Socialized Medicine

[person0]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whether socialism in any form works or not is one matter (I personally think it will fail ultimately), but whether it is moral or not is another matter. It is not. Socialism is theft. Period.

Agreed.  The only way socialism/communism could ever actually work would be if everyone gladly accepted their societal responsibility and worked to the needs of society simply for the sake of the society and fellow man.  The people would have to live without greed, pride, or selfishness of any kind.  However, if there ever were a united people who would live in such a way, God would call them to live under the United Order (Law of Consecration), and as a result, socialism would become unnecessary and impeding to societal progress/perfection.  Therefore socialism will never work and/or will never be necessary.

[eddified]

But, there are huge problems with US's health care right now. Some like to blame it on the free market--which is laughable when you realize the US government accounts for 33-50% of all healthcare spending in the US through Medicare, Medicaid etc. I heard this figure a long time ago and so I don't know how much it was exactly nor do I have a reference--if someone has better data I'd love to see it--but the point remains that the Feds have a huge impact on the healthcare market.

[eddified]

Ok I read the basic income links. I'll be watching how it turns out because some conservatives are saying it is better than welfare. Why? Well, with basic income everyone gets a check. No need to mess around with safety net welfare type programs. Theoretically the welfare programs won't be needed anymore (fat chance they'll actually get rid of them though.)

Not that I agree with it--just saying I'm interested in seeing how it turns out.  

[eddified]

Oops, I didn't actually say why some think guaranteed income works better. It's because with guaranteed income, there is no incentive to NOT work. Whereas with welfare, there is such an incentive. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, eddified said:

It's because with guaranteed income, there is no incentive to NOT work. . 

Huh? How does that work out?

[eddified]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Huh? How does that work out?

I understand your confusion. I see how guaranteed income could incentivize someone to NOT work. What I meant but failed to explain, was that under guaranteed income, if one WANTS to work, there is nothing, financially speaking, stopping one from working. Whereas with welfare, if you start working, you lose welfare benefits. You never lose any benefits by working under a guaranteed income scheme. Does that make sense?

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whether socialism in any form works or not is one matter (I personally think it will fail ultimately), but whether it is moral or not is another matter. It is not. Socialism is theft. Period.

Absolutely; some people say that socialism/communism works on paper-but that is totally wrong-it doesn't work on paper and it can't work on paper. Besides the moral arguments against socialism there is a bigger practical problem of socialism.  

The calculation problem.  The absolute basics of an economy is the ability of people to specialize and produce goods and services that other people need and want. I live in a house and would like to put up a fence. I can either ask friends to help me put up a fence or I can pay someone to do it.  The amount that I'm willing to pay someone else to put up my fence indicates how important it is to me that I have a fence put up.  Now we could all live like the amish and do barn-raising, but even the amish recognize that this only works in a limited fashion (they have businesses they run).  What if everyone now wants a fence . . .how do you prioritize who gets one first and who needs it the most?  The best solution is to allow prices to dictate that information to the market.

Without a price structure, people have no idea how important different things are and what businesses to start to solve the wants and needs of everyone else.  If the price of shoes is $.05 a pair, who is going to go into the shoe business, everyone would buy as many shoes as possible-but who is actually going to produce shoes and sell them for $.05 a pair?  That is why supply and demand are so important-it helps people understand where to focus their energies and where not to in order to earn a living and in the same process help out their neighbors.

It is why socialized medicine and the involvement in government into medicine will lead to disaster. People might say well everyone has health care.  But the unseen costs of socialized medicine are absolutely horrible. Where have all the modern advancements in medicine come from?  The US health care system. Compared to 100 years ago, health care is cheap. We couldn't cure cancer, now we can to a large extent.  Why? b/c of the profit motive.  Without a high enough incentive for companies and businesses to take lots of risk in developing solutions, cancer cures wouldn't exist.

