Socialism

[Sarajmt]

The question of socialism keep rearing its ugly little head.  So how do you define socialism?  The Merriam Webster gives us this definition:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work

And Wikipedia has an interesting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

When I think of socialism nationalization of private industry comes to mind.  Nationalization of industries such as auto manufacturing, banking, health care, etc.  I think of a government that makes its citizens dependent upon the government for food, housing and other basic needs.  And yes, I do see our country inching that way.  It scares the bejeebers out of me.  I'm a Jeffersonian myself.

But how do you define it?  What do you see as a socialist economy?  Do you see any evidence of it happening to the US?

[ILADVOCATE]

That depends. Some people consider some of the government programs created in the 1930's by F.D. R. such as Social Security to be socialistic as well as some of the specific economic reforms he created but they did help pull the United States of the depression. The creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 was considered by some people to be socialistic. Truthfully they do have aspects of socialism but due to the welfare reform act of 1996 there are less people who receive these benefits who may not need them and they are not long term. Social Security as I have stated has very strict definitions of what constitutes a disability as regards eligibility criteria that is far more strict than the ADA. However in the depression an agency such as the Works Progress Administration created far more permanent jobs then the current Economic Stimulus Act did. However all of this time the United States retained the fundamental aspects of a democracy. Europe has some governments that are socialist in full such as the Netherlands where if a person decides to stop working even if its not due to a disability and they can work they can collect benefits for life but due to the recession and increased immigration they are realizing this system of government is unworkable and gradually lessening it.

[teko]

Welfare was never meant to be an ongoing thing.I do not look for this program to continue for too many more years. SS and Medicare are paid programs. They are not free. I hear the socialism word frequently as well, once even using Canada as an Example. As far as government intervention goes, if there is none then who will control things like the big bank failure we just went thru and had to bail them out to keep our economy from collapsing. And if we want free enterprise, how can we trust people like BP to do anything other than what they did. From the same people screaming socialism and no government, I am now hearing Where is the government in all this? Cannot have it both ways, and in the times we live in and the way everything in intertwined we must expect more government regulation or suffer the consequences. The oil spill is a perfect example as well as the miners that died a little while back. They cannot be trusted to not be greedy, cut costs and put all our lives and economy at risk. We elect people to make decisions in the greater good of our country. I think as bad as things appear, if dire steps had not been taken when they were, we would have a lot more complaining to do. I believe we would be in a major depression by now and I also do not think we are equipt to go thru one like we were in the 30's. I do not think we can compare this to socialism. Check out the truly socialistic countries and compare.

[Sarajmt]

Just a question.  I am NOT picking on anyone. I'm just curious how others view things.

Teko said "As far as government intervention goes, if there is none then who will control things like the big bank failure we just went thru and had to bail them out to keep our economy from collapsing."

Do you think we can't allow these industries to collapse OR do you think no one or no corporation is too big to fail?

[teko]

As much as I think they should be allowed to fail, it would start a domino effect around the globe. I know people will criticize me for saying this, but if they get too big to fail, they should be responsible for having funds to take care of the issue themself. I do believe something to that effect is now in the works.

[specialmom]

Sara, you are one brave lady.  This is a big ole can of worms.  Based on the given  definitions . . . a single payer health care system would feel awful socialistic (is that a word?) to me.  Bailing out "big banks"?  Well, setting up some guidelines and regulation is different than allowing the government total access to everything they do.  And did the banks fail or did lots of greedy people fail themselves.  What is this countries average credit card debt per family?  Is that the credit card companies' fault or is it a lot of folks living above and beyond their means?  I know many have suffered hardship and jobs are not readily found these days . . . but a LOT of Americans get themselves into their own predicaments and that is not the banks fault or anyone elses.  And --------- okay, now I'm in the old can of worms.  Obama panders to those people.  And if I get screamed at------------  Sara, this is all YOUR fault!!

