Brief History of Communism (and the work of Ronaldus Maximus regarding)

Each president has reacted to the threat of communism differently. Differently than Ronald Reagan, that is. Otherwise, the record of appeasement to a regime that make the Nazis look like pikers is mostly the same sad story of appeasment and denial.

Ronald Reagan was the first to take a different approach to the Cold War--namely, winning--and by some strange coincidence, the Soviet Union collapsed immediately thereafter.

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)--The October Revolution brought the Communists to power in Russia. Russia immediately siezed Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, conglomerating into the Soviet Union, and delberately starved about 5,000,000 people to death.

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)--The Soviet empire expanded, adding Mongolia, Turkmenia, Uzekistan, Tajikistan, and Kirgizia.

Herbert Hoover (1923-1933)--No new countries, but they did starbe between 5,000,000 and 15,000,000 (Lady Astor in 1931 asked Stalin, "When are you going to stop killing people?")

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945)--His first dipolatic act of office was to officially recognize the USSR as a nation. He referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe", and helped him gain a prominent position in the UN. The USSR took over eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estnia, and Albania, murdered another 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 people, and forced at least another 10,000,000 into slave labor.

Harry Truman (1945-1953)--We lost China, the most populous nation on earth, when Truman cut off support to Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Nationalist (White) army while Mao Te-Tsung, leader of the Communist (Red) army still had plenty of support from Russia. Among China's policies in the years after would be forced abortion, jailing and murder of Christians, and of course the invasion of Tibet. The communist Chinese government murdered between 34,000,000 and 64,000,000 of its own citizens, and another 1,000,000 or so Tibetans. Truman's government was riddled with Soviet spies, and in many cases, including the Alger Hiss affair, he eagerly helped defend them against the charges. The FBI identified other Communist agents, and Truman refused to remove them--including Harry Dexter White, who Truman appointed top US representative of the IMF. He also sold out the US after WWII, helping to cover Soviet mass-murders and downplay the Hitler-Stalin pact. He started the Korean war when he instructed one of his aides to note that if South Korea were attacked the US wouldn't defend it (North Korea attacked a few months later) and almost lost it through his micromanagement, prompting Gen. McArthur to claim that Truman "wouldn't let [him] win." Ho Chi Minh announced Communism in North Vietnam. On top of that, the Soviets took the other half of poland, a chunk of Germany, North Korea down to the 38th parallel, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)--The Korean War ended in a truce--we won no territory back but we did hold the reds at the 38th. Cuba fell to Communism under Fidel Castro--the first Soviet-backed Communist regime int he Western Hemispher. The Communist Vietcong instigated a violent insurrection in an attempt to conquer South Vietnam. John Foster Dulles proposed a "rollback policy" to "roll back" Soviet power in Eastern Europe, but it was proven to be hot air when the Red Army crushed a popular uprising in Hungary in 1956 and the US stood aside. The Soviet Union stole the Nuclear bomb (via the Rosenbergs) and exploded their first thermonuclear weapon, and successfully tested the first ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missile) almost a year ahead of the US. To add insult to injury, they launched Sputnik i a ways ahead of our space exploration.

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)--Humilated us in the Bay of Pigs incident, and lost the Cuban Missile Crisis; promising to pull our missiles out of Turkey and allow the Cuban communism to remain in place. The USSR detonated a 58-megaton thermonuclear devise--largest man-made explostion in history--and sent the first man into orbit. East Germany erected the Berlin Wall.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)--Communist regimes established in South Yemen and Congo-Brazzaville China exploded its first Hydrogen bomb. In addition, LBJ horridly mismanaged the Vietnam War, pulling troops back from victory more than once, micromanaging the war, and choosing targets out of political expediency rather than strategic necessity. As an extra insult, he started federal programs that have since spent trillions of dollars for a "war on poverty"--a war which, apparently, the poor lost.

Richard Nixon (1969-1974) A Marxist regime was established in Benin. Nixon provided the first serious resistance to Communism of any American president, however, by negotiating a truce between South Vietnam and North Vietnam in the Treaty of Paris; fixing the border and extracting a promise from North Vietnam not to attack. 20,000 troops remained in South Vietnam, who wouldn't see any combat unless North Vietnam did attack.

Gerald Ford (1974-1977) The Democrat-controlled Congress forced through the Eagleton Amendment, which declared that no funds could be spent in Indochina--not only could we not send troops to help defend our allies, we couldn't send them ammo, weapons--even food and medical supplies. A few months later, North Vietnam attacked, backed by the Red Chinese. Outnumbered, out-supplied, out-gunned, and abandoned by their allies (us), the South Vietnamese still held off the Vietcong for almost a year. Once Communism took over all of Vietnam, thousands of Vietnamese "boat people" fled the regime. After Vietnam, Communists took over Cambodia and Laos in exactly the kind of "domino effect" that conservatives were laughed at (and, despite the obvious, are still mocked) for holding. In Cambodia, the Kmer Rouge leader Pol Pot murdered between 1,000,000 and 4,000,000 people--out of a population of 7,000,000. Communist regimes were also installed in Guniea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)--Carter is so well known for being stupid, it's hard to remember he was also sneaky, petty, malicious, and vengeful. Soviet-backed Marxists came to power in Nicaragua, the Seychelles, and Grenada. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) Rather than free countries becoming communist, communist countries began to become free--for the first time since the Russian Revolution. Three Soviet-backed regimes began to crumble and one (Grenada) was taken back outright. By the end of Reagan's presidency, the Soviet Union was negotiating the terms of its surrender. He openly supported anti-Communist forces around the world, and allied with the Pope to provide aid to Solidarity, the anti-Communist union outlawed in Poland. He deregulated oil and slashed the Carter-ear inflation rate, and imposed a trade embargo on Russian goods--Russia's economy was a basket-case, and Reagan felled it. The finishing blow? Star Wars. Reagan even offered to share it with Russia, but they knew as well as we did that without the threat of thermonuclear strike, the USSR was just another third-world country.

