Obamunism

[Mr_Adams]

you don't get it do you? This thread is about Obama, and you bringing Bush in to this, whom I, the original poster of the thread, don't support as your offense, is completely POINTLESS.

[Mr Changsha]

you don't get it do you? This thread is about Obama, and you bringing Bush in to this, whom I, the original poster of the thread, don't support as your offense, is completely POINTLESS.

Ah, maybe we are getting somewhere now. So you don't support Bush OR Obama. You don't support Obama's new proposal so I suppose you don't support the current one either?

But you do believe that the government should get the hell out of your life.

All I'm "Yammering" about is that I don't trust the government with control of my health care. And you shouldn't either. And don't tell me to go out and get private health care on the side, because if you look at previous examples, such as Canada, there is no private sector of health care anymore, from what I understand. It was gradual government take over.

You know, if you give the people a choice (in this case private vs public healthcare) and the private companies fail, it is because the people voted with their feet and went for the public option, not because the government 'took over.'

Let me paint you a picture and tell me when I go wrong.

1. You watch Fox News
2. Fox News has been banging on about the government take over of healthcare being the first stage in creating a socialist hell hole in the US. They say that is bad.
3. You believe them and haven't considered that Fox might well be standing up for interests in the business community while pretending it is a fight against socialism.

(btw this little trick has been going on in the US since the 50's)

Am I warm?

Look, do yourself a favour and educate yourself. Read about the founding of the NHS in Britain and the difference it made to people's lives. Read about ACTUALLY what happened in Canada. I know lot's of Canadians and I've yet to meet one who doesn't consider their healthcare system to be one of the glories of their nation. Find out about Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Britain and all the other developed countries who don't have the absolute stain on their nations of having a poorest 15% who can't go to the hospital.

Find out if any of these countries have gradually become communist over the years. The NHS was set up in the 1945-51 government and we are still free!

Finally, I assume you believe that all the people in the US should have the opportunity to go to school till 18 for free, to go to the hospital when they are sick and have a decent pension when they are old. These things are the basis of civilised society and have been since the 19th century (when they were a goal) into the 20th century when they became a reality. The people must always fight for these things as they are everyman's fundamental right in a rich, democratic society.

But there is NO way these can be provided for without a central government. It is up to the people to elect the right leaders to preserve these fundamental rights. So stop blathering on about 'getting the governent out of your life.' You are doing the work of those who would take those rights away from you every time you write it.

[Jolly Roger]

And don't tell me to go out and get private health care on the side, because if you look at previous examples, such as Canada, there is no private sector of health care anymore, from what I understand. It was gradual government take over.

Obviously, you have not looked at Canada as a previous example nor have you made any serious attempt to understand. Both health insurance and care can be obtained in Canada through our private sector comrades. Information on the subject is readily available online (where permitted by the authorities) and can be found with minimal time and effort by anyone who wishes to do some actual web-based research instead of making false statements based on imaginary research. I would provide you with some links but I have to attend my state-run Building Cooperative meeting today on top of a double shift with my Work Organization so I just haven't got the time.

[Snorri1234]

My point is that you're yammering on about pure bullshit. If "socialized medicine" was just a step down the "slippery slope" to communism, then EVERY wealthy, industrialized nation in the world (other than the USA) would be run by a bunch of commies by now.

Get your head out of your ass, and try joining the rest of the world.

practically tho. why do u have to be insulting against someone that has different ideas than u.

It's not that your ideas are "different", it's that they're retarded.


Also, love this thread.

[thegreekdog]

Really though, when your country is founded on mistrust of its elected officials (as so many of you seem to think the USA was), I can see why you would fight everything they try to do that doesn't involve "getting the fuck out of my life".

I'm not really sure why mistrust of elected officials is a bad thing considering empirical evidence.

To support nothing but a privatized health care industry means one of two things. Either you're rich, and selfish, or you're stupid. And I suppose those things are not mutually exclusive.

To support nothing but a public health care industry means one of two things: Either you're rich and selfish, or you're stupid. And I suppose those things are also not mutually exclusive.

[Timminz]

Really though, when your country is founded on mistrust of its elected officials (as so many of you seem to think the USA was), I can see why you would fight everything they try to do that doesn't involve "getting the fuck out of my life".

