A comparison of US and Canadian healthcare, Using babies! Options

[mipadi]

United States

• Wife with previa placenta, c-section, 9 days hospital - $50k+
• Son 3 weeks immature, 3 weeks in NICU - $140K+

Welcome to American health care. I do have insurance so with that it will be about $20K out of pocket for me. And most importantly my son is now 5 weeks old and thriving.

Canada

I'm a Canadian in Canada, father of two. I created an account specifically after reading the above comment. This isn't a horror story, or even a story of near-disaster, just what happened, but I couldn't help but notice a contrast.

In the last weeks of my wife's first pregnancy, she began experiencing some stomach pain. We went to the hospital, she was checked out with a bevy of tests, discharged, and sent home when she appeared to be doing better. Gas, we all thought. After more pain a few days later, and some discussion with the nurse over the phone, we agreed that this needed to be checked again. My wife was diagnosed with an unusual affliction that can affect pregnant women, and that it was best treated with the baby removed.

They tried to induce labour (to no effect), she was given an epidural, and eventually it was decided that this was best handled with a cesarean. The deed done, all was well. Mom and child #1 stayed in the hospital for a few days, receiving checkups and the assorted 200-point-inspections that newborns seem to need. I brought them home, life was good. A nurse came to our home within a couple of weeks to see if we needed anything. At some point my wife went in to a nursing clinic at the hospital to get help with breastfeeding.

Pregnancy #2 came along a couple of years later. As a consequence of history, there were a couple of extra appointments with the obstetrician, an extra ultrasound (I think)...and about three weeks before the due date, my wife started getting pains again. The ob's general take was "let's not mess around - let's just go with the cesarean...how 'bout this weekend?" Another surgery, another stay of a few days.

I paid for parking. I paid to get some photos of the ultrasound in a cutesy envelope, and I paid something like $10 or $15 so my wife would have a phone in the hospital room. I never saw a bill. I don't know how much all this cost. I'd never think this is all that remarkable except that I keep hearing that it is.

I don't really know what things are like in the U.S. I hear horror stories, of course, but I've learned not to trust what you're told about a foreign health care system. I don't know what it's like in the UK or France since I've never lived there.

As for what goes on in Canada...I don't suppose it comes as a surprise to most of the crowd on this particular board to be told that you are being lied to. Horribly, horribly lied to. As the debate rages on in your country, my wife and I are frequently exposed to the things you're being told about the system in my country. She laughs out loud, and my stomach turns.

This isn't a polemic. I don't know that you can really walk away with more than "I heard from some guy that it's not so bad." You folks should do what's best for you and your country, but you deserve good information and a good debate to make your choice.

[kryogenix]

I paid for parking. I paid to get some photos of the ultrasound in a cutesy envelope, and I paid something like $10 or $15 so my wife would have a phone in the hospital room. I never saw a bill. I don't know how much all this cost. I'd never think this is all that remarkable except that I keep hearing that it is.

That's terrifying. The fact that these people are so kept in the dark at the cost leaves room for abuse. Look at how things are more expensive in Canada, even though the price of the USD and loonie are relatively similar.

I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence:

US: Pay some money and get treated, making a full recovery
Canada: Wait on line and have your legs amputated in the meantime

I agree that we are in need of healthcare reform, but a Canadian style healthcare system in a country this large is not the answer.

[mipadi]

US: Pay some money and get treated, making a full recovery
Canada: Wait on line and have your legs amputated in the meantime

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not, then you're full of bullshit. The whole point of the post is to show that the line you're being fed in the US about Canada's health care system is do mostly to extreme lobbying and advertising by the health insurance companies. Seriously -- if Canadians (or, e.g., the British) are so unhappy with their health coverage, and they think the US system is so much better, why aren't Canadians demanding privatized health care from their government?

That's terrifying. The fact that these people are so kept in the dark at the cost leaves room for abuse.

And you don't think that a system in which a large corporation, whose one job is to minimize costs while maximizing profits for shareholders, isn't ripe for abuse?

[kryogenix]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not, then you're full of bullshit. The whole point of the post is to show that the line you're being fed in the US about Canada's health care system is do mostly to extreme lobbying and advertising by the health insurance companies. Seriously -- if Canadians are so unhappy with their health coverage, and they think the US system is so much better, why aren't Canadians demanding privatized health care from their government?

Because Canadians don't care because other people are paying for the goods and services? I dunno, ask the Canadians. From the Canadians I know, they said that the Canadian healthcare system isn't as great as some in the American left would want you to think, but they are still thankful for it because they aren't super wealthy and get more out of the system than what they are paying.

Yes, I know my statement was bullshit, but so was yours. You can't just cherry pick two cases and call it a valid comparison.

And you don't think that a system in which a large corporation, whose one job is to minimize costs while maximizing profits for shareholders, isn't ripe for abuse?

Anything can be abused, but I have the option of not paying for their goods and services if I find them abusive. I can't opt out of certain taxes if I don't take advantage of the services they provide.

[sixfive]

no just kidding

Canadians (or, e.g., the British) are so unhappy with their health coverage, and they think the US system is so much better, why aren't Canadians demanding privatized health care from their government?

Plenty of Canadians cross the border for more immediate American health care.

[mipadi]

Yes, I know my statement was bullshit, but so was yours. You can't just cherry pick two cases and call it a valid comparison.

These aren't really "isolated" cases, though; they're examples of fairly typical health care costs. Okay, both people didn't have "flawless" pregnancies, but few medical procedures go off without a hitch.

I don't mean to play the age card here, but I'm pretty sure you're still young enough to be covered under your parents' health insurance (correct me if I'm wrong); if not, I seem to recall you're still at college, which means you can probably get medical care on campus for next to nothing. I have to pay for all my health care costs now, and I was also without health insurance for about 6 months, which means I couldn't even afford to go to the dentist. Even going to have something simple like a bad cold treated is rather expensive (in the US) if you don't have health insurance. I had a friend who was working as a teaching for a Teach for America-like organization; she wasn't given health insurance as part of her job, so when she got a cold last winter, she had to search around for a free clinic just to get treated. I argue that in a nation as wealthy as the US, it's morally reprehensible to refuse medical care for citizens; it's morally reprehensible to put the interests of health care providers ahead of the interests of people. Given the fact that we spend roughly as much as the rest of the world on our defense budget, I think we could trim that a bit and provide health coverage for our citizens.

Anything can be abused, but I have the option of not paying for their goods and services if I find them abusive. I can't opt out of certain taxes if I don't take advantage of the services they provide.

So you're suggesting that, for the rest of your life, you never, ever plan to go to a doctor, dentist, or ophthalmologist?

Secondly, you already do pay for a lot of services that you don't use and maybe never will: welfare, airplanes (I rarely fly, and the government heavily subsidizes airlines), food stamps, and so on. Part of living in a civilized society is helping out other humans, even if you see no immediate benefit. The "it's all about me" attitude in America is, frankly, selfish and appalling.

