Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you look at say... Canada or England. Take a look at their medical professionals for example. They make a comfortable living, work reasonable hours, and are trained well. I don't see why you would have to have equal pay for EVERYONE. To me a much more effect form of Socialism would be to have a tax scale that hit the higher paying jobs the hardest, like you see in Scandanavian countries.
But getting the folks below poverty to pay their share? Perhaps a consumption tax is in order?
How many taxes can one country endure?
Some do and some don't. I work with doctors and have a lot of interaction with Canadian doctors.
One thing they don't have is any desire to be good doctors. Why should they? They make the same salary as the next. They have no desire to be better or treat patients better. They just collect their paycheck whether they help people or not. That's one downside to socialized medicine.
But we have much bigger issues making the transition, if we so try.
That's pretty much how it works. I work with a lot with Russians and there doctors are not only second class citizens, but poorly trained and poorly paid.
That starts with a wholly different attitude about life and health.
One thing they don't have is any desire to be good doctors. Why should they? They make the same salary as the next. They have no desire to be better or treat patients better. They just collect their paycheck whether they help people or not. That's one downside to socialized medicine.
I'm not sure the same factors don't apply in the US. What makes a "good" doctor in the US? Laymen don't know and don't have any data to find out, unless a particular doctor is such a massively severe screw-up that it makes the newspapers.
A "good" doctor in the US is maybe a good marketer--makes contacts with wealthy and celebrity patients, has a suite in a nice mall, has great looking women in his advertisements. Or he's just been to the top schools and was a resident in the top hospitals.
I'm not sure the same factors don't apply in the US. What makes a "good" doctor in the US? Laymen don't know and don't have any data to find out, unless a particular doctor is such a massively severe screw-up that it makes the newspapers.
A "good" doctor in the US is maybe a good marketer--makes contacts with wealthy and celebrity patients, has a suite in a nice mall, has great looking women in his advertisements. Or he's just been to the top schools and was a resident in the top hospitals.
I see your point, but good doctors here are a cut above in many ways- their skill level, rapport with patients...
As I deal with doctors daily I find a vast difference in good ones and bad ones. Some care, some don't. Some have great skills, others don't... But the better ones tend to make more money and get better patients as well. Also, when a doctor(s) open a clinic they sink or swim with the overall care they provide. Generally speaking, in socialized medicine there are no incentives whatsoever. If they get fired, they just go to the next government office.
But don't get me wrong, there are some attractive reasons for socialized medicine. I can clearly see that.
It was a response to the person who was blaming rich white Republican politicians for having agendas. I merely stated that BOTH parties have right white folks running them.
The post you quoted said nothing about rich white Republican politicians having agendas. Read it again. It was a statement about some economic policies that have been pursued in this country as well as the dynamic of corporate incentives. There were also some economic predictions made, but there was absolutely nothing about rich white Republican politicians having agendas.
Single payer healthcare could promote capitalism. Lots of people (who might otherwise start a business or freelance) are stuck in jobs they hate merely for the health insurance.
With Bernie Sanders making a legitimate push for his party's presidential nomination, I decided to delve in what a Social Democrat wants, and what their party is about. You hear Bernie mention the word "Revolution" quite often, and while this planted has had many "Revolutions" in it's history, most of them have ended in bloodshed and often with someone in power besides the persons who started the revolution.
So, social democrats out there, I ask for your help and opinions:
Here's how I see what social Democrats want America to look like:
1)Guaranteed Housing - The argument being that it's cheaper to house the homeless than to leave them on the street, and that basic housing is a "Right" that all humans deserve. Sure - it may be a "tiny house" for those that have shown they can take care of a house, a studio apartment so at least they can cook for themselves, or more of a group living arrangement if they are disabled, or otherwise can't live on their own. It doesn't have to mean mansions for everyone - basic living quarters. And if they trash the place they move down to the next level which means more restrictive living.
