Socialist Programs - have any of them actually ever worked?

[Train]

From reference.com:
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

use it as you will to draw the line, but "plans and controls the economy" is against the constitution, our governments job is to REGULATE business, not control it. Just because an businesses/industry has gone bad due to privatization, does not warrant the Govt taking it over, it only means they need to better regulate it, I.E. pass a few laws, modernize the rules, etc.


But heres my argument about the New Deal: it was not socialist because it did not take over any isdustry or service, it employed people to do work and make money, there was nothing to stop them from leaving the the program and getting another job, therefore it was not controlling at all, it was only a voluntary alternative.

How do you know universal health care wouldnt' create jobs?

Why would we want more people to pay? as if its not expensive enough already? Like the cost of medical services will suddenly go down or something once the Govt is paying for it, well all know the govt is exactly a smart shopper ($600 toilet seats anyone?) It would spiral out of control, not to mention the quality of healthcare would plummet due to the lack of competition between hospitals, health care providers. Forcing all of these insurance companies out of business and making everyone join the Governments program IS controlling.

 

[Train]

Success and Failure of Roosevelt's New Deal

there are 15 programs listed that make up the New Deal, most of them I would define as either regulatory(like the FDIC) or stimulatory(like the PWA), the only one I see so far that would be defined as controlling would be the SSA, the predecessor to modern Social Security.

 

[Drift3r]

Socialism does not just deal with government funded social programs but also with government interference via regulations imposed on industries and on our private lives. Our government heavily regulates almost all industries in many ways and also try's to do the same on a personal level. So to limit the scope of the discussion of socialism to government programs and not regulations which are in place that effect people and industries is not IMHO looking at the full scope of socialism in our government. Both sides ( Dem's and Rep's ) are guilty of accepting and imposing socialist regulations and agendas in our lives. Socialism via either social programs, industry regulations and government interference via laws to try to social engineer and regulate certain behaviors in the personal lives of hard working Americans.


P.S. Let me add the goverment funded aide to religous programs or groups is also a form of socialism.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Socialism does not just deal with social programs but also with government interference via regulations imposed on industries and on our private lives. Our government heavily regulates almost all industries in many ways and also try's to do the same on a personal level. So to limit the scope of the discussion of socialism to government programs and not regulations which are in place that effect people and industries is not IMHO looking at the full scope of socialism our government. Both sides are guilty of accepting and imposing socialist regulations in to place.

Regulation is in place but it's mostly for show. Corporations know they can get their way if they make enough economic threats...read Corporation Nation, by Sociologist Charles Derber (before anyone starts screaming it's a leftist liberal book, be aware I'm well aware that it is.)

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train
From reference.com:
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Healthcare is a service, so universal healthcare would not fall under that defnition. ALternatively, this definition also says by a government that often plans and controls the economy. Canada has healthcare but I don't think they often plan and control the economy. And if you think they do then the US is basically in the same position. Anyway, you have better arguments that aren't based on the "Socialism is bad; Universal Healthcare is socialism; so Universal healthcare is bad" syllogism

but "plans and controls the economy" is against the constitution"

What's your authority for that statement? Congress can mess with interstate commerce as much as it likes. The Supreme Court gutted freedom of contract during when, you guessed it, the New Deal.

Why would we want more people to pay?

This is a loaded question. It assumes people will pay more if there is universal healthcare. This hasn't been shown to be true.

Like the cost of medical services will suddenly go down or something once the Govt is paying for it,

Well, people in this thread have pointed to other countries where the cost of medical services is lower than it is here. That suggests it's a possibility.

well all know the govt is exactly a smart shopper ($600 toilet seats anyone?)

The government shops for a lot of things. Do you think it just shouldn't shop for medically-related things or everything? Should public schools stop shopping for desks and books?

It would spiral out of control, not to mention the quality of healthcare would plummet due to the lack of competition between hospitals, health care providers.

Again, in other countries medical service is fine. Do you have evidence their health care is any worse?

Forcing all of these insurance companies out of business and making everyone join the Governments program IS controlling.

Agreed. What are the consequences of this statement for universal health care?

 

[Train]

Ill answer the few that i can now...

Why would we want more people to pay?

This is a loaded question. It assumes people will pay more if there is universal healthcare. This hasn't been shown to be true.

It was in response to the statement that govt healthcare would create more jobs, ummm, more jobs = more money.

Like the cost of medical services will suddenly go down or something once the Govt is paying for it,

Well, people in this thread have pointed to other countries where the cost of medical services is lower than it is here. That suggests it's a possibility.

like Canada? in which thier quality of healthcare is sinking due to the "Brain Drain" of doctors fleeing to the USA?

well all know the govt isnt exactly a smart shopper ($600 toilet seats anyone?)

The government shops for a lot of things. Do you think it just shouldn't shop for medically-related things or everything? Should public schools stop shopping for desks and books?

Schools are run by local governments, with a much tighter control over budgets, any government spending at the Federal level is highly error prone, regardless of the industry.

It would spiral out of control, not to mention the quality of healthcare would plummet due to the lack of competition between hospitals, health care providers.

Again, in other countries medical service is fine. Do you have evidence their health care is any worse?

Yes, watch CBC, youll see, like I said above, Canada's healthcare is getting worse every day, as for other countries, I dont know, But the quality of Healthcare in the US (for those who ARE insured, is the highest in the world, why do you think foriegn dignitaries come here to get complex procedures done?)

Forcing all of these insurance companies out of business and making everyone join the Governments program IS controlling.

Agreed. What are the consequences of this statement for universal health care?

