Socialism?

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Socialism?

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Feb 06 18:13

For those who think this is a big, bad monster under the bed, check this out. Some of the wonderful things acheived by gasp!!!!!........socialism.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/ ... eshow.html


:love10:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

10thFO

Re: Socialism

Postby 10thFO » 2009 Feb 06 18:26

That was Socialism? I think you may need to revisit the time period. And if you think working for the CCC was a brilliant thing or something..... yeah my grandfather worked there. That was an extremely hard time. Harder than the factory jobs that some of our residents feel is beneath them. God forbid they could have flipped burgers for minimum wage, and had the audacity to think that they were above that. You don't really know anything about Socialism. Go take a trip to Sweden, and come back and tell us how great Socialism is. Where profits are split between the masses, and yes their is healtcare, but you take home so little pay because everything cost so much because the gov't runs it.

IF the Parkway and all those other things are so grand why are they losing money??? Because the gov't runs it. End of story. Please if your going to build a strong argument here then don't link Salon of all yellow journalism rags. For a description of Yellow Journalism it was what all the papers were doing before the last depression. Kind of fitting with the media we've had for the last decade don't you think. During and after the depression, people stopped trusting the rags like Salon. Maybe because they got tired of the lies, and deception being told by the people abusing the First Amendment.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Socialism

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Feb 06 19:44

Gee......what do you suggest I do??? Stop reading everything and just tune in to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh?????

You missed the point 10th. These were things this nation desperately needed, particularly in the realm of infrastructure. So sorry to hear that you think the Blue Ridge Parkway is just a waste of time and money. Must be a terrible thing to live such a jaded and bitter life.

My folks were raised during the Great Depression......I know the stories they told about how hard the times were. Thing is, they didn't think Mr. Roosevelt's ideas were all bad. I've seen pictures of how they all lived as children and of how my kin before that lived. They didn't have an easy life in the least......not with 9 brothers and sisters.

I think folks like you want selective socialism.....things from the government that only benefit an extremely small segment of the population and screw the rest of the country. You want entitlements for veterans....government money but no entitlements or projects that would benefit the greater good. That's pretty screwy thinking and goes waaaay beyond "yellow".

:2cent:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Socialism

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Feb 06 19:53

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Socialism

Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes. Sock \Sock\, v. t. [Perh. shortened fr. sockdolager.] To hurl, drive, or strike violently; -- often with it as an object. [Prov. or Vulgar] --Kipling.
Socialism

So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »Related Words for : socialism
socialist economy
View more related words »


socialism

noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source

socialism


An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.



utopian socialism 
–noun (sometimes initial capital letter) an economic system based on the premise that if capital voluntarily surrendered its ownership of the means of production to the state or the workers, unemployment and poverty would be abolished.



Just so we are all on the same page and are aware of what we are discussing. 10th......sure you're not confusing socialism with fascism?

:wink2:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

resigned

Re: Socialism

Postby resigned » 2009 Feb 06 22:11

I read your definitions of socialism and also thought your first posting was extremely interesting. I have been reading a lot about socialism in an effort to understand it, as that seems to be the rallying cry of those opposed to what is occurring in our government today. I do want to understand therefore I have been studying, trying hard to understand.

To my understanding socialism was a product of Karl Marx, or at least that is what I read. He thought that through a revolution of the lower classes they could achieve some sort of transition between socialism and communism.

He felt that all of the power should not be concentrated among the wealthy and that the wealth and power should be spread out among all and dependent upon the amount of work expended.

I am over simplifying this, but I think I understand what you were trying to point out. What I would like to say is that I feel capitalism works well. I feel that if a person wants to make it in this world, that hard work and determination will bring about a better life for that person of course given all the variables are positive. Hey look at our new President, he started out in a fairly low position and through hard work and the support of his family, especially his grandparents, he was able to achieve the Presidency of the US.

I have no problem with anyone achieving wealth through all the accepted means. I just have a problem with too much government in our lives. That is what bothers me.

