[ETWolverine]

I don't agree, but the beauty is that we will see if we live long enough. Capitalism is going down, just as did the Roman Empire. J.B Haldane was correct when he wrote: Capitalism did not arise because capitalists stole the land or the workmen’s tools, but because it was more efficient than feudalism. It will perish because it is not merely less efficient than socialism, but actually self-destructive. (J.B.S. Haldane, I Believe)

You truly believe that?

I suppose that the socialist system in the Soviet Union is still alive and working well.

I suppose that China's socialist system is efficiently feeding its people.

I suppose that the socialist system in North Korea is efficiently helping their economy move along.

I suppose the fact that the UK and Canada are both looking at injecting their single-payer government-run health care system with private supplemental health care is not a sign that their system is failing.

Socialism doesn't work on a large scale. In fact, even on the small scale it has failed miserably. There is a reason that most of the kibbutzim (communes) in Israel have failed and become PRIVATE CORPORATE ENTITIES instead. The kibbutz was supposed to be the model of socialism on a small scale, the one the whole world has been watching to see how it worked out. But after 60 years it has failed in almost all kibbutzim.

There is NOTHING efficient about socialism. Socialism neither distributes it's products efficiently, nor does it produce those products efficiently. That is why it fails every time.

Socialism is a failed experiment. It is an offshoot of the very feudalism that Capitalism replaced. What is the difference between the Lord of the Land that makes centralized decisions about how the people live their lives, produce their products, distribute their services, and run the methods of production, and a Centralized Government that makes centralized decisions about how the people live their lives, produce their products, distribute their services, and run the methods of production. Feudalism IS socialism IS fascism. At their essence they are all the same... centralized control over the lives of individuals and the methods of production and consumption. Every attempt at centralized control throughout history has failed, most often resulting in the deaths and suffering of millions. What makes you think that THIS TIME it will work better?

Capitalism is the only system that allows individuals the ability to control their own production methods, consumption methods, distribution methods, and use of the proceeds. It allows people to choose for themselves based on what works best for them. If one method fails, people are able to try other methods until they get it right, on a scale where the failure of one person does not cause the failure of everyone else. That makes the system as a whole more flexible to begin with. It also rewards hard work, skill and talent, so that those with a particular talent or skill have an incentive to work harder to develop that skill and talent... as opposed to everyone being paid the same for the same job, whether they are good at it or not and whether they actually do the work or not. That is a more efficient compensation system. It allows people to CHANGE what they do for a living, which is something that is not encouraged in a centralized-decision-making system. People can purchase whatever they wish without having to get government permission, because production meets demand in a capitalist system, whereas there are quotas and limits on production in a government-run system.

I do agree with you on one point: the American system is indeed failing. But it is not failing because the system is a capitalist system. It is failing because it is NO LONGER a capitalist system.

The sub-prime mortgage mess that started this whole recession is the fault of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the lending practices of banks via FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC and the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT which FORCED banks to make loans that they otherwise would not have made because they were BAD LOANS. If not for government intervention (aka Central Planning) there never would have been a sub-prime loan program, much less a derivatives market for them.

If not for the unions (centralized planning again) and their demands for uninterrupted benefits for their RETIRED MEMBERS (who are no longer productive members of the union or the businesses) for decades after their retirement, the auto companies would not have found themselves involved in bad union contracts that drove up the costs of cars unnecessarily. If not for government-mandated regulation (central planning again) of gas mileage efficiencies, the costs of development of new automobiles would be about 20% lower than they are. If not for this government and union intervention, GM would not have gone bankrupt in the first place. They would be selling their cars like hotcakes, because they would have been CHEAPER and could have competed with the foreign companies that sell cars in the USA. The centralized-planning model is what killed the auto industry.

Socialism is what is killing the US economy, not capitalism. We haven't been a true capitalist society since FDR centralized planning for "recovery" from the Great Depression... especially when his Supreme Court ruled in favor of government control of private production for personal use in Wikard v. Fillburn (1942). The Wikard case eliminated free markets and private consumption and opened the door to the government controlling all means of production under the "interstate commerce clause" whether production was meant to be placed in the market or just for personal use. From that day forward, government was in control of everything we produce and consume. That is the day we were no longer a free-market capitalist economy and became a "central-planning" economy.

So yes, the US economy is failing. But it is the socialist ethos that is killing it, not capitalism. Capitalism is what will SAVE it.

Elliot

[amdeist]

Your points are irrelevant. Capitalism is a dying concept in the United States. You can whine all you want about the reasons. Blame it on Madoff, AIG, Lehman Bros, or the thousands of other firms that are illiquid and have borrowed themselved into oblivian. Blame it on Americans who wised up and removed the Republican Leadership. Facts are facts, and the neo-conservative ideology has proven itself to be a huge mistake. I still blame our demise on the last eight years of irresponsible administration.