[kryogenix]

I don't mean to play the age card here, but I'm pretty sure you're still young enough to be covered under your parents' health insurance (correct me if I'm wrong); if not, I seem to recall you're still at college, which means you can probably get medical care on campus for next to nothing.

Yup, I'll be ineligible next year. My older sister was without insurance for the past several months, but she just passed her board exams so hopefully she'll have her own coverage soon.

I argue that in a nation as wealthy as the US, it's morally reprehensible to refuse medical care for citizens; it's morally reprehensible to put the interests of health care providers ahead of the interests of people.

I have a different view. I believe that healthcare is made up of goods and services. Healthcare is NOT a right.

If you were to consider healthcare a right, you would either have to force people to pay for it, or force people to provide it for free. It is morally reprehensible to confiscate people's wealth, even if that wealth is used for a good cause. It is morally reprehensible to force those in the medical field to perform services with no compensation. That's called slavery.

So you're suggesting that, for the rest of your life, you never, ever plan to go to a doctor, dentist, or ophthalmologist?

I don't get where you're coming from here.

Secondly, you already do pay for a lot of services that you don't use and maybe never will: welfare, airplanes (I rarely fly, and the government heavily subsidizes airlines), food stamps, and so on.

All of which are things I hope come to an end in the near future.

Part of living in a civilized society is helping out other humans, even if you see no immediate benefit. The "it's all about me" attitude in America is, frankly, selfish and appalling.

Yeah, except I like to do this through charity, not through a corrupt system that forces you to give up half of your income.

[sixfive]

Yeah, except I like to do this through charity, not through a corrupt system that forces you to give up half of your income.

I agree with this statement completely. I also find it appalling that the government should take so much money from people who work and give it to people who don't give a damn about a job or America. They're just leeching and being lazy and jobless.

Mipadi, should we socialize health care, would it be an increase in tax to our income? Would we just force doctors to accept a lesser income? What would happen? Why not fix a lot of other bullshit government spending and abuse and just use the saved money instead of taking more from taxpayers? For instance, if a mexican comes across the border and pops a baby out it's an American citizen and gets taken care of in a hospital for free. I understand not letting a baby just die, but it's completely unnecessary and not our obligation to take care of these illegals.

Also, (just putting this out there) if the government were to increase taxes and attribute some of that revenue to health care, what if a user tax were implemented and this was attached to it?

[brooklyneast05]

i don't have anything to add other than i think you guys should keep debating so i can figure out what the hell i think. i can't find anything to read that doesn't come off completely biased. i can't figure out if i like the Canadian system or not because everything either says it's the devil and people wait 3 years to get care or i hear it's the greatest thing ever. neither of which seem believable to me.

I argue that in a nation as wealthy as the US, it's morally reprehensible to refuse medical care for citizens; it's morally reprehensible to put the interests of health care providers ahead of the interests of people. Given the fact that we spend roughly as much as the rest of the world on our defense budget, I think we could trim that a bit and provide health coverage for our citizens.


Part of living in a civilized society is helping out other humans, even if you see no immediate benefit. The "it's all about me" attitude in America is, frankly, selfish and appalling.

i agree with this

It is morally reprehensible to confiscate people's wealth, even if that wealth is used for a good cause. It is morally reprehensible to force those in the medical field to perform services with no compensation. That's called slavery.

but then i agree with this too

[sixfive]

Don't worry Obama will take care of this, but we won't see results for another couple years. He'll get to it soon, he's still on his honeymoon.

[NoSex]

we have the most expensive (most inefficient) healthcare system in the world.
we are the only industrialized country in the world without universal healthcare.
we have equitable healthcare quality, in comparison to the rest of the industrialized world.
however, unlike the rest of the world, we have severe issues in coverage and affordability. despite the fact that our healthcare is exceedingly expensive, we cannot seem to find a way to cover all of our citizens fully (or at all) and, at the same time, make that coverage affordable. only in america does cancer not only mean health ruin, but also financial ruin.

but this is a larger issue than just mere individual ruin; it is drastically hurting our economy @ large. take for example the bail-out of general motors. consider the economic strains which led to this - one large contributor: the increasing healthcare costs. a mayo clinic loses money in treating uninsured americans. a mayo clinic that serves millions of americans. what happens when they can't afford to heal those that can even pay for the services?

if the common decency of communal care and compassion can't persuade you into supporting a single payer system, at least consider the fact that the private healthcare industry is effectively crippling important sectors of our economy. cheaper healthcare means more money for the consumer to use, to stimulate other sectors of a ever dwindling economy. we see record high profits in healthcare, but increasing costs, less coverage, and worse care. to put it simply, healthcare in america is broken and only getting worse.

[kryogenix]

if the common decency of communal care and compassion can't persuade you into supporting a single payer system, at least consider the fact that the private healthcare industry is effectively crippling important sectors of our economy. cheaper healthcare means more money for the consumer to use, to stimulate other sectors of a ever dwindling economy.

Let's tale that last part and reword it.

Big government is effectively crippling important sectors of our economy. lower taxes means more money for the consumer to use, to stimulate other sectors of an ever dwindling economy.

If a corporation in competition can't become more efficient, what makes you think a government funded program will?

Government involvement in healthcare is the problem, not the solution.

[brooklyneast05]

is this how you feel about it james

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/08/health-re...0108health.html

[kryogenix]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel. Couldn't say it better myself.

[NoSex]

Big government is effectively crippling important sectors of our economy. lower taxes means more money for the consumer to use, to stimulate other sectors of an ever dwindling economy.

what sector of our economy is being crippled by government? please cite specific examples. also, lower taxes for the consumer can stimulate the economy, of course. however, raising taxes for the upper crust of society, that small %2 that has a vast majority of this country's wealth, will not destroy us. lastly, what the f*ck are you talking about? i thought we were discussing healthcare. aren't i right? isn't the private industry hurting the economy?

If a corporation in competition can't become more efficient, what makes you think a government funded program will?

because a single payer can manage in a more inexpensive manner. because a single payer, non-profit system doesn't need vacation bonuses like a mother f*cker. because a single payer actually has an incentive to lower costs... and make people healthier. the private industry does best when people are sick; a public system does best when people are healthy.

Government involvement in healthcare is the problem, not the solution.

so i guess the government forced healthcare ceos to take piles & piles of money for bonuses this year... last year, every year. man, the government is an evil prick! i can't believe the government keeps forcing the private industry to deny coverage! what a f*cker!

p.s. you're a tool.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

I'm going to compare this to the microprocessor industry, because comparing things to computer parts always makes things easier for me to word.

AMD and Intel, last time I checked, market share was approximately 47/52. Plenty of competition between the two companies.
It's this competition that keeps microprocessor technology advancing. Without AMD and Intel still neck and neck to make the fastest processors, we would all still be using Pentium Pros. But with the two manufacturers head to head to make the best of the best, we see shit like the i7 and the Phenom II 955.

Compare AMD and Intel to some major healthcare corporations. Compare the CPUs to quality of healthcare.

I'm no expert in economics, so I don't know if this translates the same way, but from what I've seen from nearly every company working with high technology, this is how everything goes. It's the same with Sony and Nintendo for game consoles, the same with ATI and Nvidia for videocards, it's the same with Corsair and OCZ for power supplies, it's even the same for Apple and Microsoft for operating systems.