I have much to say on this issue, but its’ late and I need to shut my computer down and go to bed. But an interesting discussion.

resigned

Re: Socialism

Postby resigned » 2009 Feb 07 06:10

My understanding is Socialism is governmental security. Americans have gotten used to the welfare state or having the government take care of them. In essence I feel Americans are loosing their freedoms.

It’s my understanding for example that public schooling is one of the key aspects of the Soviet, Chinese and Cuban ways of life. Wonder what they teach in those schools. Freedom of thought, liberty? Not.

Our government takes money from everyone including those who don’t have children to pay for the schooling of other people’s children. The education for the children and teachers is planned for him or her by a government agency be it local, state or federal. The government not the parent controls what type of education the child receives. Wonder why home schooling in our country is gaining momentum. But I see teachers adamantly advocating against home schooling, wonder why. So do we allow the government to take our money in the guise of taxes to distribute it for the “greater good.”

Another example of socialism in America is Social Security. It came into existence as part of the New Deal in the 1930s and is founded on taking from the workers paychecks under the guise of taxes from the young and given to the old. I have heard so many people who say this is their Social Security – they worked for it. But to my knowledge the amount of money those people paid into Social Security is paid back to them in approximately 3 or 4 years. Today our young are paying for the elderly. A lot of people believe that Social Security is an investment fund. Ha, boy do they have a big surprise when they get ready to retire in the next 10 to 20 years. There won’t be any social security, because our big government has spent it all. Politicians know now that they can’t touch Social Security if they want to be voted back in office. But I believe I read that Greenspan said that Social Security would go bankrupt very soon.

Americans believe they are free, but they aren’t. I feel they are trapped into believing that the government is going to take care of them from cradle to grave. As a social worker for years, I heard so many people say that the government owed them. Owed them for what I always said. I remember a professor in college years ago say that welfare is a way of Government controlling the masses. And I have seen it happen over and over.

So are we really free? Do we live in a land of freedom? One wonders when government becomes more and more involved in our lives.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Socialism

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Feb 07 06:49

The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.



:wink2:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

resigned

Re: Socialism

Postby resigned » 2009 Feb 07 08:36

Ok ----? But Anerica is a republic.

I'm not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to get across. Yes it may be over my head, sorry, but I have limited cognitive abilities. Sometimes I can't even spell right.

resigned

Re: Socialism

Postby resigned » 2009 Feb 07 10:37

fascism : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality. Merriam-Webster


Socialism cannot be confused with facism

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Socialism

Postby Uji » 2009 Feb 07 10:53

Hey, Beck. "Republic" is not a form of government, but a philosophy OF government. A "republic" is simply a form of government that considers government a public trust, a means of determining what is the best for the most. (From "res publica" or something like that: Latin for public things, public trust.) A "republic" need not be a democracy, even. The early Greek tyrants were considered "republicans" -- with a small r -- we'd call them dictators. But they created the first "republican" governments because, though dictators, they considered their job to rule benevolently, to consider what was best for the most, etc. The "benevolent dictator" you sometimes hear reference to come from them.

The US is a representative, constitutional democracy. It is not a "democracy" plain and simple because we don't all have an equal say; we elect folks to represent us, to speak for us. Hence, we are a representative democracy. We are also not a pure "democracy" because what the people want is not the final word: the constitution constrains what the people can do no matter what they want. Our founders were justly concerned about the tyranny of the masses, as well as that of the sovereign.

How much the government owns of "the means of production," or how much our citizens depend on that government is determined entirely by our representative democratic institutions (elected officials) as constrained by the constitution. We can become more or less "socialist" to the extent those officials lead us that way -- and to the extent that we continue to elect them. There is nothing in the constitution that would keep us from becoming more or less socialistic.

As to your concern about what "most people" are like -- depending too much on government, etc. I'd just ask: How the heck are you able to know what "most people" think or depend on? Do you have some sort of crystal ball, or do you talk directly to God for the intelligence? Just curious...

resigned

Re: Socialism

Postby resigned » 2009 Feb 07 11:20

Uji wrote:As to your concern about what "most people" are like -- depending too much on government, etc. I'd just ask: How the heck are you able to know what "most people" think or depend on? Do you have some sort of crystal ball, or do you talk directly to God for the intelligence? Just curious...