In November of 1989, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. On July 6, 1990, NATO announced that the Soviet Union was no longer an adversary, and on December 26, 1991, the USSR was formally dissolved.

Speaking of Reagan, toppling communism and the general ebb and flow of the world, I noticed there was little in there about Iran-Contra. I think that's an important element that needs to be added into this debate. As much as you may want to glorify him, it's important to stay as objective as possible.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Speaking of Reagan, toppling communism and the general ebb and flow of the world, I noticed there was little in there about Iran-Contra. I think that's an important element that needs to be added into this debate. As much as you may want to glorify him, it's important to stay as objective as possible.

---

Thank you. I don't understand how people can glorify Reagan after the whole Iran-Contra thing. In my book, that automatically makes him a bad president.

I'd also like to point out that the people who were murdered, were murdered by communist dictators - not by communism itself.

The problem with Marxist philosophy is that it depends on one thing: a universal desire for equality and an abandonment of person greed. Communist systems always get overrun by those who want to further their own goals.

...Oh, and there were a few other methods used by US presidents in their quest to defeat the oh-so-evil threat of communism:

*Giving weapons to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, a group of militant Islamic cells, one of whom would eventually rise to power as the Taleban.

*Aiding the work of anti-government, anti-Marxist terrorists in Central America, whose activities included the abduction, rape and murder of (communist) innocents as well as the bombing of civilian buildings, ships and harbours.

*Ignoring atrocities such as Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet's involvement in the 'disappearance' and execution of some 20,000 communists.

*Giving weapons and money to Saddam Hussein so that he could continue fighting his war against Soviet-backed Iran, a war that killed two million people.

..I could go on, but I think my point is clear: It's never simply a case of "good versus evil"; no one side can ever claim the absolute moral high ground.

Communism in and of itself isn't bad, it's actually rather admirable. It just doesn't work. The reason it tends to become a dictatorship is because you have to MAKE people change their minds in order for it to happen. It's hardly a "threat", and some ideas aren't too bad. As you may recall, we do use some socialist concepts in our own government as well, we aren't pure capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. Look at our medicare and education systems. Of course, the government's doing such a piss-poor job of maintaining that, but still, they ARE socialized.

Hitler was democratically elected. Does that make democracy bad?

Communism the way Marx wanted it has never been attempted.
So, whether or not it works is practice is impossible to know.

Communism , yeah it's a nice idea , but in practical reality it just doesn't run smoothly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

Hitler was democratically elected. Does that make democracy bad?

---

He was elected, but then usurped total sovereign power for himself. However, I see your point.
Democratic states have done a lot of ill deeds in their time, but no-one ever blames their system of government for it.

It's not the type of rule that matters, it's the type of rulers. Even dictatorships are fine if they're properly administered - just look at the United Arab Emirates, a small but prosperous and peaceful nation where one man has all the power, but uses it philanthropically.

OOC:	I can always rely on Big D to elaborate on my glib one-liner posts. :D

First off, Hitler was not democratically elected to be dictator for life. While the system could be manipulated (such as via the burning of the Reichstag) to make him chancellor for a term, it required force, not democracy, to keep him there.

Second, Communism has never once failed to bring hardship, suffering, and death to its own people. It has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried; and there's only so many times one can blame that on just having the wrong guy in office, just like you can only blame so many horrid Russian harvests on "bad weather".

In Nicaragua, Reagan helped collect funds from various citizens, foreign countries, the Sultan of Brunei, and private organizations--in addition, Israel sold arms to Iran and some of those proceeds were diverted to the Contras while two heinous regimes bled each other a little longer instead of diverting their attention to the rest of the world. This may or may not have violated the Boland Amendment. Later it was repealed, funding was resumed, and wonder of wonders, Nicaraqua had elections--which probably wouldn't have been possible if the anti-communists hadn't had the aid to stay in one piece through the time beforehand.

"When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the president's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats."
--Ann Coulter

Not everyone in Afghanistan was a nice guy. Neither was Sodom, nor Pinochet, nor was everyone in Nicaragua. Neither was Stalin, for that matter, and yet we allied with him in WWII to face a greater threat; and everyone except those who actually sympathize with the Nazis realize that this was a correct and necessary maneuver. That's war, and we didn't have time to wait for the Iraqi, Chilean, Afghani, or Nicaraguan version of Thomas Jefferson to come around before combating an empire that slaughtered more than 100 million of its own citizens and intended to take over the world--it's not exaggeration to say these guys made the Nazis look like pikers.

"Ann Coulter, she means well, but she really over embelishes and oversimplifies things too much to be taken seriously." - Richard Perle as quoted on Face The Nation, July 16, 2004.

Coming from RICHARD PERLE of all people, that's saying something.

"it's not exaggeration to say these guys made the Nazis look like pikers."

I'd say that is. Nothing compares to Nazism, no matter how you slice it.




Take care all.

[:D] And yet, she still manages to be right.

But as for which is worse....

Communism:
35 million in Russia.
64 million in China
1-3 million (out of a total population of 7 million) in Cambodia
1 million in Tibet
1 million in Vietnam

Nazism:
6 million Jews
7 million assorted Protestants, Catholics, Atheists, Communists, Gypsies, political 'dissidents' and others

In comparison...
45 million, total of World War II
40 million, worldwide, influenza epidemic of 1918
20 million, Black Death, Europe 1348-49
700 thousand, estimated, killed in Roman Coliseum for entertainment
600 thousand, US War of Northern Aggression
350 thousand, Nuclear Bomb deaths
36 thousand, Krakatoa tsunami
8 thousand, 1900 Galveston hurricane--largest natural disaster in the US
7 thousand, Chernobyl

35 million people were killed during Japan's occupation of China in the 1930s-40s. This proves that having an Emperor causes death.

