The Intellectual Cover for Socialism
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
I think not said:
I think you've found the underlying question that has plagued humankind since we got into groups to pick lice off of our backs...The same can be said for when does capitalism become too much, or some other ism. Many countries have been attempting to achieve that balance by varying several different degrees left, right, up and down. I don't think we've really discovered the perfect utopian ism yet, which makes neither the left or the right wrong in what they're doing.
....And so the great Experiment continues...
Jo Canadian said:
Great Jo, that was one of the reasons why I posted this article. I don't believe humankind has found the utopian ism as you say. I think at some point it will become evident that a mixture of a few isms would make a great formula.
I personally believe free market is as best as we can get for now. I don't buy this rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. There are less people in poverty today as a percent of overall population than any time in history.
Having said that, I'm a firm believer that basic human necessities, such as water, power, education, health should have the government involved, not take over, keep these sectors in check, so to speak, regulated. I also believe corporations need greater regulation without choking productivity.
Middle of the road socialism, I believe would be the Northern European countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland.
Sweden, 66% fo their budget goes on social programs. And they have the most females in the world in parliment.
So as a progressive, socialist system I think the Nordic countries.
Sweden, 66% fo their budget goes on social programs. And they have the most females in the world in parliment.
So as a progressive, socialist system I think the Nordic countries.
ITN,
agreed.
the utopianism is impossible so long as there are individual differences. the ultimate solution is a dynamic range that allows for and accounts for the differences between individuals and balances that with the ideals of the society. I am for a very proactive social system to help people, and help them early before problems become too entrenched because people are "creatures of habit". Investing in people is investing in the future of the society. The interim approach until the "piggies" are ready to progress beyond hunter-gatherer meat-robots is a government that invests heavily in its people, while taking a business-model approach to it. Universities can be the engines of economic evolution. The government invests, and gains back by having part ownership in the results of the research and development. for example. Most importantly of all though is that the individual be respected as such and thus always given freedom of choices within the society itself.
agreed.
the utopianism is impossible so long as there are individual differences. the ultimate solution is a dynamic range that allows for and accounts for the differences between individuals and balances that with the ideals of the society. I am for a very proactive social system to help people, and help them early before problems become too entrenched because people are "creatures of habit". Investing in people is investing in the future of the society. The interim approach until the "piggies" are ready to progress beyond hunter-gatherer meat-robots is a government that invests heavily in its people, while taking a business-model approach to it. Universities can be the engines of economic evolution. The government invests, and gains back by having part ownership in the results of the research and development. for example. Most importantly of all though is that the individual be respected as such and thus always given freedom of choices within the society itself.
I think not said:
You could argue that there was a time and place for Ontario Hydro as it is part of infrastructure, something not out of the ordinary for governments to be involved in. Even after the privatization of Ontario Hydro the government has been subsidizing electricity to the tune of 50%. Is this a good thing?
I say that the current subsidizing of electricity usage is undermining the markets ability to produce new technologies in this field that the consumer could take advantage of. If we were paying the real cost of electricity generation, we could find value in purchasing solar etc; we could even see return on our money. At the moment there is no pressure to do so and part of the benefits of a free market are being missed. So socialism can have a tendency to hamper productivity and innovation.
i agree with you pretty much jay.
when the government subsidizes anything it inhibits the development of alternatives. The government should get out of subsidizing electricity, oil, etc.
However, it should still play a strong role in controling these industries (and all industries).
when the government subsidizes anything it inhibits the development of alternatives. The government should get out of subsidizing electricity, oil, etc.
However, it should still play a strong role in controling these industries (and all industries).
yes, alberta can keep their oil, and continue to get poor royalties on it as well. The governments should not be subsidizing the oil industry though for the same reasons you described about hydro ontario. Let the oil companies fund themselves, and let the end-user pay the real price for the commodity. (won't happen though because north america is too hooked on cheap gas)
Re: RE: The Intellectual Cove
Would that result in anything different? I don't see how.
Jay said:
Would that result in anything different? I don't see how.
I think not said:
I would think every country with any government owned industries or social safety nets were at least a little socialist. So, the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, and pretty much every other western nation would be considered middle of the road. How far we go depends on the country I guess. I actually would consider both Canada and the USA successful countries, I've enjoyed living in both of them.
I don't like when people coin socialism... Often when I hear people say those words they are not coining the policies of the Social Democratic, Liberal and "Red" Tory's, but trying to pin on them negitive terms of Marxist socialism, aka: Communism, Scientfic socialism Marxist-Leninism and so on. These parties have nothing to very little in common with the negitive connnection which Right-Libertiarians and Neo-con's often try to lable the above mentioned.
I admit I lean to the right inside the NDP a little bit more then some people do. But Most NDPers only care about things like social justice, and social saft nets. Never in it's history has the NDP/CCF ever adopted Marxism. In fact it was founded by Chrsitain Socialists (thats what they were called in the day). Today I think the most radical thing you could find in the NDP would be a social-libertarian trend.
