what Bush brainwashes you with, doctors have the advantage as far as malpractice goes.

wow that's great. Doctor cuts off the wrong leg but he transfers his assets to his kid's trust fund before the lawsuit. I walk away with a few thousand and no legs for the rest of my life. Great plan.

No, you'll get the few who are crazy enough to risk personal financial ruin in order to be a doctor.

Like hell you will. Malpractice insurance and health insurance are two different things. Read up on them, then get back to me.

I'm not belittling the efforts of any specific doctors. But there are doctors who frankly do not work very hard. Period.

No I'm saying we already have a healthcare shortage despite this wonderful system of capitalistic medicine that you so love.

Yeah, that worked just GREAT for the airlines didn't it. Or haven't you been reading about the bankruptcies? And that's not even counting the maintenance issues. I know it sounds like fun to deregulate medicine. Mexico did that too, and you'll notice that we don't exactly hold their medical profession in high esteem. Deregulate it and the nurses will still be paid like crap, but they'll probably work even more than they do now.

Again with the money-as-prime-motivator theory. Some people are willing to sacrifice money in order to do what they love. I know you don't understand that since you're lucky enough that what you love also involves lots of money, but it is a fact.

What standards are you suggesting they will lower? You're acting like they'll let a mechanic become a doctor overnight because he's good with his hands. I'm interested to see what you really think here.

Socialize healthcare. Then poor people won't HAVE to go to the ER for basic medical care, it'll ease the burden on the public hospitals, and they can redistribute their residents.

Gee, that's not socialized or bureaucratically regulated. According to your previous arguments it should be absolutely thriving by now!


Pretty damn well overall. Go drive around Africa some time to see a public road system that's truly broken.

That's not government, that's idiot people who won't take public transportation. Go to D.C. Traffic might be a nightmare, but the metro system lets you get anywhere in the city very quickly. And btw, the metro is in fact run by the government.

Well hell, let's just get rid of it. Anarchy for all!

No, it isn't. It's you twisting facts to suit your own desires, which is to further enrich yourself by not paying as many taxes.

No I don't. But we can fund socialized medicine without even raising taxes much if at all. Quit getting involved in bullshit little expensive wars (ahem, Iraq), and we'll have PLENTY of money to pay for it.



Teachers in the NON SOCIALIZED field (private schools) get paid a lot worse than teachers in the public schools. Why?

You fail to comprehend your own post. You said:

Whether the field is socialized or not, if there's no incentive to be financially successful YOU claim you retard the entire field. I pointed out that there are plenty of people who work in professions where they don't get paid very much money (whether socialized or not) who might take umbrage at your remark.

Well, lemme just put it this way. Healthcare in this country is broken. Badly. It's far too expensive, and that's under your treasured system of enriching the rich. Your way doesn't work.

Canada does it my way, and they're doing just fine.

Which of us is seeing for crap?

Um, are you not a product of the public education system? Are you saying you're an uneducated ignoramus? Because that's what you seem to think the public education system is turning out.

No, we need to fund it smarter. Quit spending craploads of money on football and start spending it on academics.

FWIW the numbers for public schools are generally generated by the community the school is in. Public schools are for the most part state-run, not federally run.

I'm advocating a FEDERAL medical system.


Oh and as far as canadians having to wait months for basic medical care, I'm going to the eye doctor tomorrow for a prescription change. I made the appointment in October. This was the earliest available. We have to wait here too. That's a basic reality no matter what system you use.

roachboy

dk:

1. the question "who pays?" in isolation is meaningless. if you abstract the mechanism of redistribution from its functions, you can't think coherently about redistribution.

2. i see no possible argument that would lead to a conclusion that universal health care and access to education would have negative effects on anything. these seem entirely worthwhile tasks for the public to decide are worth paying for as a public. period.

3. the idea that the present system is somehow not capitalism is one that seems to me out to lunch. i am not going to persue this one any further, in the interest of staying within the style of a nice persona.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

Sheep in fact have quite a regimented and hierarchical social order.

filtherton

There's no mystery in how socialized healthcare would be paid for.