So what are you trying to say? That all the forms of communism the human race has ever undertaken has turned into a frenzy of genocide and chaos?

Well. Yeah. Anyone who knows history understands that much.

However, that doesn't mean the basic principles of communism = frenzy of genocide and chaos. It means that human beings suck and you can't put a nickel's worth of faith into a governing body controlled by one faction embracing one mindset with one agenda, that being WORLD DOMINATION!!!!!!!!one one etc etc etc

Or are you saying that communism is worse than Nazism? Because again, I'd have to disagree. The tenets of communism are good, but have been very badly manipulated by world leaders practicing communism. The tenets of Nazism are nothing but awful, and made even more awful by evil people who practice it.

So. Yay democracy! *waves flag and eats pie*

Big D--
Forgive me if I didn't clarify enough, but rather than an empire causing massive death, I've noted that Communism brings death and destruction in its wake everywhere it goes.

FoA--
I'd have to agree, the concepts of Nazism are worse than those of Communism--and given more time, Nazism's destruction probably would have exceeded that of communism. However, whenever communism is put into practice, it brings death.

Communism is more than simply a flawed theory wherein hard work and risk-taking are punished and laziness is rewarded--it's a form of government that inevitably brings destruction, suffering, oppression, and death. Nowhere has communism been implemented without becoming an oppressive regime.

To say that all the previous presidents before Reagan played no role in the downfall of the USSR, or to assume that Reagan singlehandedly toppled the USSR without any help from the work of previous presidents (or anyone else) is a bit myopic. A great many factors contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Reagan did play a large role and served as a final catalyst, but do you really think reagan could have taken the same approach and had the same results in the 1950s or 1970s? The USSR was weakened by many things, including both it's own internal flaws and pressure from outside forces like the space race. Reagan came along and recognized a weakened and disheartened foe and rightly put the pressure on them when they were most vulnerable.

Agreed. Both the Pope and Gorbachev played extremely vital roles as well.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Nowhere has communism been implemented without becoming an oppressive regime.

---

Incorrect. Small communes have operated under this in early human history. Native American tribes lived in a Communist society until the Americans raped their society. In a small tribe it is actually viable, in a larger country it is not.

To say that communism brings death is only half true. In reality, it is not communism, but autocracy that brings death. Communist regimes have brought death because they were autocratic regimes, not because they were communist. I personally feel that "Communism" has become an excuse for governments to rule autocratically.

And there have been decent autocratic communisms.
For example Yugoslavia were doing quite well under the dictatorship of Tito.

Communism creates a power vacuum that is easily filled by an eager autocrat.

Jrgen--
Tito's Yugoslavia survived not because communism was a valid system, but because of massive loans--loans from capitalist nations. And even though it was less repressive than other communist regimes, Tito was by no means kind to dissent.

eestlinc--
Actually, yes. The Soviet Union's economy was a basket-case even in the 50's, and there were indeed plenty of people to bring pressure against the communist government--which is why, for example, they had to send the tanks into Hungary. Yet they managed to limp along, by some strange set of events that isn't quite coincidence, until we had a president who was actually willing to defy them; and there's no reason to believe that without Reagan they couldn't have limped along for decades more.

Captain--
While the Pope's part in the downfall of theSoviet Union is indeed both commendable and considerable, it doesn't equal Reagan's, and at least part of it was done in partnership with Reagan. Gorbechev, on the other hand, continued the Russian invasion of Afghanistan for several years, demanded that Reagan abandon the missile-defense shield, has many times before and since voiced his support of communism... and happened to be there when Reagan tore down his empire. That he surrendered rather than launch a banzai nuclear war is admirable, but it doesn't mean that he aided the downfal of the Soviet Union.

Behold the Void--
Native Americans lived off of slaughtering each other and taking whatever their victims owned. While that is Communism in practice, it doesn't quite match the theory.

communism has actually done a lot of good as well.

remember how russia was in 1917? the population starving? millions dying of hunger, the tsar living happily and fed well, losing thousands each day in a war they were losing and was destroying the country.

stalinst russia fought off the nazi's throughout the second world war supporting britain and america in the push for berlin. chances are we would never have won the war without them.

ho chi minh- liberated cambodia from pol pot, saved the country from complete self destruction and stabilised laos.

there has also never been a democratic country that has not been involved in war.

communism has the potential to work terrifically well if it is properly constructed as is written by marx in his books. this has never been done and so it can never be said to have never actually worked or to be unworkable as it has never been attempted.

Gorbachev also attempted to change the economic system of the USSR from a command economy to one closer to capitalism, which didn't fair to well in the country and thus, greatly aided in the collapse, which is ironic.

The Pope led a peaceful revolution against communism, something Reagan cannot claim as some of effects of his way have led to the turmoil in the Middle East, and while I didn't agree with the Pope about a great many things, I can't deny that his influence carried much more weight and power than even Reagan. He reached out to more people, 1.2 billion versus 200 million or how ever many at the time lived in the USA. One needed the other to succeed, they couldn't have done it alone, but together formed a partnership that was able to succeed.

It should also be pointed out, that democracy didn't triumph over communism as the US is not a democracy but a Republic and the USSR was not anywhere near what Communism is supposed to be.

Take care all.

Cloud 9--
[quote]emember how russia was in 1917? the population starving? millions dying of hunger, the tsar living happily and fed well, losing thousands each day in a war they were losing and was destroying the country.[/quote
Actually, it was hundreds of thousands dying of hunger--the millions came after the Bolshevik revolution. And if you think the USSR quit going to war after 1917, then there ain't much I can say....

Quote:

---

stalinst russia fought off the nazi's throughout the second world war supporting britain and america in the push for berlin. chances are we would never have won the war without them.

---

And also murdered about 35 million of its own people and tried to take over the world. Great guys...

