My thinking is no, based on the following assumptions; what are yours?

Free market capitalism is based upon inherent individual rights while socialism is based on government-granted special privileges.

I feel you need elements of both with a heavy leaning towards capitalism. Some things though just don't work when left to a free market like roads.

Excon,

True people are building private roads but building roads was one of those things that there wasn't enough of a demand for them until there were enough cars and there wasn't going to be enough cars until there was enough roads. It's in these instance I feel the government needs to step in and move things along. I don't feel that they should move into currently working systems like the healthcare system. I think 99% of things need to be free market but every once in a while the government might need to come in and jump start the free market.

DC

As we discussed before ;I think an interesting test case is occurring currently in China . They have embraced state controlled capitalism and on the surface appear to be having quite a bit of success. The question remains; (and Elliot's comments to my response concur );if what they are constructing is in fact a Potamkin village.

I suspect that what they are creating is an educated middle class that has some pocket change that will soon realize that they have not obtained the liberties that they should've with their new prosperity . I suspect that the next time the tanks roll in Tiananmen Square they will have more difficulty pushing back the horde .

DC

As we discussed before ;I think an interesting test case is occurring currently in China . They have embraced state controlled capitalism and on the surface appear to be having quite a bit of success. The question remains; (and Elliot's comments to my response concur );if what they are constructing is in fact a Potamkin village.

I suspect that what they are creating is an educated middle class that has some pocket change that will soon realize that they have not obtained the liberties that they should've with their new prosperity . I suspect that the next time the tanks roll in Tiananmen Square they will have more difficulty pushing back the horde .
Somewhere; and I don’t recall the source, said “Australia is successfully both.” I never found an explanation as to how that was the case. Whatever the case, I am well acquainted with world history, but quite short of knowledge in economics.

It is my understanding that under the capitalistic economic system, individuals own all resources and governments’ role is to protect the individuals’ private property rights.

Under this system, an individual has the inherent right to hold whatever property they can honestly acquire, because property itself has no rights. The socialist, on the other hand, deny that an individual has inherent rights of any sort, and that there is no proof to show cause and therefore deny inherent rights.

Now unless we follow the philosophy of pragmatism, all hinges on whether there are inherent human rights, or there are not.

Can they co-exist? I assume you mean within the same system. To my way of thinking, the answer is no. But people and governments keep trying to accomplish it anyway.

The most successful system that I have seen so far that has been able to integrate socialism and capitalism into a single system is in Israel. The kibutzim of Israel are socialist communes in which all members of the commune own everything together. All assets, liabilities, income and expenses are shared equally. However, the kibbutzim exist within a capitalist nation. The kibbutzim produce a product or products (usually a single major product for the commune that most adults are involved with creating) which is then sold in the open market of the Israeli capitalis system.

So in essence, what you have is a socialist entity existing within a capitalist system, and producing and selling something within the capitalist markets.

Does it work? To an extent. Since each kibbutz is self-reliant and separate from every other kibbutz and every other capitalist business in the country, the kibbutz must remain competitive in order to support itself. That eliminates the biggest problem in socialism: lack of competition and motivation. In most socialist entities, the problem is to get everyone to produce to their highest ability when there is no incentive to do so. People are getting paid whether they produce or not, so why bother to produce. But in the Israeli system, the kibbutz must produce and do so successfully, or else it will fail and its members will go hungry. Competition still exists, and so there is motivation to produce. So the biggest problem with socialism is mostly eliminated.

The problem is within the kibbutz... those who are more productive within the kibbutz eventually get fed up with those in the kibbutz who are less productive, but are getting the same compensation that they are. So they eventually leave the kibbutz and fully join the capitalist system that rewards them based on their efforts. Eventually the kibbutz is left only with those who are either diehard fanatics of the socialist system, or else those who are less productive. Quality and production suffer, and the kibbutz becomes less lucrative. Privledges are cut back as cost cutting measures, the members become dissatisfied and leave the kibbutz, and the kibbutz eventually fails. That is why there are fewer and fewer kibbutzim every year in Israel. Those that are still around are the ones who have become more capitalistic in their model, granting incentives and bonuses for higher quality work or greater production. In other words, they become semi-capitalist, with some socialist leanings rather than true socialists.