I'm not really sure why mistrust of elected officials is a bad thing considering empirical evidence.

If they aren't considered trustworthy by the people, then why the hell are they getting elected?

To support nothing but a privatized health care industry means one of two things. Either you're rich, and selfish, or you're stupid. And I suppose those things are not mutually exclusive.

To support nothing but a public health care industry means one of two things: Either you're rich and selfish, or you're stupid. And I suppose those things are also not mutually exclusive.

Please explain.

[thegreekdog]

If they aren't considered trustworthy by the people, then why the hell are they getting elected?

There is no alternative. And if they are considered trustworthy, then why aren't they always reelected (other than because there is no alternative)?

Please explain.

I have yet to find one working class person in the United States who is both intelligent and without healthcare call for government-run healthcare. Perhaps they are stupid?

I have heard a number of wealthy people, including heads of corporations, the president, and members of Congress, argue for universal government-run healthcare. I have also heard many stupid people, including members of this site, argue for universal government-run healthcare.

[Timminz]

So the problem is that you have a flawed system of democracy? Fair enough. Perhaps that should be the first thing the people get to work on fixing.

You still haven't shown me why a wealthy, and selfish person would care about providing proper health care to the poor. And is it really so wrong, in your mind, for the government to provide for the health and well-being of their population? It seems like a pretty basic thing to me, and most of the developed world.

[colton24]

no there are 2 stories i have.

a kid broke his arm and his dad took him to the hospital that was using obamas plan it took them 4 hours just to get in.

i woke up sick one morning and not getting enough air and i had to wait 30 minutes while breathing heavily and feeling like a piece of shit to get into the ER room. i ended up having the flu bu a bad case of it (not swine flu)

[thegreekdog]

So the problem is that you have a flawed system of democracy? Fair enough. Perhaps that should be the first thing the people get to work on fixing.

I agree. I would prefer a multi-party system. I would also prefer that the federal government in particular do less.

You still haven't shown me why a wealthy, and selfish person would care about providing proper health care to the poor. And is it really so wrong, in your mind, for the government to provide for the health and well-being of their population? It seems like a pretty basic thing to me, and most of the developed world.

Sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to show you why a wealthy and selfish person would care about providing proper healthcare to the poor. I think what I'm really supposed to show you is why a wealthy and selfish person would want the government to be the only provider of healthcare. I'll do my best to explain, although it seems pretty self-explanatory:

I'm not sure what wealth has to do with anything, but presumably a wealthy person does not care whether healthcare is provided to the poor by the government or by someone else because the wealthy person will still be wealthy. Furthermore, the wealthy person, if he or she is involved in a business corporation, will be able to control, via funds provided to government employees in the form of campaign contributions, what services the government provides under universal healthcare, as well as what incentives the government provides that are unrelated to universal healthcare. This is commonly referred to as bribery, but in the United States we refer to this phenomenon as "campaign contributions" and "pork." As for the selfish part of it, I think that's self-explanatory. But, if we're talking about a Congressperson, president, or government employee, when said government employee controls something, said government employee has access to the purse strings and therefore access to that sweet, sweet campaign loot and associated power. Do you think President Obama is advocating government-run healthcare because he has a sweet spot for poor people?

My point here is that you are either too naive or too young to understand that government-run universal healthcare is not an issue about the poor working class and the evil corporations and rich people. It's about power and money and who controls both. So, when you make a statement like, to paraphrase, "the only people who are against government-run healthcare are the rich and stupid" you are being rather ignorant yourself since you do not seem to understand the issues involved. Indeed, you latch on to one side of the argument without acknowledging the other side's points because the other side are "rich" and/or "stupid." Because, really, to fix the ills of the US healthcare system in the most efficient and effective manner, there needs to be a compromise between government control and private sector control.

[thegreekdog]

Finally, I assume you believe that all the people in the US should have the opportunity to go to school till 18 for free, to go to the hospital when they are sick and have a decent pension when they are old. These things are the basis of civilised society and have been since the 19th century (when they were a goal) into the 20th century when they became a reality. The people must always fight for these things as they are everyman's fundamental right in a rich, democratic society.