Thanks for the information. As for what most people like, I'm not sure what you mean. I quickly re-read my postings and can't figure it out. And yes I talk directly to God for the intelligence. I am happy every day that I can, walk, talk and think. I am even happy that I can dress myself and drive a car.

10thFO

Re: Socialism

Postby 10thFO » 2009 Feb 07 11:47

Hold on Fangs, since when are Veteran "benefits" considered "Entitlements". As for the older version of the GI Bill, it was something that each veteran paid into to have the right to be able to use it. As for VA Healthcare, I only vehemently protest a system that is not set up to handle the injuries that occurred "on the job" if you will. If you get hurt at work, you are covered by Worker's Comp. The DOD doesn't have workers comp, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you actually were hurt. Hell we doled out money like it was candy to the victims family's of 9-11, but when it comes to Veterans Healthcare, there are plenty of people like you who never served, that think of it as an entitlement program, like Welfare and all the others. Big mistake. Don't go there with me.

I would ascertain, that the Great things of which you spoke, might have put people to work for pennies, but it didn't pull us out of the depression. The big war pulled us out of the depression. During the CCC camps and the gov't projects you spoke of, only gov't money, or paper was involved. Private investors don't invest their money when the "Gov't" is pumping a bunch of money in, and taking control over certain sectors of the economy". The thing that got this country booming, was the reliance of other countries buying goods from us for the big war, before we were even involved. Private money got involved then, and provided a better product, that brought us our of the depression.

10thFO

Re: Socialism

Postby 10thFO » 2009 Feb 07 11:59

Instead of looking at the old days of the last depression as Socialism, lets take a look at Keynesian Economics. I think you will find this more in line with what typicaly would occur in this country, Since we already know that our currrent administration isn't going to take from everyone across the board, but rather take from some to redistribute.

Here is a pretty good start on Wiki

Now, I'm not claiming to be an economic expert buy any means, but I don't think Pres. Obama's trying to slam this plan through is going to lead to any bringing us out of the depression.

I also found this article by Alan Greenspan where he blames Keynesian economics for debilitating the economy prior to the Reagan Presidency. Pretty interesting, since he was considered such a guru through Clinton's terms and part of Bush's.

User avatar
Sweetness 'n Light
Posts: 101
Joined: 2007 Jul 21 19:39

Re: Socialism

Postby Sweetness 'n Light » 2009 Feb 15 19:52

When I saw all these message about the socialism things, I like thought maybe it might be about my kind of situation when that socialized worker keeps coming not even without asking first to "look in on me" whatever that means. But a lot of the stuff you guys are talking about is other stuff I dont' even know about, but maybe some of it is for the socialized worker that just pesters me, huh?

What happens is not really bad, it just gets me sometimes screaming after she leaves, cause I can tell she is treating me like I'm some kind of weerd person which its unfair and real stupid. If she wants to help then she can go talk to the DVM and get my awful drivers license thing right finally so I don't have to be a prisoner in my house if we could get another car cause my husband hardly is ever here, maybe cause he says is always working in some other states but I don't really beleive it.

But even though I tell her this, then she just always changes the subject to stuff like what I eat and drink and do all day and about my medications, and other stuff not what I really want to talk about. I think they just hire anybody thats cheap and don't even care if they help people with important stuff like me maybe.

I tell her the truth mostly, well not quite cause she keeps asking about alchohol and I just say I never drank any alchohl at all which is true except when my husband started staying away longer and longer then I tried his stuff down in the basement cause I don' have anything else to do mostly. At first it was awful but then I got to like it and it makes me feel better sometimes when I don't have a very good day like everybody sometimes doesn't have a good day, huh?

Well that's the news from the ranch, ha ha, pretty boring but at least the TV works and when I remember I can do some internet things like this maybe. But I don't do those chat things anymore cause of bad troubles like I told you a long time ago with all those liars and cheats on the ciberspaces mostly foreigners. I think I will maybe walk down by river tomorrow only this time I won't even throw anything in cause the busybody neighbor started screaming last time even though all my stuff sank perfect cause it was real heavy all the way to the bottom and is gone. Some people, huh?

