• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Health Care Bill Passes!

Darkness

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Alceste said:
I think you need to look up "socialism."
Click to expand...

Socialism is "an ideology argueing that citizens are best served by policies focused on meeting the basic needs of the entire society rather than on serving the needs of individuals as individuals" (Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science, 4th edition).

Socialism does not have to advocate a complete overthow of capitalism. Social Democrats merely attempt to control capitalism so that it works for the general welfare. Democratic socialists use democracy to achieve a public ownership of goods. Marxist-Leninists attempt a violent revolution to install a marxist system. Remember that all marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are marxists. In fact, in Europe the vast majority of socialists are social democrats.
 
Last edited:
FlyingTeaPot

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
I don't think Boehner has read the bill. He keeps saying things which are not there in the bill.
 
FlyingTeaPot

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Boehner admitted he didn't read the bill himself. Then he goes on a misinformed rant about abortions, insurance and Medicare. It is cheap scare tactics.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Darkness said:
Socialism is "an ideology argueing that citizens are best served by policies focused on meeting the basic needs of the entire society rather than on serving the needs of individuals as individuals" (Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science, 4th edition).

Socialism does not have to advocate a complete overthow of capitalism. Social Democrats merely attempt to control capitalism so that it works for the general welfare. Democratic socialists use democracy to achieve a public ownership of goods. Marxist-Leninists attempt a violent revolution to install a marxist system. Remember that all marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are marxists. In fact, in Europe the vast majority of socialists are social democrats.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. I don't see anything in there about the abolition of "freedom", or government hand-outs, or buying votes, or pandering to the bottom feeders...

Even monkeys understand that sometimes a bit of collective back-scratching is in everybody's best interest.

2547912639_9f09d50a66.jpg
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Reverend Rick said:
Second thing, no one that is dieing is being turned away from the hospital. :no:
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. Thousands of people die every year in the U.S. because they don't have health insurance. That is a fact. I realize you may not like to acknowledge that reality, but it is reality.

Why do Japan and Iceland and Australia and 37 other countries have a higher life expectancy than we do? What do they have that we don't? Health insurance.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think socialism is better defined as the public ownership of the means of production.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Sunstone said:
I think socialism is better defined as the public ownership of the means of production.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - that definition kind of creeps over the line into the realm of communism, IMO. Socialism can be compatible with private enterprise, as is demonstrated more than adequately by countries like Denmark. All states attempt to strike a balance between public and private ownership and management of resources. Socialism proposes that our collective resources should be used (or protected) to further our collective well-being. That doesn't preclude the use of our privately owned resources to further our personal well-being.

As I see it, this means if you want to chop down all the trees on your own property and sell them for profit, go for it as long (as it doesn't cause damage to your neighbours' property.) If you want to come up to my back yard and chop down the remaining publicly managed old-growth forests in Clayoquot Sound for your personal profit, you can go **** yourself.

Likewise, if you want to open a private clinic and charge thousands of bucks for services I get free through public health insurance, go nuts. Just don't expect anyone to be bashing your door down and don't try to interfere with or participate in the public system for your personal enrichment.
 
stiletto

stiletto

Naughty But Nice
KatNotKathy said:
Don't congratulate us yet. We have a hell of a long way to go, even just talking healthcarewise.
Click to expand...

Guess your right. Kinda like Obama's Nobel Peace Prize before he'd done anything. But at least things are heading in the "civilized" direction. But looking at the violent protests, perhaps that's not true either. :(
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Today my father in law (who is from the Netherlands) said he believes that people who oppose health care should be denied health care so that they can know what they are wanting to deny people of. I don't fully agree with him, but it might be an eye opener if people who want to deny healthcare to the thousands who don't have if they themselves are forced to rough it through a illness, and just live with an injury. Since some could easily afford a doctor, it wouldn't be as harsh of an experience that those of us who have to wait until the illness has went from the sniffles to a bad case of the flu to see a doctor, but that extra money going to health care might send a message.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Alceste said:
Not necessarily - that definition kind of creeps over the line into the realm of communism, IMO. Socialism can be compatible with private enterprise, as is demonstrated more than adequately by countries like Denmark. All states attempt to strike a balance between public and private ownership and management of resources. Socialism proposes that our collective resources should be used (or protected) to further our collective well-being. That doesn't preclude the use of our privately owned resources to further our personal well-being.

As I see it, this means if you want to chop down all the trees on your own property and sell them for profit, go for it as long (as it doesn't cause damage to your neighbours' property.) If you want to come up to my back yard and chop down the remaining publicly managed old-growth forests in Clayoquot Sound for your personal profit, you can go **** yourself.

Likewise, if you want to open a private clinic and charge thousands of bucks for services I get free through public health insurance, go nuts. Just don't expect anyone to be bashing your door down and don't try to interfere with or participate in the public system for your personal enrichment.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with socialism. As Sunstone indicated, it's only the publicly owned (i.e. government owned) means of production that are social.
 
Last edited:
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Willamena said:
That has nothing to do with socialism. As Sunstone indicated, it's the publicly owned means of production that are social.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Sunstone's definition (and apparently yours) is taken almost verbatim from the Communist Manifesto. Socialism has evolved somewhat since Marx, and is not interchangeable with communism.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Alceste said:
As I understand it, Sunstone's definition (and apparently yours) is taken almost verbatim from the Communist Manifesto. Socialism has evolved somewhat since Marx, and is not interchangeable with communism.
Click to expand...
Communism is about ownership of property. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production. I see them as vastly different things.

It's reflected in government having control of things like bird hunting licensing, natural gas prices, and the distribution of goods.

(Alberta is far less socialist post-Ralph than it will ever be again.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top