Page 4 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Jun 2013, 1:52 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
That point is valid to only a very limited extent.

Capitalism has done more to advance the welfare of everyone than anything else in history. Today's poor in the United States have it far better than did someone in the same circumstances a hundred or more years ago. If not for actions of the government created monopoly in health care, the prices of most things in health care would be drastically lower and affordable to pretty much everyone provided that the consumers would be willing to forgo other things to pay for them.

What is expensive is the most advanced newly discovered treatments. Over time, most of those treatments would likely be made affordable if not for the government created health care monopoly.

But if you are going to argue that the poor has better access to them in other countries, then think again. In many countries, expensive treatments are reserved for the few, are limited in such a way that it can take many months waiting for the treatment, or are, in some cases, done away with completely.

If you want everyone to be able to get the most advanced newly discovered treatments, then you are dreaming. It just isn't going to happen.

So answer me these questions please:

1) How many people in the United States who have AIDS or HIV do not receive treatment and drugs because they cannot afford them?

2) How many people in the United States who are bitten by rattlesnakes do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

3) How many people in the United States who are bitten by animals that have or are suspected of having rabies do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

For the last question, the only example I know of in the United States where someone was exposed to a rabid animal and did not receive the rabies vaccinations did not receive them because he did not want them. He couldn't afford them, but that didn't matter -- they were offered to him free of charge and the doctors tried hard to get him to accept the vaccinations, but he steadfastly refused.

Sure, the treatment for those of us without insurance may be less than we could get if we did have insurance or were independently wealthy, but all in all, we have it pretty good.


The United States has it good because it's not 100% Capitalist. Even the face of Capitalism protects workers with government intervention. If there were no minimum wage jobs would go to the people willing to work for nothing and nobody would make more than a few cents an hour.


Where do you get these ideas!

Think about it a second. If what you are saying was correct, than nobody would make more than minimum wage. And that is clearly not the case.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 1:54 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Ann2011, sorry I meant that as a figure of speech,referring to the victims of the cartels,not literally.


:lol: I guess I am a literal thinker.



seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

04 Jun 2013, 2:18 pm

eric76 wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
That point is valid to only a very limited extent.

Capitalism has done more to advance the welfare of everyone than anything else in history. Today's poor in the United States have it far better than did someone in the same circumstances a hundred or more years ago. If not for actions of the government created monopoly in health care, the prices of most things in health care would be drastically lower and affordable to pretty much everyone provided that the consumers would be willing to forgo other things to pay for them.

What is expensive is the most advanced newly discovered treatments. Over time, most of those treatments would likely be made affordable if not for the government created health care monopoly.

But if you are going to argue that the poor has better access to them in other countries, then think again. In many countries, expensive treatments are reserved for the few, are limited in such a way that it can take many months waiting for the treatment, or are, in some cases, done away with completely.

If you want everyone to be able to get the most advanced newly discovered treatments, then you are dreaming. It just isn't going to happen.

So answer me these questions please:

1) How many people in the United States who have AIDS or HIV do not receive treatment and drugs because they cannot afford them?

2) How many people in the United States who are bitten by rattlesnakes do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

3) How many people in the United States who are bitten by animals that have or are suspected of having rabies do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

For the last question, the only example I know of in the United States where someone was exposed to a rabid animal and did not receive the rabies vaccinations did not receive them because he did not want them. He couldn't afford them, but that didn't matter -- they were offered to him free of charge and the doctors tried hard to get him to accept the vaccinations, but he steadfastly refused.

Sure, the treatment for those of us without insurance may be less than we could get if we did have insurance or were independently wealthy, but all in all, we have it pretty good.


The United States has it good because it's not 100% Capitalist. Even the face of Capitalism protects workers with government intervention. If there were no minimum wage jobs would go to the people willing to work for nothing and nobody would make more than a few cents an hour.


Where do you get these ideas!

Think about it a second. If what you are saying was correct, than nobody would make more than minimum wage. And that is clearly not the case.


What I meant was almost nobody would make more than minimum wage. People make more than minimum wage in third world countries. They do it by only paying people extremely low wages. No unskilled employee would make more than minimum wage. Employers would.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Jun 2013, 2:42 pm

Wages basically go by supply and demand. In a really terrible economy with far more jobs than workers, that might be the case to some extent. In a healthy economy, it is pure nonsense.

It seems to me that the places with the best economies are those that are the more Capitalist with the least government interference.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

04 Jun 2013, 9:08 pm

Liberalism to me is a road to nowhere, the bottom line is I am f****d and don't have healthcare because I'm incapable of soft skills, even if I did develop good enough ass kissing skills to be a part time slave, I'm still constantly under the mercy of a despot. The job interview alone is humiliating enough. I don't want to center my life around earning tokens of privilege from rulers, I want to have control over my own actions. Life is hell under an economic system that punishes disobedience. I also think people are naive to think capitalism is about creating new ideas, its about exploiting them. Technology comes from science, not capitalism.



Last edited by RushKing on 04 Jun 2013, 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

04 Jun 2013, 9:12 pm

If a Boss man does not like your attitude he fires you.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

04 Jun 2013, 9:13 pm

as an ex-civil servant, I will favor socialism any day of the week. capitalism favors only capitalists.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

05 Jun 2013, 1:40 am

androbot2084 wrote:
If a Boss man does not like your attitude he fires you.


Why shouldn't he fire you if he doesn't like your attitude? If he can find someone else who has a good attitude toward the job, then it would be better to fire you and hire the other person.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jun 2013, 10:09 am

auntblabby wrote:
as an ex-civil servant, I will favor socialism any day of the week. capitalism favors only capitalists.


Nonsense. If the best person for the job is a rosy red socialist, he most likely will be hired. Capitalism is about operating a business at a profit, not about having Right Ideas.

ruveyn



seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

05 Jun 2013, 10:20 am

eric76 wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
If a Boss man does not like your attitude he fires you.


Why shouldn't he fire you if he doesn't like your attitude? If he can find someone else who has a good attitude toward the job, then it would be better to fire you and hire the other person.


It depends on the situation and what the attitude is that he doesn't like.

If your attitude is detrimental to your job then he should fire you.

If he doesn't like your attitude towards a political party that he supports he shouldn't fire you just for that.