Quote:

---

o chi minh- liberated cambodia from pol pot, saved the country from complete self destruction and stabilised laos.

---

Saved the country from complete self-destruction? Somebody shoulda told the Boat People....

Quote:

---

there has also never been a democratic country that has not been involved in war.

---

"Involved in war" and "tried to take over the world" are two rather different things.

Quote:

---

communism has the potential to work terrifically well if it is properly constructed as is written by marx in his books. this has never been done and so it can never be said to have never actually worked or to be unworkable as it has never been attempted.

---

Ahh, so it just fails every time because they didn't do it right?

Captain--
Perestroika was a last-ditch move to stave off the coming collapse. Gorbechev didn't do it to cooperate with the US, he did it to try and save his country--and to save communism, by making the smallest changes possible.

While the Pope certainly represented more people than Reagan did, his work in toppling the USSR wasn't as great--mostly, I admit, due to the simple fact that he couldn't use or threaten force. It wasn't the Pope that started Soviet regimes crumbling, or took one back outright--although, again, the man did a lot. I doubt that Reagan couldn't have done it without the Pope, but I agree whole-heartedly that the Pope's aid was very, very valuable.

Quote:

---

"When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the president's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats."
--Ann Coulter

---

Because Nixon was obviously scheming to support anti-Communists.

Quote:

---

Native Americans lived off of slaughtering each other and taking whatever their victims owned. While that is Communism in practice, it doesn't quite match the theory.

---

Not exactly. There were wars between them, yes, but that wasn't their SOLE method of living. They weren't utterly dependant upon fighting with the other tribes.

Do you suppose it would have been easy to even make rhetorical threats of direct attack or use of military force in the 1950s, directly after World War II? Perhaps world leaders wanted to try less militaristic methods of weakening the USSR because the world had just emerged from a long and grueling war and support, to say nothing of ability or resources, would have been slim.

You also neglect the impact that emerging nuclear arsenals had on the prospects of direct wars between superpowers. The Cold War emerged as a viable alternative because many in the world feared the results of a nuclear war, especially in the infancy of nuclear weapons.

Also, the US had just begun to assert itself as a world power and had not completey embraced its role as a world police (and we still haven't quite come to terms with how exactly to play that role or even if we should). Remember, we only got directly involved in WWII after Pearl Harbor, even if we wanted to get involved before it.

Those are very good points Eest. The years right after WWII until the early 60's were times where no one wanted to fight anymore as the war had caused such terrible losses on all sides.

I think the heart of the trouble with America's new role is that it sets itself up for criticism by seeming to place a double standard on things. We will invade and liberate Iraq, but not the Sudan, we will liberate Bosnia and Kosovo, but not Rwanda or the countries in South America, and the logic which is used gets more and more confusing with every day to the point where a great many people in this country seem to want us to return to a policy of strict isolationism, which isn't practical any longer.

It's a slippery slope to be sure.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

That's war, and we didn't have time to wait for the Iraqi, Chilean, Afghani, or Nicaraguan version of Thomas Jefferson to come around

---

Of course not, so thats why it's perfectly fine to install paramilitar goverments.

And here some happy advice: don't ever say that if you go to Chile, or the families of those tortured and killed may wish to express disagreement with a nice punch in your face. Wouldn't blame them.

Seriosuly, it's amazing how you seem to reduce human tragedies to simple statistics, ecuations where you attempt to look into your crystal ball and try to decide what was more worth doing. Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas.

As for the rest of the stuff, well, really, I don't believe making maniacheist divisions of Good and Evil is giving you or anyone any serious vision of history. Also, I recommend you to look for "communism" in the dictionary. Then look for "socialism". Cause really, I am tired of explaining how Russia could never be considered communist because it had a state, and communism is a society without state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Jrgen--
Tito's Yugoslavia survived not because communism was a valid system, but because of massive loans--loans from capitalist nations. And even though it was less repressive than other communist regimes, Tito was by no means kind to dissent.

---

Most nations, including the USA, have more debts then they could possibly ever pay off.

And that article contains lots of subjectivity and inaccurate information.
One page is also not enough to describe over 40 years of a nation's history properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

it's amazing how you seem to reduce human tragedies to simple statistics,

---

"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic" ~Stalin

i don't see death and destruction in cuba. all i see is the best doctors in the world, ensured free and (extra) good education, western hemisphere less illiterate country (i'm sorry, i don't have the link but i read this recently on the un's page). did i mention that when a country is struck by disaster they call cuba to send them doctors and teachers? guess that means that they have some of the best material over there. i'll stop now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radyk05

i don't see death and destruction in cuba. all i see is the best doctors in the world, ensured free and (extra) good education, western hemisphere less illiterate country (i'm sorry, i don't have the link but i read this recently on the un's page). did i mention that when a country is struck by disaster they call cuba to send them doctors and teachers? guess that means that they have some of the best material over there. i'll stop now.

---

Uhm...I have worked in Cuba, and well, it is a very nice country for the standards of developing nations, but life there isn't that easy, mainly because it's still a poor country and well, you get the necessities covered, but still not covered as much as most of us would consider correctly covered (in the time I worked there, I ate rice EVERY DAY). It also has some censorip and political opression (very mild one compared to most dictatorships...and some democracies) but well, truth is the contradictions and problems of the system are still there, and a lot of the economy depends on inmigrants sending money into the country to give it to their families (I have seen some cuban houses that look just as good or better than most houses over here).