Tell me how education has turned out and how it's socialized contributes to that situation, otherwise, i can't answer questions by making assumptions about your assumptions.

I've known a couple of pre-med students and none of them were materialistic people. This makes sense in light of the fact that there are other, perhaps easier, degrees that let you make money like a doctor. Frankly, i'd prefer my doctor wasn't in it for the money because i'm not a doctor; i'm not an expert. Doctors are like auto mechanics for the human body. Would you rather have a mechanic who is only interested in making money, or one who genuinely wants to help people?

Besides, if the quality of healthcare in socialized systems is so bad compared to market systems, how come the u.s. lags behind the rest of the developed world (including many socialized systems) in many indicators like infant mortality rate? Why are cubans, in general, more healthy than americans?

So we won't be able to pay the fair market price of $50 for an aspirin? Dern!!

I don't think doctors compete with each other as much as you think they do. All hospitals, once you're checked in, are essentially mini-monopolies; that's how they can get away with charging such ridiculous prices.

I don't know what your qualms are with the public education system(it certainly isn't perfect), but i have a hard time understanding how you think socialism is to blame.

dksuddeth

I'm disregarding most of your reply post because it's nothing more than refutations based upon your own rose colored glasses, but I did want to respond to the below because they are at least points we can agree upon.

Private school classes are not as populated as public school classes. Less students means less workload AND it also means that you actually get better education instead of a factory line education system.

Yes, I unfortunately am, but I also had the fortune of finding out just how shoddy it is and enabled myself to rise above it by researching and learning a great multitude of subjects on my own. It also helps that I'm of a personality where when I want to know something, I want to know all of it. Thats beside the point though. Lots of others in urban communities are left deficient in education because of the way the system is run.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

and yet they still can't get it right. whether federal or state, there should be as little input as possible in to the education system. If you are going to have a public education system, make it as local as possible with only a FEW guidelines and standards by a central government. You'll end up with better educated students.

they might, but i'm not to blame for that. they need to lay the blame where it lies....big business and government regulations.


First, I agree that the system is broken....beyond broken. What you're failing to understand is that it's not broken because doctors got together and said 'lets monopolize health care'. It's broken because insurance industries believed that they could make money off of healthy people by making them subsidize for sick people and then screwing the sick people by limiting the amount they would pay for adequate healthcare. That made it expensive...what broke it was getting the states governments to buy in to it and regulate it to the point where a doctor HAS to utilize the health insurance medical doctrine instead of applying his/her own. It's not MY way of health care, it's the republican big business way as well as the democrat/liberal socialized way of health care. the only difference between the two is republicans want to keep it at the state level and democrats want to move it to federal. either way, it's still going to remain broken.

not according to desals relatives, who are residing IN canada.

and yet you want to make it MORE beaurucratic by moving it to a federal level? keep it small, keep it simple, keep it working.

why? because admitting that everyone would have to pay ruins the illusion that nobody would have to pay any extra? or that only the wealthy would have to pay extra?

because you refuse to see anything BUT that public good result.

what we have today is not capitalism. what we have today is a system based on fascism. What we might have tomorrow could be based on socialism which will mean that everyones rights and property are subject to majority whim. Neither of those are capitalism.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

dk: you do not know wha the words fascism or socialism mean. you talk about "strucuture" but you do not know what that term means in this context. so it is hard to take you seriously.

you also misconstrued--again--what i said about the means-end relationship relative to taxation.

it is hard to stay interested in this, which is a shame because the thread is more interesting that what it is presently turning into.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

desal75

The following is the definition of facsism. Is that really what you feel we live in?

Fascism
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control"

Especially notice the part about stringent socioeconomic controls. Isn't that what some of you are arguing in favor of?

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

dksuddeth

I am well aware of what those terms mean and I certainly know the context of structure. Are you sure that you're not losing interest because you're losing the debate? I encourage you to stay in it, for once i'm interested in something on here that doesn't relate to guns or the second amendment and it would be a shame to see you drop from it.