In the GDP growth department, last year India came in at 6.7%, Russia at 8.1%, Brazil at 5.08% and China a staggering 9%. Compare that to the United States' -6.3%, and you start to get an idea about why they consider themselves superior to America and her economy.

No matter how much you may think those numbers are manipulated, the bottom line is that they are all ahead of the West by light years. They are in regions that were once shackled by the constraints of socialism and outright communism, and are just now breaking free into the light. (Meanwhile the United States is steadily advancing its war on capitalism by increasing debilitating taxation and regulation by the day!)

To put this even more into perspective, the United States has a GDP of about $14 trillion annually. Comparatively, Brazil is at $1.9 trillion, Russia at $2 trillion, India at $1.2 trillion, and China at $4.3 trillion. That means that the combined output of these four nations barely equals two-thirds of the United States.

[NeedKarma]

So yes, the US economy is failing. But it is the socialist ethos that is killing it, not capitalism.

You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.

To wit: http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...looks_like.php

Have you heard that the United States is headed toward socialism? Jonah Goldberg says it is. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby says it is. Phyllis Schlafly says it is. Richard Viguerie says it is. The Republican National Committee says it is. We must be getting pretty close.

How close? This is what socialism looks like:

Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.

[amdeist]

You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.

To wit: What Socialism Looks Like - Conor Clarke

Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.

You are right on. Most Americans don't have a clue about what socialism is all about. They have heard that the other western countries that have national health care are suffering, yet the American capitalist health care system costs more per capita than any in the world, yet more than 40 million of that capita don't have health care benefits. Last evening, ABC news reported from a poll that 87% of Americans are satisifed with our health care system. That is a strange number because more than 15 percent don't have any health care insurance, and the number is growing daily. I would be hard pressed to believe that 87 percent of military members that have free health care are satisfied with their system. The people polled must have been those who have good health care insurance policies. Another strange anomaly is that most of the people in the military are for capitalism, when their very survival has been made possible by a socialist system. Yes, getting paid for your uniforms, your health care, your housing, and your retirement is not captialism, but socialism, and a significant number of military members retire and go to work for companies that are government contractors. Capitalism, I don't think so!

[tomder55]

Let's talk about that expensive health care we pay for . Would cost be reduced in a public plan ? Not if you look at the figures for the biggest public provided plan we currently operate.



Medicare was created in 1965 to provide health care for Americans 65 and over. When introduced ,estimates of the hospital insurance portion ,Part A, would cost $9 billion by 1990. The real cost was $66 billion.
Parts A through C, was estimated $12 billion by 1990, but Medicare spent $107 billion in its first 25 years.
When Congress added Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits in 2003, the cost was estimated at $534 billion over 10 years.
Less than two years later, the government revised the figure to an estimate of $1.2 trillion over its first decade.

Another example is Medicaid's special hospital subsidy . That was estimated to cost $100 million in 1987 . But the real costs are $11 billion.

Sen Baucus estimates with a very rosy projection that the Dem plan will cost $1 trillion .He claims to have stripped $600 billion from the bill .

But Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, ranking minority member of the House Ways and Means Committee says that the public option plan going around Congress now according to
"independent, nonpartisan analysis cost $3.5 trillion (and again history shows that gvt. Rarely comes in below estimated costs )

I look at all these rosy estimates of savings as I do when comparing Boston's Big Dig ( a simple stretch of highway) . That was estimated at $2.6 Billion in 1985 . Real costs are more than $14.6 billion .

Now here's the real kicker. This is supposed to help provide care for the uninsured ? Well the study Camp cited also says that the public-option program will "likely crowd out 64 million individual contracts with existing private insurers."

Either they will be forced to sign onto the public plan ;or they will join the ranks of the uninsured . And if they join the public plan expect the costs to further sky rocket.

[speechlesstx]

You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.

I'm quite certain he does.

Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.

And let's see what Goldberg said, it's also quite interesting.

Don't Call It 'Socialism'!

The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.

Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)

And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.

For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."

THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM

The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."

Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)

For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.

Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?

When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."

WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE

Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.

Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."

Conor Clarke either didn't read the article, is not intelligent enough to understand what Goldberg said, is in denial - or just plain dishonest.

[tomder55]

I do agree with you on one point: the American system is indeed failing. But it is not failing because the system is a capitalist system. It is failing because it is NO LONGER a capitalist system.

Mark Levin nails it in 'Liberty and Tyranny '

"So distant is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist's agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. What, then, is it? It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism."