User avatar
historyforall
Posts: 31
Joined: 2008 Sep 10 09:47

Re: Socialism

Postby historyforall » 2009 Feb 20 19:13

The problem with using the word socialism is perfectly displayed here. It has so many meanings that anything can fall into it's category. We are taught to fear the word and concept but only when it suits whoever is trying to push another agenda. History shows that all the red scare tactics used by the Govt. worked but the fear was not real. I had a semester of watching old film reels of govt propaganda. It is amazing how so called experts where used to scare us into submission. Vietnam was going to lead to the downfall of the world and give us communism and socialism for all.
We really need to wake up and become well informed citizens. We need to love our country again, not tear ourselves apart with political correctness, greed and rewarding ignorance. There will always be programs that the govt. must provide. Education is important, but people forget very quickly that while your gripping about having to pay taxes for schools that you don't have kids in, someone had to pay those same taxes while you were in school. But, we seem to want even stupider kids around us. We want those who will be making choices for us in the future to be uneducated or fend for themselves with learning. Stop following what the media tells you. Yellow Jounalism in this country is also represented in Fox news as well as the liberal press. We are just to blind to see it. Each side has it's own cheering section to tell them they are right. Politics has become sports. We cheer our team and yell death to the other side. They can never do any right and always have the wrong players. We hold nobody on our team accountable. Want to end socialism in this country vote the right people in, not a republican/democrat just because you are one but those who will really do the job right. Go outside your party, look at the ideas of people like Ron Paul (good, bad or otherwise) and see if another party has ideas that could work.

Thank you for the time,
HFA
I believe in the rights and freedoms of a person even when I don't support them on a moral or fundamental basis.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1567
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Socialism

Postby Coondog » 2009 Feb 25 18:09

Just got the 2/25/09 copy of the weekly parakeet cage liner, or The News-Gazette as it calls itself. Interesting article on the Opinion page by some fool named Hugh Bouchelle concerning the matter of socialism....or the imagined perception thereof.

First, let me opine that Hugh Bouchelle is of an ilk of bootlicking conservative talking point meat puppets aligned with the do nothingest of the do nothing minority party. The irony of his article Fear and the Art of Politics is that it is difficult to decide whether he is talking about Obama or himself. The satyrical infernce could swing either way. If he's talking about himself, he's half right. If he's talking about Obama, he's a complete idiot....and a hypocritical one at that.

Be honest with the people about the economy and what really needs to be done, and stop using fear to drive a socialist agenda.

Gee, Hugh, how long ago was it you were bowing and scraping before your right wing string pullers while chanting the mantra, "The Fundamentals of the Economy are Strong!"? Let me give you another metaphore to your comment regarding Arlen Spector's statement "...the country cannot afford not to take action." Something about wrong action being worse than no action at all?

Well....when you're sitting on the railroad tracks and there's a big locomotive bearing down on you....just about any action is better than nothing at all. If it turns out that action takes you off a 300 foot tressel, blame the idiot who put you there in the first place.....not the one who said, "Look out! There's a train a commin'!"

My advice, Hugh? Stop crying like an infant :baby: and.....get on board!

:director: Coondog

We may not know where we'll end up, but any place is better than here!

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Better Health Care for America

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2009 Jun 11 10:55

On June 11, 2009, NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF wrote:This Time, We Won’t Scare

Perhaps you’ve seen those television commercials denouncing health care reform as a plot to create a Canadian-style totalitarian nightmare, and you feel a wee bit scared.

Back in the election campaign, some people spread rumors that Barack Obama might be a secret Muslim conspiring to impose Sharia law on us. That seems unlikely now, but what if he’s a covert Canadian plotting to impose ... health care?

Rick Scott, a former hospital company chief executive, leads a group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights. He was forced to resign as C.E.O. after his company defrauded the government through overbilling and is now spending his time trying to block meaningful health care reform by terrifying us with commercials of “real-life stories of the victims of government-run health care.”

So here’s a far more representative “real-life story.”

Diane Tucker, 59, is an American lawyer who moved to Vancouver, Canada, in 2006. Like everyone else there, she now pays the equivalent of just $49 a month for health care.

