well socialism in its most objective form refers to the people owning the means to production
so no the word socialism doesn't really apply to universal healthcare
[QUOTE=thisispain;30377807]well socialism in its most objective form refers to the people owning the means to production
so no the word socialism doesn't really apply to universal healthcare[/QUOTE]
"The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of achieving a socialist economy, and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits" .."In the UK, the National Health Service provided free health care to all" From wikipedia, cited on the site. As said in earlier posts, socialism is not a bad concept, it just is not used correctly in this case.
well you didn't say social democracy you said socialism
and just because social democrats advocate universal healthcare it doesn't mean much, fascists also had universal healthcare
[QUOTE=thisispain;30377910]well you didn't say social democracy you said socialism
and just because social democrats advocate universal healthcare it doesn't mean much, fascists also had universal healthcare[/QUOTE]
Where did fascism work out for the better of the people?
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30377752]Universal healthcare isn't socialist in ANY way? Uniformity of healthcare isn't socialist in ANY way? Explain[/QUOTE]
This bill isn't for universal healthcare.
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30377977]Where did fascism work out for the better of the people?[/QUOTE]
It didn't, what's your point?
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30377977]Where did fascism work out for the better of the people?[/QUOTE]
no my point is calling universal healthcare socialist is pointless
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30376817]If they sit on their ass and don't work (or even make an effort to do so) then no I do not. Sorry, it's a bit cold, but they do not deserve it.[/QUOTE]
I love how people like you generalize all poor people and say they are just lazy. Really do you really think its just so awesome not having a job that everyone is lining up to not work?
[QUOTE=amute;30377988]This bill isn't for universal healthcare.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act[/url]
Its right there, Universal is another way of putting it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30378005]It didn't, what's your point?[/QUOTE]
He had no reason to relate to it, so i proved his point unnecessary.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;30378061]I love how people like you generalize all poor people and say they are just lazy. Really do you really think its just so awesome not having a job that everyone is lining up to not work?[/QUOTE]
This bill will essentially make it awesome for their healthcare to sit around..read more posts this has been stated.
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30377311](part of socialist views)[/QUOTE]
Oh no not scary commie socialists.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;30378061]I love how people like you generalize all poor people and say they are just lazy. Really do you really think its just so awesome not having a job that everyone is lining up to not work?[/QUOTE]
Yeah man it's just that extra cushy government welfare.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30378090][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act[/url]
Its right there, Universal is another way of putting it.[/QUOTE]
That's a different bill, HR 676, not the one that passed.
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30377464]Speaking out against that is not what I am doing, I am against giving them MORE than they have now, unless they plan on working for it.[/QUOTE]
There is a reason they cant work. Do you think people on welfare just dont feel like working? People aren't poor because they are lazy they are poor because they can't get a good job or any job.
Hey angry pineapple my mom cant work because she takes care of a disabled daughter and because of this we don't have enough money to pay for braces. So why exactly do I not deserve correct teeth? This is just one example of the many people I know who cant get good treatment because they live in a poor family.
Yeah the big "This article is about the 2009 U.S. National Health Care Act that failed to come to House debate. For the 2010 health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama, see [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act"]Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[/URL]." at the top of the page should've gave it away.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;30378061]I love how people like you generalize all poor people and say they are just lazy. Really do you really think its just so awesome not having a job that everyone is lining up to not work?[/QUOTE]
I don't want to work. Where do I get in line?
I was discussing the wrong bill then, deeply sorry.
Health care is good done right, but Obama's plan wouldn't have worked even before it was butchered by republicans.
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;30378090][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act[/url]
Its right there, Universal is another way of putting it.
[/QUOTE]
That's a different bill. John Conyvers introduced that, This bill is Obama's. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers"][/URL]
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
I'd personally prefer this bill over Obama's anyway.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30375929]Okay, let me clarify that a bit.