I don't see how. You've stated which I take to mean that, in your opinion, 'other people pay' is either a lie or just a serious 'misrepresentation by the rightwing to demonize universal healthcare. You then state . Now, although we are all a PART of that society, I don't cease to exist if I seperate myself from that society. YOU don't cease to exist if you get exiled from that society. We are not 'the borg' collective. I am an individual, you are an individual. If enough of us individuals come together with a common cause, THEN we are a part of a society. Also, to bring a constitutional angle in to this, this government wasn't founded and enumerated powers to promote a societal change. It was empowered to protect individual rights....all of our rights.

you have the wrong idea of what capitalism is, yet seem unable to grasp an individual concept of what personal responsibility, personal accountability, and personal beneficiality is in regards to capitalism. Socialism removes individuality by enforcing a 'society' or common good ideology above all else. who do you then become?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Translation: "I can't think of even a semi-lucid argument to refute what you said.


I doubt you'll find any private school teacher who has less workload than a public school teacher. Additionally, putting a blanket quality statement on either system is asinine. There are fabulous public schools, and there are craptastic private schools, and vice versa.


No doubt by reading, which you learned how to do in the public school. Americans have the wrong idea of school. School should not be concentrating on just teaching you knowledge. It should be teaching you how to ACQUIRE knowledge. Sounds like your school managed to get that right. The old teach a man to fish philosophy.

No you won't. You'll end up with good schools in the wealthy communities and crap schools in the poor communities. Exactly what we have now. Sure there will be the odd exception to the rule, just as there is now, but overall that's what you'll end up with.

That analasys isn't half bad. But how are we supposed to correct that unless we stop letting insurance companies pull those shenanigans. We as private citizens certainly don't have the authority to tell them to quit. The government must do so. . . now whether you want to do that by having government take over the insurance/healthcare industry, or just having the government tell the insurance/healthcare industry exactly how much they're allowed to charge, it all amounts to the same thing. Government control of our healthcare. Either way, the insurance companies no longer get to screw the sick. Now if we go to a purely socialized medicine system it'll eliminate the ability of insurance companies to overcharge the government for care because the government will, essentially, be the insurance company.

What you suggest the doctor should be able to do is economically unfeasable. A doctor 1) doesn't have time to administer his own private insurance company It's and 2) wouldn't be able to get the numbers to survive.

I don't think you understand what socialized medicine really is. A true socialized medicine program would eliminate medical insurance as we know it and revamp access to healthcare so that everyone would have the opportunity to get at the least basic healthcare.

But don't worry, there's still plenty of room for doctors who just want to make money - - I doubt a socialized heatlhcare system would give out breast implants for free, for instance.


I addressed that at the end of my post.


Keeping it small is anathema to the socialized medicine concept. Socialized medicine means equal healthcare access for all. In order to do that you have to have a blanket supervisory body at the highest level. Obviously we'll have state-by-state run branches of the federal system, but in order to provide equal care to ALL americans it MUST be federalized.

That, btw, is why you're wrong about schools being socialized. They're not, because they're not run equally across the country.

I don't think anyone's trying to create an illusion that no one would have to pay more in taxes. We all would, but we'd all benefit from it. By your logic we should all privately build roads in our communities. If I want to get from my house to your house, I can by-god build the road. This is just a wrongheadded way to look at social programs.

As for the wealthy paying extra, they should. They benefit the most from the American economic system, they should give back the most. Contrary to popular belief, an extra couple thousand on the taxes of a multimillionaire won't exactly quash his lavish lifestyle.



You do not know what fascism means. I defined it for you but you seem to have missed that. Go take your hunger for knowledge and apply it to a book on governmental systems and what they actually are, then come back and we'll debate this part further.


Socializing medicine does not mean anything for the rest of the economy (except that it would improve)

powerclown

Human beings leave their beds in the morning for 3 reasons: sex, money and power.
Social collectivism for large groups of real, live, thinking, feeling human beings ignores these basic human needs, and is therefore utter nonsense.

dksuddeth

yeah, thats right.

blanket statements work good only when you want them to? I'm shocked. If there are fabulous schools and craptastic schools (public, private, doesn't matter) why the difference?


