Page 3 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Jun 2013, 8:57 pm

"True . . . but the wait is so long, you do have to be pretty motivated to actually get to see someone."

Yes, it was the same when I was in the Navy; they charged for nothing, and sometimes I think I spent half of my time waiting in lines. And since this thread is actually about communism, housewives in communist countries spent much of their day--no exaggeration--waiting in lines to buy some half-rotten sausage or fish, and some moldy bread.

"Not only is it frustrating financially not to be able to earn enough money to survive, but it is also damaging psychologically because there is no sense of contributing to and participating in society."

I fully understand, as I was in the same situation. While it certainly isn't widely known, the Baby Boom generation has actually been divided into two: The Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1953; and what is now called Generation Jones, which was born between 1954 and 1964. The reason for this split was that the cohort born in 1954 was the first in American history to do worse overall than their parents, and their outlook more resemble Generation X and its successors than it does the Boomers and so-called Greatest Generation. And the situation has deteriorated with each successive cohort.

I think it's also the case that as aspies, we really do have to be twice as good. There are no preferences for us, we're no good at networking, and usually we're not very personable. We have to be really good even to be considered in today's stark environment.



Last edited by Thelibrarian on 03 Jun 2013, 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

03 Jun 2013, 8:58 pm

eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
In a way that's a success for Canada's system. The waiting times deter foreigners who don't pay Canadian taxes from coming to our country just to take advantage of our health care system.

I would take the Canadian system [over the American non-system] in a heartbeat. the republicans will never let obamacare [or anything which actually extends coverage to the working poor] work.


I find it difficult to imagine how it can ever work the way it was designed by the leftist special interests. It is a system designed for major government oversight at a very heavy cost.

If you actually want to make health care available to everyone, the best way would be to turn to Capitalism. Our health care system as it has been practice for a long time is hardly Capitalist, but rather a monopoly granted by the government to the medical establishment who rule it for their own benefit.


The problem is that capitalism doesn't result in everyone being able to afford healthcare. In a survival of the fittest scenario there are always losers. The losers are barred from healthcare in a capitalist system.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 99,790
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Jun 2013, 9:00 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
I think it's also the case that as aspies, we really do have to be twice as good. There are no preferences for us, we're no good at networking, and usually we're not very personable. We have to be really good even to be considered in today's stark environment.

there is the rub- how do we collectively become "twice as good?" what is the magic elixir that will enable this miracle?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 99,790
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:
The problem is that capitalism doesn't result in everyone being able to afford healthcare. In a survival of the fittest scenario there are always losers. The losers are barred from healthcare in a capitalist system.

then [absent charity care] the losers can only suffer and die.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

03 Jun 2013, 9:14 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
I lean Libertarian in terms of how the Federal government operates, but I'm fairly open to socialism operated by state and municipal government. We have state and local police. We have local fire rescue, ambulances,and snow plow service. it makes sense that a medical safety net could be run by city or state government to.

I also look to Canada and find some appeal in the fact that their Health Care seems to be Provincial. I'm sure Ottawa has some pull by attaching strings to subsidies, but they don't run the whole thing.


A couple of years ago, a woman from Canada who lives in Mexico wrote about her and her husband going to Canada for a medical operation for her husband. The operation would be paid for by the government, but it would be at least 6 to 8 weeks before it could be performed. They returned to Mexico and he had the operation the same week in Mexico. While they had to pay all of their medical bills out of their pocket, those bills were less than what it would have cost them to hang around in Canada for the 6 to 8 weeks waiting for the operation.


In a way that's a success for Canada's system. The waiting times deter foreigners who don't pay Canadian taxes from coming to our country just to take advantage of our health care system. It doesn't cost Canadian citizens a cent to stay in Canada but foreigners have to rent a place or stay in a hotel for 6-8 weeks.

The long wait times are usually a bad thing but you've just provided an example of how they benefit our country.


In this case, they weren't foreigners, but native-born Canadian citizens who have been living in Mexico for a year or two for the climate and the lower cost of living.