[sixfive]

^wat

isn't the private industry hurting the economy?

No. I hear the private industry guarantees job security, allows their employees to be lazy, and does not employ a rather large amount of Americans giving them disposable income and giving the government taxes. I hear the government properly uses these taxes and doesn't use it for bullshit like arrows for kids for camps. I hear that's proper allocation of taxpayer money.

Also I hear what the government has been doing since Obama stepped into power is working! Good thing he just spent an assload of money and put is more in debt. Well, there's a simple solution to this problem. We just won't pay China back! No problemo guys.

Also what's with this state's rights thing? I hear that's unconstitutional and the federal government was always meant to be more powerful and a big powerful government has always worked!

[sixfive]

Also:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[NoSex]

I'm going to compare this to the microprocessor industry, because comparing things to computer parts always makes things easier for me to word.

i'm going to argue that this is a false analogy. really, as will be any comparison to so-called competitive markets. for one, healthcare is a market unlike any other. it simply does not resemble any form of traditional economic model, for this... these forms of comparison often fail. lastly, a profit motive is something that some find dubious in the case of healing the sick & keeping people healthy. the problem is that the private industry actually makes more money from people 1) being sick, 2) not getting the care they need. this is why, for example, the healthcare industry spends billions of dollars hiring people to dig up information that would deny their customers coverage.

if i were to make a comparison... amd and intel don't higher tech nerds to make sure your shit doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

No. I hear the private industry guarantees job security, allows their employees to be lazy, and does not employ a rather large amount of Americans giving them disposable income and giving the government taxes.

is general motors job security? what about the steel industry workers? no, i'm fairly postive the most secure jobs you can get... are government positions. nonetheless, i'm speaking very specifically about the way the healthcare industry is choking other sectors of the economy. it's something i don't believe can be easily denied. not to mention, the cost alone is by far more threatening to the consumer than say, income taxes... and, while those taxes are being decreased on obama's tax plan, the costs of healthcare are rising five times faster than our wages[1].

Also what's with this state's rights thing? I hear that's unconstitutional and the federal government was always meant to be more powerful and a big powerful government has always worked!

i'm a federalist. i don't think delegating powers to smaller bodies is a way to fix our problems. to me, that's cowardly.

[kryogenix]

what sector of our economy is being crippled by government? please cite specific examples. also, lower taxes for the consumer can stimulate the economy, of course. however, raising taxes for the upper crust of society, that small %2 that has a vast majority of this country's wealth, will not destroy us. lastly, what the f*ck are you talking about? i thought we were discussing healthcare. aren't i right? isn't the private industry hurting the economy?

Government is crippling EVERY sector of the economy. Taxes, minimum wage, bullshit regulations etc.

Tax that 2% enough, and they'll leave/dodge taxes. Then you'll have no one paying the bulk of taxes.

I'm talking about the expansion of government power, which is exactly what government run healthcare is.

because a single payer can manage in a more inexpensive manner. because a single payer, non-profit system doesn't need vacation bonuses like a mother f*cker. because a single payer actually has an incentive to lower costs... and make people healthier. [b]the private industry does best when people are sick; a public system does best when people are healthy.

LOL what a joke. Have you ever been to public school, the DMV, the post office?

There is no incentive to make people healthier, as the government will be making money whether the people are being healed, or dying waiting for their medicine because it's being rationed.

so i guess the government forced healthcare ceos to take piles & piles of money for bonuses this year... last year, every year. man, the government is an evil prick! i can't believe the government keeps forcing the private industry to deny coverage! what a f*cker!

p.s. you're a tool.

The government IS an evil prick. Unjust war, unjust taxes, making a mockery of the Constitution, buying votes with taxpayer money, etc. The CEOs can do whatever the f*ck they want with their profits, they EARNED those profits. They aren't demanding money at gunpoint like the government is.

P.S. cry more

[sixfive]

is general motors job security? what about the steel industry workers? no, i'm fairly postive the most secure jobs you can get... are government positions. nonetheless, i'm speaking very specifically about the way the healthcare industry is choking other sectors of the economy. it's something i don't believe can be easily denied. not to mention, the cost alone is by far more threatening to the consumer than say, income taxes... and, while those taxes are being decreased on obama's tax plan, the costs of healthcare are rising five times faster than our wages[1].

My mistake, the I hear private industry guarantees job security was internet sarcasm. I know it doesn't :]

[NoSex]

Government is crippling EVERY sector of the economy. Taxes, minimum wage, bullshit regulations etc.

if government is crippling the economy, why are there still record high profits?

Tax that 2% enough, and they'll leave/dodge taxes. Then you'll have no one paying the bulk of taxes.

than we can arrest that 2%. you know, enforce the law. fundamentally, and rather obviously, that 2% owes their wealth to the infrastructure of society. without civilization, they wouldn't have the same wealth. because of this, they have an obligation, as we all do, to contribute a percentage of our earnings (in order to support the common wealth and development of civilization). those who are wealthiest have a greater debt to society.

otherwise, we live contrary to the concept of civilization. civilization is participatory, communal, and a form of unification. we come together because we are stronger as many. FROM MANY COME ONE.

otherwise, you merely support civilization as a system of labor exploitation and slavery. you would do yourself a service by reading howard zinn's a peoples history of the united states. you must realize that all of history is a story of those what have power, imposing that power on others, unfairly, with little regard for humanity - only giving the masses enough "freedom" so as to pacify them, so as to prevent violent revolution. history is long, but we're still just a bunch of wage slaves.

LOL what a joke. Have you ever been to public school, the DMV, the post office?

there are different ways to increase quality care in a single-payer system. for one, the efficiency i was describing was purely in the sense of cost - universal healthcare would be much cheaper than our private industry. the government could definitely reduce costs, creating a more fiscally efficient system. secondly, what we have seen around the world is that all other systems of equitable (sometimes greater) quality than the us system. so, it isn't a joke, it's a reality. germany, for example, has less wait time than america. and, france has greater quality care. there are different ways to increase quality of care, and it isn''t like delivering mail or taking a driving test (and i've gotten better government service than private service, definitely, so whatever). for example, you give a doctor more money the LESS his patients visit him, not the other way around. this creates a new paradigm in healthcare services, increases efficiency, and actual incentive for healing people.

The CEOs can do whatever the f*ck they want with their profits, they EARNED those profits. They aren't demanding money at gunpoint like the government is.

can the ceos buy the government out? can they lobby politicians to vote in a corporation's interest?

what is your deal with taxes? you realize we need them to function as a civilization? you realize you use public services constantly? and benefit from taxation?

[kryogenix]

if government is crippling the economy, why are there still record high profits?

Because government policy makes it harder for smaller companies to compete, so there is less pressure to lower prices.

than we can arrest that 2%. you know, enforce the law.