I dunno, Cuba is one of the most beautiful countries I have visited, actually it's to me more than that, my time in Cuba changed me a lot. But well, even if many of the critiques done to the system are very exaggerated, don't idealize it like that either, because it is a country full of problems.

you're surely right, nexus, but my purpose of my last post was to make some people see that a comunist regime guaranties you the primordial human needs for free like medical treatment and education. some may expect that free services traduces inmediately into bad services but its a fact that cuba has the lowest % of iliteracy and some of the best doctors on the hemisphere. yes, cuba is a poor country and fidel is one of the richest persons in the world but with a proper government that can change. just imagine what will happen to cuba when the us turn off the ... ... man! i don't know the word... ... the economical ... ... wall? shadow, you're spanish. can you translate "embargo" for me? i can't remember the word. hope anyone knows waht i'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radyk05

you're surely right, nexus, but my purpose of my last post was to make some people see that a comunist regime guaranties you the primordial human needs for free like medical treatment and education. some may expect that free services traduces inmediately into bad services but its a fact that cuba has the lowest % of iliteracy and some of the best doctors on the hemisphere. yes, cuba is a poor country and fidel is one of the richest persons in the world but with a proper government that can change. just imagine what will happen to cuba when the us turn off the ... ... man! i don't know the word... ... the economical ... ... wall? shadow, you're spanish. can you translate "embargo" for me? i can't remember the word. hope anyone knows waht i'm talking about.

---

For free? Socialized medicine is "free"? That's far from true--ever heard of "there's no such thing as a free lunch"? Just because they pay for it with outrageous constant taxes doesn't mean it's "free" when they don't have to directly pay. You would make a great Democrat.

Yes, Cuba is wonderful, a land of freedom and liberty, great health care, spectacular educational systems, a land flowing with milk and honey. It's no wonder Cuba gets so many illegal immigrants from the United States. Wait a minute...

I'm pretty sure a US citizen pays more per capita than a UK citizen does for health care.

Quote:

---

man! i don't know the word... ... the economical ... ... wall? shadow, you're spanish. can you translate "embargo" for me?

---

The word in English is.......embargo!!! :D

Although I guess "economical blocking" can be used too. But embargo is the word. Um..where are you from?

Quote:

---

Yes, Cuba is wonderful, a land of freedom and liberty, great health care, spectacular educational systems, a land flowing with milk and honey. It's no wonder Cuba gets so many illegal immigrants from the United States. Wait a minute...

---

Where did anyone say Cuba is wonderful?

don't believe me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UN statistics division

Country_________ Year____ Illiteracy rate for aged 15-24 (%)
Cuba_________2000-2004_____.2 (Male)______.2 (Female)
Mexico__________2000_______3.5 (M)________3.2 (F)
Puerto Rico____2000-2004_____1.6 (M)________2.9 (F)



Country__________Year____Life Expectancy at birth
Cuba_________2000-2005_____79(M)_____75(F)
Puerto Rico____2000-2005_____80 (M)____71(F)
USA__________2000-2005_____80 (M)____74(F)




Country_________Year______Estimated number living with HIV/AIDS
Cuba___________2003___________________3
USA____________2003__________________950

---

... believe statistics
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demograph...dwm/indwm2.htm

btw, im puerto rican.

I searched this entire thread for "Lech Walesa" and came up with nothing. Now I know that everyone on this forum is a moron. You can't have a discussion about the fall of communism without mentioning this man. This, coupled with Mikeal Gorbachev and a number of other factors, is why Ronald Reagan did not "singlehandedly defeat communism" or whatever trite phrase they use now. Sure glad he's dead, though. What a worthless piece of crap.

Eestlinc--
Direct war may not have been an option shortly after WWII, but that doesn't mean we had to do nothing. It surely doesn't mean we had to precipitate the Korean War by declaring we wouldn't defend our allies, for example, or allow a communist takeover of Cuba.

Quote:

---

f course not, so thats why it's perfectly fine to install paramilitar goverments.

---

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua have elected governments, and we didn't install Pinochet in Chile--surprisingly enough, Latin American generals are capable of staging coups without outside help.

Quote:

---

Seriosuly, it's amazing how you seem to reduce human tragedies to simple statistics, ecuations where you attempt to look into your crystal ball and try to decide what was more worth doing. Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas.

---

Which is how you can defend the system that murdered more than 100 million of its own people, I suppose?

Quote:

---

Also, I recommend you to look for "communism" in the dictionary. Then look for "socialism". Cause really, I am tired of explaining how Russia could never be considered communist because it had a state, and communism is a society without state.

---

Strange, then, how they followed the precepts of the Communist Manifesto and such, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Most nations, including the USA, have more debts then they could possibly ever pay off.

---

I'm afraid that ain't the case. If federal spending was frozen at current levels, we'd be running a surplus in a few years. (one of the things that pisses me off about Bush--the average president averages 5 vetoes a year, and Bush has yet to veto a spending bill.) Moreover, most of our government's debt comes from our own people (bonds), not massive aid packages from other countries.

Quote:

---

And that article contains lots of subjectivity and inaccurate information.

---

Seeing as it's clearly supportive of Tito, I have to agree about subjectivity, but perhaps you could find a more "accurate" source?

Quote:

---

i don't see death and destruction in cuba.

---

Try looking at how they treat their people. Or, why not take a look at their hospitals? The USSR's hospitals were supposedly the best in the world too, until Reagan tore down the Communist regime and we found out that 50% of them didn't have running water.... Or would you rather take a communist regime's word for how great things are in their country--like Castro sympathizer Suzanne Ross, who's provided one of my favorite quotes: "We have to understand that there are differences between capitalist lobotomies and socialist lobotomies."

There's a reason Cubans are getting on innertubes to cross 90 miles of ocean to get to America--and I seriously doubt it's because the thought of good free health care scares them.

Moose Knight--
Lech Walesa fought Communism in Poland. Ronaldus Maximus fought Communism all over the world. See the difference, *snip*

Edit: Personal attack = EoEO ban. You know the rules.

Would you agree though, that without the collapse of Communism in Poland and Germany, which was attributed more to the figures over there than Reagan, the struggle against the USSR wouldn't have happened in quite the same fashion?

Reagan was one of the more important figures, for certain in defeating the dictatorships in place in the USSR, but he was not the linchpin of everything in my opinion. Defeating Communism, or technically, dictatorships that used Communism to gain power was a global effort, not solely the work of any one person.