Then why couldn't they just go back to their home in Canada? It sounds like they moved out of the country. If you're going to move to a different country you have to be willing to adjust to the different system. A year or two of living in Mexico isn't a vacation. How were they supporting themselves without a job? They could've been telecommuting but if they weren't then they were either working at a Mexican job or living off stockpiled savings.


I think they are retired and living in the town of San Miguel de Allende in Mexico. As I understand it, San Miguel de Allende is particularly popular with American and Canadian expatriates.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Jun 2013, 9:26 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
I think it's also the case that as aspies, we really do have to be twice as good. There are no preferences for us, we're no good at networking, and usually we're not very personable. We have to be really good even to be considered in today's stark environment.

there is the rub- how do we collectively become "twice as good?" what is the magic elixir that will enable this miracle?


There is no magic that I can see; it's a matter of changing our thinking, and this goes for everybody. The first liberal idea we need to dispense with is that we were all created equal. "Equal" is synonymous with "is the same as". The problem is that in reality we aren't all equal, but are all unique and different, with aspies being among the most unique and different.

What I'm getting at is that we need to work very hard on some aspect--or at least something close to--our special interests with which we can make a living--at least when that is possible. Again, not all aspies are equal. In my case, when I was younger I used to console myself by telling myself that I was like an anthropologist/zoologist--on Mars. Being that anthropologist/zoologist has become my lifelong special interest, which obviously involves lots of heavy reading, and I turned it into a living by becoming a librarian. In can't be iterated enough: We're all different, and the answer will be different for each of us.

The second liberal sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered is universalism. In particular, it is in the best interest of the transnational corporations to do away with nationalism in favor of globalism, so they can exploit the cheapest, most pliable labor sources on earth--preferably people who are willing to work for a bowl of rice and a cot to sleep on at night. These transnational corporations also have great influence over our governments. The only way this is going to change is for the citizenry of our respective countries to demand to be put first in our own countries by closing our borders to cheap labor and reenacting economic nationalism policies, such as the US had up until the FDR administration. We should count too.

Again, what separates us from those over the age of 58 is that for this older group, getting a decent-paying job was as simple as applying for one and then working hard. This changed because all of those jobs were sent overseas, and our borders were opened up, due to corporate influence over our governments. This needs to change.

So, since not all aspies were created equal, those less endowed would have a much easier time if decent-paying jobs, including those not taking a lot of skill, were plentiful. This means policies that promote more jobs and fewer workers to compete for them.



Last edited by Thelibrarian on 03 Jun 2013, 9:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

03 Jun 2013, 9:29 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
In a way that's a success for Canada's system. The waiting times deter foreigners who don't pay Canadian taxes from coming to our country just to take advantage of our health care system.

I would take the Canadian system [over the American non-system] in a heartbeat. the republicans will never let obamacare [or anything which actually extends coverage to the working poor] work.


I find it difficult to imagine how it can ever work the way it was designed by the leftist special interests. It is a system designed for major government oversight at a very heavy cost.

If you actually want to make health care available to everyone, the best way would be to turn to Capitalism. Our health care system as it has been practice for a long time is hardly Capitalist, but rather a monopoly granted by the government to the medical establishment who rule it for their own benefit.


The problem is that capitalism doesn't result in everyone being able to afford healthcare. In a survival of the fittest scenario there are always losers. The losers are barred from healthcare in a capitalist system.


Nonsense.

In a capitalist system, where there is demand, there is likely to be someone who can produce it. Shortages are rarely a problem in a Capitalist system, but they do show up whenever there is some external source of control over the products. Whenever you see a long-term shortage of a product, it is nearly always going to be the result of something other than Capitalism.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 99,790
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Jun 2013, 9:40 pm

sounds like somebody has an unshakeable belief in the infallible virtues of the "invisible hand."



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Jun 2013, 9:46 pm

auntblabby wrote:
sounds like somebody has an unshakeable belief in the infallible virtues of the "invisible hand."