So can we call this a true integration of capitalism and socialism? Or is it really capitalism with a few socialist concepts thrown in, such as sharing of burdens, expenses and liabilities? I think it is more of the latter.

Israel, does have a successful and effective government-run healthcare system for those who cannot afford private medicine, and it can be argued that that is a form of integrated socialism and capitalism. But it must be noted that in that case government healthcare is only one choice among many for healthcare. Government-run healthcare is an ALTERNATIVE, and if you don't like that alternative, you can obtain private medicine or get a job in which the employer pays for part or all of your healthcare. So "socialized medicine" in that case is forced to remain competitive with private medicine due to market forces, just like any private medical system must. Given that, the system can really be called a capitalist private medical system with a government run choice that sits alongside all the other private medicine choices. And to be fair, the doctors in the government run healthcare system (called Kupat Cholim) are excellent at their jobs... because they compete with the private market.

So while many might look at Israel as an example of capitalism and socialism working together, I believe that the system is really a capitalist system with a few socialist concepts thrown in. They tried real socialism and it failed. They tried socialism combined with capitalism, and it failed. So now they have a system that is essentially capitalist with a few government-run or commune-run institutions that must remain competitive in the capitalist marketplace.

I can live with that.

Can they co-exist? I assume you mean within the same system. To my way of thinking, the answer is no. But people and governments keep trying to accomplish it anyway.

The most successful system that I have seen so far that has been able to integrate socialism and capitalism into a single system is in Israel. The kibutzim of Israel are socialist communes in which all members of the commune own everything together. All assets, liabilities, income and expenses are shared equally. However, the kibbutzim exist within a capitalist nation. The kibbutzim produce a product or products (usually a single major product for the commune that most adults are involved with creating) which is then sold in the open market of the Israeli capitalis system.

So in essence, what you have is a socialist entity existing within a capitalist system, and producing and selling something within the capitalist markets.

Does it work? To an extent. Since each kibbutz is self-reliant and separate from every other kibbutz and every other capitalist business in the country, the kibbutz must remain competitive in order to support itself. That eliminates the biggest problem in socialism: lack of competition and motivation. In most socialist entities, the problem is to get everyone to produce to their highest ability when there is no incentive to do so. People are getting paid whether they produce or not, so why bother to produce. But in the Israeli system, the kibbutz must produce and do so successfully, or else it will fail and its members will go hungry. Competition still exists, and so there is motivation to produce. So the biggest problem with socialism is mostly eliminated.

The problem is within the kibbutz... those who are more productive within the kibbutz eventually get fed up with those in the kibbutz who are less productive, but are getting the same compensation that they are. So they eventually leave the kibbutz and fully join the capitalist system that rewards them based on their efforts. Eventually the kibbutz is left only with those who are either diehard fanatics of the socialist system, or else those who are less productive. Quality and production suffer, and the kibbutz becomes less lucrative. Privledges are cut back as cost cutting measures, the members become dissatisfied and leave the kibbutz, and the kibbutz eventually fails. That is why there are fewer and fewer kibbutzim every year in Israel. Those that are still around are the ones who have become more capitalistic in their model, granting incentives and bonuses for higher quality work or greater production. In other words, they become semi-capitalist, with some socialist leanings rather than true socialists.

So can we call this a true integration of capitalism and socialism? Or is it really capitalism with a few socialist concepts thrown in, such as sharing of burdens, expenses and liabilities? I think it is more of the latter.

Israel, does have a successful and effective government-run healthcare system for those who cannot afford private medicine, and it can be argued that that is a form of integrated socialism and capitalism. But it must be noted that in that case government healthcare is only one choice among many for healthcare. Government-run healthcare is an ALTERNATIVE, and if you don't like that alternative, you can obtain private medicine or get a job in which the employer pays for part or all of your healthcare. So "socialized medicine" in that case is forced to remain competitive with private medicine due to market forces, just like any private medical system must. Given that, the system can really be called a capitalist private medical system with a government run choice that sits alongside all the other private medicine choices. And to be fair, the doctors in the government run healthcare system (called Kupat Cholim) are excellent at their jobs... because they compete with the private market.

