Author Topic: Are countries providing "free" medical care deemed to be "socialist"? (Read 2551 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #30 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:44:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
Worse than that.

By taking away an incentive to work, it turns armies of potentially productive people into a permanent underclass completely dependent on the socialist politicians who feed them at the expense of the productive members of the society.

"Liberal vote factory", thats all.

Competent and independent people are a threat to the big government.

lol...so thats why our socialist country have so little unemployment.

Something is very wrong with your conclusion there Mietla.

beet1e · « **Reply #31 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:05:06 PM »

Erm... well "polarised" was a bad choice of wording in my initial post. The disparity of fortune between America's richest and America's poorest is much greater than the disparity of fortune between Britain's richest and Britain's poorest, or Norway's richest and Norway's poorest; though clearly there is a large swathe of middle classes in between those extremes in all cases.

mietla · « **Reply #32 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:09:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen

Something is very wrong with your conclusion there Mietla.

I've made three statements:

unconditional, "no questions asked" welfare kills the work ethic?
self-suficient and productive people are against the big government?
people dependent on the government vote for the bigger government and more socialism?

Which one is wrong?

mietla · « **Reply #33 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:10:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
lol...so thats why our socialist country have so little unemployment.

I've lived in Poland for the most of my life.

Everybody was employed, no one worked.
Everybody was paid, no one has earned anything.

Nilsen · « **Reply #34 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:13:18 PM »

ok.... that does'nt apply here (unless you work in the goverment

)

mietla · « **Reply #35 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:13:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
The disparity of fortune between America's richest and America's poorest is much greater than the disparity of fortune between Britain's richest and Britain's poorest, or Norway's richest and Norway's poorest;

Don't want to argue whether it is true or not, but why would a greater gap be bad and a small gap good.

Does it follow that no gap (communism) is the best, or is there a "optimal" gap?

If it is the latter, what is it?

mietla · « **Reply #36 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:15:20 PM »

One more question Beetle1, is this the governemnt's role to control/enforce tha gap?

Nilsen · « **Reply #37 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:20:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
Don't want to argue whether it is true or not, but why would a greater gap be bad and a small gap good.

Does it follow that no gap (communism) is the best, or is there a "optimal" gap?

If it is the latter, what is it?

There has to be some uneployment or else companies cant choose the best people when they need them..competition for jobs is a good thing. Other than that i dont think its anthing wrong with people making a good living even if they dont have the prestige jobs. But as i said...there should be a difference so you wont settle for less than you can be.

mietla · « **Reply #38 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:24:20 PM »

You did not address the issue.

Is there an optimal income gap?

Is is government job to define it and enforce it?

mietla · « **Reply #39 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:28:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
d... so you wont settle for less than you can be.

The only entity with power to make you settle is the government. In a free market economy you'll always get as high as you deserve.

Nilsen · « **Reply #40 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:32:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
You did not address the issue.

Is there an optimal income gap?

Is is government job to define it and enforce it?

I hope so

Yes...market and goverment (see below) sets that.

To a sertain degree....its called minimum vage etc.

beet1e · « **Reply #41 on:** May 19, 2004, 04:29:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
Don't want to argue whether it is true or not, but why would a greater gap be bad and a small gap good.

Does it follow that no gap (communism) is the best, or is there a "optimal" gap?

If it is the latter, what is it?

Mietla! Would love to discuss this with you over vodka in CA - maybe next minicon?

On earnings, I think the sky should be the limit, ie no limit. Socialised medicine should be a safety net, not more.

mietla · « **Reply #42 on:** May 19, 2004, 06:12:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Mietla! Would love to discuss this with you over vodka in CA - maybe next minicon?.

You got it.

Steve · « **Reply #43 on:** May 19, 2004, 06:18:56 PM »

Next time you are in the States Beet let me know. I'm going to meet you and force you to say "I'm wrong" even if I have to put bamboo splinters under your nails.

Then will have a drink or 6 and laugh at all the stuff we've said on the BBS.

a note on Healthcare: All people w/in the U.S borders have access to urgent care. What most people w/out medical coverage do is walk into the E.R. every time they are sick. There they get healthcare for free.

Source: Steve's wife, trauma nurse and recent grad(I'm so proud of her)

Silat · « **Reply #44 on:** May 19, 2004, 06:34:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

Conversely... most of the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is malpractice costs.
lazs

Please provide proof of this outrageous claim. Health Insurance Comp had record profits last year. You arent maybe a lobbyist for them are you?