It's against the law to move out of the country? I know if I was in a citizen in a country that was taking away the majority of my wealth every year, I'd want out.

fundamentally, and rather obviously, that 2% owes their wealth to the infrastructure of society. without civilization, they wouldn't have the same wealth. because of this, they have an obligation, as we all do, to contribute a percentage of our earnings (in order to support the common wealth and development of civilization). those who are wealthiest have a greater debt to society.

No, they don't owe a f*cking dime. Party A provides a good or service for Party B, who pays for and consumes the goods or services. Both sides were compensated in the transaction. There is no obligation for companies to society, and no obligations for society to companies. As long as both sides make voluntary transactions, both sides have already been fairly compensated.

otherwise, we live contrary to the concept of civilization. civilization is participatory, communal, and a form of unification. we come together because we are stronger as many. FROM MANY COME ONE.

I fail to see why this entails taking wealth from the most productive members of society by force and giving it to the least productive.

otherwise, you merely support civilization as a system of labor exploitation and slavery. you would do yourself a service by reading howard zinn's a peoples history of the united states. you must realize that all of history is a story of those what have power, imposing that power on others, unfairly, with little regard for humanity - only giving the masses enough "freedom" so as to pacify them, so as to prevent violent revolution. history is long, but we're still just a bunch of wage slaves.

You mean it's not labor exploitation and slavery for the government to let people work and take away more than half of what they earn? Perhaps not slavery (yet), but serfs during the middle ages kept more of their money than people in America.

there are different ways to increase quality care in a single-payer system. for one, the efficiency i was describing was purely in the sense of cost - universal healthcare would be much cheaper than our private industry. the government could definitely reduce costs, creating a more fiscally efficient system.

The government COULD reduce costs. But they don't. They never do. Republican or democrat, they squander our money on stupid shit. The last thing we need is yet another monolithic government run program.

secondly, what we have seen around the world is that all other systems of equitable (sometimes greater) quality than the us system. so, it isn't a joke, it's a reality. germany, for example, has less wait time than america. and, france has greater quality care. there are different ways to increase quality of care, and it isn''t like delivering mail or taking a driving test (and i've gotten better government service than private service, definitely, so whatever).

What about healthcare in China?

for example, you give a doctor more money the LESS his patients visit him, not the other way around. this creates a new paradigm in healthcare services, increases efficiency, and actual incentive for healing people.

A doctor in this situation could make his offices smelled like shit, play obnoxious music in the waiting room, and have horrible service so that patients would avoid him, and he would be paid higher than a doctor that people actually liked to visit.

can the ceos buy the government out? can they lobby politicians to vote in a corporation's interest?

I love how both the CEOs and the government are the bad guys here, yet you place government on a pedestal and only admonish the CEOs.

Government enables and even encourages unfair corporate practices.

what is your deal with taxes? you realize we need them to function as a civilization? you realize you use public services constantly? and benefit from taxation?

We functioned as a civilization prior to the 16th amendment. We can have a functioning society without it.

[illriginal]

Nationalizing health care is the worse thing you can do. The only way to balance it is by opening a much larger job market in the health industry... which takes years if not decades. It is a very very delicate system and you cannot RUSH this type of health plan into a nation that already has health care issues to begin with.


And I refuse to be forced to get health care or pay someone else's doctor bill. This is America, we have our freedom and rights to do whatever we want with ourselves just so long as it stays within the boundaries of the law.

[sixfive]

i can't tell which of your posts are troll posts and which aren't sometimes. this one actually looks legit. if it is, i approve, if not, touche

[illriginal]

i can't tell which of your posts are troll posts and which aren't sometimes. this one actually looks legit. if it is, i approve, if not, touche

Me making random personal attacks is for the lulz. In this thread, no... there was no trolling

[NoSex]

Because government policy makes it harder for smaller companies to compete, so there is less pressure to lower prices.

please, be specific. what government policies make it harder for companies to compete?

I know if I was in a citizen in a country that was taking away the majority of my wealth every year, I'd want out.

no one is being taxed over half of their assets. for example, income tax only reaches 35% in the highest brackets. and, even than, deductions and exemptions usually push that percentage down. and, even than, those being taxed 35% are still making more money than anyone needs, more money than any dozen people need - - after taxation.

No, they don't owe a f*cking dime.

the government paid for the roads that lead to their shop, they subsidize the television broadcasting that sends out their commercials. etc. etc. if you don't think they owe anything to society, than perhaps they should stop participating in society.

I fail to see why this entails taking wealth from the most productive members of society by force and giving it to the least productive.

1. i don't think building tickle-me elmo's is productive.
2. i don't think selling tobacco is productive.
3. redistributing wealth increases social health, less crime, less poverty, less hunger, less problems. it makes society a greater place, that's a worthwhile cause.
4. for all your moralizing, you seem to fail to see that people are in trouble in this society, and that people work very very hard and get no where; redistribution of wealth, and putting ownership into the hands of the proletariat can take this civilization out of corporate stagnation. the incentive of profit margin isn't moving society, it is forcing it into a slave state of exploitative labor, money worshiping, and consumerist nightmares. society is sick, and the capitalist system, that operates purely on profit motive, is largely to blame. socialism moves the emphasis to utility, capitalism does not have that power. worst of all, those who were privileged with money (power) to begin with, in a capitalist system, are likely to maintain that privilege and to pass it on within their bloodline. this creates a society ruled by a select few families, running a select few corporations - - this causes stagnation and a tremendous waste of time and resources.

You mean it's not labor exploitation and slavery for the government to let people work and take away more than half of what they earn? Perhaps not slavery (yet), but serfs during the middle ages kept more of their money than people in America.

1. no one is having half of their earnings taken from them. not even close.
2. are you dense? do you not understand wealth? serfs were f*cking poor, who cares if they even kept all of their money - - they would still have insanely less than the average american. if you have a lot of money, you can lose a lot of it, and still be swimming in it - get it?
3. the government taxes its citizens and than they build roads, they give us public education, they create an army to protect us, and they help us when we can't afford to eat, and receive medicine at the same time. government is supposed to be for the people and by the people... we, as a people, want these public services, we use them and value them. they are important. for all your moralizing, you seem to forget that without public services, america would be even more class divided, even less developed; imagine the literacy rates.

The government COULD reduce costs. But they don't. They never do. Republican or democrat, they squander our money on stupid shit. The last thing we need is yet another monolithic government run program.

nothing could be more monolithic than the system we already have. it would be cheaper. it's simply a reality, a single payer is a more fiscally efficient system.

A doctor in this situation could make his offices smelled like shit, play obnoxious music in the waiting room, and have horrible service so that patients would avoid him, and he would be paid higher than a doctor that people actually liked to visit.

government policy and regulation wouldn't let that happen. of course, consumer review and quality standards would exist.

I love how both the CEOs and the government are the bad guys here, yet you place government on a pedestal and only admonish the CEOs.

Government enables and even encourages unfair corporate practices.

only for profit motive though... my primary argument is maintained:
capitalism puts emphasis on profit, this hurts society.
socialism puts emphasis on utility, this helps society.

We functioned as a civilization prior to the 16th amendment. We can have a functioning society without it.

we still had taxation before the 16th amendment. in fact, we have always had taxation. who do you propose build the roads? or teach our children?