So while many might look at Israel as an example of capitalism and socialism working together, I believe that the system is really a capitalist system with a few socialist concepts thrown in. They tried real socialism and it failed. They tried socialism combined with capitalism, and it failed. So now they have a system that is essentially capitalist with a few government-run or commune-run institutions that must remain competitive in the capitalist marketplace.

I can live with that.
I think you paint a clear picture there.

It is apparent that Israel, as a Socialist experiment has failed, in both the economic system, as well as the secular.

“Religious life in Israel has flourished to the point of tension with secular Jews. What has not changed in 50 years is Israel's role as a refuge for immigrants. Jewish newcomers from 100 countries created what is called a mosaic, not a melting pot.”

Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly . COVER STORY . Israel's 50th Anniversary, Part Two . May 8, 1998 | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week136/cover.html)

In my opinion , ah.. no.


Lets take roads.
How many times do you go through construction sites on the interstates, and for miles and miles of cones reducing it to one lane from 2 or more, you don't see anyone doing anything? Your tax dollars at work.

Compare medicare part d vs walmart or local pharmacy pricing for generic drugs.
Compare $4 co-pays for a month of a generic drug [say walmart] vs $8 co-pays [ in my area ] if you are a veteran for that same generic drug if it is not service related.


Perhaps only the armed services are best government run.


I think it is only human nature to work harder for yourself than for anyone else, and spend more when it is not your money that you are spending.


Grace and Peace

Perhaps only the armed services are best government run.

From a purely Constitutional Originalist perspective, the only things that the government should be running are the military/police forces, governing of interstate commerce, running the mail system (and by extension, one could argue the phone systems as well), and maintenance and repair of roads. The federal government has no constitutional role in anything else. Imagine the taxes and wasted spending we would save if the government stuck to its Constitutionally mandated role.


I think it is only human nature to work harder for yourself than for anyone else, and spend more when it is not your money that you are spending.

Yes, that would seem to jive with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory. I agree.


Grace and Peace

Shalom u'bracha to you too.

Elliot

Can socialism and capitalism work together in the same country?

IMHO , ah.. no.


Lets take roads.
How many times do you go thru construction sites on the interstates, and for miles and miles of cones reducing it to one lane from 2 or more, you don't see anyone doing anything? Your tax dollars at work.

Compare medicare part d vs walmart or local pharmacy pricing for generic drugs.
Compare $4 co-pays for a month of a generic drug [say walmart] vs $8 co-pays [ in my area ] if you are a veteran for that same generic drug if it is not service related.


Perhaps only the armed services are best government run.


I think it is only human nature to work harder for yourself than for anyone else, and spend more when it is not your money that you are spending.


Grace and Peace

========================================

Hi Grace,

Usually it is cheaper to have the special crew that looks after protecting the worksite
do it with lower cost help.. What a waste of talent it would be
to use the machine operators and the concrete formers to set up a mile of cones and barricades.

So, they may be a few hours ahead of the construction crew.. Small price to pay for doing it efficiently.. Concrete and asphalt also have to be scheduled to arrive at the right time... Would you want the crew standing leaning on a shovel waiting
for the materials ?

Somewhere; and I don’t recall the source, said “Australia is successfully both.” I never found an explanation as to how that was the case. Whatever the case, I am well acquainted with world history, but quite short of knowledge in economics.

It is my understanding that under the capitalistic economic system, individuals own all resources and governments’ role is to protect the individuals’ private property rights.

Under this system, an individual has the inherent right to hold whatever property they can honestly acquire, because property itself has no rights. The socialist, on the other hand, deny that an individual has inherent rights of any sort, and that there is no proof to show cause and therefore deny inherent rights.

