Revolutionary Socialism a good idea for Victorian Britian?

[kirovman]

hence reducing their productive lives by three or four years.

Don't forget that they're increasing the normal retirement age to compensate.

 

[repiV]

Don't forget that they're increasing the normal retirement age to compensate.

The two issues aren't related though. That's to do with life expectancy not university.

 

[Flyingdebris]

Now a meritocracy might work, where your status in society is based on the contributions you have made to it, however then one gets into the whole mess of how do you determine the worth of what contributions and who is the one judging your worth, etc etc.


Something that must be kept in mind is that you must allow people to fail. There is no way around it. When you reward failure just as much as sucess, you punish the talented and lower the standards.

Look at welfare right now, sure there are people that legitmately require it for any number of reasons. But since it basically has allowed people who fail at even holding the most simple of jobs to make a living, it has become a catchall for the lazy who are unwilling to work. If welfare were trimmed back a bit or not offered so readily, these lazy asses would be working, not sitting around like lumps of inert matter.

There is definitely too much molly coddling going in today's society, i feel it breeds considerable weakness. People are too damn afraid to call out bullshit or hurt each other feelings. Its pathetic. It allows stupidity to thrive.

 

[Solaris]

Of course it would bleed the economy dry. Paying everyone a wage to produce absolutely no wealth and gain an education that will in most cases be worth very little? WTF?
Too many people go to university already. There should be 5-10% of the population going to university, not 50%. It's just not necessary, and all it does is increase unemployment and economic stagnation due to employers asking for degrees as a minimum for no other reason except everyone has one. This forces more people to go to uni just to be able to enter the job market, not because they need or want that education - hence reducing their productive lives by three or four years.
How pointless.

I would suggest you learn a little economics. The poorerst countries in the world at the moment are the ones with an uneducated work-force all of whom work in factories or other industrial such work. We've witnessed a Technological revolution now, the wealthiest countries in the world are the ones with most innovation, I read a book recently which had an interesting statistic. They could correlate the wealth of a country, with the number of patents it produced. Rich countries don't need much industry, they need technology, thats where the wealth is, and thus an educated workforce would be massiely benificial.

Yes, and their full wage would be next to nothing, since there would be very little to pay them with. You hate poverty so much? Congratulations, under your system EVERYONE would be in poverty.

Not at all, everyone can be paid decently.

So...you're saying they should be allowed to retire early, but now you're countering by saying that they like their jobs and stay at them until they die?
So, uh, where's the reward for their work again?

The scientists who never retire are the same people for whom the work is its own reward,

Good.

It's g-r-r-r-r-r-eat!

Look at welfare right now, sure there are people that legitmately require it for any number of reasons. But since it basically has allowed people who fail at even holding the most simple of jobs to make a living, it has become a catchall for the lazy who are unwilling to work. If welfare were trimmed back a bit or not offered so readily, these lazy asses would be working, not sitting around like lumps of inert matter.

Mate, the previously posted study confilcts with this completely.

 

[repiV]

Now a meritocracy might work, where your status in society is based on the contributions you have made to it, however then one gets into the whole mess of how do you determine the worth of what contributions and who is the one judging your worth, etc etc.


Something that must be kept in mind is that you must allow people to fail. There is no way around it. When you reward failure just as much as sucess, you punish the talented and lower the standards.

Look at welfare right now, sure there are people that legitmately require it for any number of reasons. But since it basically has allowed people who fail at even holding the most simple of jobs to make a living, it has become a catchall for the lazy who are unwilling to work. If welfare were trimmed back a bit or not offered so readily, these lazy asses would be working, not sitting around like lumps of inert matter.

There is definitely too much molly coddling going in today's society, i feel it breeds considerable weakness. People are too damn afraid to call out bullshit or hurt each other feelings. Its pathetic. It allows stupidity to thrive.