[kryogenix]

please, be specific. what government policies make it harder for companies to compete?

For one, minimum wage.

no one is being taxed over half of their assets. for example, income tax only reaches 35% in the highest brackets. and, even than, deductions and exemptions usually push that percentage down. and, even than, those being taxed 35% are still making more money than anyone needs, more money than any dozen people need - - after taxation.

Because federal income tax is the only tax right? Oh wait, think about that for a second.

What gives you the right to say those people don't deserve the money based on the arbitrary criteria of it's more than they need? In fact, by that definition, anyone that is able to put money aside for savings or investments has more money than they need.

Should we punish people for being responsible and saving/investing? Oh wait, we already do, via inflationary policies and capital gains taxes.

the government paid for the roads that lead to their shop, they subsidize the television broadcasting that sends out their commercials. etc. etc. if you don't think they owe anything to society, than perhaps they should stop participating in society.

I'm missing the part where they have to pay for people's healthcare.

1. i don't think building tickle-me elmo's is productive.
2. i don't think selling tobacco is productive.

Millions of soccer moms begged to differ at Wal-Marts around the country on Black Friday. Millions of smokers disagree.

3. redistributing wealth increases social health, less crime, less poverty, less hunger, less problems. it makes society a greater place, that's a worthwhile cause.

More like makes the poor dependent on the welfare state, violate the citizen's right to property and increases the burden on society's most productive members to the point where they say f*ck it all and pack their bags.

4. for all your moralizing, you seem to fail to see that people are in trouble in this society, and that people work very very hard and get no where; redistribution of wealth, and putting ownership into the hands of the proletariat can take this civilization out of corporate stagnation. the incentive of profit margin isn't moving society, it is forcing it into a slave state of exploitative labor, money worshiping, and consumerist nightmares. society is sick, and the capitalist system, that operates purely on profit motive, is largely to blame. socialism moves the emphasis to utility, capitalism does not have that power. worst of all, those who were privileged with money (power) to begin with, in a capitalist system, are likely to maintain that privilege and to pass it on within their bloodline. this creates a society ruled by a select few families, running a select few corporations - - this causes stagnation and a tremendous waste of time and resources.

People voluntarily working for companies (and being paid while doing so) is moving towards a slave state... Yet you don't think that healthcare workers being FORCED to work by the government isn't?

Show me an example of a true free market dystopia, and I'll show you 5 socialist dystopias.

1. no one is having half of their earnings taken from them. not even close.
2. are you dense? do you not understand wealth? serfs were f*cking poor, who cares if they even kept all of their money - - they would still have insanely less than the average american. if you have a lot of money, you can lose a lot of it, and still be swimming in it - get it?
3. the government taxes its citizens and than they build roads, they give us public education, they create an army to protect us, and they help us when we can't afford to eat, and receive medicine at the same time. government is supposed to be for the people and by the people... we, as a people, want these public services, we use them and value them. they are important. for all your moralizing, you seem to forget that without public services, america would be even more class divided, even less developed; imagine the literacy rates.

1. once again, income tax isn't the only tax we have you dolt.
2. are YOU dense? it's almost laughable that a highschool dropout has the audacity to tell the most productive members of society that they don't deserve their wealth.
3. again, didn't we have these things before the 16th amendment? end the federal income tax.

government policy and regulation wouldn't let that happen. of course, consumer review and quality standards would exist.

All the while making services more costly and inefficient. Doctor's offices will be spending more time filing paperwork than actually treating patients. And that's after our medical schools will have all time lows in enrollment because everyone will realize it's not worth going to school for 10 years to become a slave to the healthcare system.

only for profit motive though... my primary argument is maintained:
capitalism puts emphasis on profit, this hurts society.
socialism puts emphasis on utility, this helps society.

Profit is not evil. The pursuit of profit is only evil when you undertake evil deeds in order to obtain it.

The same thing applies for socialism. It doesn't matter that you're helping poor people get healthcare, the fact that you are taking wealth from people by force in order to do so makes it wrong.

we still had taxation before the 16th amendment. in fact, we have always had taxation. who do you propose build the roads? or teach our children?

The point you missed was that the federal government grew tremendously after the federal income tax was enstated. Look at the parallel between income tax growth and the growth of the military industrial complex. Government involvement should be limited to protecting people's rights, not creating new ones out of thin air.

[NoSex]

For one, minimum wage.

so you're saying that minimum wage is forcing businesses to jack up the prices of their goods and services so that they can collect records profits because...? i'm really not following this. i think you're grasping at straws here.

Figure 7: CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay, the S&P 500 Index, corporate profits, and the federal minimum wage, 1990-2005 (all figures adjusted for inflation)

Because federal income tax is the only tax right? Oh wait, think about that for a second.

even considering the highest taxes on property, social security, medicare, sale, trade, and income... no one is being taxed half of their assets. take notes, i never said that income tax is the "only tax." it's far and along the most significant tax, which is why i cited it.

What gives you the right to say those people don't deserve the money based on the arbitrary criteria of it's more than they need? In fact, by that definition, anyone that is able to put money aside for savings or investments has more money than they need.

again, you're not reading what i'm saying. you're just arguing against points i haven't made. i said that it was more than anyone needs, or any "dozen people," for that matter. i was simply demonstrating that they wouldn't be hurting to lose any money, they could be taxed on 90% of their wealth and still be richer than the majority of americans. nonetheless, "more than one needs" is not an arbitrary criteria, it's not like i just chose to say that for no reason. people need money, and some people don't have enough of it... and, arguably, some people have far too much of it. it would be a good thing if everyone could it, and, pragmatically, it's not a bad thing to have to take money from others, who can afford it, to feed those who can't.

still, and even further, when it comes to deserving money, i have a particular inclination that those who do the most work (i.e. physical labor), those who actually move this country, who put their lives on the line, and suffer a great deal of stress and sacrifice in their labor, deserve the most compensation. without laborers, there would be no profit for anyone. any single laborer for gm is more deserving of compensation than roger moore. who has done more work? who has actually created a product?

but, we find that the exact opposite is true. ceo salaries are skyrocketing and labor salaries aren't hardly moving @ all.

Millions of soccer moms begged to differ at Wal-Marts around the country on Black Friday. Millions of smokers disagree.

you're not going to actually argue that smoking cigarettes is productive? look, these things propagate merely because they are profitable. my point was to illustrate that profitable things are not inherent instrumental or of significant utility, rather the opposite is often true.

More like makes the poor dependent on the welfare state, violate the citizen's right to property and increases the burden on society's most productive members to the point where they say f*ck it all and pack their bags.

1. capitalism created the poor.
2. property rights existed only because they were intended for rich white people, the only people who once owned property.
3. the most productive members of society are laborers, not ceos.

People voluntarily working for companies (and being paid while doing so) is moving towards a slave state...

after the slaves were emancipated, where did they go? they worked the fields. and now they were, in a sense, worse off. now that they had salaries, their employers were not obligated to provide food and shelter to them. they paid them only enough to keep them alive and mildly healthy, healthy enough to work. now that the slaves required a salary to survive, how voluntary would you consider their labor?