[Sarajmt]

I'm sorry!!!  It's just everyone keeps talking about socialism.  It has multiple definitions.  I just wanted to clear up what we're talking about.  For the record:  I want the federal govt out of business.  Consumer protections and safeguards against theft, fraud, etc..are one thing.  Govt taking over a business in whole or part is a little scary to me.  One of the first things Castro did, after he got finished killing and imprisoning a lot of people, was take over all the private businesses.  Ditto on Chavez.  I get scared when the govt stuck its greedy little fingers in private business.

Oh well, I just want to know how people define it.

[Sarajmt]

Besides, my pain levels are way up today.  Thought I'd spread the pain around!!  LOL!!
(just a bad joke folks!)

[teko]

Back in the 30's when the banks failed, there was a run on the banks for people to get their money out. They did not get their money as the banks were locked up. Can you really say that if you went to the bank to get your money and it was closed it would not hurt your households? Regardless of how they ended up there and whos fault it is doesnt matter at that point does it? Then you would be dependent on the government for your food? You would have to show up somewhere for rations to live on. Can you guys really not see that happening in todays society? Things really have not changed that much since then. What has changed tho is that most people do not have ground to put in a garden, or a means of taking care of their business without actual cash. So, how does that all work? Everything is upside down on how people look at things now days. It used to be people cared about their neighbors, neighborhoods etc, and all would come together for one cause and share and work together, I do not see that happening now. We are not out of the woods, it can still happen. How much money do you keep in the bank? Just imagine if you could not get your own money, what would you do?

[specialmom]

So, hm.  No, of course, I wouldn't like that.  Who would?  Would I be better to have no money because the government takes care of me?

[specialmom]

And Sara, I was only kidding.  I'm not a big fighter--------- I don't get screamed at too often.  I like to hear what others think and feel and I don't think everyone has to agree.  It is conversation and would be boring if everyone agreed all of the time.

[adgal]

Sara, I for one thank you for posting this.  I will admit I was extremely offended when I read the claim about Canada being socialist.  

I see a socialist society as one with very few freedoms.  To me the difference is gov't regulation is a move intended to protect people, where socialism is intended to prevent people from succeeding on their own initiative.  Gov't regulation is very different from gov't ownership.   Regulation is necessary as unfortunately business' cannot always be trusted to do the right thing. A completely capitilistic society functions no better then a communist one.  Corruption takes over.  I personally do not see the US heading in that direction. I actually think if they did not impose some regulations there would have been even more angry people, so I think this administration was between a rock and a hard place.  But I do agree with Teko...dominio effect if some of these organizations had not been bailed out.  I do think it should be in the form of a loan and not a handout though.  I know some of the organizations in the auto industry paid the money back.  I do not completely understand what the situation is with the banks.  

I don't really believe your current gov't is trying to take over private business, but I do think they are trying to hold them accountable for their actions ie: handing out mortgages that were less then honest, the current situation with the oil spill, etc.

SpecialMom, I agree with the majority of what you said except our old disagreement on HealthCare.  Single Payer is not really a socialist system.  The difference is that in a single payer system, the gov't essentially acts as our insurance company.  Our Dr.'s do not work for them, they are independant "business" if you will.  If it was socialist, our gov't would be interfering with our medical care, treatments, etc. and nothing could be further from the truth.  The Dr's send their bill just like yours do to your insurance provider.  So I guess it is in the sense that our gov't replaces insurance companies...although they do just fine selling extended benefits, life, etc. but it's not in the sense that the gov't has any control whatsoever over our Dr.s and/or the Canadian citizens health care.   In a truly socialist system, that would be the case.

[Sarajmt]

Just a question as I really don't have any experience not do I know anyone in the Canadian system:

Is there any limit on how much a doctor can be paid during a year?
Any restrictions on how many times you can go to the doctor?

Just wondering!

[specialmom]

This is our "favorite" argument, isn't it?  LOL.  Let me ask you this---------  who sets what the guidelines of treatment are for the doctors in your country?  In our country, it is an independent association of doctors (the American Medical Association and various other groups).  They set things like . . . when I had my breast cancer scare. My mammogram was given a rating by the radiologist that resulted in the next step of action (immediate biopsy).  Who sets that up in your country?  I'm just wondering.