Also, why do you refer to Ronald Reagan as you would the Caesar of Rome?

Take care all.

I don't know if you'll read my replies since you are temporally banned, but anyway...

Quote:

---

and we didn't install Pinochet in Chile--surprisingly enough, Latin American generals are capable of staging coups without outside help.

---

Videla didn't need your help, Pinochet did. I really don't think I need to explain the whole story again, because I guess you know it.

Quote:

---

Which is how you can defend the system that murdered more than 100 million of its own people, I suppose?

---

Of course, not only I find Stalin wonderful, but I spend my free time throwing dead puppies to the faces of orphans while laughing in that evil way. Thunder in the background and all!

I hope this system I defend so much comes soon, and I am killed along with my family. Now that would be exciting! Although I guess I should ask for a little torture before that.

Now can I ask you where I defended the USSR? I'm afraid I may have posted under an alternative personality I am not aware of.

Quote:

---

Strange, then, how they followed the precepts of the Communist Manifesto and such, isn't it?

---

No, they claimed to follow such precepts, wich by the way, only fill 84 pages with a large font, at least thats what I see in my book. Not like you can do a whole political system based on such a book. If you are interested in the difference between Marixst theory and the supposed application of that theory under the USSR goverment, I can recommend you some readings on Cornelius Castoriadis, Erich Fromm or Herbert Marcuse. Good readings, by the way.

Let's all avoid calling each other morons and referring to public figures as pieces of crap. :D

my version onf the communist manifesto was certainly larger than 84 pages but did have alot of other stuff in it as well like a really long prologue and other stuff connected. but meh i can't find my copy anymore anyway so i can't really say. but mine was purely titled the communist manifesto and has small print and more than 84 pages. anyway.......

why is free health care and education suddenly a commie thing to do? i've had it all my life (would have had free school meals, vitamins and milk too if it wasn't for thatcher) and we don't pay extortianite taxes or are driven into the depths of dispair or harship. cuba suffers right now because it does have the trade embargo. it's a country that can't be self suffeicent but can't trade so is left very much high and dry.

i don't believe anyone truly had a great impact on the fall of communism. it was a doomed outcome of a corrupt system that was spread to thinly with dwindling power. the old romanticism was gone from the revolutions and people were tired of the same inequality and oppression they had suffered before. it was a process that started when communism first came to power, it was a flawed system doomed to fail.

"why is free health care and education suddenly a commie thing to do? i've had it all my life (would have had free school meals, vitamins and milk too if it wasn't for thatcher) and we don't pay extortianite taxes or are driven into the depths of dispair or harship."

With all due respect, that's because even if you do have a job, you most likely don't make very much money, own your own property, or pay many of the other types of taxes that the government collects from people. I don't know how it is where you live, though, and I could be wrong. In America, where people pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter combined, taxes are a bit of a high concern.

Is it true that people in countires that are more left leaning on their social policies than America, such as Sweden, have a tax rate of closer to 50% of the income of a person, though that tax money goes directly into the universal health care plan and other such programs?

In my opinion, I'd pay higher taxes if the money went into a universal health care and education program. Perhaps it is something to consider in the future.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I don't know how it is where you live, though, and I could be wrong. In America, where people pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter combined, taxes are a bit of a high concern.

---

The very rich may pay a lot of taxes, but that comes with the territory. However, I think you just made this "fact" up, or took it straight from some luminary like Grover Norquist.

I'll use ballpark figures of my own finances from 2004 as an example. I live in the US and work full time. I made about $26,000 in income during 2004. I paid about $4000 in total income-based taxes on my tax return. (You might say I should include the payroll taxes my employer paid on my salary, but only if you think my employer would have otherwise paid that money to me. Somehow I doubt.) That leaves me about $22,000 in net income. Of this, I invested $3000 in my IRA, so I had about $19,000 left that I could spend. I didn't inherit any money or have any capital gains, and I don't own land so I had no property taxes to pay. So I paid car taxes and sales taxes. Sales tax in the county where I live is 7%. So let's just pretend I spent every cent of my remaining income of taxable consumer goods (even though I did not). That would be an additional $1330 in taxes. Add that to the $4000 in income-based taxes for a total of about $5500 (doing some worst case rounding) in taxes paid, which is about 22% of my income.

Now consider my expenses for food, shelter, and clothing. I spent about $4500 on rent alone in 2004, and that includes part of the year that I lived with my parents and did not pay rent. I spent at least $250 a month on food. So add that to my rent payments for a total of $7500. I've already easily exceeded the money I paid in taxes despite using overestimates on taxes paid and underestimates on living expenses.

Then you can consider the $75 a month I have taken out of my paycheck for HMO health insurance. That's about $900 a year I spend on health insurance (that I don't even use, and I would have to pay even more in co-payments if I did).

I hardly feel overtaxed. I might if I made $3 million a year, but I don't (and neither do the vast vast majority of Americans).

Incidentally, did you know the aforementioned Grover Norquist (leader of Americans for Tax Reform and a major Republican strategist, author of the Contract With America, etc) has a large portait of Lenin in his home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

my version onf the communist manifesto was certainly larger than 84 pages but did have alot of other stuff in it as well like a really long prologue and other stuff connected. but meh i can't find my copy anymore anyway so i can't really say. but mine was purely titled the communist manifesto and has small print and more than 84 pages. anyway.......