 

[Sunday21]

I really hope that Canada can do more to help First Nations people. In Manitoba, the province was talking about giving First Nations people a prime chunk of land, an old military base, in Winnipeg, the capital. The First Nations people would be able to run businesses there without paying taxes. I so hope this happens. 

[eddified]

Well this thread is a hard thread to follow. Every other post by @Sunday21 introduces something I've never heard of. Can't seem to follow the thread without googling quite a bit. 

Edited May 1, 2017 by eddified

[my two cents]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

We couldn't cure cancer, now we can to a large extent.  Why? b/c of the profit motive.  Without a high enough incentive for companies and businesses to take lots of risk in developing solutions, cancer cures wouldn't exist.

False. It's because of the profit motive that you don't hear about the real cures that are already out there.  You made good points until the end and I just had to speak up. 

Now back to regular programming...

 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, my two cents said:

False. It's because of the profit motive that you don't hear about the real cures that are already out there.  You made good points until the end and I just had to speak up. 

Now back to regular programming...

 

Haha.

Conspiracy theorists unite!!

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, my two cents said:

False. It's because of the profit motive that you don't hear about the real cures that are already out there

Edited April 30, 2017 by MormonGator

[Sunday21]

@eddified. I am not absolutely sure if this is an article on the urban First Nations development, the article is 2013, but it sounds like the development. The side bar on the right gives some details.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/citys-first-urban-reserve-born-208792281.html

Edited April 30, 2017 by Sunday21

[Guest]

On 4/29/2017 at 11:42 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Socialism is theft. Period.

I was just responding to the "stewardship" thread and it occurred to me that this ^^^ statement is deeper than we realize.  

Socialism not only steals our money, it steals our stewardship.  We are the ones responsible for helping others.  Not the government.  Sure, some poor may receive the benefits. But the majority of our money is given to parties that are not part of our stewardship.

[yjacket]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was just responding to the "stewardship" thread and it occurred to me that this ^^^ statement is deeper than we realize.  

Socialism not only steals our money, it steals our stewardship.  We are the ones responsible for helping others.  Not the government.  Sure, some poor may receive the benefits. But the majority of our money is given to parties that are not part of our stewardship.

Bingo, it robs us of the opportunities to be more charitable and Christlike. 

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 2:19 PM, Carborendum said:

I was just responding to the "stewardship" thread and it occurred to me that this ^^^ statement is deeper than we realize.  

Socialism not only steals our money, it steals our stewardship.  We are the ones responsible for helping others.  Not the government.  Sure, some poor may receive the benefits. But the majority of our money is given to parties that are not part of our stewardship.

Something interesting.  Most people who are not Mormon would look at the United Order (Law of Consecration) and call that theocratic socialism.

If you think about it, the Law of Consecration is basically Socialism, but with the idea that it is led by the Lord insteasd of men.

Hence, is the Law of Consecration stealing money and stewardship,a nd if not, what is the difference between Mormon Socialism (Law of Consecration) and that of Socialism we see today...EXCEPT for the idea that the Law of Consecration is driven by the Lord, and that of Socialism is not.

Heck, the Law of Consecration even goes further than most Socialistic governments.  Socialism may restrict what your job choices are, but in the Law of Consecration you are CALLED to the JOB you are supposed to do (it could even be to be a blacksmith where you have no experience nor knowledge of how to do it before your calling to do so under the Law of Consecration!).

Mormon Theocratic Socialism (aka, the United Order utilizing the Law of Consecration) even specifies that when it is in effect, there will be no rich OR poor among them!  It is basically identical to the idea most have regarding Socialism and Socialistic governments (some may consider Communism a sort of different type of copy of it as well, Ezra Taft Benson did, though he considered it a copy inspired by the adversary as a twisted form of the United Order that made men's lives worse, rather than better and was all for capitalism to oppose it!).

How do you justify the United Order or Law of Consecration if one is absolutely against anything that even smells like Socialism?