It's "killing with kindness".
I had an utterly miserable upbringing, but I wouldn't change any part of it - including my lifelong medical condition. It's given me character traits that I believe will lead me to great success that I would have otherwise lacked.
I also believe that behind every self-made person is a tragic story.

By the way, capitalism is a meritocracy in its purest sense. People are worthy or unworthy based on their own accomplishments and others have no influence upon that. You just have to look at what people "deserve" in terms of their business acumen rather than from any moralistic standpoint.
Socialists say they support "freedom", but it seems they ignore the freedom to suffer the consequences of bad decision making. And also the freedom to reap the rewards of great accomplishment.
I find that abhorrent.

 

[repiV]

I would suggest you learn a little economics. The poorerst countries in the world at the moment are the ones with an uneducated work-force all of whom work in factories or other industrial such work. We've witnessed a Technological revolution now, the wealthiest countries in the world are the ones with most innovation, I read a book recently which had an interesting statistic. They could correlate the wealth of a country, with the number of patents it produced. Rich countries don't need much industry, they need technology, thats where the wealth is, and thus an educated workforce would be massiely benificial.

We do have an educated workforce. I am in no way disagreeing. Not attending university does NOT make you uneducated. I am not uneducated, nor do I appreciate the insinuation that I am. Likewise, you are also well educated. The majority of us simply do not need to be spending 16+ years in full-time learning.
Also, your (absolutely correct) conclusions completely discount socialism as a good idea, as socialism kills innovation. Capitalism fosters it.

Not at all, everyone can be paid decently.

With what money? Everyone is paid decently enough as it is. I could live on minimum wage if I had to, and I live in the sixth most expensive area of the whole country. And minimum wage isn't SUPPOSED to be a living wage.
The £8 an hour you often cite is probably quite a lot of money up your way.

The scientists who never retire are the same people for whom the work is its own reward,

But that's not good enough.

 

[Solaris]

With what money? Everyone is paid decently enough as it is. I could live on minimum wage if I had to, and I live in the sixth most expensive area of the whole country. And minimum wage isn't SUPPOSED to be a living wage.
The £8 an hour you often cite is probably quite a lot of money up your way.

Remember, we're discussing it in a Victorian Context, I'm not sure how far I'd like to see socialism implemented in a modern context, I'd definately like to see a bit more democracy in Britian, and better social welfare and public works programs, but capitalist elements are probably still desirable.

 

[Ome_Vince]

We're witnessing pretty good technological advancements over the last 60 years or so all because of the momentum created during the industrial revolution.
Both the finance and infrastructure needed for technological advancements we have to thank the industrial revolution and the wealth of the imperial age.

Also, if you think about it, some of the biggest break-troughs humanity had, were around 1900 -> flight, train, steam engine, car, dynamite etc.
And if you want to draw it to modern-day societies with your example of the 3e world countries, go look at the financial and technological growth of countries breaking from 3e world => China, India etc. Then try and look how this is "possible"...

What i mentioned over the last few posts still stands: Pure socialism is too expensive, it would be great, but its unrealistic unless implemented leaving a good piece of capitalism in place which is what i think is the best system.
Capitalism, with several socialist rules to protect the worker.
Thus socialism in the Brittish Victorian age would have stagnated growth and in the short-run perhaps helped the worked but would have left Brittain as the poorest European nation several years later, forcing them to change (especially in those days competition was enormous with for instance France and Germany)

 

[Solaris]

Stagnation would not be a problem under socialism, its only a problem under capitalism becuause it causes countries to fall behind, becuase capitalism is very competative.

I think the motives for people to work hard would be numerous:

Enjoyment of their Jobs
Patriotism for Society
The feel good factor for helping such a great society work
Their Pay
Propaganda
Punishment for not Working hard

 

[ComradeBadger]

The last two are not good things at all.

Oh, and there are some jobs that no-one would WANT to do, nor enjoy doing..

And also progress is very important - closed societies fail to function eventually..

 

[Ome_Vince]

Stagnation would not be a problem under socialism, its only a problem under capitalism becuause it causes countries to fall behind, becuase capitalism is very competative.

