Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

[vh]

Why do you want a Government to handle everything for you?  Why give up control over your own life, the choices and decisions you can make for your own life.

because you don't give up control of your own life.

[phinehas]

Why do you want a Government to handle everything for you?  Why give up control over your own life, the choices and decisions you can make for your own life.

because you don't give up control of your own life.

Defacto, you do in a quasi-Socialist, Socialist, Communist, Dictarorship, etc. society on an upward scale.  So, if you want to maintain control and liberty in your life...you should be for what? The opposite.

[vh]

Defacto, you do in a quasi-Socialist, Socialist, Communist, Dictarorship, etc. society on an upward scale.  So, if you want to maintain control and liberty in your life...you should be for what? The opposite.

communism is completely unrelated with dictatorship.

some types don't even need a state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism

[Dan Dixon]

... so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.

Ear infection.  Really?  That's one of the reasons why our heathcare costs have skyrocketed.  Everybody wants to go to the doctor or emergency room over every little thing...

You're not a very empathetic person are you?

[Darvince]

If I had gone to the doctor for it, with the medicine that they would have recommended or provided, my sickness would have been accelerated and I would have been healthy after perhaps two days instead of five days. Do you think I should not go to the doctor if I suspect that I have, say, lung cancer? Should I just keep to myself and use alternate "home" medicine that doesn't help cure cancer?

[phinehas]

... so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.

Ear infection.  Really?  That's one of the reasons why our heathcare costs have skyrocketed.  Everybody wants to go to the doctor or emergency room over every little thing...

You're not a very empathetic person are you?

Sounds like you want to make this personal versus discussing and interpreting facts.

[Darvince]

Yes, because you won't allow us to debate maturely, and have slammed us with hundreds of accusations about the government but no evidence. What is your stance on gun control?

[phinehas]

If I had gone to the doctor for it, with the medicine that they would have recommended or provided, my sickness would have been accelerated and I would have been healthy after perhaps two days instead of five days. Do you think I should not go to the doctor if I suspect that I have, say, lung cancer? Should I just keep to myself and use alternate "home" medicine that doesn't help cure cancer?

If you want to boost your argument by conflating an ear ache with lung cancer go ahead, I just think that's unreasonable.  Our babies had earaches every so often and I think we initially took them to the Pediatrician but over the counter medication became appropriate after a certain age...we didn't keep taking them to the doctor for stuff like that into their teens.  You will understand when or if you have kids yourself.  Now some people in America go to the emergency rooms for simple ailments all the time..again, I think that's a problem within our current heath paradigm and would naturally get worse if we ent to Socialized medicine...at least an uptick before the rationing of Heath care would put a squash to that.  All long it would take would depend on how long America kicks the debt can down the road...eventually that can can't be kicked any further.

[phinehas]

Yes, because you won't allow us to debate maturely, and have slammed us with hundreds of accusations about the government but no evidence. What is your stance on gun control?

Am I talking with the Borg?  I said Dan was getting personal in his last comments.

I have provided plenty of evidence, I can't make you read it or understand it.

[TheMooCows]

I can't make you read it or understand it.

Yes you can't make anyway read it but it is your responsibility in an argument to make the other side understand your side of the argument. You can't be like "EVIDENCE" and then not explain how it pertains to something. For example when trying to convince someone that a certain food tastes good I could say "salt" and then not explain how the salt effects the flavor.

It is not the person's fault for not understanding how the salt makes the food taste good because I did not support it.

[vh]

If I had gone to the doctor for it, with the medicine that they would have recommended or provided, my sickness would have been accelerated and I would have been healthy after perhaps two days instead of five days. Do you think I should not go to the doctor if I suspect that I have, say, lung cancer? Should I just keep to myself and use alternate "home" medicine that doesn't help cure cancer?