Capitalism is a dying concept in the United States....

I wouldn't know since I haven't seen it practiced in my lifetime . However I'd like to give it a try. I've seen this drift towards nanny state since before my parents were born and I think it's destructive.

[excon]

Hello Righty's

An editorial note. If I wanted to read what righty's write, I would. That's why I don't post what lefty's write, because you're not interested, and you're not going to read it.

I'm interested in what YOU have to say. So, you don't bolster your arguments with me when you do that.

excon

[excon]

I've seen this drift towards nanny state since before my parents were born and I think it's destructive.

Hello again, tom:

Well, that's Obama's fault for sure.

excon

[tickle]

Hello Righty's

An editorial note. If I wanted to read what righty's write, I would. That's why I don't post what lefty's write, because you're not interested, and you're not gonna read it.

I'm interested in what YOU have to say. So, you don't bolster your arguments with me when you do that.

excon

. I don't know how anyone on this thread can find anything new to say about the situation with medical coverage socialized or not in either Canada or the US. It has all been re-hashed, chopped up and spit out so many times it is nauseating.

Ms tickle
cert. Personal Support Worker and Registered Nurses Aid in Ontario:rolleyes:

[inthebox]

You are right on. Most Americans don't have a clue about what socialism is all about. They have heard that the other western countries that have national health care are suffering, yet the American capitalist health care system costs more per capita than any in the world, yet more than 40 million of that capita don't have health care benefits. Last evening, ABC news reported from a poll that 87% of Americans are satisifed with our health care system. That is a strange number because more than 15 percent don't have any health care insurance, and the number is growing daily. I would be hard pressed to believe that 87 percent of military members that have free health care are satisfied with their system. The people polled must have been those who have good health care insurance policies. Another strange anomaly is that most of the people in the military are for capitalism, when their very survival has been made possible by a socialist system. Yes, getting paid for your uniforms, your health care, your housing, and your retirement is not captialism, but socialism, and a significant number of military members retire and go to work for companies that are government contractors. Capitalism, I don't think so!

Having personal worked in the VA system and in now in the private healthcare system, I can tell you for a fact that most veterans use the system to get their medications. That is one of the few advantages. The other is that the VA completely uses electronic records and can therefore get and use the data to promote best practices based on the evidence.

However; most veterans also understand the compromises with the system: distant referral centers, waits for specialty care, perhaps a higher percentage of foreign medical grads and practice extenders [PAs, NPs instead of doctors ].

Most realize that better care is available privately and locally. It may cost more but is worth it. It really is a shame because veterans deserve better. As a whole these men and women are more grateful and appreciative than the average civilian.






G&P

[tomder55]

An editorial note
I have included in my postings both contemporary and historical quotes before ;and will continue to do so.

[NeedKarma]

An editorial note
I have included in my postings both contemporary and historical quotes before ;and will continue to do so.

Oh goodie!

One question: why?

[tomder55]

Because sometimes they say it better than I can and the reference is important to the content of the debate... and I like doing it.

I don't tell anyone else how to conduct themselves here and will only comply with the rules set by the administrators of the site...

[NeedKarma]

Alrighty then, keep spamming away.

[tomder55]

Sounds like your MO
Spam posts may contain anything from a single link, to dozens of links. Text content is minimal, usually innocuous and unrelated to the forum's topic
Forum spam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[NeedKarma]

Yep, I'm sure all those green reputation boxes are because I spam.


It almost seems like you are posting to convince yourself of something.

[tomder55]

Nope

Replying to Excon's "editorial note "

[speechlesstx]

This is the second article on this subject I've read in the last few weeks...

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.

But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.

"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.

Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.

"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.

Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.

"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.

"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.

Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.

If Canadian health care is so great then why is private practice booming?

[amdeist]

This is the second article on this subject I've read in the last few weeks...

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business



If Canadian health care is so great then why is private practice booming?

Private practice will boom in United States as well if we institute National Health Insurance. What is amazing, though, is that Americans look at Canada or England to justify why Universal Health Care doesn't work. What about Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and other Western Nations that have national health care? I just wrote Senator Bill Nelson about National Health Insurance. Americans don't need health insurance. They need health care. A health insurance based system will breed the same capitalist problems as did our financial system. Fraud, greed, lawsuits, overspending on technolgoy, etc. A system like the military and VA eliminates almost all of the excess costs. The government controls labor costs, material costs, licensure of providers, claims, lawsuits, etc. I spent 20years as a recipient of military health care and 12 years working in the system, and yes, there are complaints, but look at the $1.5 Billion in lawsuits in the civilian sector. Any system that motivates greed will not only increase costs, but lower quality!