I think the motives for people to work hard would be numerous:

Enjoyment of their Jobs
Patriotism for Society
The feel good factor for helping such a great society work
Their Pay
Propaganda
Punishment for not Working hard

Heh, thats a fantasy man. HUMANS are competitive, thats where capitalism comes from, and prevails, where communism + socialism in the long run doesn't.
A combination would work, not a pure socialism and/or communism.
Also you forgot a big reason in your list: humans work hard because they want to be the "top monkey", have what their neighbor doesn't have so to speak.
No progress or little progress is very destructive for a country, especially since its a pure fantasy to think nations , even if they would all be communist and/or pure socialism, would not compete.
Wealth is needed to support socialism, without wealth socialism simply cant sustain. And unfortunately, socialism + financial growth don't seem to go well together.

In short: yes in a perfect world, where nobody is selfish, where we all care about our neighbors and all equally have the same resources, including all the countries in the world, money and wealth, and don't wish more, socialism would be teh pwn. But that dude, is a fantasy utopia.

 

[repiV]

Remember, we're discussing it in a Victorian Context, I'm not sure how far I'd like to see socialism implemented in a modern context, I'd definately like to see a bit more democracy in Britian, and better social welfare and public works programs, but capitalist elements are probably still desirable.

I think we'd all like to see a bit more democracy in Britain. But reading the parliamentary debates has given me a little more faith in that democracy - there are MPs that genuinely appear to care about people's concerns and about doing the right thing. Although that trend apparently lessens the more powerful one is.
It could be a lot worse - we could have American politics.

Although the political parties are a joke at the moment. Labour - no more needs to be said. The Conservatives are just imitating Labour these days (joy), and the Lib Dems are professional fence sitters. And noone is willing to go out there and tackle the real problems. We need proper leadership again.

 

[repiV]

Stagnation would not be a problem under socialism, its only a problem under capitalism becuause it causes countries to fall behind, becuase capitalism is very competative.

That makes no sense. Capitalism ensures that limits and boundaries are always being pushed and new heights of accomplishment are always being reached. It causes some countries to fall behind other countries, yet they still advance on their own merits. Stagnation is where there is no progress.
And so the weaker and less competent people achieve less than the stronger and more able ones - what's wrong with that? That's how it should be.

I think the motives for people to work hard would be numerous:

Enjoyment of their Jobs

We have that already. And we have much more of a choice of jobs than we would do under socialism.

Patriotism for Society

Vague...and in any case no less relevant under capitalism.

The feel good factor for helping such a great society work

You're kidding, right?
Not to mention that that factor already exists.

Their Pay

Their pay would be shit. So again, socialism loses.

Propaganda

Punishment for not Working hard

Oh, so we can be brainwashed slaves to the establishment. Awesome, where do I sign up...?

 

[repiV]

Heh, thats a fantasy man. HUMANS are competitive, thats where capitalism comes from, and prevails, where communism + socialism in the long run doesn't.
A combination would work, not a pure socialism and/or communism.
Also you forgot a big reason in your list: humans work hard because they want to be the "top monkey", have what their neighbor doesn't have so to speak.
No progress or little progress is very destructive for a country, especially since its a pure fantasy to think nations , even if they would all be communist and/or pure socialism, would not compete.
Wealth is needed to support socialism, without wealth socialism simply cant sustain. And unfortunately, socialism + financial growth don't seem to go well together.

In short: yes in a perfect world, where nobody is selfish, where we all care about our neighbors and all equally have the same resources, including all the countries in the world, money and wealth, and don't wish more, socialism would be teh pwn. But that dude, is a fantasy utopia.

To me it's no kind of utopia at all. Being forced to share the wealth is NOT the moral equivalent of sharing it of your own free will. It's an authoritarian system by its very nature and the government will always have ultimate control. You can't make people be generous. It's just slavery to the state wrapped up in a feel-good message.
For me, life without competition and the opportunity to strive, push ahead, excel and conquer something - whether it be a particular profession, the market, or ultimately building a business empire - would be no life at all.