If by "invisible hand" you mean the Law of Supply and Demand, I'll quit believing it when you can make the price of gold lower than the price of sand, or you can make doctors earn less than ditch diggers (hint: the Bolsheviks tried the latter and it led to disaster). Until you can do the impossible, it's a matter of accepting reality for what it is. It is failure to accept reality that caused our problems.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 99,790
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Jun 2013, 9:54 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
it's a matter of accepting reality for what it is. It is failure to accept reality that caused our problems.

what if this wonderful "reality" you speak of, happens to be untenable and unchangeable [short of divine intervention]? we can't all be high-functioning types.



seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

03 Jun 2013, 10:19 pm

eric76 wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
In a way that's a success for Canada's system. The waiting times deter foreigners who don't pay Canadian taxes from coming to our country just to take advantage of our health care system.

I would take the Canadian system [over the American non-system] in a heartbeat. the republicans will never let obamacare [or anything which actually extends coverage to the working poor] work.


I find it difficult to imagine how it can ever work the way it was designed by the leftist special interests. It is a system designed for major government oversight at a very heavy cost.

If you actually want to make health care available to everyone, the best way would be to turn to Capitalism. Our health care system as it has been practice for a long time is hardly Capitalist, but rather a monopoly granted by the government to the medical establishment who rule it for their own benefit.


The problem is that capitalism doesn't result in everyone being able to afford healthcare. In a survival of the fittest scenario there are always losers. The losers are barred from healthcare in a capitalist system.


Nonsense.

In a capitalist system, where there is demand, there is likely to be someone who can produce it. Shortages are rarely a problem in a Capitalist system, but they do show up whenever there is some external source of control over the products. Whenever you see a long-term shortage of a product, it is nearly always going to be the result of something other than Capitalism.


Now that's nonsense. Where there is demand there is likely to be someone who can produce it for those that are in the demand. Those that are in the demand want/need the product and can afford it. Nobody's making products for people who can't pay for them. Products that some people can't afford still get made because enough people can afford them but 95% does not equal 100%. Not everyone is served by privatized health care. Nobody's going to stop offering it because a minority of people can't afford it and nobody's going to lower the price to accommodate 100% of the population when they can make more money by charging a higher price to the majority of the population only.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Jun 2013, 12:55 am

That point is valid to only a very limited extent.

Capitalism has done more to advance the welfare of everyone than anything else in history. Today's poor in the United States have it far better than did someone in the same circumstances a hundred or more years ago. If not for actions of the government created monopoly in health care, the prices of most things in health care would be drastically lower and affordable to pretty much everyone provided that the consumers would be willing to forgo other things to pay for them.

What is expensive is the most advanced newly discovered treatments. Over time, most of those treatments would likely be made affordable if not for the government created health care monopoly.

But if you are going to argue that the poor has better access to them in other countries, then think again. In many countries, expensive treatments are reserved for the few, are limited in such a way that it can take many months waiting for the treatment, or are, in some cases, done away with completely.

If you want everyone to be able to get the most advanced newly discovered treatments, then you are dreaming. It just isn't going to happen.

So answer me these questions please:

1) How many people in the United States who have AIDS or HIV do not receive treatment and drugs because they cannot afford them?

2) How many people in the United States who are bitten by rattlesnakes do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

3) How many people in the United States who are bitten by animals that have or are suspected of having rabies do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

For the last question, the only example I know of in the United States where someone was exposed to a rabid animal and did not receive the rabies vaccinations did not receive them because he did not want them. He couldn't afford them, but that didn't matter -- they were offered to him free of charge and the doctors tried hard to get him to accept the vaccinations, but he steadfastly refused.

Sure, the treatment for those of us without insurance may be less than we could get if we did have insurance or were independently wealthy, but all in all, we have it pretty good.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Jun 2013, 1:01 am

How many people in the United States who are found to have taenia solium (pork tapeworms) cysterci in their brains do not get treated for them? None that I know of.