[Barb135]

I just learned not too long ago, that apparently, Medicare sets a lot of the guidelines in the US. According an article I heard on the radio one day, doctors are not allowed to charge LESS for a procedure than what Medicare is willing to pay for the same procedure.  Don't have any reference to post to back that up, since it was on the radio.  

[adgal]

No, to the best of my knowledge there is no cap on what a Dr. can earn.  They are all driving around in Mercedes and BMW's, so I assume they do ok...lol.  There are also absolutely no restrictions on how many times I see a Dr., nor are there restrictions on how many tests I can have.  Everything is decided between the Dr. and the patient.  For example, my pregnancy (I have a 4 month old) was considered very high risk.  I can't even count the no. of ultrasounds I had.  There is no interference from our health care system.  

SpecialMom, yep, I'm going to convince you yet...lol.  Yes, we have a Medical Association that works with the provincial gov't in setting guidelines.  But they are not carved in stone.  Again, everything is decided between the patient and the Dr.  They are the experts.  You know about the scare I just had...as soon as we had the biopsy results my app. for treatment was set as my Gyn determined further treatment was required as a preventative measure.  Again, no questions asked.

Oh, and I am pretty sure you all know this, but just in case....we do NOT have death panels...that is ridiculous.  

Now, it's not all sunshine, we certainly have our problems...fraud being the biggest one.  And of course, like anything, you will find those that hate our system and those that love it.  As many of us have said at various times in this forum...can't always please everyone all the time.  

[MrGreen]

My definition of a socialist is a person who believes that the community as a whole should own businesses, rather than individuals. In the EU they have this food that is just left to rot. Farmers grow too much. A socialist would like to see this food put to use. Never do understand their silly butter mountains and the likes. When there are people starving in third world countries. The EU dictates what you can grow. It more or less controls the farming. Paying people to switch from one type of farming to another. Stopping fishermen from fishing above a certain quota. Lots of rules. Lots of laws. For all EU member States to follow. To me a socialist would be against all of this. Just another random view on what a socialist is.

[Sarajmt]

Interesting.  We have fishing quotas here as well.  This is to avoid over fishing in any one area. We also pay farmers not to grow certain crops.  I disagree with this.  I'm a free market girl myself.  I believe competition benefits the consumer.  If you want to flood the market with one crop, the law of supply and demand will kick in.  And the low prices the farmer receives on this crops will encourage him to plant something more profitable.

What you describe as socialism seems to me not to be.  I was under the impression that a socialist society does not value the rights of the individual.  Only the rights of the collective.  I highly value individual rights.  That's why I hate attempts to erode our Constitutional rights in area such as gun control.  A very slippery slope that.

[adgal]

I think it's a bit of a fine line in many situations.  We all have social programs, and I think most of us agree they are necessary (however, I know here we need to get the abuse under control).  I think most of us agree that we also require laws and regulation to a certain extent.  For example, we do have gun control here and I don't think anyone considers that a socialist policy.  However, in the US it would be.  It's interesting.  I do think that in order for it to move into Socialism it has to be fairly extreme, and gov't has almost absolute control.  I have thought a lot about this post today...it seems it is more difficult to define that I might have initially thought.  I think much has to do with what you are used to.

[Barb135]

When government has almost absolute control, it's bypassing socialism and heading straight to communism.  

You, in Canada, are used to government run health care system, so you think it's a "normal" thing, we are not used to that, so to us, it's bordering on socialism.  Same goes with gun control and any number of other laws that you have and we don't.  To you, these are normal things and you don't see an issue with them because you've never known anything different; whereas, we have never had these laws and this much government control, so to us, it's totally wrong - except those who want to the government to run everything (communism); then what we earn goes to taxes, instead of to take care of our families and supposedly, the government will take care of our families, make decisions on our medical care, etc.......