Then one day two years ago, Ms. Tucker was working on her office computer when she noticed that she was having trouble typing with her right hand.

“I realized my hand was numb, so I tried to stand up to shake it out,” she remembered. “But I had trouble standing.”

A colleague called 911, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital.

“An emergency room doctor met me at the door, and they took me straight upstairs to the CT scan,” she recalled. A neurologist explained that she had suffered a stroke.

Ms. Tucker spent a week at the hospital. “The doctors were great, although there were also a couple of jerks,” she said. “The nursing staff was wonderful.”

Still, there were two patients to a room, and conditions weren’t as opulent as at some American hospitals. “The food was horrible,” she said.

Then again, the price was right. “They never spoke to me about money,” she said. “Not when I checked in, and not when I left.”

Scaremongers emphasize the waits for specialists in Canada, and there’s some truth to the stories. After the stroke, Ms. Tucker needed to make a routine appointment with a neurologist and an ophthalmologist to see if she should drive again. Initially, those appointments would have meant a two- or three-month wait, although in the end she managed to arrange them more quickly.

Ms. Tucker underwent three months of rehabilitation, including physical therapy several times a week. Again there was no charge, no co-payment.

Then, last year, Ms. Tucker fainted while on a visit to San Francisco, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital. But this was in the United States, so the person meeting her at the emergency room door wasn’t a doctor.

“The first person I saw was a lady with a computer,” she said, “asking me how I intended to pay the bill.” Ms. Tucker did, in fact, have insurance, but she was told she would have to pay herself and seek reimbursement.

Nothing was seriously wrong, and the hospital discharged her after five hours. The bill came to $8,789.29.

Ms. Tucker has since lost her job in the recession, but she says she’s stuck in Canada — because if she goes back to the United States, she will pay a fortune for private health insurance because of her history of a stroke. “I’m trying to find another job here,” she said. “I want to stay here because of medical insurance.”

Another advantage of the Canadian system, she says, is that it emphasizes preventive care. When a friend was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic, he was put in a free two-year program emphasizing an improved diet and lifestyle — and he emerged as no longer being prone to diabetes.

If Ms. Tucker’s story surprises you, you should know that Mr. Scott’s public relations initiative against health reform is led by the same firm that orchestrated the “Swift boat campaign” against Senator John Kerry in 2004. These commercials are just as false, for President Obama is not proposing government-run health care — just a public insurance element in the mix.

No doubt there are some genuine horror stories in Canada, as there are here in the United States.

But the bottom line is that America’s health care system spends nearly twice as much per person as Canada’s (building the wealth of hospital tycoons like Mr. Scott). Yet our infant mortality rate is 40 percent higher than Canada’s, and American mothers are 57 percent more likely to die in childbirth than Canadian ones.

In 1993, the “Harry and Louise” commercials frightened Americans into abandoning health reform. Let’s ensure those scare tactics don’t work this time.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1567
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Socialism?

Postby Coondog » 2009 Jun 11 15:45

Thanks, Neck, for that poignant if somewhat lengthy example of the current state of affairs regarding health.....or the lack thereof in this great nation of ours.

Socialism? Well, as the conservative element is continually pointing out, government programs consist of little more than a giant give away. Heck, they're benevolent to a fault. They'll pay you a couple of thousand dollars for a toilet seat.

Contrast that with the type of greedy insurer - provider relationship that exists today which allows them to charge ten times more to people without insurance than to those who's insurance company has worked out a maximum allowable cost for the same procedure.

In the upcoming debate, much will be said against government run health insurance by hard core right wingers who, by coincidence, benefit from a government run program.

Perhaps they would seek to boycott such a program, as they are seeking to boycott GM. Government investment in GM is socialism. Un-American! Buy a foreign car! Vote Republican! Get sick and die in your used Toyota.

Here's an example for you. I went to the doctor....got a prescription. Pills worked fine. Cost $30.00. Went to re-fill. Insurance company won't pay for that drug any more. They will allow another prescription that costs $100. Cost of old pill without insurance $120.00. I hesitate to guess what the new prescription would cost without insurance. Cost to produce drug.....probably about 5 cents. Developed with government research grants and manufacturing subsidized by taxpayers.