 

[Ome_Vince]

i agree, i prefer a mix, with socialism only being present in small amounts to protect the worker and less fortunate. This as my personal utopia. The comment I made was more like: "disregarding human nature, natural oppressive asholes that pop up, selfish ppl etc
(as in theoretically it may all sound like heaven, but its not).

 

[venturon]

Can you source that, DaMaN? Some of the figures I've heard regarding Mincome suggest that work effort did decrease as a result of guaranteed annual income. I've also read that families earning more than a certain amount were excluded from the program.

 

[DaMaN]

Can you source that, DaMaN? Some of the figures I've heard regarding Mincome suggest that work effort did decrease as a result of guaranteed annual income. I've also read that families earning more than a certain amount were excluded from the program.

Sure! (Guess I forgot to source it. )

First of all, more information about Guarenteed Minimum Income in several countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

The source I quoted from was: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2005/12/05/mb-dauphin-gia-20051205.html

Another news article on Mincome: http://www.uniter.ca/view.php?aid=38460

I haven't found anything stating that families earning more than a certain amount were excluded from the program. Wouldn't make sense to me...

 

[repiV]

i agree, i prefer a mix, with socialism only being present in small amounts to protect the worker and less fortunate. This as my personal utopia. The comment I made was more like: "disregarding human nature, natural oppressive asholes that pop up, selfish ppl etc
(as in theoretically it may all sound like heaven, but its not).

Well...you've basically described the USA as it currently stands.

 

[DaMaN]

Well...you've basically described the USA as it currently stands.

The US medical system: if you aren't able to pay for it, they will not treat you, even if you are dying. That seems to be a fairly poor way of protecting the less fortunate.

Basically, as long as a country can adhere to the UDHR without violating it every ten minutes, then I would agree that it is a socialist-minded state. Currently, the US would not fall into that category.

 

[venturon]

This article here is the one I was referring to. There's also the Mincome article on Wikipedia, but as much as I like Wikipedia I find that it pays to do some quick research to verify the claims. It's also rather short and doesn't tell you a whole lot (although it does mention a reduction in work hours).

Still, interesting.

 

[repiV]

The US medical system: if you aren't able to pay for it, they will not treat you, even if you are dying. That seems to be a fairly poor way of protecting the less fortunate.

Basically, as long as a country can adhere to the UDHR without violating it every ten minutes, then I would agree that it is a socialist-minded state. Currently, the US would not fall into that category.

He didn't say a "socialist country", he said a capitalist country with socialism "in small amounts". The USA fits that bill.
Also, yes, they will treat you. You will never be refused treatment in the USA, as you will be here sometimes. You'll just have to pay the bill afterwards if you don't have insurance.

 

[DaMaN]

He didn't say a "socialist country", he said a capitalist country with socialism "in small amounts". The USA fits that bill.
Also, yes, they will treat you. You will never be refused treatment in the USA, as you will be here sometimes.

That's true, I guess the USA is a capitalist country with socialism in "small" amounts. Though I would have gone for something more like "diminutive"...

Here's an interesting article from 2001 regarding the US healthcare system (PDF): http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

You'll just have to pay the bill afterwards if you don't have insurance.

But what happens if you can't pay the bill? (IE no insurance, no money)

---

When I was a child, I was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma, a type of tumourous cantcer. My chance of survival was 1 in 6. After two years in the hospital getting radiation, chemotherapy, and any other treatment they would give me, I was pronounced cured. Fortunately, I live in Canada, so the majority of the treatment was paid for (I still have to pay for thyroid medication (destroyed during radiation treatment), even though I cannot function without it). So I am now able to lead a (fairly) normal life thanks to the Canadian medical system. (Which is great, but not perfect).