Fox News=Very Conservative
CNN=Slight Liberal Slant
MSNBC=Considerable Liberal Slant
I'm just saying that Fox deliberately misinforms in their reports, so I wouldn't gleam what you consider accurate info from them. If that's where you got this notion that "the poors who refuse to work will use my tax dollars to get free healthcare!!", then it's most likely wrong. Either you don't remember where it was said in the bill, or just didn't read it.[/QUOTE]
CNN seems to cover a lot of meaningless crap these days so I don't really bother to call them news anymore. They're just a cable network.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;30378412]Health care is good done right, but Obama's plan wouldn't have worked even before it was butchered by republicans.[/QUOTE]
I think a public option was on the table before the republicans watered it down.
With what, a fire hose? They weren't the only reason the option got washed off the plan. The Republican party at that same time started getting outside pressure from the growing TEA party.
TEA Party people are still Republicans.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
unless this is a different TEA party that wears top hats and monocles while sipping earl grey
Only real difference I can figure out is that they are conservative republicans who are [B]T[/B]axed [B]E[/B]nough [B]A[/B]lready and have finally decided to do something about it.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;30383591]TEA Party people are still Republicans.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
unless this is a different TEA party that wears top hats and monocles while sipping earl grey[/QUOTE]
no they arent tea party are even more fiscally conservative than republicans
they are actually separate things and you can see this when the tea party began to attack the republican party fox news stopped covering them as favorably
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;30383399]With what, a fire hose? They weren't the only reason the option got washed off the plan. The Republican party at that same time started getting outside pressure from the growing TEA party.[/QUOTE]
so instead of obamacare or republicare can i call the bill the tea bagger bill?
[QUOTE=Pepin;30344560]I feel as though you wouldn't be able to provide any sort of real constitutional argument. Below is a good video to watch about the topic.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZvaSrztrY8[/media]
Something I think you fail to see is that the constitution was document made to limit what the Federal government can do, rather than just be a document that just lists some things the government can and cannot do. You argument seems to be saying that is false, and therefore I think you should reconsider or do some research about the intentions of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Finally had a chance to watch this in full. Some great arguments made on both sides.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30383916]so instead of obamacare or republicare can i call the bill the tea bagger bill?[/QUOTE]
No one will know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30384176]No one will know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
idc its more fitting
It's your aggravation.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30383673]Only real difference I can figure out is that they are conservative republicans who are [B]T[/B]axed [B]E[/B]nough [B]A[/B]lready and have finally decided to do something about it.[/QUOTE]
Taxed enough already? Despite the fact that taxes were about 60% higher in our best economic years, the 50s?
[QUOTE=lorden;30345110]you people are bitching about getting fined for not having life insurance, why aren't you bitching about mandatory auto insurance?
whether it's your muffler or your asshole, both of them you'll get fined for without insurance. :v:[/QUOTE]
You can live your life without owning a car, which means not having car insurance.
well the intelligent discussion got thrown out the window and now glabers back
why am i not surprised
anyhow, id like to raise a point on the previous greed argument.
say that you and three friends order a box of pizza with eight pieces. now, you wouldn't be considered greedy for taking two pieces, since there's enough for everyone else. but if you were to take the whole box, fuck yeah you are a greedy asshole. the difference is that the literal definition of greed is drastically different from society's definition of greed. under the literal definition, taking an extra crumb from the cookie box is greed, but the idea is scrapped because it's absolutely absurd. nobody is being hurt when they take the extra crumb, so nobody really cares. and in reality, the societal definition is much more coherent and easy to live by.
for if we were to use the literal definition, then we would end up comparing a little girl that took an extra chip from the bag to Bernie Madoff.
as per healthcare, non-profit hospitals have worked in the past and probably will work now. however, for-profit opens more doors to opportunities. as a result, I believe a single-payer healthcare system like medicaid would work just dandy. i'd be fine with a socialized service as well, though. so long as i get a doctor without paying a years salary for treatment i'm a-okay.
[QUOTE=joes33431;30394998]
I believe a single-payer healthcare system like medicaid would work just dandy.[/QUOTE]
It works here
Nobody is suggesting the USA move to a full-out NHS-style system overnight
In fact, I wouldn't support it at all really, in the US or here. I'd just like to see our single-payer system expanded to cover more things.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
