Let’s look at the Worlds Socialists countries

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: TheTory

Right dude there's no way I could have saved up 40,000 for the medical emergency I had at 24 when I got crushed between two cars.

That's why you have insurance.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: TheTory

Right dude there's no way I could have saved up 40,000 for the medical emergency I had at 24 when I got crushed between two cars.

That's why you have insurance.

We can't all afford it at times though. I had a roughly 3 year period without any. Luckily I didn't have an accident.

I think some people in this thread are conflating the terms "Socialism" with "Communism".

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: TheTory

Right dude there's no way I could have saved up 40,000 for the medical emergency I had at 24 when I got crushed between two cars.

That's why you have insurance.

We can't all afford it at times though. I had a roughly 3 year period without any. Luckily I didn't have an accident.

I find most folks can afford it, but it doesn't take priority. Young people tend to think they are invincible. There should be cheap catastrophic plans available. Regulation has made it impossible to offer lower cost insurance.

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell

Honest question, do you want to do away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Because I don't see how you can have socialism here in the US and keep those documents.

Why couldn't you have both. Honest question.

I don't think a socialist nation could exist with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But other countries that have been referred to here as "Socialist" have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that co-exist very well.

What specific Rights in the Bill of Rights do you think would be incompatible with "Socialism"?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: DBCowboy

But other countries that have been referred to here as "Socialist" have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that co-exist very well.

What specific Rights in the Bill of Rights do you think would be incompatible with "Socialism"?

They may have a "constitution" but they don't have the US Constitution.

To be honest, I'd have to read on it, but even a brief Google search shows that there are hundreds of articles about the incompatibility between the US Constitution and socialism.

a reply to: TheTory

Firstly, what about young people, who have savings and are not supported by their parents? Anyone, even young smart people, can have health problems... (depending on the cause, some can be very influential. From personal experience, one of my US friends, living healthy young life, dropped down dead at the age of 20. He did not do drugs, did sports (volleyball), did not smoke, ate healthily, drank minimally (the 21-rule in US is one of the most absurd ones in my eyes tbh). I suggested him going to check-up, but he had no finances for it. In the end it turned, there was some condition with his heart. Regular check-up would have saved his life... Still, so far, I regret, I did not push him enough.).

Secondly, due to US minimum wage being below living wage, even when income tax was removed totally, the people at low end jobs (often due to lack of intelligence (too slow learner compared to average person. Not due to wanting to learn, but having slow ability to learn /low IQ basically) or other reasons. People can be psychologically really messed up. It is not even their fault, they personally often do not even realise it, although that can be detrimental to their performance, especially when other tensions are involved or health issues unknown to the person which lead to lower performance (for example extreme tiredness, too often people think it is normal, rather than gaining access to doctor to get full blood report for recognising whether their blood levels are normal, or going to psychiatrist to check whether their mental health is okay ( too many psychiatric problems lead to tiredness, not feeling well). The point is, when one has no other choices financially than to rely on government ,the extra money does not help. Even with the salary increase, they still earn not enough to live on and have to rely on government/crime/working to death (even 50h a week is too much, nightshifts is too much etc).


In the end, people who currently suffer would still suffer

a reply to: DBCowboy

So you "Think" it isn't... based on a feeling? And you aren't familiar with the Constitutions of other western democracies but by simply not being the "US Constitution" you don't think they can be similar?

Perhaps that is why you feel the way you do, it is not based on facts, it is based on feelings?

originally posted by: TheTory
That's probably true, though I haven't seen the data myself. I can agree that if one wants cheap healthcare, the UH system is a good way to go about finding it. Some people, however, require quality healthcare, as opposed to cheap.

Japan pays less per capita than either Canada or the US, and I have never experienced care remotely as good as I did there.

Maybe we should be looking more at their hybrid system?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
They may have a "constitution" but they don't have the US Constitution.

To be honest, I'd have to read on it, but even a brief Google search shows that there are hundreds of articles about the incompatibility between the US Constitution and socialism.

Multiple 'socialisms' already exist in the US. If they have survived, there is not much in the Constitution that will prevent other socialistic enterprises.

a reply to: Cabin

How can you assume that low wage earners are stupid when 74 million Americans are low wage earners? (Under 15)

a reply to: DBCowboy


To be honest (not in an insulting way ), US constitution has nothing special in it compared to pretty much any other advanced nations.