---

Most printed version of the Communist Manifesto include and introduction, note from the translator, and then the introductions written by Marx or Engels in the several editions of the book. The Communist Manifesto by itself it's merely 84 pages, but most versions I have seen have between 120 an 130 pages.

thanks shadow nexus for clearing that up.

on the taxes thing...... i believe taxes should be passed on the ability to pay. if you are making 1 billion dollars a year is even halving that gonna make a great deal of difference to you? you're not going to starve or go homeless. the rich pay more taxes rightly because they have more money. if everyone was charged a flat rate (poll tax) then some people couldn't afford it while others would be happilly giving it away while wiping their arse with the same quantity. it needs to be based on ability to pay other wise it's not fair. and most of all it's doing something good for the country and it's people, saving lives, creating jobs and bolstering the economy.

eestlinc -- You're not considering taxes on fuel, tolls, interest, property, tobacco, medicines, utilities, city/county/state, mail, FICA, vehicles ... The government taxes us in a LOT of ways that most people don't even realize. You know they even tax your tax refund? I'm sure The Redneck would know even more, had he not had a bogus ban.

Cloud 9 -- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? It doesn't matter who can "afford" what. Do you realize that in America, HALF of the population gets more money from the government than they pay to it in taxes? People get rich for a reason. The work, and they earn more money. That's the beauty of Capitalism--not Socialism, which you're already referenced to. Granted, some rich people inherited their money, or won it, but the way to make more money in a Capitalist economy is to work harder, longer, or smarter. Why should somebody who earns twice as much as me have to pay five times the taxes?

I'm gonna have to look up that lunch thing...

"Do you realize that in America, HALF of the population gets more money from the government than they pay to it in taxes?" sorry can you clarify this, the american tax system is something i somewhat lack knowledge in and any information would be welcomed. thank you.

the man who is making millions a year should pay more taxes because he can afford to. single parents who are struggling on minimum wage jobs are more needy of the money than mr nike, macdonalds, gates or shell. captilism while letting people get rich also causes a huge and growing gap between rich and poor, it creates a materialistic society in which drugs, crime and sex is rampant and becoming a greater and greater problem.

i once read that the 3 richest men in the world account for a 3rd of the world's money. is that truly fair? these people have far more money than i could ever comprehend is the idea for more taxes for them really that horrible? is the difference of higher taxes to pay fo the support for the most vulnerable in our society to a man who makes money faster than he can spend it really a big issue?

in one week you can work 60 hours digging ditches and breaking your back and earn just enough to keep your house while a rich man can decide to take that week off for a nice nap and live in luxury and can do that regularly. the 60 hour man clearly works harder and longer but is paid less. the rich man can now be idle and lazy but still enjoys the world's riches. am i the only person that sees that as wrong?

an equal pay for an equal days work.

An equal days pay for an equal days work? So let's put this into a scenario... You have two guys, both working 8-hour days. One digs ditches--requires no intelligence, no education, no job skills whatsoever. The other man, let's say, is a neurosurgeon. He's been through eight, maybe ten years of higher education, and now he puts people's spines back together. Is that an "equal days work"? Of course not. The beauty of Capitalism is that that ditch digger can go to college, get some education and job skills, and pretty soon be making much more money than he was.

Why doesn't the government just confiscate every bit of income from every working person, and redistribute it so we all get the same amount? Or, say, we get different amounts depending on if we're married, how many kids we have, etc.? That would be "fair" in your eyes, right? Everybody can afford the same amount, so taxes aren't "crippling" any one person and aren't being "too light" on any other? You know why we don't do that? Because that's called Socialism. No matter how hard the left tries to push us in that direction, we're a Capitalist nation, and it just doesn't work that way.

"i once read that the 3 richest men in the world account for a 3rd of the world's money."

I don't know if or where you read that, but it's a load of bull. The top 1% of wage earners in America don't even account for a third of America's money.

You also mentioned single parents working minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage jobs weren't created to support a family on, they were created for zit-faced teenagers in high school that want to get enough money to buy a Moped. What did that person do to become a single parent in a minimum wage job? Did they get knocked up and drop out of high school? Did they forego college, knowing that a life without any higher education or job skills would lead them to a career of burger flipping? Did they get into drugs and waste their life away until they could no longer keep a spouse or respectable job?

okay so lets take your scenario. lets change it a little, diggers all die off in a horrible plague, becuase they can't afford health insurance or prescriptions. so now all diggers are dead. need some digging for a new road? nope won't be doing that, foundations for a new house. forget that. new drainage and sanitation, not a hope in hell. same if you got rid off all cleaners, lorry drivers, garbage truck guys. what happens if they aren't anymore. you seriously suffer. if neurosurgeon men all die..... people die but less than the people with garbage piling up, occupied with rats, no able to get homes because noone will dig ditches, getting MRSA. no matter who stops working people will suffer. so what's my point here. all ocupations are need and are needed equally. and if they are needed equally why pay them less.

your point about minimum wage. i'm currently out of school. not because i'm thick or lazy. because i can't afford a 6th year. i'm going to university next year at the best university here and was accepted unconditionly (i am far from thick). but i can't afford the loans. so this year i am taking a year out to work 7 hours a day, 7 days a week until september. on minimum wage.

you can also ened up on minimum wage at 30 with things out of your control, injury, disability, made redundant, recession, going back into the work force after looking after a child, injury or 100 other reasons. and being knocked up during high school does not mean you are an evil person, she could have either made a mistake, been coerced, raped, not properly educated.

getting into drugs is a trap and you should actually be commending someone that comes through that to be an honest member of society doing work which benefits and doesn't steal. not saying they deserve the minimum of what can be given.

my believe system is thus. working benefits everyone, and every worker is a neccessity, an equal neccessity. look what happens during strikes to see what happens when low paid workers don't feel like they are respected. they country grinds to a halt. all people are needed equally and should be treated as such. will take the chance to not have a neurosurgeon to ensure my bin is emptied weekly.

Oh, this is comedic. Here's a question. You need somebody to take out your trash. How much are you willing to pay them? You need somebody to operate on your back so you don't become severely disabled. How much is that worth to you? Do you not see the difference there, or do you really think garbage men and burger flippers should be paid as much as engineers and doctors? Did that engineer spend at least four more years of his life going through (and paying for) extra school to make the same amount of money as the zit-faced kid who works at the Burger Barn? Do crab fisherman risk their lives on a daily basis to make just as much as the guy who works a register at a department store? Do nurses spend all day with their arms covered in bodily fluids to be on the same level as the high school girl who waits tables on the weekends?