2)Universal Health Care - Health care is another human right, that none of us are born without, and so we are required to have the government supply and provide health care to all Americans. Totally good with
3)Free Education - All education should be free, and further more, higher education should pay a stipend to offset the loss of wages from forgoing working years to pursue said higher education. Free education but only if you've shown you can benefit from it. You don't go to Harvard if you can't pass the classes. You don't go to state college if you can't pass, or to community college either. You go to a place where you have some aptitude...otherwise you pay your own way or have higher interest loans. Limited financing for fine arts, etc.
4)Access to Transportation - Every person should be able to easily commute to their place of employment, to basic services such as health care or food, and to basic entertainment or socializing, so that they can be happy. This entails drastically strengthening public transportation and radically reworking our economic system to reduce sprawl, reduce car use, and eliminate fossil fuel use. Maybe a small transportation allowance that can be spent on gas, public transportation, or cabs depending on what works for you.
5)Guaranteed Employment - Employment should ensure that Americans gain from it, and the government should assist everyone to find the job that makes them happiest. YES - including "sheltered" employment for people that are not fully employable but are capable of some types of work.
6)Universal Income - Socialism should use the community "pool" of resources to ensure that all citizens are paid on an equal basis, with no jobs or professions more important or better than the next one. Maybe, a small set amount that ensures the basics are covered rather than giving out many different kinds of vouchers that might be more expensive to administer.
7)Climate Change - Although not really a Socialist viewpoint, you can't mention Bernie Sanders without throwing in the desire of the Democratic Socialist party to eradicate climate change through Government spending on green companies, ideas, and movements. Alternative energy sources should be supported in terms of R&D.
That about sums it up. If I left anything out please feel free to add to the list. Ok so now the debate question. There's plenty of talk of raising taxes on the 1%'ers out there. But for us to become a completely socialist country, EVERYONE would have to be taxed. Even those for whom this is to benefit the most (those looking for the free ride). So, how would a government like our, which has three branches of government, and who's laws prevent them from intruding on the rights of the states without due course, how would you get the everyday common man to agree to give up his dollars, pay more in taxes, and change the way he/she has always done things? What if they refused?
What is the end game for these types of ideas and how do you fund it?
It's too bad that you thought you were being sarcastic, because you were being factual. The US infant mortality rate is 29th, tying with poland and Slovenia. It's over 3x the mortality rate in Hong Kong. Canadians, who don't eat any healthier than Americans but have better access to health care, live on the average 3 years longer.
The only thing you got right is that the health care system in the US makes vast profits. It sucks over 17% of our GDP, for an outcome that is substantially worse than any other developed country.
Not if you measure infant mortality rates the same way across all nations. Your claim has been debunkled about 78 Gazillion times.
The weak in society should be protected from the strong
Liberty in a broad sense should be pursued even if it limits liberty in a narrow sense
People who have historically been trampled -- racial minorities, homosexuals, etc. -- should be valued
The earth and natural resources should be conserved
War is a last resort
These are all principles held by progressives. You may disagree with the way in which progressives craft policies to reflect these principles, but there's no doubt that progressives hold these principles to be true.
Those are still goals, and to the extent they are 'principles' they are held by nearly everyone. There is nothing specifically "Progressive" about them. You'll have to do better than that.
Those are still goals, and to the extent they are 'principles' they are held by nearly everyone. There is nothing specifically "Progressive" about them. You'll have to do better than that.
1. Those are certainly principles. Goals are objectives; they are accomplishments that one would like to achieve, and they are typically concrete actions. A principle is simply a guiding idea. One often forms goals based on principles, but the things I have listed here are certainly principles. Goals would be objectives like "Don't have a war" or "Increase homosexual rights."
2. You didn't say that progressives merely don't have any unique principles. You said they don't have any principles.
3. Judging from the current political beliefs of conservatives, I do not think the majority of conservatives hold these same principles. Do you really think it's true that the idea of the weak being protected from the strong is a popular idea among conservatives? Or protecting the environment, given that the majority of conservatives don't even believe in global warming? Look at the conservative response to the Iran deal -- which was commonly a cry for war -- and tell me conservatives view war as a last resort. If conservatives care deeply about people who have historically been trampled, why did they fight gay marriage so viciously? Why were they the last to accept integration?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