1. once again, income tax isn't the only tax we have you dolt.
2. are YOU dense? it's almost laughable that a highschool dropout has the audacity to tell the most productive members of society that they don't deserve their wealth.
3. again, didn't we have these things before the 16th amendment? end the federal income tax.

1. i know, you dolt. still, not half of anyone's wealth.
2. argumentum ad hominem. p.s. i never dropped out. i graduated. i now attend university.
3. we also had taxes before the 16th amendment? what the hell are you talking about? f*ck, we even had income tax before the 16th amendment.


All the while making services more costly and inefficient. Doctor's offices will be spending more time filing paperwork than actually treating patients. And that's after our medical schools will have all time lows in enrollment because everyone will realize it's not worth going to school for 10 years to become a slave to the healthcare system.
Profit is not evil. The pursuit of profit is only evil when you undertake evil deeds in order to obtain it.

The same thing applies for socialism. It doesn't matter that you're helping poor people get healthcare, the fact that you are taking wealth from people by force in order to do so makes it wrong.

i don't believe in your infantile shit morality.
not to mention, any reasonable dude would be like, "let people die or steal money from people who own golden helicopters...?" oh, i don't know, steal from the rich and give to the poor! if it's life and death, if it is the health of all of society... steal from the rich, for god's sake.

Government involvement should be limited to protecting people's rights, not creating new ones out of thin air.

i would argue that the provision of certain necessities (i.e. food, shelter, etc.) is a form of protection. without these provisions, human beings cannot survive (or at least, not easily survive). insofar as we have the right to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness," don't you think that the governments that are designed to secure these rights should make efforts to see that they are actualized? and, don't you feel that only by fulfilling the lower tiers of maslow's hierarchy can we secure these rights?

[kryogenix]

so you're saying that minimum wage is forcing businesses to jack up the prices of their goods and services so that they can collect records profits because...? i'm really not following this. i think you're grasping at straws here.

Figure 7: CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay, the S&P 500 Index, corporate profits, and the federal minimum wage, 1990-2005 (all figures adjusted for inflation)

You prove my point perfectly. Minimum wage adds a price floor on labor, meaning that the business must raise the price of their goods/services in order to compensate. This makes it tougher for smaller businesses to compete, as they don't have as much money as larger corporations.

As such, the small businesses which are burdened by increased labor costs go out of businesses, reducing the number of competing products, which reduces the pressure to lower the prices of goods/services and/or raise the quality of goods/services.

So instead of throwing that money to R&D, or lowering their prices in order to stay competitive, the board is free to give themselves raises.

even considering the highest taxes on property, social security, medicare, sale, trade, and income... no one is being taxed half of their assets. take notes, i never said that income tax is the "only tax." it's far and along the most significant tax, which is why i cited it.

False. In fact, if the healthcare surtax goes through, 39 out of 50 states will have a top level tax of 50%.

Next time, try doing a little more research.

again, you're not reading what i'm saying. you're just arguing against points i haven't made. i said that it was more than anyone needs, or any "dozen people," for that matter. i was simply demonstrating that they wouldn't be hurting to lose any money, they could be taxed on 90% of their wealth and still be richer than the majority of americans.

But it does hurt them. They are no longer able to use/save/reinvest their capital as they see fit. Again I ask, what gives you the right to deprive people of their property?

nonetheless, "more than one needs" is not an arbitrary criteria, it's not like i just chose to say that for no reason. people need money, and some people don't have enough of it... and, arguably, some people have far too much of it. it would be a good thing if everyone could it, and, pragmatically, it's not a bad thing to have to take money from others, who can afford it, to feed those who can't.

Again, anyone who is able to save/reinvest/buy nonessential items has by definition "too much money." I'd love for you to tell the mom and dad with the $20k a year income busting their ass to put aside money every year in order to send their kid to school that they have "too much money."

still, and even further, when it comes to deserving money, i have a particular inclination that those who do the most work (i.e. physical labor), those who actually move this country, who put their lives on the line, and suffer a great deal of stress and sacrifice in their labor, deserve the most compensation. without laborers, there would be no profit for anyone. any single laborer for gm is more deserving of compensation than roger moore. who has done more work? who has actually created a product?

So according to you, banker sits on his ass all day in an air conditioned office lending money to people so that they can buy houses and starts businesses doesn't deserve his salary as much as the mexican dude that sweats his ass off mowing lawn.

but, we find that the exact opposite is true. ceo salaries are skyrocketing and labor salaries aren't hardly moving @ all.

See the first part of this post.

you're not going to actually argue that smoking cigarettes is productive?

No, but producing cigarettes is productive.

[quote] look, these things propagate merely because they are profitable. my point was to illustrate that profitable things are not inherent instrumental or of significant utility, rather the opposite is often true.

[kryogenix]

Had to split up this post

1. capitalism created the poor.

False. We enter the world with no possessions, we leave with no possessions.

2. property rights existed only because they were intended for rich white people, the only people who once owned property.

And yet they continued to exist after that had changed.

3. the most productive members of society are laborers, not ceos.

Really now, so the person who commands the most money, the one who can hire or fire thousands of laborers, are less of an asset to the economy than one laborer?

after the slaves were emancipated, where did they go? they worked the fields. and now they were, in a sense, worse off. now that they had salaries, their employers were not obligated to provide food and shelter to them. they paid them only enough to keep them alive and mildly healthy, healthy enough to work. now that the slaves required a salary to survive, how voluntary would you consider their labor?

And the world was better of because of that. What are you complaining about here?

1. i know, you dolt. still, not half of anyone's wealth.

Proven false above.

2. argumentum ad hominem. p.s. i never dropped out. i graduated. i now attend university.

Congrats on being older than everyone in your class.

3. we also had taxes before the 16th amendment? what the hell are you talking about? f*ck, we even had income tax before the 16th amendment.

I specifically singled out the federal income tax. There was a functional society prior to the 16th amendment. In fact, the main reason for it was to raise money to fund the war in which the most Americans died. Since then, the income tax has continued to be largely used to fund the United States war machine.

i don't believe in your infantile shit morality.

Ah, the beauty of relativism.

not to mention, any reasonable dude would be like, "let people die or steal money from people who own golden helicopters...?" oh, i don't know, steal from the rich and give to the poor! if it's life and death, if it is the health of all of society... steal from the rich, for god's sake.

i don't believe in your infantile shit morality. you can't define stealing as wrong, except when rich people are the victims. equal protection under the law?

i would argue that the provision of certain necessities (i.e. food, shelter, etc.) is a form of protection. without these provisions, human beings cannot survive (or at least, not easily survive). insofar as we have the right to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness," don't you think that the governments that are designed to secure these rights should make efforts to see that they are actualized? and, don't you feel that only by fulfilling the lower tiers of maslow's hierarchy can we secure these rights?

No, the government's job (at least under the Constitution) is to make sure no one is infringing on your rights. The Constitution does not give the government the responsibility of babying our citizens.