I admit I lean to the right inside the NDP a little bit more then some people do. But Most NDPers only care about things like social justice, and social saft nets. Never in it's history has the NDP/CCF ever adopted Marxism. In fact it was founded by Chrsitain Socialists (thats what they were called in the day). Today I think the most radical thing you could find in the NDP would be a social-libertarian trend.
Re: RE: The Intellectual Cove
It would be very difficult for hospitals and such to weed out the easy money....
There wouldn't be any public hospitals at all. If the government needed to subsidize a persons health insurance, the hospital wouldn't even know about it.
tracy said:
It would be very difficult for hospitals and such to weed out the easy money....
There wouldn't be any public hospitals at all. If the government needed to subsidize a persons health insurance, the hospital wouldn't even know about it.
Finder said:
You would have to admit though the rhetoric coming out the NDP camp is anti-corporation, anti-American, pro union and pro taxation. They don't believe you have a right to keep most of your hard earned money and they pooh-pooh rich people all day long. They also pooh-pooh property rights, so there are reasons to believe the NDP camp will eventually take us down the road to some socialist utopia if they were allowed to. Were just not going to let them....
Re: RE: The Intellectual Cove
The easy money comment wasn't refering to the type of insurance the patient has,I was refering to the care the hospital will give. They will most likely only offer surgeries that are simple like knee replacements, laparascopic procedures, etc. and services to mainly healthy people like low risk birthing because they can charge a good amount of money for those services and those patients don't stay in the hospital long. A hospital is perfectly within its rights to not offer all services. The money losing, but often life saving, treatments will fall to the public system. Profits driving care and research is only good for you if you have a profitable health problem.
I work in a specialty that will always be a money losing one. It isn't a coincidence that the biggest NICUs are usually at not for profit facilities down here. The private hospitals wouldn't want to waste money on it. Most of our babies would be dead if it came down to money. I don't think a for profit hospital would kill off premies or anything, they just wouldn't offer NICU services in the first place or if they did it would be small or only in conjuction with a fertility practice (cause they make a lot of money there). Our unit is more than 60 beds (we've had as many as 86 babies while I've worked here), a coworker just went to a hospital in Newport Beach and their unit it tiny. She gets paid more at this private hospital, but she says she doesn't know why they even bother saying they have a nicu because it's so small she spends all her time floating to other units. This same hospital won't take medical patients at all. We tried to transport a baby there because the parents lived there, didn't have a car and it was taking them a ridiculous amount of time to get to our hospital, but nope. She's a medical baby. That type of thing turns me off of the private system being involved in healthcare and I'm proud to work in a unit that takes EVERY baby that needs care. I would prefer everyone was able to go into any hospital they want. I think that's especially important in Canada where most people don't live near to more than one hospital.
Jay said:
The easy money comment wasn't refering to the type of insurance the patient has,I was refering to the care the hospital will give. They will most likely only offer surgeries that are simple like knee replacements, laparascopic procedures, etc. and services to mainly healthy people like low risk birthing because they can charge a good amount of money for those services and those patients don't stay in the hospital long. A hospital is perfectly within its rights to not offer all services. The money losing, but often life saving, treatments will fall to the public system. Profits driving care and research is only good for you if you have a profitable health problem.
I work in a specialty that will always be a money losing one. It isn't a coincidence that the biggest NICUs are usually at not for profit facilities down here. The private hospitals wouldn't want to waste money on it. Most of our babies would be dead if it came down to money. I don't think a for profit hospital would kill off premies or anything, they just wouldn't offer NICU services in the first place or if they did it would be small or only in conjuction with a fertility practice (cause they make a lot of money there). Our unit is more than 60 beds (we've had as many as 86 babies while I've worked here), a coworker just went to a hospital in Newport Beach and their unit it tiny. She gets paid more at this private hospital, but she says she doesn't know why they even bother saying they have a nicu because it's so small she spends all her time floating to other units. This same hospital won't take medical patients at all. We tried to transport a baby there because the parents lived there, didn't have a car and it was taking them a ridiculous amount of time to get to our hospital, but nope. She's a medical baby. That type of thing turns me off of the private system being involved in healthcare and I'm proud to work in a unit that takes EVERY baby that needs care. I would prefer everyone was able to go into any hospital they want. I think that's especially important in Canada where most people don't live near to more than one hospital.
Re: RE: The Intellectual Cove
See, I look at those things as matters of legislation and logistics. Not every hospital will be able to offer everything, and some will. That's up to the Directors and the Minister of Health in that province.
tracy said:
See, I look at those things as matters of legislation and logistics. Not every hospital will be able to offer everything, and some will. That's up to the Directors and the Minister of Health in that province.