Many may die anyway since the treatment isn't 100% by any means. The real problem is having it properly diagnosed because so many doctors here have never seen it before.

Do you know what happens in many other countries? You don't get treatment and you die as a result.

Image



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 9:22 am

auntblabby wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
it's a matter of accepting reality for what it is. It is failure to accept reality that caused our problems.

what if this wonderful "reality" you speak of, happens to be untenable and unchangeable [short of divine intervention]? we can't all be high-functioning types.


We're obviously not communicating, and I don't see how I can be more clear, but I will try one last time: We were NOT all created equal; we are all unique and different. That means a lot of aspies are unfortunately inherently incapable of holding down a paying job. These unfortunates will always be dependent upon the rest of us for their sustenance. I'm talking about those aspies that ARE capable of work, but for whom there are no jobs. Actually, I'm talking about everybody. Rather than shipping jobs en masse to places such as China and Mexico, the people who govern us should ensure their own citizens have jobs too.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 9:33 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
That means a lot of aspies are unfortunately inherently incapable of holding down a paying job.

There will always be a segment of the population that cannot work - and, if we are civilized, we will, as a society, take care of them. It would be cruel not to, and it would not benefit society as a whole to have starving ill people wandering around.

Quote:
Rather than shipping jobs en masse to places such as China and Mexico, the people who govern us should ensure their own citizens have jobs too.

Everything is so globally interdependent now; it seems most successful companies use overseas manufacturing. I'm not sure how we could step back from that. Locally produced products are too expensive.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 10:19 am

"There will always be a segment of the population that cannot work - and, if we are civilized, we will, as a society, take care of them. It would be cruel not to, and it would not benefit society as a whole to have starving ill people wandering around."

Ann, I agree completely. What you are describing is the social Darwinism inherent in right-liberalism, particularly in its libertarian strain. Capitalism tends to be of most benefit for the most capable; for the most capable, the sky is the limit. But in this kind of system, the less capable one is, the less well they are going to do in such a system. This is why socialism follows capitalism like flies around hogs. Right-liberalism allows no quarter for the old, pre-modern concept of noblesse oblige.

"Everything is so globally interdependent now; it seems most successful companies use overseas manufacturing. I'm not sure how we could step back from that. Locally produced products are too expensive."

Everything is very interdependent now, but this is by design. G.K. Chesterton observed about the old left that it is right about what is wrong, and wrong about what is right. What Chesterton was referring to was the old left's central postulate that in the absence of noblesse oblige of some kind that the elite class will completely structure society around their own needs and interests, and leave everybody else out in the cold, which is just what has happened.

Globalism is a case in point. Rather than viewing globalism as being some kind of inevitability, I view it as something done in the best interests of the elite class, and very much to the detriment of everybody else. Globalism tends to enrich those at the top while impoverishing everybody else. BTW, this is the very essence of Marx's thought. Again, Marx was right about what is wrong, but wrong about what is right.

Your Canadian economy is largely based upon Canada's natural resource advantage (e.g., timber, agricultural products, minerals), most of which is exported. And by the same token, it would be incredibly inefficient for a country like Canada to, say, try to grow its own tropical fruits, where Canada is at a distinct disadvantage. This is what the economists call comparative advantage, and is a good thing. Canadians can produce large quantities of timber better than Brits, so the Brits would be better off importing their timber from Canada and selling what they are good at to the Canadians.

The problem comes from absolute advantage. The distinction between comparative and absolute advantage is something that is in the best interests of the elite class to obfuscate, and they do. Absolute advantage is where products that could be produced at home are imported because of cheaper labor or other advantages, such as no environmental regulations. This kind of trade benefits nobody in the long run, not even the elite class. When the elite class succeeds in impoverishing enough people with unemployment and low wage jobs, these people can no longer afford to buy what the elites produce, and the whole system crashes.

Bottom line: Creating wealth is taking things from the ground and turning them into stuff people want to buy. Those who produce wealth become wealthier. We in the West are becoming more poor because we no longer produce much wealth.



cron