Winston Churchill: conservative icon, and founder of the NHS

[klonk]

A number of people come here from abroad every year, for treatment that is either unobtainable or slow to get, where they come from. I'm surprised the Canadians aren't up in arms about the idea of changing the American system.

As bad as our system is, it would be made worse by increased bureaucratic meddling. Perhaps you do not understand the astonishing talent of our public employees to screw things up. Present involvements of the feds in health care include Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, etc. It isn't so much that the commies will take over, but the usual assortment of thumbfingered buffoons.

[Dmitri]

so what if it's socialism?

Well now... Healthcare is one thing, but "socialism" per se is not a very hot idea, IME -- at least when (attempted to be) applied in practice. Dunno about you but I would NOT want to live in a socialist country again.
(Not that the US has been very far from it, -- but still, far enough for now... At least the govt. doesn't yet dole out apartments to live in, salaries to be paid, shoes to wear, etc. for everyone, -- except of course for those few little pharaohs near the top.)

[klonk]

Oh, about the Canadians:

http://bit.ly/19shMu

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 1 day ago

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press. [...]

[Steve James]

At least the govt. doesn't yet dole out apartments to live in, salaries to be paid, shoes to wear, etc. for everyone.)

But, we do have rent-control, a minimum wage in every state and welfare, not to mention workmen's compensation, food stamps, homeless shelters and public schools. One could complain that all these "state" run institutions are failures --and people often do when they want to criticize government-run programs.

However, there are clear and fundamental differences between the old Soviet Socialist system that you came from. Perhaps the first and most important is the idea of the "state." Here, those on the farthest right are always in favor of "states" rights. But, they are really using the term as a contrast to the "gov't" --which, to them, means the federal government.

Anyway, as one poster already noted, "socialism" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone; nor are any two socialist countries the same. We are a democracy, but so is Iraq. We are capitalist, but so is India. If providing or guaranteeing things for people is socialist, then so be it. We also claim --most loudly-- that we are a religious people. Well, it is written, somewhere ...

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

[klonk]

Some obvious problems with the socialist approach are gross inefficiency and its invasive character. Since everyone needs to do his part, we see the rise of armies of busybodies. Innovation is stifled and mediocrity reigns.

[Dmitri]

"socialism" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone; nor are any two socialist countries the same.

Fair enough. However the basic idea is the same -- that word has a specific meaning, and that's going to be a common thread for all of these variant implementations. All of these ideas sound great, -- until someone tries to actually implement them in practice...

[Steve James]

All of these ideas sound great, -- until someone tries to actually implement them in practice...

Same thing quite obviously for democracy and capitalism. The words aren't the problem, and never have been.

[Dmitri]

I'm not talking about some theory or semantics here -- I'm talking about actual live examples, like north/south Korea, east/west Germany, etc.
Same people, same region, different system -- VERY different results. Guess which side wishes it were on the other side.

[Steve James]

I'm not talking about some theory or semantics here -- I'm talking about actual live examples, like north/south Korea, east/west Germany, etc.

You see, that's just rhetoric. All I said what that I'm not against anything because it's socialist, or because there's a north Korea that calls itself "the Democratic People's Republic of". No one I know of wants the US to become like North Korea. Few even want the system of health coverage that exists in the present Germany, either. Besides, the USSR doesn't exist anymore; so, is it all better now in Russia? My point is that I don't judge a system by its name, just by its actions. If you think that universal health care is bad, fine. If you want to argue that it's bad because it's socialist, then I think you need a better argument.