Three questions for you (you can estimate on the first two, I don't need links; I would like a link to the third question if you can; if not, no big deal):

(1) What percentage people in the United States go to school for free?
(2) What percentage of people in the United States, currently under the age of, let's say 30, will receive a government pension when they are 65 (or 70 for that matter)?
(3) Why are healthcare, education, and a pension fundamental rights?

[Timminz]

My point here is that you are either too naive or too young to understand that government-run universal healthcare is not an issue about the poor working class and the evil corporations and rich people. It's about power and money and who controls both. So, when you make a statement like, to paraphrase, "the only people who are against government-run healthcare are the rich and stupid" you are being rather ignorant yourself since you do not seem to understand the issues involved. Indeed, you latch on to one side of the argument without acknowledging the other side's points because the other side are "rich" and/or "stupid." Because, really, to fix the ills of the US healthcare system in the most efficient and effective manner, there needs to be a compromise between government control and private sector control.

Well done dog. The first part of this paragraph inspires a hearty "Fuck you! You pompous ass. You have no idea what you're talking about.", but by the end of it, I realize that you and I agree that a publicly run, universal health care system is crucial. At no time did I say that I think all private care should be eliminated,although you took my support of public heath care to mean that. I simply believe that private-only is not a viable option, as is being demonstrated by the USA currently. There needs to be a public system, to ensure that ALL citizens get the basic health care required for a healthy, and happy life. But, you know, feel free to continue "latching on to one side of the argument."

Also, you've paraphrased me quite poorly, by compounding an 'or' statement into a single phrase.

If you wish to continue attempting to make it appear as though I'm saying things that I am not, feel free to use the things that I have already said, as I can tell there's no point in adding any more.

[thegreekdog]

I apologize, I assumed that because you so vehemently argued against persons, such as myself, who are a little wary of government-run healthcare, that you were in favor of a government-only system. In any event, I don't believe there is a single person that I know who is in favor of a private-only healthcare system. Nor has there ever been a private-only health insurance system in the US... ever. Therefore I, apparently incorrectly, assumed that you couldn't possibly be saying that anyone in favor of a private-only healthcare system is either rich or stupid since said person does not exist; so I therefore assumed you were talking about anyone who does not support the president's plan. I think that was a safe assumption for me to make right?

So the debate here is really not about whether one or the other of the government or private industry should run healthcare but to what extent one should run healthcare instead of the other in some sort of combination. That's currently what we have in the United States. So, on a basic level, the solution is for the US government to insure the persons the health insurance companies won't insure - namely the poor, unemployed, and perhaps illegal immigrants. A more complex solution is to scrap the broken parts of the system, as I've indicated in previous posts.

In sum, I'm not stupid. I'm not rich (at least according to the president's definition of rich... I may be rich compared to a college student; I don't know). What I am is completely against any sort of plan that (1) pits the US government in competition for the same customers against private companies or (2) give the US government complete control over healthcare. The first is effectively the second, but I thought I should list both.

[Mr Changsha]

Finally, I assume you believe that all the people in the US should have the opportunity to go to school till 18 for free, to go to the hospital when they are sick and have a decent pension when they are old. These things are the basis of civilised society and have been since the 19th century (when they were a goal) into the 20th century when they became a reality. The people must always fight for these things as they are everyman's fundamental right in a rich, democratic society.

Three questions for you (you can estimate on the first two, I don't need links; I would like a link to the third question if you can; if not, no big deal):

(1) What percentage people in the United States go to school for free?
(2) What percentage of people in the United States, currently under the age of, let's say 30, will receive a government pension when they are 65 (or 70 for that matter)?
(3) Why are healthcare, education, and a pension fundamental rights?

(1) What percentage people in the United States go to school for free? Wiki Answers (credible source?) just informed me that around 11% of Americans attend a private school. Regardless of the accuracy of that statistic, I think it is fair to suggest that the vast majority attend public schools and (I would assume) that these schools are basically free. However, if you included University within your definition of 'school' as I have known Americans to do, then this percentage would obviously drop massively. I'll await your reply as to why you asked this question...