Could bureaucrats dictating my health care be any worse?

Coondog :shakeh:

User avatar
Sweetness 'n Light
Posts: 101
Joined: 2007 Jul 21 19:39

Re: Socialism?

Postby Sweetness 'n Light » 2009 Jun 11 19:13

Im thinking you people don't even realize how dangerous all this socialized stuff is that all the politicians in the new government run by a man who maybe didn’t' even get born because he can't show anybody a real birth certificate? He might fool some people but we know what's going on, huh?

Anybody thinks that Stonewall Jackson Hospital and all its docters is bad against those Canadians is just crazy I think maybe. Because up there where there is nothing but snow all the time with crazy French people trying to blow up everything cause they think they are better than us, and with no medical schools like we have in the US then there is no way they can practice good medicines at all, its just kookie maybe, huh?

If they are so cheap for docters and medicines then that tells you it must be really bad I guess cause you gets what you pays for. And I wouldn’t let some Frenchie Canadian docter touch me with his barray hat instead of normal white coat anyway.

And they have to buy everything from us anyway and we save all the good medicines for ourselves cause they just send the cheap stuff that is maybe all expired and bad up to those Canadians who are too stupid to realize they just got hoodwinked by smart Americanos, huh? That’s why it costs more here cause all the stuff we wouldn’t even give our dog sends up north to that country cause maybe they all don’t care if people die from it?

OK I admit it is probably better than all the Mexicans medicine which is not socialized but most everybody down there has leopardsy anyway so how good could it be? All the illegal aileens who streem over the borders have lots of diseases and make crimes and take our jobs and fill up out jails and the liberals make us keep then instead of sending them back to maybe guantanamo or some place to teach them a good lesson.

Which makes me think of my own medical problem I had last month and still do kind of maybe. I got a neighbor to go to the ABC for a whole lot of boxes of stuff so my husband wouldn’t think I drank up all that wine and liqueors he keeps down in the basement and it looked just about the same so I don’t think he will even notice that I drank up all the old stuff.

But then I tripped and fell and really skinned up my elbow real bad and kind of sprained my ankle when I fell down those stairs and another neighbor took me to Stonewall Jackson and they patched me up pretty good but made me stay for 2 days. But then they gave me a bill for over $2,700 which just made me laugh cause there is no way to pay it and we don’t have insurance anyway. So basically I got the best care in the world right here in the good old USA and its free cause you can’t get blood out of a stone. So suck on that you Canadians think your so hot!

10thFO

Re: Socialism?

Postby 10thFO » 2009 Jun 15 05:37

Coondog,

Sorry about your prescription woes. Those issues need to be addressed somehow. But "guberment healthcare for all" is not the option. Have you ever noticed the lagtime between how you would do something and how the gubment time differs? Gub'ment healtcare, involves knock off drugs shipped from Ga. That means, you don't get the name brand that was first passed by the gov't but some knockoff, that may or may not work as well.

You get waiting for appointments, case in point, through the VA healthcare system, my Dr. "retired" or just got fed up and quit, so it took 4 months to get a new appointment with another doc to find out i had Walking Pneumonia for the last 4 months.

For the people who claim that "our system won't be like the VA's", which incidently is rated tops in America somehow, I just :laughing: I would suggest a progressive action to get out medical cost under control, but then again, if this country weren't so litigious, and everytime someone died, there wasn't a class action lawsuit coming up from something that they willingly took, then maybe our healthcare costs wouldn't be so bad.

How about we have a paper to sign that says we will all waive our rights to sue said Dr. or drugmaker for the small pentance of cheaper healthcare? Sound crazy? Why? The wonderful healthcare I get at the VA hospital, I'm not able to sue any of their Doc's or employees for negligence. Which is fine with me, I'm going there for healthcare, not to get rich in case someone screws up. I don't think some Americans would feel very happy about that arrangement though. Well they would, until they felt they were wronged, and should be monetarily compensated.

:hammer: