Thursday, June 09, 2005

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.

42 Comments:

At 3:20 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Would this also mean that it would be bad news for Newt? It was my understanding that Clinton and Gingrich had been agreeing quite a lot recently on just this issue...

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Only if Newt decides he's in favor of something stupid like that.

RWR

 
At 10:01 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 10:08 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:12 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 10:20 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Sorry about that Ol' BC ... Got tripped up trying to make a correction.

RWR

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger Ol' BC said...

No problem RWR. Thanks for the link. I am, however, unaware that Newt has any further political ambitions. (Unlike the Hildabeast.)

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Well, Socialism is not a complete and utter failure. It just doesn't work as an all-encompassing idea. Used in conjunction with other political and economical ideas, it can work to serve a vital purpose. Social Security is a good example. 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. But, systems change, climates change, population changes, and it is impossible to create any economic structure that can weather these sorts of changes over time.

 
At 4:12 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 5:26 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Let me ask you this, then, since your opinion has nothing to do with my actual point. How did social security fail either my grandparents or my father? If they got paid and lived in reasonable comfort, how then did it fail them?

 
At 10:49 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 11:18 PM, Blogger delftsman3 said...

Beef, Social Security is basically a Ponsie scheme...funny that private citizens get arrested and incarcerated for exactly the same type of thing. The reason your grandparents did all right on it is because they were the "first investers" in the pyramid.

SS would have been bankrupt 10 years ago if they hadn't increased the tax rate it was being funded at.

Tell me ONE company/retirement portfolio that would be considered a success at a rate of return of a maximum of 2%.

Socialism PLAIN DOESN'T WORK, never has, never will. It fails to account for basic human nature.

And you can't have "just a little socialism" it leads to the type of class warfare envy that the Progressives have been exploiting for years now.

 
At 11:24 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Any time people perceive taking care of the elderly and misfortunate as being "living off of someone" we fail as a society.

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 am not saying Social Security is perfect. 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.

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.

Sorry, but I would gladly give a little bit of my own money to see the elderly provided for.

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 1:07 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

What about the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck until he is 65? You gonna make him work until he dies? I'm sorry, but I don't mind providing for a man who has worked and contributed as best he could whether he could save his own money or not. There are many people in this world who will not be able to save two pennies for their retirement. It should be our moral obligation to take care of all the members of our society. It is the humane thing to do.

The way you talk, if a man couldn't save enough to invest for his retirement, you would make him work until he died just so he wouldn't be a parasite. Well, Rocker, I just don't agree with this philosophy. Their is no humanity in it.

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Oh, and for the record, I am not for the Nanny State. Yet, I am for a body politic, democratic, a government by the people, and for the people. I am for people like you--- who are all members of a Democracy, to take control of their own damned government, the one they elect--- showing compassion and humanity. Do you think tribal people just let their people starve when they become less than useful? For shame! No, they take care of their elderly, no matter what they were able to save.

The real problem isn't social security or private retirement accounts, it is money. The moment money enters into the scheme of things, so does evil, greed, and inhumane conduct.

 
At 3:20 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Nice job of burying your own argument, Beef.

RWR

 
At 3:22 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

If you think my support of Democracy and taking control somehow buries my argument, then I failed to make myself clear, and I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that we need to involve ourselves more in our own government so that generosity, compassion, and giving is not seen as a Nanny State, but as neighbors caring for one another. Does that make sense?

 
At 5:51 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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.

 
At 7:48 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

No, Rocker, you are wrong. Constitutional or not, this is really not the point being made. You have not really contradicted me. Instead you choose to answer around the things I say.

Socialism can and does exist with democracy. Look around.

Again, I will ask a question that you seem unwilling or unable to answer:

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?

Please answer this question, for it lies at the heart of my argument. An argument which you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

 
At 8:00 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

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. It really isn't hard to see how they can and will forever exist together.

Would you call the government building roads socialistic? No? But why? They are helping us do a thing that we could not do on our own. Granted, we could get out there and build roads ourselves, but it is more convenient to vote for someone else to represent us in our desire to build the road.

It is no different when it comes to taking care of our nation's elderly, a fact which, for some unexplainable reason, seems to escape conservatives. For some reason they think it is okay to let the government wage wars, set pollution standards, and mis-spend our money on pork barrel projects, but when it comes to feeding and clothing the poor and elderly--- whoa there! That's where they draw the line!

What hypocritical twaddle. What inhumane gall.

 
At 9:44 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 9:46 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 10:02 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 10:36 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

I realize that we live in a republic. I didn't need to have that pointed out to me. The sad thing is that this is really slowly becoming a thing of the past also, as we move towards Oligarchy. Anyway, I think your answers are a little too simple. I think blaming socialism for the guy working paycheck to paycheck is just too easy.

When I say it is hypocritical, I can't get any clearer than what I already stated. I don't care if the Constitutions states anything or not. It's not a Bible that we should all live by. It is not infallible.

 
At 10:57 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

I don't care if the Constitutions states anything or not.

And THAT, my friend, is why you are wrong.

RWR

 
At 11:46 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Oh brother. That is why I am wrong? Because the Constitution says other wise? Sorry, but I don't worship the Constitution. I like to think a bit for myself...

 
At 1:24 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Well, quite frankly I am for thought, not law. Laws are made only to restrict the freedoms of the people. When law takes the place of thoughtful reflection, discretion, and judgement, then we face hard times. When we turn to law to guide us, we fail as a thoughtful people. When we allow the frameworks of others to restrict our innate abilities to think for ourselves, we cease growing as people and become sheep.

Therefore, I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says. You, Jefferson, or anyone else, for that matter. Only when I think it through for myself and come to a conscious and well thought out conclusion for myself will I be able to say that a person or law or saying is right or is wrong.

Your adherence to the Constitution smacks of blind faith, and I am not a man who gives my allegiance without some thought. Now, if you have considered all of what the Constitution has to say and agree with it, that is fine. I agree with it, for the most part, too. But don't hold it up as if it were a sacred and infallible manuscript for living, because it is not.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 2:24 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Just because it is the law, means nothing. A law is only so good as it is followed. It is also only so good as it serves the people. When these two requirements are not met, law is not worth the paper it is printed on. Therefore, you argument that "It is still the law, dude" holds no water with me.

I don't do anything just because someone tells me to do it. I reflect and come up with my own set of moral guidelines. If these coincide with law, then fine. If they do not, then I will break the law. It means nothing to me.

Laws do not govern the moon and stars. Man cannot control the flames of the sun. And likewise, they do not control me.

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

K .. you just tell that to the arresting officer, then ...

:)

 
At 5:33 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

You make the erroneous assumption that law breakers always get caught, my friend.

 
At 9:09 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

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

 
At 10:33 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

And you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him save a penny. And people in glass houses will probably see more than other people. And the early bird stitches nine. And sausage tastes better with pancakes than broccoli, and you can't take the log out of a man's eye until you stop throwing stones.

I usually get along with most people, but in your case I'll make an exception!

 
At 11:02 PM, Blogger 林依晨Amber said...

AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色

 

Post a Comment

<< Home