Another Failure of Socialism
The Canadian healthcare systems failures have been brought to the forefront in this AP article. Long touted by many as the standard of national health proponents, it seems that what many of us have known for a long long time are being acknowledged. Long waits for medical care is what characterizes these type government run programs.
George Zeliotis, an elderly Montreal man, tried to pay for hip replacement
surgery rather than wait nearly a year for treatment at a public
hospital.
Zeliotis told the high court that he suffered pain and became
addicted to painkillers during the yearlong wait for surgery, and he should have
been allowed to pay for faster service with private insurance.
This cuts to the very core of socialism, I know. Nonetheless, many Canadians come to the U.S. for their medical care if it is of any significance. You see, when it gets right down to it, people in general have a survival instinct that is quite strong. This instinct will normally supercede any socialistic view of the common good.
the universal health-care system - while considered one of the fairest in
the world - has been plagued by long waiting lists and a lack of doctors, nurses
and new equipment. Some patients wait years for surgery, MRI machines are scarce
and many Canadians travel to the United States for medical treatment.
It will undoubtedly get more difficult to sell this program in the U.S. if this gets any MSM play.
That could be bad news for Hillary.
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 2:12 PM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Only if Newt decides he's in favor of something stupid like that.
RWR
No one should be surprised to see a socialist healthcare system (or any socialist system, for that matter) go belly-up. Socialism has been a proven failure time and again.
RWR
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here is the proposal you're talking about, beef.
I can't say how it will affect Newt, but it's definitely a pile of useless crap for America.
RWR
Sorry about that Ol' BC ... Got tripped up trying to make a correction.
RWR
No problem RWR. Thanks for the link. I am, however, unaware that Newt has any further political ambitions. (Unlike the Hildabeast.)
To say that Social Security is a failure is to look only at its recent tribulations. My grandparents did quite well because of this system, as will my father.
Go on believing that if you want, Beef. Socialist Security was doomed from the start ... and for one reason and one reason only ... it's pure SOCIALISM.
RWR
Simple, Beef ...
First of all, your parents weren't using their own money, which is completely wrong.
Second, had your parents taken the same money and invested it, they would have lived much more handsomely in their retirement.
Any time you, or I, or your parents/grandparents are encouraged to live off of others, WE fail, and he who encourages us is failing to allow us to reach the full potential of our abilities.
Socialist Security is just one more way the government works to keep us and our livelihoods under their control.
RWR
Any time people perceive taking care of the elderly and misfortunate as being "living off of someone" we fail as a society.
Wrong. Any time we create a class of people dependent on others for their well-being, we fail as a society. This has been proven time and time again. Even the pilgrims at Plymouth Colony experimented with socialism, and discovered it wasn't going to lead to their success as a society. They wisely ditched the idea in favor of something more free.
Let's face it, Rocker, we all live off of someone. We are all helped by others. You couldn't wipe your ass without giving up their time and energy to create toilet paper for you.
I live off of one person - ME. I am helped by others to the extent that I am able to appropriately reward them for their help. No one gave up any time or energy for me to wipe my ass without my paying them to do so. It's a fair exchange. They do something for me. I do something for them.
All I am saying is that in addition to his own money that he invested, my father, for one, will do nicely as a result of Social Security.
All I am saying is that he would do much better if the money he had paid to retirees during his lifetime were invested with the rest of his investment capital. run the numbers. You're lucky if you get 3 per cent on Socialist Security.
I find it ironic that the same person (you, Rocker) can fight in favor of letting a vegetable continue living while at the same time arguing in favor of letting the elderly and lesser fortunate people fend for themselves so that they won't be viewed as mooches.
First of all, I have not made any trips to the supermarket or any of the local farms trying to save the lives of any vegetables. The elderly are the most wealthy people among us. They are the best equipped to fend for themselves. And what the hell is wrong with having them fend for themselves? THAT IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT. It's exactly what the founders had in mind. The less fortunate need only work harder and/or smarter. Do you think I'm rich? HA! I am among those you consider "lesser fortunate", as a matter of fact.
The truth is that most of the "lesser fortuante" are that way because of the choices they made. I know that first-hand. I have the problems I have because of bad choices I made. It would be incredibly immoral of me to ask others to support me in this situation. Instead, I pay others - that's right I PAY them - to advise me as to the best course of action. With their good advice, I have hope, as does every person who is "lesser fortunate". Cut me a fucking break.
Sorry, but I would gladly give a little bit of my own money to see the elderly provided for.
No one is saying you can't, Beef. All we're saying is that it shouldn't be the nanny state doing the work. Instead, it should be YOU, either throuogh financial support of an appropriate charity of YOUR choosing, or through directly helping out with a friend or family member.