Now, if I had been a US citizen at the time, without insurance (which my parent's couldn't have afforded at the time), upon my survival we would have been presented with a bill of roughly 1.5 million dollars. (That's 2 years of IV's, checkups, doctors appointments, MRI's, CatScans, infusions, blood tests, needles, steroids, chemotherapy and radiation specialists, chemotherapy and radiation treatment.) So now my family would be stuck with this bill, which they would be paying off for the rest of their lives, with a large chunk of debt falling onto me.

So essentially the US system of medicare could have forced my parents to choose between a lifetime of extreme debt, or my life.

 

[Ome_Vince]

The only difference in insurance matters, is that Europe forces (and if you cant pay the government pays for it through automatic deduction from your paycheck/social security).
Basically your forced to have an insurance which i do think is good.

 

[Solaris]

It's alot cheaper if its government ran, as the government don't run the NHS for profits, unlike private companies.

 

[kirovman]

profits = money to invest

 

[Solaris]

Yes, but it then costs more money for your average joe.

 

[Tagaziel]

*casts Summon Mechagodzilla spell*

 

[Angry Lawyer]

* Mikael's spell fails, and an Angry Lawyer appears

D:

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Ome_Vince]

Yes, but it then costs more money for your average joe.

lol..w..t..f?

 

[repiV]

That's true, I guess the USA is a capitalist country with socialism in "small" amounts. Though I would have gone for something more like "diminutive"...

Here's an interesting article from 2001 regarding the US healthcare system (PDF): http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf


But what happens if you can't pay the bill? (IE no insurance, no money)

You get into enormous debt.

When I was a child, I was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma, a type of tumourous cantcer. My chance of survival was 1 in 6. After two years in the hospital getting radiation, chemotherapy, and any other treatment they would give me, I was pronounced cured. Fortunately, I live in Canada, so the majority of the treatment was paid for (I still have to pay for thyroid medication (destroyed during radiation treatment), even though I cannot function without it). So I am now able to lead a (fairly) normal life thanks to the Canadian medical system. (Which is great, but not perfect).

Now, if I had been a US citizen at the time, without insurance (which my parent's couldn't have afforded at the time), upon my survival we would have been presented with a bill of roughly 1.5 million dollars. (That's 2 years of IV's, checkups, doctors appointments, MRI's, CatScans, infusions, blood tests, needles, steroids, chemotherapy and radiation specialists, chemotherapy and radiation treatment.) So now my family would be stuck with this bill, which they would be paying off for the rest of their lives, with a large chunk of debt falling onto me.

So essentially the US system of medicare could have forced my parents to choose between a lifetime of extreme debt, or my life.

If you were a US citizen, your parents should have had the sense not to have kids they couldn't afford. Such is the price of true freedom.

 

[repiV]

It's alot cheaper if its government ran, as the government don't run the NHS for profits, unlike private companies.

Erm...no. The opposite, actually. Government is the least efficient way of doing anything.

 

[kirovman]

You get into enormous debt.



If you were a US citizen, your parents should have had the sense not to have kids they couldn't afford. Such is the price of true freedom.

But abortion is a sin!

 

[DaMaN]

You get into enormous debt.



If you were a US citizen, your parents should have had the sense not to have kids they couldn't afford. Such is the price of true freedom.

Well, first of all I find it offensive that you have the gall to say what my parents should and shouldn't have the sense for. Hell, by your logic one could say that the family of anyone injured in an accident should be in debt for the rest of their lives.

Fortunately, I also remember that This Section May Contain People Who Don't Share Your Opinions.

No parent plans to have a kid that develops cantcer. My parent's went on fine as far as all other costs. Should my parents, or anyone elses parents, be doomed to suffer for the rest of their lives for not planning on the off chance that their child contracts a serious disease?

Essentially what this discussion segment comes down to is the old security vrs. freedom argument.