Now unless we follow the philosophy of pragmatism, all hinges on whether there are inherent human rights, or there are not.

Australia works very well as a guided economy, capitalism operates where it is possible for business to profit and grow and essential services are provided by government with emphasis on universal health care, education, transport and proper access to social services for the disadvantaged and unemployed. It is useful to note that this economy is suffering less impacts from the economic crisis because the cowboys of capitalism are restricted from gaming the system and that is the real difference between the unfettered capitalism of the US and the socialism of Australia. No-one wants the state owing everything and dictating every aspect of daily life but sometimes someone has to take responsibility and that is best handled in a socialist style state

I majored in government and politics in college and I swear that someplace down the line of courses I took, there was an essay test question quite like this one.

I learned that socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production. While this is a capitalist country, we have a government agency in my area called WSSC, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. They are a government agency that provides water and sewer service. The subway system is also run by a government agency that has its own police force. The electric power company in this area is not considered a government agency, but they are strictly regulated by the government. There are both public and private roads in this area. Then of course there is the Post Office, which is a government agency created by the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 8.

The thinking seems to be that it is a good idea to "socialize" things that are essential to society. If socialism is limited in this way, it certainly can work in a capitalist society. It seems pretty obvious to me, however, that too much socialism in a capitalist country can cause economic problems as the government takes over a bigger and bigger slice of the total economic activity.

The Soviet Union had a socialist economy and couldn't even figure out how to do what capitalists do in the U.S. every day-keep the grocery store shelves stocked.

I majored in government and politics in college and I swear that someplace down the line of courses I took, there was an essay test question quite like this one.

I learned that socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production. While this is a capitalist country, we have a government agency in my area called WSSC, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. They are a government agency that provides water and sewer service. The subway system is also run by a government agency that has its own police force. The electric power company in this area is not considered a government agency, but they are strictly regulated by the government. There are both public and private roads in this area. Then of course there is the Post Office, which is a government agency created by the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 8.

The thinking seems to be that it is a good idea to "socialize" things that are essential to society. If socialism is limited in this way, it certainly can work in a capitalist society. It seems pretty obvious to me, however, that too much socialism in a capitalist country can cause economic problems as the government takes over a bigger and bigger slice of the total economic activity.

The Soviet Union had a socialist economy and couldn't even figure out how to do what capitalists do in the U.S. every day-keep the grocery store shelves stocked.

Jim I don't know what you would think but the government here has just announced a takeover of the state run public hospital system. It seems that sometimes government run systems are not efficient and have to be bailed out and sometimes private enterprise needs to be restricted because the profit motive takes over as in the US HMO system. The Soviet system was flawed because the state took over everything and took away incentive; that is a bad system, too much concentration of market power, but sometimes the only way a corrupt system can be reformed is by a complete change such as communism as an interim system, China is slowly emerging from such a transition and eventually communism will give way because the market power in the hands of the people will be greater but strong government will still be needed to look after the interests of the peasants who have no market power and who will not be looked after in a capitalism system. This is the glaring flaw of the capitalist system and thus far america has not contributed an answer

“Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.”
Winston Churchill

Capitalism is flawed because we are flawed. But it's also the best that we can do. All communism can do is to keep people equally destitute.

Yes there is an assumption that it operates in a moral society and that may be it's flaw in this age of relativism.
However ,Adam Smith argued that despite the moral foundation of the society ,benevolence occures because it is in the selfish interest of the giver .

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.
Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Smith also addressed government ownership .

In every great monarchy of Europe the sale of the crown lands would produce a very large sum of money, which, if applied to the payment of the public debts, would deliver from mortgage a much greater revenue than any which those lands have ever afforded to the crown...When the crown lands had become private property, they would, in the course of a few years, become well-improved and well-cultivated...the revenue which the crown derives from the duties of customs and excise, would necessarily increase with the revenue and consumption of the people.

And the weakness of government ownership of enterprise .

