Quote:
Originally Posted by dannieyankee
I hear about all the evil of socialism, but some aspects of it seems not that bad.
|
I believe the USA has always been partially socialized - to be completely socialized, or "capitalised," would require direct democracy. As it is, a hierarcial republic, there is a balance negotiated between the two economic systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannieyankee
1) Why should someone's health be at the mercy of someone whose focus is not on their health, but earning money? A state-run healthcare program does not sound so bad when you realise why things like this make "socialist healthcare" a better idea than privatised healthcare.
|
Well, if the doctors', and the developers of medical methods, secondary focus is not on making money, because of socialized healthcare, what then will be their focus that leads them? How then do they decide who gets priority attention? Why be a doctor when being a movie theater attendent is just as significant to the social system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannieyankee
2) education cannot be left to he states, clearly. See my previous thread on education.
|
I read your entries about education, and I do not see anything that suggests that you believe the states are failing because they are not adhering to national standards?
Sure, you have some ideas that you believe would make things better, but the next politician doesn't agree completely, and so a compromise is struck. Has it ever occurred to you that it's the compromises that cause the problem, or do you believe compromise is always good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannieyankee
3) Civil rights should also be something that does not go by state. Your marriage should not be voided in some states because they don't like the homosexual lifestyle...
|
What you are failing to understand is the full rendition of a social system.
As it is, we have two political parties that are never in complete control of any particular district. So, we will never know how well their theoretical principals actually guide a district, because their principals are always negotiated to a compromise.
In the case of state marriage liscensing you are focused on homosexual marriage as being benign, because you are so much more intelligent than the rest of the people. What you are failing to realize is that the rest of the dumb people in this world should not have to be subject to your authoritarian tyranny.
What I would suggest is that you gather all the people who agree with your beliefs as to how to run a political district, and you all relocate so as to gain control of a district, and then prove that your ideas are better if they are pursued without compromise to the dumb people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannieyankee
So I understand the main problem within this entire operation is the fear of the loss of choice. What I propose is a government healthcare system that has various options for healthcare, or even personalized healthcare systems - it seems very difficult to keep up, yes, but the fact remains that the only reason it remains difficult is because it is hard to keep track of millions of people's personalised healthcare. However, making everything computer-based will simplify this problem. All you need to do is put their name or Social Security number into the computer and you will have their programme.
How does that sound?
Healthcare is not a supermarket. It should not be treated as such.
|
Sounds like a healthcare supermarket, only that you believe the government can run it with people who really care. Haven't you noticed how much government run entities are worked by people who cannot make it in private sector, and are usually below your standard of competence?