If you have total freedom:

• Cliffs don't have railings
• Streets don't have crosswalks
• Maintinence holds no guarentee, for the maintainer is free to ignore his promise
• People contracting some sort of illness are free to die, and people who have money are free to pay for treatment

If you have total security:

• Well, then you're stuck in a white room with a straightjacket on fed intraveneously with the healthiest thing in the world, watching the most non-damaging television with the least amount of emotional or psychological damage.

So obviously there must be a balance between them - there can be no dichotomy in a sane society between freedom and security.

Most people want the freedom to go and do as they please. However, most people also want the security to guarentee they won't get completely ****ed over.


But rather than argue how much security and how much freedom should be imposed on people (since that has an infinite number of arguments and could go on for, well, an infinite length of time), I'll refer instead to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it has been agreed by most of the world that these are the minimum standards they should live up to. It is recognised that freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

In the UDHR, it states in Article 25 that:

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Further, these rights apply to:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

However, you have argued that were a person to fall ill, request treatment, but be unable to pay for it, he/she deserves to either die or live in debt for the rest of their lives.

This is contradictory to the articles of the UDHR, and therefore, since you have agreed this could happen in the States, the States is a potential (and probably very real - as stories of this nature are not uncommon) Human Rights violating nation in this regard.

Therefore, I submit that in this discussion, the US is a Human Rights violater, and that it is immoral to say that were a person to fall ill, request treatment, but be unable to pay for it, he/she deserves to either die or live in debt for the rest of their lives.

 

[BirdMan]

Daman for president

 

[Ome_Vince]

If the US would obligate its people to have insurance, like in most European countries, it would be a good mix.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Daman's smartitude has gone up 100pts after that post.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Solaris]

If you were a US citizen, your parents should have had the sense not to have kids they couldn't afford. Such is the price of true freedom.

That's arrogant, ignorant and damn right absurd.

The treatement would have cost in excess of One Million Dollars, presumably his parents did not have any prior knowledge that getting pregnant would mean their baby would have this illness. So you think, that no parent who does not have a million dollars incase their kid gets cancer should have the sense not to have a baby?

 

[repiV]

Well, first of all I find it offensive that you have the gall to say what my parents should and shouldn't have the sense for. Hell, by your logic one could say that the family of anyone injured in an accident should be in debt for the rest of their lives.

No, because if they had paid for health insurance they would have no need to be in any debt at all. What kind of moron lives in America and doesn't get health insurance?
It isn't even that expensive. When I was still thinking of going over there, I found an annual plan for about $1000 that covered me for everything INCLUDING my epilepsy - the medication for which costs several times that. You can get more basic plans for much less.
An annual zones 1-5 London travelcard, by comparison, costs about $3500.
Also, they pay virtually no tax in the USA compared to what we pay here, hence leaving them with more spare money to pay for health insurance. You have to get the hell rid of this idea that our healthcare is "free". It isn't. In America, you're simply given the choice not to pay for insurance. If you want to be a fool? It's your fault, not the taxpayers'.

Fortunately, I also remember that This Section May Contain People Who Don't Share Your Opinions.

No parent plans to have a kid that develops cantcer. My parent's went on fine as far as all other costs. Should my parents, or anyone elses parents, be doomed to suffer for the rest of their lives for not planning on the off chance that their child contracts a serious disease?

Planning for the offchance?
Again, only an idiot would live in America and not get health insurance. It's simple common sense. If you lack the basic common sense to protect yourself against the possibility of getting saddled with millions of dollars in debt, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. Would you drive a car without insurance?

Essentially what this discussion segment comes down to is the old security vrs. freedom argument.

If you have total freedom:

• Cliffs don't have railings
• Streets don't have crosswalks
• Maintinence holds no guarentee, for the maintainer is free to ignore his promise
• People contracting some sort of illness are free to die, and people who have money are free to pay for treatment

If you have total security:

• Well, then you're stuck in a white room with a straightjacket on fed intraveneously with the healthiest thing in the world, watching the most non-damaging television with the least amount of emotional or psychological damage.

So obviously there must be a balance between them - there can be no dichotomy in a sane society between freedom and security.

