sgtdmski

Oh yes, tax the rich, well each every year the amount of money it takes to be considered rich gets lower and lower. We hear it all the time, how the Republicans favor tax cuts for the rich, well I do not even make a 6 figure salary yet, however, I received a nice portion of those so-called tax cuts for the rich.


I take my meaning directly from the words used by those who developed the idea. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Socialism is defined as an economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning. For socialism to exist there can be no private property, no individual ownership, all things belong to the whole.

No one is willing to give up that in which they have created, whether it be a business, or a work of their mind. So to go from a free society in which we live to a socialist society will require force. Socialist love to say that no true socialism has ever existed, not in the USSR nor in China. They are right, because when people have freedom to own and create their own works, they must be compelled to give up what they own. They are compelled by force, but power corrupts, and absolute power given to the elite who know better for us corrupts absolutely. Thus this is why socialism will never exist.

No, insurance companies are not trustworthy, but then neither is the government. Before the break through in technology in medicine, there was a time when we operated under a single payer system. If someone needed to go to the doctor, they themselves paid the bill. Today we have a third party pay system, whether it be insurance or government. For all the complaints about HMOs and PPOs it was government regulation that created them and it was government regulation that created the system in which they must work. And while yes insurance companies worry about the bottom line, they also have to be able to provide the most benefits to the majority of the people within their system. Sometimes that calls for limiting what procedures a doctor may perform, or what test a doctor may order, or what drug a doctor can prescribe for any given ailment. Guess what, they got all that from the government system, for that is exactly how Medicaid/Medicare works.

It is government that has placed restriction on the types of policies an insurance company might offer. You see, for someone who is young and a male, there are certain coverages in insurance they do not need, i.e. GYN/OB. However, can insurance companies create specific plans targetted at certain groups???? No, according to government regulation they must provide the same basic coverage to all members of a group. So there you have it, when you pay that premium on your insurance policy you are paying not only for coverage you might need in the future, but also coverage you will never need. Government regulation does this so that the cost can be spread out equally amongst everybody. Whether that is right or wrong, that is one of the restrictions place upon insurance. Another is the fact that a majority of the states do not allow insurance to be provide from outside the state. Again, this cause a disruption in the cost.

That is true, but in a free market the people have the right to choose, and if a company develops a reputation for not providing good services, people have the ability to switch to a company that does. You see that is the beauty of the free market system, if you do not like the services of Company A, you can take you business to Company B or C or D. That is what keeps companies honest. For if their reputation causes them to lose money, they cannot compete with the other companies.

Really???? How, remember from each according to ability to each according to need. Socialism seeks to eliminate all private ownership. Socialism seeks to make all equal in the end. Slight problem. When you are sick or injured you need a doctor a hell of a lot more than you need a garbageman, but if in the end both are equal, then why would someone become a doctor when the can make the same just hauling garbage???


The only basic right to food that anyone has is obtained from that food in which they can provide themselves. From what they can grow or hunt. For if they need to get their food from someone else, it is no longer a right. Instead they must enter in to the system of trade and either trade items they possess to the food grower for food or pay them a certain fee to obtain their services. The same is true of housing, and healthcare. Sorry but if you cannot provide something for yourself but instead must barter for it, it is not a right. It may be a need, however, for every need their is a price that you must pay.

We have a free education system in this country, and the only thing it is good for is providing teachers with jobs and bureaucrats a place to earn a paycheck.

Yet there are stories all the time about people growing up in poverty and striking out on their own and making it big. One is only limited by what one can achieve. Are there obstacles, of course there are, but those who are determined can over come them. You see when you create a culture of entitlement, you end up with people believing that they are entitled, and thus they do not seek to achieve anything more than what they can convince others to give them.

Because you are looking for equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. I am sorry but we are not all equal. Some people are smarter, others more athletic, some taller, some shorter, some thinner, some fatter, some pretty and some ugly. There will always be inequality, but when you allow for equality of opportunity, that allows everyone to have a chance. Some may make it, others may fail, however, that just that some must work harder than others.

And there is equal access. No hospital in this country can turn away a sick individual without treating them. That is a law. You are confusing care with coverage, a big difference.

Your right, effort is required. Hard work does pay. But that requires taking responsibility for ones actions.

How is it not true. When there is no incentive to create why would someone create???? For the betterment of fellow man. Sorry that is a benefit of a capitalistic system, in the socialistic system it just means having more taken from you. Remember, in socialism there is no private property, so it is not you who creates something but everyone. Why would anyone want to work under that proposition. It is not rationale.


dmk

__________________
Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk-

Sphinx

It's the same in the U.K.

I expect it is the same in every country in the world.

__________________
They who walk in silence hang the innocent and set the guilty free.