If socialism is bad, it's time to end the Public School System

How can you say this? You have no proof. Private healthcare does better than state run healthcare.

It is because there in no profit, if there is no profit then all the money can be invested in the medical field.If there is profit only a part will be invested the rest is profit.

Sure you can bring up infant mortality rates in the U.S. but that takes into account people who do not have health insurance as well.

Well they can't pay for it, so should they have something to get them covered?

Is it fair or nice? No. But neither is being forced to pay for other people's health insurance or fix their problems when they do not work and I do.

This brings me to the idea that you are paying more when you could pay less for the same service. If you are paying for someone you could be giving less than when you are only paying for your self. Out of ten people four will get sick, the other six will have to pay for the other 4 people.The 4 people will recive more than double of what you recive alone but no one will know who and when someone will get sick so it's a fair game.
Not everyone is going to get sick in the whole country, if that were to happen then it could be from a war or a natural disaster and then it's understandable because the whole country would pull in anyway working and helping out in a state of emergency.

I broke my leg while growing up in united states, it cost $7000 for a freaking tibia.Take the NHS sistem in the Unided Kindom, it works and people are paying less then you are.The insurace company works the same as socialised helthcare only on a smaller scale, the only difrence is that they make profit.Do you really think that what you give them is stored in a separate account? It's not, when someone gets sick they just take out the minimal needed to maximise profit.


[edit on 26-10-2008 by pepsi78]

I defy anyone to show the proof that Private Medicine is better than State-run Medicine in the Western World.

The problem with a national private health system is that it disenfranchises a large portion of its population, whereas a state-run system encompasses all of its population.

Again, the main problem is .... the mindset of the people who live with these systems and the 'brainwashing' against the other system.

reply to post by Wotan


Look up the subscription rates for private medical in the UK. The UK has the NHS which is universal healthcare, but the quality is shockingly poor. The fact that people choose to use private medical and pay an extortionate price to do so tells you something about the quality of the NHS.

A simple example is the quality of implants used. I dont have the images to hand, but if i showed you the stents used by the NHS (non-eluting) vs the stents used by private medical companies, you would abandon any support for a universal healthcare system.

Universal healthcare is ok for emergency procedures, but for any scheduled surgery it is woeful.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I am sorry but I have to totally disagree with you. I actually work in Elective Surgery within the NHS, so I do have an inkling about the subject. The reason most people in the UK that use private medicine is due to the shorter waiting times, not because of prosthetics or prodedures and most private operations are done by the same NHS Surgeons.

I am not saying that the NHS is perfect, but it is a far cry from what you are saying it is.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Look up the subscription rates for private medical in the UK. The UK has the NHS which is universal healthcare, but the quality is shockingly poor. The fact that people choose to use private medical and pay an extortionate price to do so tells you something about the quality of the NHS.

I would just like to add that this is also true in Canada as many of the western provinces are opening up more and more private facilities. More and more people are sick of high taxes and people abusing the system and slow service. I'm talking about the people that for some reason or another think that Universal Health Care is "free". It is not free, it comes with a heavy price to taxpayers. I look forward to the day when the majority of our health care is private so that my taxes are lower and you don't have people clogging up emergency rooms because of a headache.

I could tell you many stories stories of friends and fellow employees that have gone to the states to get treatments and pay for them out of pocket simply because our system is not adequate. Every single one of them was thoroughly impressed with the private facilities in the US whether it be the speed, the facility itself, the technology available etc etc. Every single one of them came back to say that they would rather pay out of pocket for the few times that they need medical attention in their life than to be taxed heavily throughout their lifetime for a system that is incredibly inefficient.

To the OP

I don't think you have to worry about the inefficiency of the public school system too much longer. If US schools are anything like Canadian schools, it is very clear the direction which education is going. Even when I was in High School (graduated in 2002), more and more of the classes were being made available online.

When I got to university it was even more so. I would say about 90% of the courses I took were online. For most of my courses, the only time you had to show up to class was for exams. If you had questions for the teacher, you had their email or the course itself had a dedicated forum which was moderated by the teachers and would answer questions. What was very nice about the forums is that students help each other explain answers. It was such a relief that you go online at any time have someone answer your question whether it was a teacher or a student who had a better grasp at the subject than you. Also giving advice does give a person a good feeling because you are helping people that might have been otherwise to shy in class to ask these questions.

Sorry I went a little long here but what this has to do with education is that education will be made extremely affordable, efficient, and more freedom will be given since you can move at your own pace. This will probably be the end of the public school system and education as we know it. The strange thing is that this is all available today. If you have a computer, an internet connection and some money, you can get your education at the rate at which you decide.