(2) What percentage of people in the United States, currently under the age of, let's say 30, will receive a government pension when they are 65 (or 70 for that matter)? Now this is a much trickier and much more loaded question! Now of course I cannot predict the future, but I, like I'm sure you, have great difficulty in believing the state will be able to support my generation (born 1981) when we are old to even the minimal extent the British Government supported my grandparents. However, I believe a way will have to be found, because unless we want to return to the days of the poor house, or of old people freezing to death in the streets, a basic pension will have to be provided by the state. I don't see a way around this.

(3) Why are healthcare, education, and a pension fundamental rights? I believe that all children in Western Democracies should have the right to expect a free, good (not half arsed but good) education up to the age of about fourteen. Maths, English, Science...all the fundamentals. I then believe that those with a bent for manual work should spend two years in technical college before attempting to find a trade. Those with a more academic bent should be preparing for university (though I'd limit the numbers going to about 15-20%) and the rest should leave school at sixteen and attempt to get a clerical job. However, it should all be free...including university. The reason a free education should be a fundamental right is because without it the middle and upper classes just pull away from the working class every year. The only way to equalise the playing field is to limit the numbers going to university but make acceptance based on academic ability. I write this as someone who was fortunate enough to attend an excellent British private school with all the advantages you would expect to find in such an institution. I am well aware of what a help that is and I strongly believe that the state system should be structured to allow those from less well-off backgrounds to compete. The old British grammar school system (for all its faults) was a wonderful thing in this regard, for it allowed clever kids from a working class background to compete with upper middle classes on a much more level playing field. However, the efforts made in mid. 20th century were basically squandered towards the end of that century.

I've already written about healthcare and have no wish to repeat myself. With regards to a pension, unless you are looking forward to (or are at least amazingly unconcerned at the prospect of) the aged freezing to death during the winter months then I can't see how anyone would not support a state pension. Similarly, how one could not believe that the elderly in our societies deserve to be treated with respect and allowed to live in a dignified manner is also beyond me. On that basis, I believe a state pension to a fundamental right in a civilised society.

Finally, I've been lucky enough to spend these last six years living in the heart of a developing country. If you had seen the kinds of things I have seen (and continue to see on a daily basis) then you might question your antagonism towards big state 'socialist' American leaders. Believe me, things could be a lot worse!

[alster]

Just skimmed the thread. In general, I don't think anyone whould socialize healthcare in the sense that the government should run the system (hospitals etc.). Diversity with respect to supplying healthcare is good. Private companies, foundations as well as, if necessary, government (local/state-run) can be the service providers. Individuals can chose, thereby fostering competition and a sound market for health care services.

With respect to insurance, I have the impression that the U.S. problems in this sense largely stem from the private insurance providers. It's economically problematic (without a horrific large supervisory authority) to have insurance companies who have an incentive not to pay out to their insured (health is very expensive and is not as clear-cut as say home or car insurance). To have a government-run insurance system for basic health care makes economic sense (this does not preclude private providers, but would limit private insurance to fast-track procedures etc., mainly an incentive for business to make sure that their key-employees are quickly back at their job in case they are injrued). All in all, a government insurance system which covers all US citizen is likely to make economic sense. Cheaper insurance and people are treated smoothly without hussle as the government reinburses the health care providers (also quick fixes saves money in the long-term, decreasing subsequent illness and keeping people in the work force). This is generally the European system and does not in any way entail socialized health care providers. A more appropriate reference are charter schools and vouchers which creates choices and a well-functioning market.

Couple that with a government system of price control with respect to the supply of prescription pharmaceuticals (as in Europe, makes no sense that US customers shall bear more than its share of the burden financing the development of new and innovative drugs) and barring/reducing law suits against malpractice and I'm sure the US would save a lot of money (as I understand it, the health care part of the GDP is way higher in the US than in Europe).

Also, under no circumstances should the US insure every single individual on US soil. US tax money should not be spent on non-citizens. Travel insurances and other forms of private insurances can cover, if not, refuse treatment or slap them with a bill afterwards.

[thegreekdog]

This is to Mr.Changsa (did not want to do the whole long quote thang)...

(1) Public School - Public school is not free. In fact, local, state and federal taxes go in to support schools. Additionally, at least here in Pennsylvania, many people without children in schools pay taxes that go directly to schools. So, it's not free, even if it's public. That being said, I support public schools (I attended one) and would like to see them improved.