I learned to read at the age of 3. Not in a school.
as my wife calls it, 'regurgitation education'. You are right. Schools should not just be teaching how to remember things, they should be teaching how to teach ones self AFTER school.
Not something I learned in school. It took Marine Air Traffic Control School to teach me that.

There is truth in what you say, but federal regulation over this is not going to fix it. As you said, funding it smarter.

In other discussions I've had about this, the answer is to deregulate how the insurance companies get to mandate and guideline doctors/hospitals. If an insurance company does not have the ability to tell a doctor how to do his job, then the doctor can actually prescribe the best treatment without fear of dealing with both the insurance company and the medical board.

How's the VA working out for alot of people?

I missed putting in my entire statement. My apologies for rushing and inadvertantly misleading you.
What I meant to say was that, in the current system, people with health insurance have their prices set by the insurance company, not the doctors. Now, for a very common standard test, if a patient has insurance, the test must be charged at the insurance company price (which is generated on a state average basis) but even if it could be done cheaper in a heavier populated area, the doctor is unable to deviate from that price. This is the problem with price controls. It will cheapen the price in some areas, but cost more in others, like heavily populated areas. So i'm not intimating that the doctor should run his own insurance company as well, just that the doctor should be able to set his prices for tests and procedures...not insurance companies.


Ever heard of the Department of Education? What do they do? Granted, they don't centralize power like other countries do, but even at the state levels there really isn't that much progress and benefit.


Funny thing about social programs is that some people inevitably pay more than others. How did the property for those roads get acquired? Do you truly think that 'fair market value' was gained by all? There are unintended consequences in all that we mandate through government policy. We would be wise, for once, to take exceptional pause before we federally centralize yet one more thing.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

Man, i got up today so i could fix my daughter some food. I wonder what's wrong with me. You're wrong here. If sex, money and power were the sole motivators than no one would waste time with leisure.

Transportation infrastructure seems to be doing okay.

One problem with relatively simple, yet broad statements about complex issues is that they don't often accurately represent reality.

Ch'i

Agreed. Point and case...
Not only did you go off on some wonderfully obtuse tangent to show what I can only guess as an attempt at clever sarcasm, you continued down this road in order to sound intelligent by quoting yet another attempted quip. A quip which was not even given in the proper context to support the initially attempted, clever sarcasm. This leaves me wondering what you even meant in the first place.

If you have something meaningful to add to the discussion then, by all means, go right ahead. If not, that's alright; just don't post something for the sake of acting out a part in this thread. Usually this kind of thing would go ignored, but common man.

//end thread-jack//

I'm curious dksuddeth, would you consider the Federal Reserve a fascist entity?

Ch'i

. . . . . . . . . .

powerclown

I'll assume you bought that food with money.

roachboy

dk: look, a conversation within which it is not obvious that one of the parties--in this case yourself--hasn't the faintest idea what he is talking about on the most basic descriptive level is not any fun.
it is not fun, it is not interesting.
no conversation is possible.
it is of no particular concern to me what you imagine the state is of the bizarre-o contest that you imagine this to be.
enjoy yourself thinking whatever you think of it.
but so far as i am concerned, this is a waste of time.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

Yes, though you may find it odd that i haven't worked in the last couple days and i haven't been spending my little free time pursuing money, power or sex. You're probably aware that children are an incredible resource drain; they leave little time for the pursuit of money, power and sex. In light of the fertility rate, it would seem your perspective concerning the motivations of every member of humanity is perhaps a bit off.

The real reason people get out of bed is that they want to do things that give them satisfaction. Many people find satisfaction from money and power and sex. Many people derive much more satisfaction from other things. Claiming that money, power and sex are the most significant motivators(which is apparently what you're doing) for all people doesn't reflect reality.

As for the utter nonsense of social collectivism, you might want to check out the nation of britain where healthcare is socialized and so is the education system. They seem to be doing okay for themselves.

The only nonsense in here is your attempt to distill the motivations of all of humanity down to 3 things and your attempt to claim, despite the obvious evidence in the world around you, that collectivism is never fruitful.