Lack of competition, aka Monopoly, has proven to destroy innovation, quality, as well as raise COSTS uncontrollably

 

[glenn1]

Socialism does not just deal with government funded social programs but also with government interference via regulations imposed on industries and on our private lives. Our government heavily regulates almost all industries in many ways and also try's to do the same on a personal level. So to limit the scope of the discussion of socialism to government programs and not regulations which are in place that effect people and industries is not IMHO looking at the full scope of socialism in our government. Both sides ( Dem's and Rep's ) are guilty of accepting and imposing socialist regulations and agendas in our lives. Socialism via either social programs, industry regulations and government interference via laws to try to social engineer and regulate certain behaviors in the personal lives of hard working Americans.

Although socialist governments (and those who fancy them) do have a deep inclination towards wealth and income redistribution, it's still conflating when you point to redistributionist policies and call them socialistic. You can have countries which are socialistic in the structure of their economy but do not attempt to distribute wealth between classes (like pre-Thatcher Great Britain) and those who practice redistribution to some degree but are not socialist (the U.S. since the New Deal), or one that does both (post-Revolution Russia, a.k.a. the Soviet Union).

 

[Dissipate]

It is not a matter of socialism working. Whether or not something "works" can be debated endlessly. The question is, is socialism ethical? The answer is, no it is not.

On the ethics (and the lack thereof) of socialism:

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

However, in terms of "working" some people claim that some things like roads, education and healthcare must be publically owned, this is actually false.

Congestion and Road Pricing

Free Market Transportation

Doing Away With Public Education

Healthcare

Socialism cannot be defended on any front. It is not ethical, it is not needed and it is in fact an abomination against our freedoms.

More publications along these lines

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Train
No I dont consider services such as Roads, Water/Sewage Treatment, National parks, etc socialist programs, they are something that benefit everyone and they actually create jobs. The New Deal is arguably NOT a socialist program, it was a public works project, I guess you could compare it to welfare since it was basically Govt money going into the peoples hands, oh but wait there was one little difference, oh yeah, people actually worked for that money, people credit Rooselvelts programs during the great depression for restoring the Pride of the working man, because he was able to put in a hard days work for an honest wage, today you cant make welfare recipients work for thier money or free healthcare because its "humiliating", go figure.

So, the socialist programs that worked, you don't consider socialist. The socialist programs that didn't work, you consider socialist. Why the fsck do you even bother asking then?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train
like Canada? in which thier quality of healthcare is sinking due to the "Brain Drain" of doctors fleeing to the USA?

Do you have any real evidence of this? Even if some doctors are leaving, in what way is the quality of their healthcare deteriorating? What about all the European countries.

Schools are run by local governments, with a much tighter control over budgets, any government spending at the Federal level is highly error prone, regardless of the industry.

Okay, what if local governments had universal health care? What would you think of that?

Yes, watch CBC, youll see, like I said above, Canada's healthcare is getting worse every day, as for other countries, I dont know,

First of all, is the reason the Canadian healthcare is going down because its universalized? While we're using anecdotal evidence I've seen healthcare in other countries and its fine. They have good doctors, fancy machines and even more medicine.

But the quality of Healthcare in the US (for those who ARE insured, is the highest in the world, why do you think foriegn dignitaries come here to get complex procedures done?)

Which foreign dignitaries? Ones from third world countries? Yeah sure they'll come here. They also go to other countries too. You also have to wonder if the US system is more geared towards letting people skip in line and things like that. That could be a factor for them.

[/quote] Lack of competition, aka Monopoly, has proven to destroy innovation, quality, as well as raise COSTS uncontrollably[/quote]
Plenty of research is done in other countries around the world too. I see tons of studies in the health section. And I don't buy the competition argument when I see other services done fine in the US and abroad.

And you yourself note that there are many here that aren't insured. Are you defining a quality health care system by ingoring the people it leaves out? Any fair analysis of health care system's would look at all the consumers that want services. Even IF the US is more advanced when it comes to foreign dignitaries (and again I don't think the US is the only to be able to do fancy things-- look at the Europeans and some of the weird transplants they've done), it remains that they are serving far more people. In other fields, like entertainment, we can say that the free market in the US works great because even poor people can be entertained. But when you have a substantial segment of the population that's not getting the services they want, it's legitimate to question how the market's working.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
No I dont consider services such as Roads, Water/Sewage Treatment, National parks, etc socialist programs, they are something that benefit everyone and they actually create jobs. The New Deal is arguably NOT a socialist program, it was a public works project, I guess you could compare it to welfare since it was basically Govt money going into the peoples hands, oh but wait there was one little difference, oh yeah, people actually worked for that money, people credit Rooselvelts programs during the great depression for restoring the Pride of the working man, because he was able to put in a hard days work for an honest wage, today you cant make welfare recipients work for thier money or free healthcare because its "humiliating", go figure.

This is where you are sorely mistaken. Roads, sewage treatment, and even national parks are socialist programs. Read my lips: the government cannot create REAL jobs. Sure the government can create phony jobs that really don't produce much of anything, but that doesn't count for even a warm bucket of spit.

The only way real jobs can be created is if real entrepreneurs go out and create them with real capital. When the government taxes to give to someone else, that isn't a job, that is simply a wealth transfer. These wealth transfers actually harm the economy because they take from truly productive activities such as entrepreneurship and give to non-productive activities.

Keep one thing in mind: the government cannot create wealth. There are absolutely no exceptions to this rule. The only thing the government can do along these lines is transfer wealth. That is it, no if ands or buts about it.

Actually there is one thing the government can do to "create wealth" and that is to get the hell out of the way, stop taxing and stop regulating. But this is no more "creating wealth" than a thief "creates wealth" by not stealing from you.