(2) Retirement - I foresee that we will agree to disagree on this one. That being said, the federal government does provide a pension of sorts - social security. Unfortunately, the creators of social security did not foresee that people would live longer in the future (apparently) so the system is rather broken. Additionally (and also unfortunately), various legislators and presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have "borrowed" from social security to fund other projects, which also helps to break the system. I pay a pretty large sum of money every year into social security that, ostensibly, should go to me when I retire. What is actually happening is it goes to the already-retired. This is why many individuals in my generation do not expect that social security will be around when they retire. So, instead of relying on the government to support you in your old age, I would urge younger Americans to begin saving for their own retirement right now so as to not rely on a government program that may not be around when they retire.

(3) Rights - Generally, at least here in the US, we think of the following things as rights (not all inclusive obviously) - privacy, speech, and religion. The common thread in our rights is that we don't have to take something away from someone else to grant the right to the citizen. To provide healthcare, schooling, or pensions, the federal government has to take money away from some people and give it to others. A noble cause? Definitely. But, why can't individuals be permitted to do it of their own accord, especially when evidence reflects that people do give to charities and schools.

[Mr Changsha]

This is to Mr.Changsa (did not want to do the whole long quote thang)...

(1) Public School - Public school is not free. In fact, local, state and federal taxes go in to support schools. Additionally, at least here in Pennsylvania, many people without children in schools pay taxes that go directly to schools. So, it's not free, even if it's public. That being said, I support public schools (I attended one) and would like to see them improved.

(2) Retirement - I foresee that we will agree to disagree on this one. That being said, the federal government does provide a pension of sorts - social security. Unfortunately, the creators of social security did not foresee that people would live longer in the future (apparently) so the system is rather broken. Additionally (and also unfortunately), various legislators and presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have "borrowed" from social security to fund other projects, which also helps to break the system. I pay a pretty large sum of money every year into social security that, ostensibly, should go to me when I retire. What is actually happening is it goes to the already-retired. This is why many individuals in my generation do not expect that social security will be around when they retire. So, instead of relying on the government to support you in your old age, I would urge younger Americans to begin saving for their own retirement right now so as to not rely on a government program that may not be around when they retire.

(3) Rights - Generally, at least here in the US, we think of the following things as rights (not all inclusive obviously) - privacy, speech, and religion. The common thread in our rights is that we don't have to take something away from someone else to grant the right to the citizen. To provide healthcare, schooling, or pensions, the federal government has to take money away from some people and give it to others. A noble cause? Definitely. But, why can't individuals be permitted to do it of their own accord, especially when evidence reflects that people do give to charities and schools.

With regards to (1): Well yes I am aware that schools are not free in the sense that they are paid for through taxation...to a great extent. However, they should be free in the sense that there is no fee on the point of service...if you take my meaning. I'm glad to see that you support public schools and you should remember that there would be no public schools without a central government providing the framework (I'd admit I am being a little UK or even China-centric here as I know American states are probably to a greater extent involved in providing public education. Nonetheless, it is state taxation that pays for it.).

However I would say that I've always believed it is possible for local communities to build and run their own schools and set their own curriculums too. In fact, I believe that in an ideal world this would be the best way. However, giving such autonomy to local communities is a risky business indeed, hence the increasing centralisation of both education and health care in the UK.

(2) The difference of opinion stems from the simple fact that you seem to believe that you pay taxation (in this case social security) in the belief that the money should go to you at some point down the line. I believe that we pay taxation for the benefit of the society at large, rather than to build up a nest egg for our own future. If you want to do that, then you have to pay for a private pension plan on top...though with the disgraceful treatment of many, many pension holders in the last few years I would be wary of investing my money in them. Though actually I do agree with your final point, in fact I agree completely. I believe the best way for me to secure my future is to invest in property, invest in a business or two and secure my inheritance. However, not everyone is so fortunate, hence my belief that A WAY MUST BE FOUND to secure state pensions for the 'have nots' in society.

(3) Again the issue is over the purpose of taxation. Let me give you an example: My father paid the top rate of income tax for most of his working life. Yet his children went to private schools, his company provided private healthcare (a much rarer perk in the UK) for his family and we, as a family, didn't actually draw on any of the social benefits (unemployment payment, child support, state housing...) at any point. Not once. Yet my father believed the purpose of this taxation was to help the lives of other people not fortunate enough to earn a high salary. As well as (of course) building the infrastructure which we all enjoy regardless of social position.