[NoSex]

You prove my point perfectly. Minimum wage adds a price floor on labor, meaning that the business must raise the price of their goods/services... in order to stay competitive, the board is free to give themselves raises.

your premise is false because minimum wage has been steadily decreasing while profits have been increasing.

secondly, you can't argue that fair compensation is what the free market creates when you're going to say that minimum wage is an unfair government regulation that hurts the economy. you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the free market works out fair compensation and gives workers what they deserve or we need regulations like minimum wage in order to give workers proper compensation for their work.

False. In fact, if the healthcare surtax goes through... Next time, try doing a little more research.

are you f*cking kidding me? you can't claim you're a good soccer player IF YOU MOVE THE GOAL POST INTO YOUR SHOTS. you said that people are being, currently, taxed half of their assets. i said that they weren't. i was right. you were wrong. you can't pretend you're right because, maybe, perhaps, sometime in the future, someone may be taxed over half of their assets.

LEARN TO HAVE A FAIR AND HONEST DEBATE. YOU JUST LOOK LIKE A DOUCHEBAG.

Again, anyone who is able to save/reinvest/buy nonessential items has by definition "too much money." I'd love for you to tell the mom and dad with the $20k a year income busting their ass to put aside money every year in order to send their kid to school that they have "too much money."

what the hell are you talking about? even when i try to correct you, it's as if you're f*cking illiterate.

So according to you, banker sits on his ass all day in an air conditioned office lending money to people so that they can buy houses and starts businesses doesn't deserve his salary as much as the mexican dude that sweats his ass off mowing lawn.

is the banker white?

False. We enter the world with no possessions, we leave with no possessions.

what the f*ck is this psycho-babel-bullshit? capitalism creates class divides which lead to institutionalized poverty. inheritance exits, and wealth is mostly hereditary. in other words, legitimate social mobility does not exist in america.

Really now, so the person who commands the most money, the one who can hire or fire thousands of laborers, are less of an asset to the economy than one laborer?

we don't need someone who doesn't know how to build a car, to tell someone, who knows how to build a car, to build a car. yes, a single laborer is more important.

And the world was better of because of that. What are you complaining about here?

you are f*cking dense. when the slaves were emancipated and began to earn salaries, do you think that they were being fairly compensated for their work?

There was a functional society prior to the 16th amendment.

it was functional because we had taxation.

i don't believe in your infantile shit morality. you can't define stealing as wrong, except when rich people are the victims. equal protection under the law?

the law is taxation. and, a tiered tax bracket at that -- those who earn more are obligated, under law, to contribute more.

No, the government's job (at least under the Constitution) is to make sure no one is infringing on your rights. The Constitution does not give the government the responsibility of babying our citizens.

i care about a progressive socio-economic world. because of this, i think that the government has an obligation to make society healthier, happier, and more fair. that's what the people want. if it is true that we own the government, than that is the democratic purpose of our state.

[kryogenix]

your premise is false because minimum wage has been steadily decreasing while profits have been increasing.

Decreasing? What world do you live in?

inb4 you bring up inflation as an excuse, which is largely caused by the government's inflationary policies.

You can't legislate prosperity. If you could, then I'd be all for setting the minimum wage to $1 million/hour so that we could all be rich.

are you f*cking kidding me? you can't claim you're a good soccer player IF YOU MOVE THE GOAL POST INTO YOUR SHOTS. you said that people are being, currently, taxed half of their assets. i said that they weren't. i was right. you were wrong. you can't pretend you're right because, maybe, perhaps, sometime in the future, someone may be taxed over half of their assets.

LEARN TO HAVE A FAIR AND HONEST DEBATE. YOU JUST LOOK LIKE A DOUCHEBAG.

How about you learn to read and do a little mental math, you simpleton. There is already a number of people being taxed over 50%. The link I posted simply stated that number will increase, which is PERFECTLY f*ckING RELEVANT considering it's in direct consequence to the issue of healthcare we are discussing.

You claim to have passed highschool, so I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if a tax claims 58% of someone's income as a result of the addition of a 5.4% surtax, they were already having more than 50% of their income being taken away from them prior to that surtax being added.

LEARN TO USE MORE THAN 2 OF YOUR BRAIN CELLS. YOU JUST SOUND LIKE A DUMBASS.

what the hell are you talking about? even when i try to correct you, it's as if you're f*cking illiterate.

I'm talking about your shitty criteria, as anyone who is able to save/invest has excess wealth by definition since they are not consuming all their wealth. Your criteria punishes good behavior by discouraging savings and increased productivity.

I don't think you're illiterate, just unwilling to admit you're dead wrong.

is the banker white?

Why does it matter?

what the f*ck is this psycho-babel-bullshit? capitalism creates class divides which lead to institutionalized poverty. inheritance exits, and wealth is mostly hereditary. in other words, legitimate social mobility does not exist in america.

Socialism creates class divides: there's the poor, and there's the State.

we don't need someone who doesn't know how to build a car, to tell someone, who knows how to build a car, to build a car. yes, a single laborer is more important.

We need someone who owns capital to hire someone who they train to build a car. We need someone who owns capital to invest in research to create better cars.

We do not need to forfeit our property rights to a corrupt government that does not know how to run a business.

you are f*cking dense. when the slaves were emancipated and began to earn salaries, do you think that they were being fairly compensated for their work?

As long as honest contracts were being made, yes, they were being fairly compensated.

it was functional because we had taxation.

But not because of a FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Wow you are thick headed. You've gotta be kidding if you think taxes back then were anything like taxes now.

the law is taxation. and, a tiered tax bracket at that -- those who earn more are obligated, under law, to contribute more.

The law discriminates against the productive, and favors the unproductive.

i care about a progressive socio-economic world. because of this, i think that the government has an obligation to make society healthier, happier, and more fair. that's what the people want. if it is true that we own the government, than that is the democratic purpose of our state.

Do we own the government, or does the government own us? If we surrender our property rights to the government, we are surrendering ourselves to the government.

[NoSex]

Decreasing? What world do you live in?

inb4 you bring up inflation as an excuse, which is largely caused by the government's inflationary policies.

doesn't matter what the hell it's caused by, you're argument is demonstratively wrong:
in 2005 & since 1990, minimum wage has decreased by 9.3% whereas ceo pay has increased by 298.2%. [1]

not to mention, minimum wage isn't what puts small business out to pasture. what does that is competition from big business. having to pay their employers a menial wage has very little to actually do with it.

You can't legislate prosperity. If you could, then I'd be all for setting the minimum wage to $1 million/hour so that we could all be rich.

if we redistributed wealth, we could probably make everyone in america a millionaire.

How about you learn to read and do a little mental math, you simpleton.

you're link was misleading. i only read the first few paragraphs in it. you should have clarified. nonetheless, i don't give a f*ck about taxation; i think it's a good thing.

p.s. note how these wealthy people aren't leaving america to escape "unfair" taxation. part of that is probably because with all of their reductions and deductions... they probably pay far less (which you know is true). another part is probably that they couldn't make the same wages anywhere else, quite as easily. that's why doctors come here to work, because they want six cars and two summer homes (i.e. things no one showed have).