If you want to boost your argument by conflating an ear ache with lung cancer go ahead, I just think that's unreasonable.  Our babies had earaches every so often and I think we initially took them to the Pediatrician but over the counter medication became appropriate after a certain age...we didn't keep taking them to the doctor for stuff like that into their teens.  You will understand when or if you have kids yourself.  Now some people in America go to the emergency rooms for simple ailments all the time..again, I think that's a problem within our current heath paradigm and would naturally get worse if we ent to Socialized medicine...at least an uptick before the rationing of Heath care would put a squash to that.  All long it would take would depend on how long America kicks the debt can down the road...eventually that can can't be kicked any further.

with the current system rich people can "waste" money on ear infections while the poor can't be treated for cancer. it's wasted money and lives both ways, and you can hardly claim it is worse than socialized medicine

[Darvince]

earaches are normal. ear infections with pus are not.

[Dan Dixon]

Sorry to hear that Darvince. Hope all is well now.

I guess the lesson here is to not get sick unless you can afford it.

Also... if you were given health care for free there'd be no incentive to avoid getting sick.

[phinehas]

with the current system rich people can "waste" money on ear infections while the poor can't be treated for cancer. it's wasted money and lives both ways, and you can hardly claim it is worse than socialized medicine

I don't think you have a fundamental understanding on what insurance is and how an insurance company operates.  Basically it's this:

X amount of money comes in from 1000 people for heath insurance.  The insurance company, using science, estimates how much money they would have to disperse back out to pay hospitals, doctors, etc. for heath services of those 1000 people.  The money going out must be less than the money coming in for those 1000 people in order for the insurance company to pay for it's administrative overhead AND make a profit, ie. extra money left over in order to make the purpose of a Business...a business.

The main way this can occur is that out of those 1000 people, a percentage of them are healthy due to genetics and lifestyle choices...they put money in the system but don't take much out.  On the other end of the scale you have a percentage of the 1000 that are unhealthy due to genetics and lifestyle choices.  In order for the insurance company to sustain a level of balance, the cost per the 1000 people will increase and or the administrative costs will need to be reduced.  The administrative costs of the equation can only go down so low as to maintain a business, so like all business, the cost per the 1000 would have to go up.

So, as I was saying, part of the problem of why costs go up on the 1000 is due to too many of those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments that are not at a level that requires professional medical care.  The more people add everything into a heath care insurance system to cover, the costs increase.  Home insurance is to cover certain things, like a house fire...not for recouping costs of burning bread in a toaster.

[phinehas]

Sorry to hear that Darvince. Hope all is well now.

I guess the lesson here is to not get sick unless you can afford it.

Also... if you were given health care for free there'd be no incentive to avoid getting sick.

So using emotion as an argument doesn't work, change it to the extremes and act like it's the norm.  That's part of the problem with politics, people want to make decisions and pass laws based on the extremes of the spectrum versus the statistical norm.  Hence why you have the war on Terror, war on Poverty, war on Drugs and all  the stupid laws and policies, such as suspending kids because they bite into a poptart until it's the shape of a gun.

[vh]

So, as I was saying, part of the problem of why costs go up on the 1000 is due to too many of those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments that are not at a level that requires professional medical care.  The more people add everything into a heath care insurance system to cover, the costs increase.  Home insurance is to cover certain things, like a house fire...not for recouping costs of burning bread in a toaster.

and those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments are the rich. the poor can't afford it after all because

the costs increase

.

[phinehas]

and those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments are the rich. the poor can't afford it after all because

I think you need to do some research as I'm pretty sure Donald Trump, Bill Gates and all the 1% you want to redistribute the wealth from are not going to the doctors with temporary ailments and they probably don't even have heath insurance or if they do, it's a plan they petty a hefty price for.  Most of them just go to their own private doctor and simply pay for it.  So, to suggest rich people are putting a burden on the previous heath care system in the U.S. just isn't true.

[vh]

not the super rich. just the upper class.

[phinehas]

I still think your demographics are way off as to who goes to the doctors office every week for something.  If I have the time, I will provide something.  You can of course do some Googling, that is if you are not afraid of getting contrary evidence of your opinion.

[vh]

you contradict yourself

you say anyone rich doesn't go to the doctor every week for petty matters
you also say people waste money going to the doctor for frivolous reasons
anyone who is poor can't afford to go to the doctor, so they can't waste any money

then who is wasting the money you claim is being wasted?