It all comes down to culture. US culture generally tends to be extreme individualistic. I have never seen in any other nation (and I have lived in quite some) so many people scream for their rights. Some time ago, I saw a person suing their neighbor for having a tree that gave too much shade to his garden which made growing crops harder and he won. In my country, in every other country I have lived, that person would be seen as a retard. That person would lose his/her reputation for the of his/her life for doing such absurd action.


What I wanted to bring out with this point. The cultures differ. Round here, people generally look on things on the perspective what is better for the society as a whole not as what is better for me (that might not have been the best example on this part, but I wanted to show how people think individualistically), while in US people tend to think mostly on themselves ( I lived in USA for a while and that is something I did notice). I personally think on what affects the society in long-term the best, not what I lose due to that short-term and that is how majority of people I know and others round here tend to think. Every investment is a short-term loss with the potential of long-term strong win. Universal healthcare, strong public education system, paid mother/father leave (here it is 3 years), free college (in order to provide everybody with the intelligence to succeed to finish college without paying for it for the rest of their life) makes a better, healthier, more educated, nation with less crime with the ability to create even stronger generation next time. In the end, everybody wins whatever the short-term cost is.

For the end, I would say US is not special, every major democratic country (or republic) has pretty much the same constitution (with minor changes). The difference in attitude. One part of people view this in one what, others see the other way. In USA, many people tend to take a look at these as some word of god, here people generally do not give a fu*k about these, as long as problems do not arise.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you "Think" it isn't... based on a feeling? And you aren't familiar with the Constitutions of other western democracies but by simply not being the "US Constitution" you don't think they can be similar?

Perhaps that is why you feel the way you do, it is not based on facts, it is based on feelings?

I "feel" you being condescending.

I don't know, off the top of my head any foreign constitutions verbatim. I'm not as enlightened or as brilliant as you are.

I have to actually read and study.

But then again, I'm slow that way. Sorry.

a reply to: Cabin

Interpretation of any given constitution is something to consider.

Thank you for a reasoned reply.

I'll give it some thought.

in B.C..

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: nwtrucker

Canada, except the Territory of the Yukon, doesn't have 'free medical' there is a monthly payment, no prescription coverage nor dental.

That's incorrect.

I've never paid any kind of "monthly payment" to our national healthcare ever. A small percentage of the income tax taken from my paycheques goes towards our nation healthcare system... the same as any other country that has UHC.

I have no idea where you get this "monthly payment" thing from.

But you are correct that our healthcare system does not cover prescriptions or dental.

There is a monthly payment in B.C., from my understanding. Which is right above my state, Washington. Is there variations between the Provinces? Having run Alaska for a couple of years, I believe everything is covered in the Yukon without any payment by the locals.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Every province runs their own show. All of which has to conform to Health Canada's guidelines and over site.

Granted, it doesn't really make a difference. What is a shown premium in one province is a hidden tax in another. Money has to come in regardless of the provincial method.

The only major thing you have to watch for is what is and isn't covered, which also varies from province to province, but that does only pertain to the extras, not the base package, which is a Health Canada guideline.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Thank you for your answer

The interpretation depends on the fact how seriously the people take the constitution.

If people take this very extremely (as often happens in US), word-for-word, what means what, trying to make their own interpretations, then problems arise, as everyone see things from their perspective. (Thus why there are A LOT of articles describing whether "social democracy" is constitutional or not).

If people do not take that very extremely, see it as more as a common sense rules, then there are less problems as the polarization of the society is much lower.

Another aspect lies in the party system. USA does have two parties out which one tends to be more "socialistic " (I hate word coming from a former USSR state, which is moving towards Central European/Nordic Model without the multicultural part, that tends to make me feel bad due to the fact, that from experience Social Democracy has nothing to do with either Socialism or Communism which too many tend to believe). That party of Democrats would be considered rightwing here), while Republicans tend to more conservative, towards individualism and constitutionalism. As there are no middle grounds, people have to choose between the two "extremes".


In my eyes, US needs more parties. It will take long-term, but if people have numerous choices, there would be less polarization, which better for the society as a whole.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell


None of these socialist countries have a Bill of Rights nor do they have a Constitution.

Honest question, do you want to do away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Because I don't see how you can have socialism here in the US and keep those documents.

Wrong. Just off the top of my head, Canada has both a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

a reply to: Cabin

You have, in essence, answered my question. I was looking at how the US Constitution was framed and using my own interpretation.

In fact, a socialist government could exist under the current US Constitution and Bill of Rights based on interpretation.

Cheers. You have educated me.

And I thank you.