To return to healthcare, I believe that the richer people in the United States SHOULD pay through the nose in taxation to build a nationalised health service because, as the lucky few (and it is to great extent luck you know), they benefit from life to a much greater extent than the mass. They should give something back. I believe that Gingrich and Bush shifted the goal posts in the US to such an extent that even requiring the top 5% to pay a reasonable amount in income tax (+ tax on shares and all the rest), say 40% on income is now seen as being rabidly communist and one step away from full blown Maoism. It really isn't you know. It is just asking those at the top to give back a reasonable amount to the society at large.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, so at this point we're probably just talking about taxation, so I'll forgo the bullet points.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the fortunate should assist the unfortunate. For purposes of healthcare, individuals who are not fortunate enough to receive health insurance, do receive "free" healthcare which is supplied by hospitals (which receive funds from individuals who are "better off" and thus can afford to give out free healthcare. Is this "free" healthcare optimum? As we've seen it is not. It costs a lot more money than the provision of preventative healthcare. That is why I believe, as do others, that the federal government or state governments should provide some sort of health insurance that covers preventative care for individuals who cannot afford private health insurance. This would likely save people money in the long run (albeit with the tremendous caveat that the US government tends to waste money). I do not think a universal health insurance system is necessary or optimum, for reasons I've already stated, and considering that the majority of Americans actually have health insurance. I do think the health insurance system itself needs some work, especially related to preventative care and the ridiculous number of doctor visits needed, but the solution, in my mind, is not universal healthcare provided by the federal government.

For purposes of "assisting the unfortunate," (other than healthcare) your father is an example of someone who helps others by giving money to the government. Many people, at least here in the United States, believe that giving time and money directly to the individual who needs it, is a more efficient way of assisting the unfortunate. For example, my own father gives money to charities, my mother volunteers her time at soup kitchens, I tutor inner city kids in Philadelphia, and my wife does pro bono (i.e. free) legal work. So, it's not a question of whether or not we want to help the unfortunate, it's a question of whether we want the government to take our money and decide who is unfortunate and decide how much the unfortunates get. So, for example, if the government determines that a corporation is "unfortunate" because it loses money, it can take my money and give it to the corporation. When that corporation's board of directors has a party in Las Vegas, I don't get my money back. This phenomenon rewards failure (as opposed to assisting the unfortunate). As another example, if the government determines that someone who purchased a house with a mortgage that is beyond his or her means, and that person cannot make payments on the house, the government determines that my tax money should go to assist that person. Again, the money is not going to the unfortunate, it's going to someone that it should not go to, especialyl considering that I purchased a smaller house within my means, but now I'm paying for someone to put a fifth bathroom in his or her home.

By the way, both of those scenarioes are true and have happened here in the last two years. I find this particularly ridiculous and I find the lack of outrage among the American people to be very disturbing.

[Titanic]

Great debate between Changsha and greekdog. For the record, I fully support Changsha as being brought up British your taught that you should look after all the people in society and everyone should be allowed an equal chance in life.

On the topic of healthcare, take a look at it from this perspective. In the USA (only industrialised nation without a true form of universal healthcare) there are huge problems with the healthcare industry (insurance costs, preventative treatment, drug costs, pre-existing conditions etc..) and a large part of the population are very unhappy with the current status. In Europe and Canada, pretty much everyone loves their healthcare system and wouldn't even think about trading it for the private insurance system. This is so much so that even Margaret Thatcher didn't even dare touch the NHS, and she privatised almost everything she could get her hands on.

[thegreekdog]

For the record, I fully support Changsha as being brought up British your taught that you should look after all the people in society and everyone should be allowed an equal chance in life.

This is the kind of comment I take umbrage with for a number of reasons.

First, it presumes that people in the United States do not think they should look after all the people in society. This is simply not the case. Rather, people in the United States do not think that the government should look after all the people in society. Further, people in the United States think that the individual his- or herself should look after his- or herself first. In other words, the federal government should not be the default responsible party.

Second, it presumes that the British are looked after and Americans are not. I simply don't think that's the case.