Most people want the freedom to go and do as they please. However, most people also want the security to guarentee they won't get completely ****ed over.

You don't have that security under the NHS, either. Relying on the government to do things for you is one of the most fragile forms of "security" there is. If they choose to let you die, you can't do anything about it. You can't complain that the service is inferior, as they have no competitors.
With a socialised system you have no control at all. That's not security, and it's certainly not freedom.

But rather than argue how much security and how much freedom should be imposed on people (since that has an infinite number of arguments and could go on for, well, an infinite length of time), I'll refer instead to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it has been agreed by most of the world that these are the minimum standards they should live up to. It is recognised that freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

In the UDHR, it states in Article 25 that:


Further, these rights apply to:


However, you have argued that were a person to fall ill, request treatment, but be unable to pay for it, he/she deserves to either die or live in debt for the rest of their lives.

This is contradictory to the articles of the UDHR, and therefore, since you have agreed this could happen in the States, the States is a potential (and probably very real - as stories of this nature are not uncommon) Human Rights violating nation in this regard.

Therefore, I submit that in this discussion, the US is a Human Rights violater, and that it is immoral to say that were a person to fall ill, request treatment, but be unable to pay for it, he/she deserves to either die or live in debt for the rest of their lives.

First of all, please don't use the UN to support your arguments. As an organisation, it is a complete joke. This is the same organisation which has Russia and China on the security council (countries most definitely in breach of the democracy article of your cherished Declaration, as well as many others), which calls itself "United" despite being anything but, which condemns Israel for retaliating against their enemies, yet doesn't really care that much about genocide in Darfur and Islamic terrorism.
Second, I'm not sure where exactly you get the idea that the UDHR says anything about healthcare. Healthcare is not a right, and in America, it is not a public service. Perhaps you should spend more time examining the far more vicious and horrific human rights violations of your bestest buddies in the Middle East, instead of finding any excuse to talk about how evil America is.

Where do you think the money to pay for this healthcare - apparently a right - comes from? The sky? Forcibly taking money from my paycheque to pay for someone else's treatment which could even be liposuction or cosmetic surgery is, from a certain point of view, a human rights violation. AKA theft.

 

[repiV]

That's arrogant, ignorant and damn right absurd.

The treatement would have cost in excess of One Million Dollars, presumably his parents did not have any prior knowledge that getting pregnant would mean their baby would have this illness. So you think, that no parent who does not have a million dollars incase their kid gets cancer should have the sense not to have a baby?

Umm, they should have had the prior knowledge that if healthcare is not free at the point of treatment then it's a GOOD IDEA (tm) to get health insurance. Why should I pay a fortune out of my own pocket so that people who are too stupid to realise that can get free healthcare?
Also, the extra earnings due to lower taxes means that if they can't afford health insurance, they aren't very good at managing their finances.

 

[DaMaN]

No, because if they had paid for health insurance they would have no need to be in any debt at all. What kind of moron lives in America and doesn't get health insurance?

In 2005, 46.6 million (15.9%) Americans were without health insurance.

(continued below)

It isn't even that expensive. When I was still thinking of going over there, I found an annual plan for about $1000 that covered me for everything INCLUDING my epilepsy - the medication for which costs several times that. You can get more basic plans for much less.
Also, they pay virtually no tax in the USA compared to what we pay here, hence leaving them with more spare money to pay for health insurance. You have to get the hell rid of this idea that our healthcare is "free". It isn't. In America, you're simply given the choice not to pay for insurance. If you want to be a fool? It's your fault, not the taxpayers'.

Planning for the offchance?
Again, only an idiot would live in America and not get health insurance. It's simple common sense. If you lack the basic common sense to protect yourself against the possibility of getting saddled with millions of dollars in debt, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. Would you drive a car without insurance?

Currently, close to 13% of the population (37 million people) in the United States are deemed to be below the poverty line.