I'm talking about your shitty criteria

i already clarified this like twice, my "criteria" is not "anyone who can do more than simply survive." i was simply drawing a comparison, saying that certain persons can easily EASILY afford to be taxed a significant sum of their wealth. others, obviously, cannot.

Socialism creates class divides: there's the poor, and there's the State.

you don't know much about socialism.

We need someone who owns capital to hire someone who they train to build a car. We need someone who owns capital to invest in research to create better cars.

who better than the proletariat himself? in a socialist system, the workers could own the means of production themselves.

As long as honest contracts were being made, yes, they were being fairly compensated.

alright, i just want to talk about this point. that's it. just this point.

there inherently no such thing as an "honest" or fair contract when you are considering an "agreement" between two vastly unequal parties. if a starving, desperate person comes to an exceptionally wealthy, and powerful individual and this desperate person wants work... any contract that person forms will be controlled by the person in a position of power. i'm going to ask you the same question again, were those former slaves fairly compensated for their work?

we are surrendering ourselves to the government.

not if we own the government.

[brooklyneast05]

i don't get socialism i don't think. i don't get where the motivation is. if there is no profit, and no reason to succeed, and no competition. i don't see how it would work. it's never worked anywhere. people say that no where has ever established true socialism. well there has to be a reason for that doesn't there? what would make the US able to establish true socialism when no one else can? if capitalism is the devil then why do people want to come to america in the first place.


duno, i don't think i can even picture somewhere where everyone is equal, maybe that's my problem. everyone owns the means of production. we all have a dandy life and go about doing whatever we want with no incentive at all and only taking what we need. i don't get how we would even go about establishing something like this.


anyway does this mean you aren't in favor of what obama is doing nate? since you're in favor of a single payer system and obama has said he isn't in favor of a single payer system.

[NoSex]

i don't get socialism i don't think. i don't get where the motivation is.

even i support a mixed economy.
but, you still seem to be a bit confused. if i were you, i would start here:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

click around. most of your questions should be answered.

anyway does this mean you aren't in favor of what obama is doing nate? since you're in favor of a single payer system and obama has said he isn't in favor of a single payer system.

a public option, in competition with the private industry, is better than nothing, but it's still rather sad. we need to have a single-payer system, like the rest of the world, it's just that certain fat cat's bank accounts can't handle it. if only everyone knew exactly how much money the private industry has put into lobbying the house and senate... perhaps we could all see much clearer than.

[kryogenix]

doesn't matter what the hell it's caused by, you're argument is demonstratively wrong:
in 2005 & since 1990, minimum wage has decreased by 9.3% whereas ceo pay has increased by 298.2%.

My argument is demonstratively wrong because big government thinks the solution to problems caused by big government is even more big government? Ok...

Clearly, people like Warren Buffet are more valuable to the economy than some pimply face kid who refills the drink machine at McD's.

if we redistributed wealth, we could probably make everyone in america a millionaire.

If we murdered everyone who wasn't a millionaire, we could definitely make everyone in America a millionaire.

Murder is wrong. So is taking away vast sums of money by force.

you're link was misleading. i only read the first few paragraphs in it. you should have clarified. nonetheless, i don't give a f*ck about taxation; i think it's a good thing.

translation: you were too dense to understand the first time around, so it was obviously trickery on my part that caused your mighty intellect to falter.

p.s. note how these wealthy people aren't leaving america to escape "unfair" taxation. part of that is probably because with all of their reductions and deductions... they probably pay far less (which you know is true). another part is probably that they couldn't make the same wages anywhere else, quite as easily. that's why doctors come here to work, because they want six cars and two summer homes (i.e. things no one showed have).

See what happens when you take away ALL of their wealth. Let's see how eager they are to stay. Let's see how eager doctors are to work in America when they are forced to work for well under the fair market value for their services.

i already clarified this like twice, my "criteria" is not "anyone who can do more than simply survive." i was simply drawing a comparison, saying that certain persons can easily EASILY afford to be taxed a significant sum of their wealth. others, obviously, cannot.

Some people can easily survive a punch to the gut; doesn't mean I'm free to go around punching them.

you don't know much about socialism.

You don't know much about much.

who better than the proletariat himself? in a socialist system, the workers could own the means of production themselves.

lol, we see the disastrous effect of what powerful unions do to certain industries, and you want to give the workers more power?

the consumer should be the person in position of power. Not the business. Not the worker.

alright, i just want to talk about this point. that's it. just this point.

there inherently no such thing as an "honest" or fair contract when you are considering an "agreement" between two vastly unequal parties. if a starving, desperate person comes to an exceptionally wealthy, and powerful individual and this desperate person wants work... any contract that person forms will be controlled by the person in a position of power. i'm going to ask you the same question again, were those former slaves fairly compensated for their work?

The exceptionally wealthy person has no obligation to provide the starving person a job. The starving person should be thankful that an opportunity exists to feed himself. If he does not agree with the value the wealthy person has place on his labor, he can move on and look for someone else to hire him. Or, he can beg for food, feed himself and not be in quite a dire situation that he has to accept ANY job that comes his way. You act as if charity is nonexistant in capitalism. In fact, the opposite is so; charity is non existant in socialism. Charity is freely giving ones possessions to another one in need. Socialism is just a fancy word for stealing.

The beauty of capitalism is the ability to improve one's socioeconomic standing. This does not exist in socialism.

I have no idea if every single one of the former slaves engaged in lawful labor contracts post emancipation. But, I repeat myself, as long as both parties agreed to the terms of the labor, then yes, they were fairly compensated. The plantation owner offered a wage, and the emancipated slave agreed that his labor was worth that wage when he accepted the terms.

not if we own the government.

I don't know how you can be so naive. You don't own the government when you've just surrendered all your rights to it.

[queen]

i don't think one can place value on a job purely on its physical labor. one can arguably say that CEOs work just as hard as any "laborer". the other side of that argument is that anyone can do blue collar work, whereas one would (generally) need to input time and money into education for a white collar job. this is especially true during these times, when anything less than a doctorate/masters can't even land people the jobs they used to get a decade ago.

i agree with kryo that CEOs are more valuable to the economy than a single laborer. you're quick to forget that if one person feels he isn't getting paid what he deserves, there's always someone else who's willing to do the same job for less. the person with capital is more important; the single laborer just doesn't have that much of an impact.

and if we distributed america's wealth so that everyone's a millionaire, i'd be putoff honestly. i, like so many other greedy americans, want a bigger house than my neighbors; i want a better car than they have, and i want to be able to buy more useless shit than they do. if i were a doctor, i wouldn't want the same wage as someone who didn't go through med school. if i were a top firm lawyer, i'd be annoyed if my secretary had the same size apartment i have. if i were a CEO, i would expect to have more cars than my employees. i don't think it's fair to establish what's "more than one needs". if a guy can afford 12 cars, he deserves to have them. if we start judging what people should and shouldn't have, what's stopping us from saying we shouldn't have tv, computers, or anything that's not necessary for human existance?