Third, it presumes that people in the United States do not think that everyone should be allowed an equal chance in life. I would think most people in the United States believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life. We just don't think the government should be an equalizer. In fact, many of us think that the government should stay out of it because a person's own skills, innate ability, and hardwork are the equalizers. If we take "equalization" to its logical conclusion, we get a version of utopian socialism (i.e. Star Trek socialism), which may be great in theory. However, as I've said before, in order to give someone something, one must take something from someone else. Further, "equal opportunity" and "equalization" are far different concepts. And when we start determining that "equal opportunity" means that everyone should have a beautiful new house, it starts to grate on the ideals of the United States.

Fourth, it presumes that one American has an unequal chance than any other American. Are there benefits that I may have versus someone else? Of course, but that happens in any society, including a socialist society. However, if one has freedom to use his or her talents and hardwork to achieve their dream without the intervention or control of government, one must necessarily have a greater sense of satisfaction.

[Titanic]

On your first point, I guess that is essentially the main difference. In socialist countries we believe the state has the responsibility to look after every individual in society, whilst in the USA it is the individual looking after themselves. However I must ask you this question: what is someone is unable to look after themselves? There are times when people have exceptional financial, emotional or social difficulties (sometimes a combination of them) and they really need something to lean back on during the hard times. IMO, as long as these safety nets are there to catch these people and are regulated to a degree where abuse of the system is minimised then it is the better system. Unless I understand wrong, the USA system relies predominantly on individual donations and interest, and I presume that these people are not going to have the time or money to find and look after all the people who may be requiring help. On the second point, I believe in Britain society as a whole wants to look after each other. Quite a lot of things a lot of Americans say about education, healthcare and other federal services like "I'm not paying for it because I'm not going to use it" seems to me to show a kind of selfish individualistic society.

On your third point, if government in not the equaliser, then who is? There may be a minority of people who are generally decent and care about others, but given the choice a lot of people would rather others go poor so they can buy a suburban house and live a comfortable life. The welfare state and huge government funding in education and healthcare as well as child benefits, bursaries, and other social security mechanisms mean that a child from a working class family can break out of the poverty trap. Someone born into a poor family in a rough estate who receives no help (which will happen if government in not the equaliser, as the net will never be big enough if its upto individuals) is more then likely not going to have the chance to go to university or to pursue the life that they want.

Finally, yes socialist states still have inequality, but nowhere near what the USA has. Here and Here. Surely the greatest freedom you can have is to be able to use your talents and skills and to be equal to everyone else in society. Yes, I agree that this is an utopian view, but I would rather attempt to achieve this then to stick with the status quo.

[Mr Changsha]

For the record, I fully support Changsha as being brought up British your taught that you should look after all the people in society and everyone should be allowed an equal chance in life.

This is the kind of comment I take umbrage with for a number of reasons.

First, it presumes that people in the United States do not think they should look after all the people in society. This is simply not the case. Rather, people in the United States do not think that the government should look after all the people in society. Further, people in the United States think that the individual his- or herself should look after his- or herself first. In other words, the federal government should not be the default responsible party.

Second, it presumes that the British are looked after and Americans are not. I simply don't think that's the case.

Third, it presumes that people in the United States do not think that everyone should be allowed an equal chance in life. I would think most people in the United States believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life. We just don't think the government should be an equalizer. In fact, many of us think that the government should stay out of it because a person's own skills, innate ability, and hardwork are the equalizers. If we take "equalization" to its logical conclusion, we get a version of utopian socialism (i.e. Star Trek socialism), which may be great in theory. However, as I've said before, in order to give someone something, one must take something from someone else. Further, "equal opportunity" and "equalization" are far different concepts. And when we start determining that "equal opportunity" means that everyone should have a beautiful new house, it starts to grate on the ideals of the United States.

Fourth, it presumes that one American has an unequal chance than any other American. Are there benefits that I may have versus someone else? Of course, but that happens in any society, including a socialist society. However, if one has freedom to use his or her talents and hardwork to achieve their dream without the intervention or control of government, one must necessarily have a greater sense of satisfaction.