The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

Since these people do not have sufficient income to provide food and shelter, let alone $1000 healthcare, they do not have any form of security in the event of sickness.

Are these people poor because they're idiots? Are they poor because they have no common sense? For the most part, no.

There are numerous percieved direct and indicrect causes of poverty in the United States. They include:

Items marked with * next to them are most likely the individual's own fault.
Items marked with a + next to them might be the individual's own fault.

• Unfavorable economic conditions +
• Mental illness and disability
• Substance abuse *
• Poor education +
• Poor work ethic *
• Out of wedlock birth
• Domestic abuse
• Natural or other disasters
• Crime +
• Views of the upper class. A survey done by Michigan State University found that a majority of Americans making 70,000 or more believed that the two principal problems of poverty are lack of work ethic and a minimum wage that is too low.
• Institutional racism: The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many to believe that historic and/or ongoing institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States today.
• Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21 % of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46 % of African American children and 40 % of Latino children live in poverty.
• The structure of social class
• Region. Many rural areas, especially in the South and Appalachia have a high poverty rate due to limited job opportunities, historical issues, and sometimes resistance to change, among other things. +

So, out of 14 percieved reasons for poverty, 2 are most likely the individual's own fault, and 4 might be the individual's own fault. 9 of these reasons are out of the individual's control, and thus are not subject to their idiocy nor their common sense.

Assuming each of these reasons have equal probability of being the sole cause of an individual's poverty (unlikely, but take it as a thought experiment), 9 / 14 * 37 million = close to 24 million people are living in poverty due to reasons beyond their control.

(continued below)

Second, I'm not sure where exactly you get the idea that the UDHR says anything about healthcare. Healthcare is not a right, and in America, it is not a public service.

As I stated in my last post,

In the UDHR, it states in Article 25 that:

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The UDHR states that it is one's right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and of one's family. The UDHR further states that one has the right to security in the event of sickness, disability, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Finally, the UDHR also explicitly makes clear that these rights are universal, (hence the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,) and must be applied to everybody, regardless of their social status.

So if one were arbitrarially deprived of their means to security in the event of sickness, that would equate to arbitrarially depriving them of their rights.

As it has already been shown that under the US current system, there are individuals who are unable to access health care / health insurance for reasons beyond their control. Hence, since people exist in the States who are not able to recieve security in the event of sickness, Human Rights are being compromised.

Since it is the responsibility of the State to guarentee it's citizens general welfare, (In the US's case, in the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution) and ensure their right to life, thus, the State is at least in part responsible for providing earlier stated security.

Therefore, universal Healthcare is a right.



An interesting side note, numerous other countries have agreed with this, resulting in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which declares, amongst other things such as the right to self-determination, the right to medical security. Currently, the US is not a member.

Where do you think the money to pay for this healthcare - apparently a right - comes from? The sky? Forcibly taking money from my paycheque to pay for someone else's treatment which could even be liposuction or cosmetic surgery is, from a certain point of view, a human rights violation. AKA theft.

Currently, money from your paycheck is forcibly being taken so that the US military can rob - theive - 655,000 Iraqi people from their lives, yet you object to having money from your paycheck go towards curing someone's life-threatening disease.

Even if one were to argue that the military budget is soley used for defensive purposes, the purpose of defense is to prevent people from being killed or injured - the same purpose of providing universal healthcare.

First of all, please don't use the UN to support your arguments. As an organisation, it is a complete joke. This is the same organisation which has Russia and China on the security council (countries most definitely in breach of the democracy article of your cherished Declaration, as well as many others), which calls itself "United" despite being anything but, which condemns Israel for retaliating against their enemies, yet doesn't really care that much about genocide in Darfur and Islamic terrorism.

Though I agree that the UN is a joke, (though for far different reasons than yours), the UN provides little backing for the arguments presented. The arguments are backed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Human Rights in general, which form a part of International Law.

Invalidating the UDHR by invalidating the UN is like invalidating the claim that "planes can fly" by showing that a plane factory cannot fly.