Princes, however, have frequently engaged in many other mercantile projects, and have been willing, like private persons, to mend their fortunes by becoming adventurers in the common branches of trade. They have scarce ever succeeded. The profusion with which the affairs of princes are always managed, renders it almost impossible that they should. The agents of a prince regard the wealth of their master as inexhaustible; are careless at what price they buy; are careless at what price they sell; are careless at what expense they transport his goods from one place to another... No two characters seem more inconsistent than those of trader and sovereign.

Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations


Capitalism did not fail in America. It hasn't been tried yet or if America was ever Capitalist ,it was abandoned as an economic system long before I was born.


The centrally controlled monetary and financial systems, and the government dominated, over-regulated business sector failed.

Fannie and Freddie were hardly capitalist institutions. The Federal Reserve is hardly capitalist. The banks are a cartel, and not capitalist at all.

What is fatally flawed is a system that doesn't let individuals succeed or fail on the basis of their own efforts .

Paraclete, I'm not arguing for or angainst any particular system, obviously both socialism and capitalism have their flaws. In the case of the Soviet Union, even the great distances that goods had to be transported caused problems.

I'm not sure how "the government" could take over a state run hospital system, if its state-run its already government controlled, isn't it? Do you mean the federal government took it over?

While I appreciate you analysis of the "one flaw of capitalism", I think it is much more complicated than that. I think one major flaw in our system is that prices have increased over the years and wages have not. When I got out of the military in 1967, I was able to rent an apartment, own a car, have extra money to spend, and go to college with VA benefits with a job paying $3.17 per hour.

Yes Jim I was talking about the machinations of a federal system where the States have become bankrupt and a federal bailout becomes necessary.
The condition you speak of is one in which the market is allowed to determine wages and it is a great flaw of capitalism to think that the people have collective power over the market in this respect you can achieve some outcomes on a case by case basis if there are strong unions but there is no natural flow on so that ultimately workers price themselves out of the market as in the auto industry. In Australia we have understood this a little better and so minimum wages are regularly reviewed even if they are barely above poverty level but our system has been at the cost of migration of industries just as your has. Capitalism has no social conscience

Yes I think the "conscience" problem is one that can apply to both socialism and capitalism and was partucularly acute during the early days of the industrial revolution when, for example, kids were working long hours in dangerous factory conditions for low wages. We have come a long way since then and the government here and other places has heard the "cries" of those abused by the system and passed laws to protect them to some degree.

Minimum wage and OSHA laws are examples. But, of course, there are always caiptalists who get up in the morning and say "I'm going to raise prices today" while it is more difficult for workers to say "I'm going to get a raise today."

I understand your statement about workers pricing themselves out of the market and this is of course compounded by countries like China who flood other countries like the U.S with cheap products, some of which were pirated from other peoples patented products and produced by people who are either prisoners or have no rights at all when it comes to determine their financial destiny, not to mention the corruption and lack of quality in the stuff they send here.

I think that the current econmic situation will cause another wave of regs which attempt to regn in raw "capitalism."

China is not to blame for producing poor products, Japan once used to turn out junk but they learned that quality is important but it is capitalism that is exploiting the poor in China. If you go there you cannot help but be amazed by the spread and availability of western brands, it is the western capitalists that have transferred their manufacturing to China to exploit cheap labour and they have the complicity of the Chinese communists who want to see economic development they cannot produce for themselves.
The US government is responsible for the current economic situation, however the rest of the world also has to pay for their largesse. You cannot throw money in the form of cheap credit to the poor and expect them to behave responsibly. They have no experience and are easily taken advantage of by the quick money merchants therefore capitalism must be fettered by social responsibility.

I am not an expert. Are we about to see if Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist? Obahma's latest healthcare request is so not based on reality that I had hopes it would not pass. But even on these pages, there are ad's for people to come to the Health Care Insurance Companies for your free health care insurance. They are educating the public. The cost of supplemental insurance is $0 to $40 a month. The masses will pile on to them wanting and trusting that they are not paying with their lifestyle. But only $40 a month.

But what is unreal is they want to cut Medicare expenses to help pay for this insurance. The one thing that provides and gives many, many people healthcare that could not afford it otherwise. How can that work?