It's been said over and over and over again -- the more you want the government to give you, the more control they will have over your life and the more taxes you will pay in order to support that kind of system.  

Example --- if you want ME to provide your food, clothing, housing, medical care - in other words, provide all your needs; sure I will, but in return, you give me everything you earn.......otherwise, I can't afford to give you anything...

And when you get tired of giving me everything you earn, there will be a revolution because you want to keep what you earned.  

Then, just think of your work hard every day actually going to support people who do nothing but sit on the front porch all day and smoke cigarettes and drink beer.........or people who aren't even citizens of your country getting benefits that you can't get;  how would you feel about that?

[margypops]

Canada is used to Stability because its run by Regulation of government, thats why they actually dont realise they are a socialist country they dont know anything else Britain is the same way ....

[specialmom]

Barb, one thing that struck me in your comments is the concept of free health care.  I've looked up tax rates in some other countries.  It is higher than ours and at times a lot higher.  If you earn 49 thousand a year in . . . say Ireland . . . the tax rate is over 40%.  Ouch.  So that "free" health care for the people that find it difficult to afford now (the middle class generally) would pay for it in taxes and pay a lot for it.  I believe if you earn less in Ireland than 49 K, the rate is 25%.  Canada's rate is in the 20's.  My husband and I paid 15% last year and had a number of deductions.  

My point is, nothing is free.  The idea of free health care and it being a right and all . . . I think people need to understand that they will be paying more for it with no option to do without and keep their money instead if we go to a single payer system (or if Obama's plan sticks.)  

Okay, just my happy thoughts for the night.  LOL

[adgal]

You are dead on right.  It is not free, we do pay for it.  I don't think the big difference is in the cost, unless you are living in poverty or low income.  It is more in the policies.  For example, we cannot have our insurance terminated or be denied for pre existing conditions or anything else.  

I would never say you should follow our lead with health care (I just like to tease you about it specialmom, because you and I have had this convo so many times..lol).  I do think it's wrong some of the things the Insurance Companies do.  I also do believe that for low income or those living in poverty, more needs to be done for preventative treatment, etc. But again, we have our problems with our system as well.  They are different problems, but problems none the less.

[Sarajmt]

I'm not asking for your specific tax rate, but overall, what is the tax rate in Canada?  Do these taxes include the extras but nonetheless essentials of prescription,vision and dental?  If you have to pay for those things in addition to your tax bill, that could really add up,  Those extra have always been a part of any of my private insurance now and in the past.

I would agree with Barb.  If you've never had the constitutional rights that we are guaranteed, you don't know what you're missing.

[specialmom]

I want to tell you that not all insurance companies deny claims, ditch members when they become ill, or refuse to accept pre existing conditions.  That goes on and shouldn't.  That should be changed when it does go on.  But I just don't want you to think that this is what happens with everyone.  In fact . . . well, I'm of an age in which I don't hear of it happening.  I'm not by any means saying it doesn't---------  but can honestly say it hasn't affected anyone in my family or any friends yet.  So--------  I just wanted to let you know that as you do hear the horror stories---------  it is not an every day occurance that happens right and left to anyone and everyone.

What I DO hear of frequently is that families that are "tweeners" can not afford health insurance.  That they make enough to be above the poverty line (which I think can be raised, to be honest) but not enough to be sitting pretty.  They will tell you that they can not afford to buy health insurance for themselves and their families.  They are the ones that I think this will be a plan in which they can get insurance for free and might not understand that it WILL cost them.  It will cost me more but in the states---------- with our rate at 15% now for a married couple (and don't forget our deductions)--------- you know that adding in paying for everyone's health care . . . what percentage of income do you think we'd end up paying.  It is going to be pretty high.  So those who are strapped now will have health care but it is going to cost them more than  most think.  

This is so funny Adgal . . . how did we end up talking health care again???  LOL  Eventually, maybe one of us will give in!  But until then, I guess we both know that we were raised in different places and know what we know.  We can both be right in our opinions based on what we know.  Right?  LOL