[Darvince]

no to phinehas no rich person can ever waste money no matter what they purchase

[phinehas]

you contradict yourself

you say anyone rich doesn't go to the doctor every week for petty matters
you also say people waste money going to the doctor for frivolous reasons
anyone who is poor can't afford to go to the doctor, so they can't waste any money

then who is wasting the money you claim is being wasted?

The world doesn't operate in a vacuum.  I'm not saying poor people waste their own money going to the doctor for frivolous reasons (though that is a waste of their money)...I stated that going to the doctor for frivolous reasons INCREASES the costs to everyone.  If you have private Heath Insurance, it increases the premiums people have to pay.  As Obama likes to say, PERIOD.  If people on Medicaid, and now Obamacare do the same thing, again it's not done in a vacuum and it will affect the costs across the heath care spectrum.

You might ask why did they even start up Obamacare when all they had to do, which would have been a lot cheaper, was to expand the government's EXISTING heath care schemes to cover those 30 million or whatever people they said didn't have Heath Insurance.  The whole purpose of this is to change the U.S. Heath Care system totally into a Social Heath Care system run by the government.  Single payer only.
The wealthy and people like the Obama's and other elites and politicians never have nor will ever have to be under this Social-crap heath care system.  It's about control and power.  The more they take control of the private sector, the more control and power they have over the citizens lives.  PERIOD.

Just wait and see and when things get worse and worse, ie. millions were dropped off their existing heath care plans they liked due to that Liar Obama, PERIOD.  They couldn't even get a freaking website working for simple signups, wait until they actually start to administer this stuff.  Nightmare.

 

[phinehas]

no to phinehas no rich person can ever waste money no matter what they purchase

Strawman fail.

[vh]

You might ask why did they even start up Obamacare when all they had to do, which would have been a lot cheaper, was to expand the government's EXISTING heath care schemes to cover those 30 million or whatever people they said didn't have Heath Insurance.  The whole purpose of this is to change the U.S. Heath Care system totally into a Social Heath Care system run by the government.  Single payer only.
The wealthy and people like the Obama's and other elites and politicians never have nor will ever have to be under this Social-crap heath care system.  It's about control and power.  The more they take control of the private sector, the more control and power they have over the citizens lives.  PERIOD.

what? are they going to take all this 'power' and give everyone autism from vaccines? are they going to test bioweapons on us? what does this have to do with spending $1000 to give $100 of aid?

[phinehas]

what? are they going to take all this 'power' and give everyone autism from vaccines? are they going to test bioweapons on us? what does this have to do with spending $1000 to give $100 of aid?

Red Herrings is all you can do?  I already explained the $1000/$100 comment, get somebody to read it for you and explain it to you off line.

[vh]

you explained it, then i pointed out one of the points contradicted yourself, to which you replied that obamacare gives the government power over you. i then said that's irrelevant to the $1000/$100 issue we started with. where's the herring?

[phinehas]

you explained it, then i pointed out one of the points contradicted yourself, to which you replied that obamacare gives the government power over you. i then said that's irrelevant to the $1000/$100 issue we started with. where's the herring?

My answer was back here.  You need to get your self straight on what you are arguing against.
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,11872.msg120403.html#msg120403

[vh]

Sure it's an exaggeration but I was also speaking as a whole, government spending.  The amount of money that comes in versus what comes out goes through a rather large filter every year by an expanding government of employees, taxation and waste to essentially the same thing each year.

that would be inefficient administration of the system that is the problem, not socialism.

My answer was back here.  You need to get your self straight on what you are arguing against.

no. that was an answer to dan's reply. the answer to my argument was here.

 

[phinehas]

"that would be inefficient administration of the system that is the problem, not socialism"

Oh, true...but my point is that 1, it's a fact that government is extremely inefficient, 2, governments that are Socialist are still extremely inefficient and last;y, Socialism INCREASES the effects of this inefficiency due to having more economic control.

[vh]

"that would be inefficient administration of the system that is the problem, not socialism"

Oh, true...but my point is that 1, it's a fact that government is extremely inefficient, 2, governments that are Socialist are still extremely inefficient and last;y, Socialism INCREASES the effects of this inefficiency due to having more economic control.

more economic control doesn't neccessarily increase inefficiency.