If the Insurance companies did not already know that putting this proposal to the vote was just a show, that it might not pass, would they spend the advertising money like this?

That's two questions . If that is not allowed leave out the Medicare statement, please.

I think all this problem of health care in the US is very sad and I say that from the perspective of a nation who gets universal health care for a tax surcharge of 1.5% on the higher earners and I also have health insurance because to beat the waiting lists in public hospitals you have to. The key to the system is controlling and moderating doctors fees and the cost of pharmacy. There is some disincentive but doctors are still among the highest earners so they don't really lose out and no one is placed in a situation of not being able to afford care and having to pay extortinate charges up front for care

Hi Shady,

I did not hear that the insurance companies are being so co-operative with the uninsured.. My guess is that they are so freaked out by what has happened to financial institutions and the Auto companies, that they are rushing to present
their case before there is a rushed crisis vote on this again, but in the Senate.
If that happens, it will become law after the Prez signs it.

The problem with private insurance is the premiums and the exclusions for pre-existing conditions. If you are 18 to 35, and not employed by a big company with a good benefit plan, you are being soaked even though you may not use the insurance for any more than a childbirthing or two.
If you are at such a low risk of needing that insurance, people are smart enough to know that paying $5000 or more per year for family coverage is a rip off.
They would rather spend the money on a new vehicle or a trip to Disney World.

When you add to that, today's greatly reduced chances of landing a job that pays more than $30K a year, it is easy to see why so many do not bother with insurance unless they know that their health is going to fail soon.

A lot of people are fearful about government insurance because of the contract with
GE to handle the electronic record-keeping ( remember the last stimulus that was rushed through without being read?) That included $6 Billion to be used to set up the Electronic record system. (Nice of GE to be so co-operative)
Why is this feared? Simple.. If the Socialized Medicine should fail, will those
records end up in the hands of Private Insurance companies so that they can deny
coverage to bad risks?
Will the government safeguard that information, or will they sell it to the highest bidders anyway, even if they do maintain Socialized Medicine?

Will the government use the record system to police the bad habits of the obese,
the diabetic, the frequently injured, the smokers, ot just plain junk food consumption?
You say "how could this happen?" Simple... You compare the family's grocery
buying habits with their use of the medical system.
(Too many twinkies may spell early heart attacks.)
Will the purchase of ammunition link to death by hunting? Will hunting be
outlawed if it harms too many?




============================================



I am not an expert. Are we about to see if Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist? Obahma's latest healthcare request is so not based on reality that I had hopes it would not pass. But even on these pages, there are ad's for people to come to the Health Care Insurance Companies for your free health care insurance. They are educating the public. The cost of supplemental insurance is $0 to $40 a month. The masses will pile on to them wanting and trusting that they are not paying with their lifestyle. but only $40 a month.

But what is unreal is they want to cut Medicare expenses to help pay for this insurance. The one thing that provides and gives many, many people healthcare that could not afford it otherwise. How can that work?

If the Insurance companies did not already know that putting this proposal to the vote was just a show, that it might not pass, would they spend the advertising money like this?

That's two questions . if that is not allowed leave out the Medicare statement, please.

[QUOTE=thePard;1849838]Hi Shady,

I did not hear that the insurance companies are being so co-operative with the uninsured.. My guess is that they are so freaked out by what has happened to financial institutions and the Auto companies, that they are rushing to present
Their case before there is a rushed crisis vote on this again, but in the Senate.
If that happens, it will become law after the Prez signs it.

The problem with private insurance is the premiums and the exclusions for pre-existing conditions. If you are 18 to 35, and not employed by a big company with a good benefit plan, you are being soaked even though you may not use the insurance for any more than a childbirthing or two.
If you are at such a low risk of needing that insurance, people are smart enough to know that paying $5000 or more per year for family coverage is a rip off.
They would rather spend the money on a new vehicle or a trip to Disney World.

When you add to that, today's greatly reduced chances of landing a job that pays more than $30K a year, it is easy to see why so many do not bother with insurance unless they know that their health is going to fail soon.