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by justamomma
Edited to add: BTW, it IS wrong for the gov't to take money out of our pockets and spread it to those who are ill,

This is one of the main points with the US that most people in the rest of the ""Western World"" completely disagree with.

Don't understand the mentality, don't care for the ideals behind it. I find it disgusting to think that such a wealthy nation can have so much greed and selfishness.

But.. everyone to their own.

And don't tell me that all wealthy Americans would help their poor, sick, ill etc. That concept is laughable.

EXCUSE ME???? But when a horrendous tsunami hit Indonesia, which country opened its wallet WIDE to help those in need? We are the biggest givers of international aid on the face of this planet, so don't stand there on your little rocking horse and call us greedy and selfish. Americans are very giving. You have no clue. How many children are you personally supporting in 3rd world nations? Have you chosen to do that?

I personally would prefer to be able to give out my money myself, as I see fit, rather than having it taken from me and handed out as my government sees fit. I wouldn't give a dime to the U.N., for starters.

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by justamomma

BTW... this statement goes to show your bigotry towards those living in America simply because they are living in America.

I have not seen one person state that all the wealthy Americans would help their poor, sick, ill, etc. What I will state is that they should not be obligated to do so.

You assume that everyone here is wealthy and that is your misconception that muddies the reality of the situation. True, Americans have much to be thankful for; but false that all are able to afford what it may appear from what you are hearing and seeing broadcasted.

Maybe i was a bit harsh in my wording, btw I have been to the US and had this discussion face to face with some of your fellow patrons while in your country so it really comes down to a difference of opinion borne of different history and culture.

There is plenty of excessive wealth in the US that is squandered on excessive materialism.. as with here.
The main difference here is that while many are wealthy and many are not so fortunate.. none will suffer to be below the breadline unless they are caught in a loophole in the system.

The mentality for this probably comes from a tri century history of massive poverty and the need to not leave anyone suffer this existence while times are good for others.

While there are aspects of our system that i don't fully agree with for numerous reasons, the common argument from the vast majority of Americans against this system goes like this - "It is communist.. you are a nazi, its our money, why should we hand over our hard earned money to help the poor" - all while your taxes go to funding a regime that has killed millions.

Its a mentality i understand but don't 'get'.

btw - no offense meant at all.

sorry to have taken so much offense to your statements in my above post.

Yes, there are plenty of excesses in the U.S., but have you been to Dubai lately? What are they doing to help their fellow man??? How about those Saudi palaces, and I hear the queen of England has quite the home.

I think the difference in how you believe and how many Americans believe is that we don't see the government as having the responsibility to provide for those less fortunate - it is the responsibility of Americans, not their government. This is a moral issue. Where I live, the Christian churches go to great lengths to care for those in need. For example, they run soup kitchens out of the backs of the churches, food pantries where people can just come in and get any food and supplies that they need (without having to prove that they need it) and I know of a church that runs a 2nd hand shop out of their basement. They sell all clothes for 50cents each, not matter how nice the clothes are, and if someone is truly in need and can't afford to pay for the clothes, the church will just give them to them. At my own church, there are many of us that sponsor children in African orphanages. There is also the sponsoring of children in northern India so that they can attend school rather than working by the age of 7.

Anyway, these are just a few examples of what I see in my area of the country. I'm sure other Americans on this thread could give many other examples of things being done within their own communities to care for those within the community and outside of it.

reply to post by Ron Paul Girl



Hmmm! I notice though that it is ALL Church sponsored ....... Modern day missionary work - I give you food and clothes, you become a Christian ...... What a choice.

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl
I hear the queen of England has quite the home.

...You didn't. See if the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand et al.

Buckingham Palace is in need of repairs - which we're refusing to pay for

So, not a pleasant home

(infinite is a proud republican)

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


LEARN YOUR HISTORY MATE

Education is guaranteed in the Constitution, where as health care is not.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Oh, please, please, please show me where!!! And you're missing my point, I'm trying to point out that we already have 'socialist' policies here, and have had them for quite some time!

So, 'Mate', show me where in the Constitution we are guaranteed public education??? Good luck on that, you'll need it!

well some of you are a little confused as to what form of government we have and what socialism does and is . While it is true that the human race is more than capable of *&%$#ING UP a cheese sandwich I am a proponent of socializing certain things which aren't working like for profit healthcare . Schools
public works projects ,that's highways and sewers and such.

Here's what we have now our current system


this is socialism get yer socialism here

just because certain aspects of the social commons are held for the citizens of the government in question doesn't necessarily mean nothing can be held by individuals ,or that personal wealth is not also in the mix


societies are for us to create for our own benefit I can't think of a single good reason not to support one that optimizes the benefits of society for as many as possible

Since something is going to be there it might as well be as egalitarian as the one we have now is lopsided and oppressive