If that is something that is important to you, great. I'm happy that you have a heart. The problem, Beef, is that such programs coming from the government discourage people from taking the initiative necessary to take care of themselves. The very reason we have so many "lesser fortunate" people is that so many people just let the government send them the mere pittance it sends through its programs. Take away the disincentive, and watch America flourish yet again. The true heart is the one that can properly utilize tough love.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll live forever.
THIS is what we should be doing, Beef. Not just taking money from some people just to give it to others. That is just plain wrong.
RWR
Nice job of burying your own argument, Beef.
RWR
Beef. You are making yourself perfectly clear. Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong. Socialist Security and other socialist programs are unconstitutional. There were no provisions made for them in the constitution for a reason.
Supporting socialism is not the same thing as supporting democracy. No one is saying we shouldn't support generosity, compassion, and giving. What we are saying is that people's generosity, compassion, and giving ought to be according to their own wishes, and not placed in the hands of the government. That's what being free is all about. Here are a few words on that by a very wise old sage.
Do you think that somehow the great geniuses who put all this together - Washington, Jefferson, et. al. didn't have a clear understanding of what would happen if the government were entrusted with such things as "taking care of" the people.
President Reagan said it quite well. Problems are caused when government does for people what they could and should do for themselves.
The emphasis needs to get back on freedom, independence, and the family. Socialism has had a hand in the dissolution of those traditions as well.
The purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights of the people, not to look after them in their time of need. To read anything else into that idea is a shameful abdication of a free person's responsibility to himself and those he charges himself with caring for.
Lucky for America, they are being separated.
Democracy, in case you need a refresher lesson, is about representation. If the people vote and desire socialistic programs, guess what! They vote for them and put them into law, thus sealing the marriage between socialism and democracy.
The United States is not a democracy, dude. Sorry to have to be the one who breaks you the bad news. It is a representative republic. There are limits set forth in the constitution that prohibit things like socialism. Try reading the Bill of Rights, and you will understand.
RWR
Roads and infrastructure are in the Constitution, as are the Post Office and the military.
Just thought you might like to know.
So tell me exactly what is hypocritical about demanding that our officials follow the rules set forth in the Constitution. I'm just dying to know.
RWR
What happens to the man who works from paycheck to paycheck, living as well as he can with his god-given talents. He works until he is 65 but cannot afford retirement because he was unable to save. Do we make him work until he dies?
The guy who works paycheck-to paycheck is doing so because the government is taking too much out of his pocket to pay for the socialism that is supposed to support him later in life. The problem is that the money they are taking has a miserable rate of return, and he will wind up working until he dies anyway because Socialist Security won't support huim any better than his job does.
The Constitution IS the issue here, Beef. It was written to exclude socialism for a reason. Don't you think the largest mmeting of geniuses ever assembled would have made provisions for socialism at the national level if it were a good thing?
Instead we got this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which brings up an even more important point ...
Why can't the individual states decide how to handle this? There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids an individual state or county from engaging in socialism. Only the Federal government is barred from it by the Tenth Amendment. Why is a one-size-fits-all non-solution the only way the Left is willing to go about these things? It just doesn't make sense to me.
God Bless America.
RWR
I don't care if the Constitutions states anything or not.
And THAT, my friend, is why you are wrong.
RWR
Beef, by saying you don't care what the Constitution says, you are saying you don't care what THE LAW says.
Are you willing to support politicians (on both sides) who so blatantly go their own way and not follow THE LAW?
The Constitution happens to be the law. And good law it is. You ought to read it sometime. It's quite enlightening.
RWR
It's still the law, dude. As such it is to be followed as law. I tend to think your positions on things are pretty warped, but I do respect your right to hold the positions.
Beef, I actually have valued this exchange, as for once you put aside your bullshit personal attacks that I have come to know and actually worked to defend a position. While I disagree with your position on this, I must give you credit for trying to pursuade.
Of course I have read the Constitution, and much of the work of the Founding Fathers, including Madison, Jay, Jefferson, and Adams. I have also spent time in my more recent learning experience, the Anti-Federalist, in which a group brought forth some of the many problems they found with the Constitution back in 1787. You might call me a constitutional scholar.
The US Constitution is one of the most ingeniously crafted works in the history of mankind. It sets forth a structure which, when followed to the letter, maximizes individual freedom (including the freedom to choose a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle), while protecting people from injustices, INCLUDING injustices inflicted upon them by an oppressive government.
It really is a wonderful work.
RWR out
K .. you just tell that to the arresting officer, then ...
:)
Well, Beef, just remember this in your daily business of breaking the law ...
If you go to bed with the devil, you will eventually have to fuck.
RWR
Post a Comment
<< Home