A lot of people are fearful about government insurance because of the contract with
GE to handle the electronic record-keeping ( remember the last stimulus that was rushed through without being read?) That included $6 Billion to be used to set up the Electronic record system. (Nice of GE to be so co-operative)
Why is this feared? Simple.. If the Socialized Medicine should fail, will those
Records end up in the hands of Private Insurance companies so that they can deny
Coverage to bad risks?
Will the government safeguard that information, or will they sell it to the highest bidders anyway, even if they do maintain Socialized Medicine?

Will the government use the record system to police the bad habits of the obese,
The diabetic, the frequently injured, the smokers, ot just plain junk food consumption?
You say "how could this happen?" Simple... You compare the family's grocery
Buying habits with their use of the medical system.
(Too many twinkies may spell early heart attacks.)
Will the purchase of ammunition link to death by hunting? Will hunting be
Outlawed if it harms too many?

Can I say your post appears very paranoid. To think that the information might be misused is not a good reason for everyone not to get health care. Yes, it is possible but you are talking of a conspiracy on an unprecedented scale.

In the system I live in, there is no overt use of the data to modify patient behaviour, but there might be monitoring to modify physician behaviour, such as observing and curbing overbilling. The reality is there must be trust, trust that the patient will observe the charges made, and query if needed, and trust that the physician is generally honest and not interested in gaming the system, you also have to trust the government, trust that they generally do want the best possible care to be provided. Don't give up the possibility of improvement for millions because you don't trust the existing system. Take the profit incentive out of medicine and you will get a better outcome.

To me there is a big difference between socialism and building roads with taxpayer money for the good of all. Government in either type society must tax in order to provide those services which are for the benefit of and are necessary to provide freedom and security for all. Roads, police, fire departments,schools,and a national defense.
In my view the only place socialism and capitalism co-exist is in the animal kingdom. Take a pride of lions for example. They are socialists in that each is required to perform a service for the pride, hunting, protecting, bearing and caring for offspring. There's the socialist part. In return the pride feeds all member and protects all members. The capitalist part is the strongest amongst the pride, the ones that kill the prey or fend off the enemy get to eat first and best. If a member is weak the pride will make an effort to protect it to a point, but when it becomes certain that member will never be able to contribute its required services it is cast out or left behind to fend for itself and is ultimately killed. Today,in the USA it seems to me we have abandoned that mentality to the point where we have begun to encourage weakness, to reward weakness. We have taught the weak in society to breed more weakness. By weakness I mean an inability or unwillingness to contribute to the group a service. Because we are human we abhore the concept of leaving the weak to fend for themselves. If a pride of lions did that eventually the pride would be destroyed and since we can't seem to break the cycle of encouraging and rewarding weakness it seems to me our society will also be destroyed.

I think everyone is going about this the wrong way. If socialism and capitalism were to coexist they would have to operate independent of each other. When the state controls private industry and private industry controls the state, you have neither capitalism nor socialism you have corporatism. For this coexisting idea to work you have have to have socialism that is made up of a socialized sector, a public,cooperative sector which is free from private business all together. Along side the socialized sector you would need a free market that is free from control from the state. Granted, socialists might be terrified of the completely free market and capitalists might be terrified of the totally state owned socialized sector, but this is the only way I see true socialism coexisting with true capitalism.

They can coexist in a single, the theory is called Social-Capitalism, its an idea where the working and middle class rely on government owned infrastructure (public housing, public education) and programs (welfare, socialized health care, state union) to help them find work and provide housing, as well as effective health and educational system. The "Capitalist" class will profit off the government protected working class.

Example: The working class work in socialized, or government owned, industrial complexes. That produce products for the "Capitalist" class to profit it off.

This theory is so the working class well have their needs satisfied (education, health, housing, employment) and still produce the product demands of the "Capitalist" class. This will in turn lower our need for foreign imports and out sourced labor, making the nation self sufficient economically. As well as increase exports, which will increase national profit