Edited May 24, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Something interesting.  Most people who are not Mormon would look at the United Order (Law of Consecration) and call that theocratic socialism....  

Let me define somethings here:

1) The United Order =/= Law of Consecration.  The Law is a principle.  We can live it in any number of ways.  The Order was an economic system (in fact many different systems) that were organized to help the Saints as a group to live the Law as much as possible.

2) Various orders were formed.  Some were centrally planned and administered (socialistic). Some were free-market based.  The ones that were free-market based thrived.  The socialistic ones drove everyone into poverty.  Because all the sub-systems were part of the larger, eventually, the socialist systems bled the free-market systems to the ground and the system had to be abandoned.

3) "Theocratic socialism" is an oxymoron.  If we're talking about a false religion promoting a socialist enterprise, then it is still simply governed by man.  And that is where it falls apart.  Where God Himself is truly leading the system, it has a chance of succeeding.  But the fact is that with God leading it, it is no longer socialism.  It is a recognition that God owns everything to begin with.  It is not theft for Him to take that which is His.  But it IS theft for man (or man-made governments) to take that which is NOT theirs.

[Guest]

Socialism does not work well, and can not work well, with mortals.  The problem is, most humans (even many righteous ones) are inherently selfish.  As such, socialism inevitably devolves into a small group of true believers, a larger group of productive people who do all the work but wind up subsidizing a large group of freeloaders, often by being coerced.  Such a social structure is inherently fraught with tension, unstable, and horrendously inefficient.  Many of the economies in the European Union work this way, and many of these countries are starting to fall apart as a result.  At its worst, socialism devolves into dictatorships.  (I am calling this all socialism, because communism bundles socialism with forced atheism and all sorts of other evil ideas, and was rightfully condemned by President Ezra Taft Benson and others).

In the next life, in the Celestial Kingdom we will be fundamentally different and rid of mortal weakness, including perhaps inherent selfishness.  As such, in the next life, we will be able to make consecration "work" because there will be no freeloaders and everyone will be internally motivated to work their hardest and help one another.  I get the idea that exalted beings, who have become much more like Heavenly Father, will naturally desire to live under such a system.  I don't know if consecration will be the economic system of the lower kingdoms, but I do understand it will be the economy of exalted beings.  

So that is the difference - it is all about free agency.  Socialism compels people against their will to subsidize inevitable freeloaders.  With consecration, exalted beings will have become more like Heavenly Father and will naturally desire to share their resources with honest, hard working exalted beings, using their own free agency.

Edited May 24, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[NightSG]

On 4/30/2017 at 4:12 PM, MormonGator said:

That assumes anybody's even really trying; when was the last time you saw anything about actual progress (not just "we've made huge strides with your donations" but actual hard facts about what those strides are) from all the billions of dollars spent on pink ribbons and such?  A cure has to be manufactured, FDA approved and sold at a price cancer victims (or their insurance) can afford, while the price tag for hope has no limits.

[NightSG]

9 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

In the next life, in the Celestial Kingdom we will be fundamentally different and rid of mortal weakness, including perhaps inherent selfishness.  As such, in the next life, we will be able to make consecration "work" because there will be no freeloaders and everyone will be internally motivated to work and help one another.  I don't know if consecration will be the economic system of the lower kingdoms, but I do understand it will be the economy of exalted beings.  

Any economic system can only work with scarcity; last I checked, abundance in all things is on pretty much everybody's list of what to expect in the next life.  You can't sell (or trade) what nobody needs or wants more of.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, NightSG said:

That assumes anybody's even really trying; when was the last time you saw anything about actual progress (not just "we've made huge strides with your donations" but actual hard facts about what those strides are) from all the billions of dollars spent on pink ribbons and such?  A cure has to be manufactured, FDA approved and sold at a price cancer victims (or their insurance) can afford, while the price tag for hope has no limits.

They are always trying.  Have you heard of proton therapy?  That is a huge step.