Ah, but if a kid dies of a treatable form of cancer because his insurance provider refused to pay up (through a technicality for example) then that kid didn't really have the chance to achieve their dreams...what with them being dead. Of course kids fall under buses daily and all the rest of it, but I'd rather have a healthcare system that might actually save the kid...even if that kid had to deal with the awful truth of only being alive because of the intervention of a government! Poor kid!

Also, while thegreekdog writes of an idealised 'star trek socialism' his own image of large numbers of Americans helping out in soup kitchens, lavishly giving to charities and running drug treatment centres in their spare time might seem to the reader to be equally fanciful. I don't doubt his family do the things he says (and you have my respect) and I don't doubt there are many generous souls in the US who do likewise, but I find it hard to believe thegreekdog feels as a whole that the United States is as selfless as he portrays, because if it is not, then even if there are a vituous 10-15%, this in no way replaces the income that can be generated by central or state taxation. Which I think explains why US schools shut at half two, why forty million Americans have less health coverage than a Chinese farmer (seriously...they can at least get some stitches without worrying about the bank balance) and why the gap between the haves and the have nots has reached such a level in the US.

[thegreekdog]

I must ask you this question: what is someone is unable to look after themselves? There are times when people have exceptional financial, emotional or social difficulties (sometimes a combination of them) and they really need something to lean back on during the hard times. IMO, as long as these safety nets are there to catch these people and are regulated to a degree where abuse of the system is minimised then it is the better system

I agree. There should be safety nets. I have no problem with safety nets being provided by the federal government. But, they must be true safety nets for the truly needy. In other words, someone with a big screen television should not be having their mortgage paid for. I have no problem with the federal government taking tax money from me to give to someone who actually needs the money. Most Americans do not. What we do have a problem with is taking money from one person to give to another when the second person has no need, but, rather, is not comfortable.

Quite a lot of things a lot of Americans say about education, healthcare and other federal services like "I'm not paying for it because I'm not going to use it" seems to me to show a kind of selfish individualistic society.

That's close, but I don't think it's correct. Using federal services generally, what we say is that we don't need it because we should be doing it ourselves. It has less to do with the particular service and more to do with what that service is applied to (for example, a tunnel for turtles or a bridge to nowhere or a government contract that is 200% the cost that it should be).

Someone born into a poor family in a rough estate who receives no help (which will happen if government in not the equaliser, as the net will never be big enough if its upto individuals) is more then likely not going to have the chance to go to university or to pursue the life that they want.

That's simply untrue. Not only is it untrue, I have yet to see where socialism has assisted those types of individuals go to university. Are you saying that more poor people go to university in England than in the United States? I would argue vehemently against that point.

Finally, yes socialist states still have inequality, but nowhere near what the USA has. Here and Here. Surely the greatest freedom you can have is to be able to use your talents and skills and to be equal to everyone else in society. Yes, I agree that this is an utopian view, but I would rather attempt to achieve this then to stick with the status quo.

Interesting links, but definitely not dispositive. Would you rather be poor in China or poor in the United States? This might be a useful link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_inc ... statistics

[jsholty4690]

The reason why the gap is so large is that 39 Americans have $458.6 billion to their names.

And that around 10 million U.S. households make over $1 million.

[thegreekdog]

Ah, but if a kid dies of a treatable form of cancer because his insurance provider refused to pay up (through a technicality for example) then that kid didn't really have the chance to achieve their dreams...what with them being dead. Of course kids fall under buses daily and all the rest of it, but I'd rather have a healthcare system that might actually save the kid...even if that kid had to deal with the awful truth of only being alive because of the intervention of a government! Poor kid!

I would rather have the federal government require the kid's health insurance provider to pay up than for the federal government to be the one providing the insurance. This is what I keep saying - why is the necessary answer "government provided health insurance"? (Hint: The answer is "it's not.")

On your other points, I think you being rather drastic. I'll go find someone without health insurance (in the US, this is generally either an illegal immigrant, a jobless person, or someone who just doesn't want health insurance) and ask them if they'd like to switch places with a Chinese farmer. Undoubtedly, the answer would be no. Also, I would urge you, and everyone else, to really think about what it means to be "lower middle class" or "poor" in the United States compared to "poor" in any number of countries (with some obvious exceptions). I live in a lower middle class and middle class neighborhood. It's pretty nice.