The thing is that curing cancer is like curing the common cold.  There isn't just one type of cancer.  There are hundreds or thousands of different types.  We actually have cures and/or therapies for many of them.  We're constantly developing more.  And if you're a lab rat we can cure your cancer 10 times over.  But many of the treatments we have for rats don't necessarily carry over to humans.  Not only that, but the big ones are not as easy to cure.

Cancer is very difficult to work with.

[anatess2]

On 4/29/2017 at 2:57 PM, Sunday21 said:

@Just_A_Guy. I am not suggesting that the US try socialized medicine. I am merely stating that government run medical systems are possible without imminent disaster.

I do not know why the Brits have taken this approach with this child. I live in a country with government run health care and we do not have such policies. THus This British approach is not a result of socialized or government supported medicine. Perhaps this British approach reflects the effects of facing the high probability of invasion in WWII? NOt sure.

My family is Scottish. With the exception of my bros & sisters, everyone lives in the uk. I assure you that no British person that I have ever met (my ex was English) even considers a private sector health system. Bear in mind that their nearest neighbors all have government run systems.

I sense that you are happy with your system. I am happy for you. 

Majority of Americans are not happy with their system.  The government messed up that system.  That's the problem.  The government messed it up well before Obamacare that's why they've been clamoring for government to fix it... so, of course, government fixed it by installing Obamacare which messed it up even more.  And that's why a lot of Americans do not want government to touch anything that is provided by the private sector.

You're Canadian, right?  My family in Canada go to private care because government care sucks.  Same problems you'll find in the American VA... long waits, etc.  Which is funny because most of them work in the government health clinics.

Now, there's one thing the non-Americans always forget.  America is not comparable to any other country because America is a group of countries.  America is more comparable to the EU.  Sure, British Healthcare might work for the British, Greek healthcare might work for the Greeks, Italian Healthcare might work for the Italians.  But an EU Healthcare System is going to be disaster.  That system is just too large to manage.  Same as an American Healthcare System.  But, every single US State have their own healthcare system independent of each other.  The problem started when the Federal government restricted healthcare providers from selling healthcare stuff across state lines.  Disaster.  Anyway... I have no problem with California providing government-run healthcare for Californians.  I have a problem with California telling Florida to provide government-run healthcare for Floridians, let alone Californians.

Edited May 24, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

They are always trying.  Have you heard of proton therapy?  That is a huge step.

The thing is that curing cancer is like curing the common cold.  There isn't just one type of cancer.  There are hundreds or thousands of different types.  We actually have cures and/or therapies for many of them.  We're constantly developing more.  And if you're a lab rat we can cure your cancer 10 times over.  But many of the treatments we have for rats don't necessarily carry over to humans.  Not only that, but the big ones are not as easy to cure.

Cancer is very difficult to work with.

Exactly. We actually owe people who work with cancer extreme gratitude and thanks. Not conspiracy theories and anger.  

[NightSG]

On 4/29/2017 at 0:55 PM, Mike said:

I ask because I think another socialist country (Bolivia) seems to have been doing pretty good lately compared to socialist Venezuela.

Venezuela's leaders spent the oil money on hookers and blow, while Bolivia's saved and invested theirs.

With wisdom and integrity in the leadership, any economic system can succeed.  However, strong control systems are at a much higher risk of failure as soon as corruption takes hold.  Since we're still waiting for the Incorruptible Guy to step up and take over, don't be surprised if a lot of other socialist countries go the way of Venezuela (or worse, Germany) as soon as they elect a charismatic, corrupt dictator.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And if you're a lab rat we can cure your cancer 10 times over.  But many of the treatments we have for rats don't necessarily carry over to humans.  Not only that, but the big ones are not as easy to cure.

So, if you keep pet rats, you should get the runt of the litter and keep him on a strict diet and exercise routine so that if he gets cancer it can be cured more easily?