(By the way, what's a "lorry", is that a taxi? I'm being serious, sorry, I don't know all the "English-English" lingo.)

I never said that ladies who were knocked up in high school were "evil people", or that people who got into drugs and got clean again deserved to be poor their whole lives. My point was that, barring some horrible disability, where people end up in life is a result of their own choices. (That's a good thing to have stand out.) At least, that's the way it is in America. And it is well possible for people who have made bad decisions to come back and become middle- or upper-class. Even with a disability, there are plenty of programs to help people out.

Quote:

---

Oh, this is comedic. Here's a question. You need somebody to take out your trash. How much are you willing to pay them? You need somebody to operate on your back so you don't become severely disabled. How much is that worth to you? Do you not see the difference there, or do you really think garbage men and burger flippers should be paid as much as engineers and doctors? Did that engineer spend at least four more years of his life going through (and paying for) extra school to make the same amount of money as the zit-faced kid who works at the Burger Barn? Do crab fisherman risk their lives on a daily basis to make just as much as the guy who works a register at a department store? Do nurses spend all day with their arms covered in bodily fluids to be on the same level as the high school girl who waits tables on the weekends?

---

Communism does not equalize wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Communism does not equalize wages.

---

Where in that post did I mention Communism? Or even Socialism, which would better apply to that post?

The section you quoted was in response to the comment "all ocupations are need and are needed equally. and if they are needed equally why pay them less."

All up in the kool-ade and don't know the flavor.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I havent kept up with this thread lately, and since this thread is about communism, I assumed that is what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

eestlinc -- You're not considering taxes on fuel, tolls, interest, property, tobacco, medicines, utilities, city/county/state, mail, FICA, vehicles ... The government taxes us in a LOT of ways that most people don't even realize. You know they even tax your tax refund? I'm sure The Redneck would know even more, had he not had a bogus ban.

---

Fuel taxes: I guess I could add a bit for gasoline taxes, but I drive a car that gets good mileage and I have a short commute to work so I don't use that much

Tolls: The state of Georgia has exactly one tollbooth, it costs 50 cents, and I go through it maybe twice a month.

Interest: All my money is either in my checking account which draws no interest, or invested in my IRA in mutual funds, which draw no interest, and the IRA isn't taxed anyway thanks to a wonderful tax loophole.

Property: I don't own any land.

Tobacco: I don't smoke.

Medicines: I don't use medicines besides the occasional advil or sudafed.

Utilities: So I pay a little bit of tax on my cell phone. My apartment complex doesn't charge me directly for water and electricity, although I'm sure the costs gets passed to my in my rent. However, I'm not technically paying that tax.

City/County/State: I included all local income taxes in my calculations of "income-based taxes". I actually don't pay any city or county income taxes, anyway.

Mail: I hardly consider stamps to be a tax. Stamps are a usage fee. UPS charges for its services too, you know.

FICA: Included in my "income-based tax" calculation as well.

Vehicles: I mentioned my car tag.

Regarding my tax refund, that's just money I had already paid the government that they are returning because it turns out I didn't owe that much. It isn't counted as income because it's already been counted as income when I made it in the first place. Maybe I'm supposed to report it as income but I sure as hell haven't ever done that and the IRS doesn't do a good enough job of informing me that I need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

okay so lets take your scenario. lets change it a little, diggers all die off in a horrible plague, becuase they can't afford health insurance or prescriptions.

---

Sorry, I have more to add concerning this. What happens when all the ditch diggers die? I give a guy five bucks an hour and a shovel and tell him to get to work. Whaddya know, I just got a new ditch digger. And why did those ditch diggers not have insurance anyway? Insurance doesn't cost that much (especially if they unionize and force benefit providing on their employer), so why don't they have it? It's not a question of a hardworking man simply not having enough money, it's a question of what else did he spend it on? Maybe he should cancel the sattelite television, or high-speed internet, or buy an older car? If they got their priorities straightened out, they'd have the money for insurance, just maybe not for some of the luxuries (not necessities, but luxuries) that they have.

eestlinc -- $4000 in taxes out of a $26000 income is barely 15%, if you're only paying that, you're doing pretty well, and most likely claiming at least one dependant (yourself). I mean hell, in the military, and they took out over 21% of my base pay. With the rest of it, even factoring in utilities and such, you'd also have to figure in the other taxes that most people pay, or would effect the average...tolls (IL is horrible for tolls, I never remembered there being one in GA), tobacco, pharmaceuticals, property, etc. You would also have to figure in those who make much more money than you do, thus placing them in a higher "tax bracket" so more of their money can be confisc--err, collected by the government. Not to mention the indirect taxes that are small but too many to count--how your head of lettuce goes up a couple cents because of the taxes placed on everything involved in its growing, harvesting, transport, and marketing, etc. etc.

I think we can all agree that all of us pretty much pay a lot of taxes. But, I guarantee you if you took all the money in taxes back, eliminated the government, and bought all the same services through the private sector, you'd end up spending a lot more money. You act as if taxes are a big pit you throw money in without any expectation of ever getting any return. For starters, the government provides your military paycheck.

Yes, the government provides my military paycheck. Through taxes. That I have to pay taxes on. (Well, I didn't while I was in Iraq, because that's a combat zone, but I do otherwise.) Actually, that's how I knew that they would tax my tax return. I found out about it, and figured that I was getting paid with tax dollars, which I pay taxes on, but if I pay too much and they give some back, they tax that while they give it back to me too. Tax goes up, comes down, goes up, comes down, goes up. (By the way, a "tax return/refund" is a free loan to the government.)

I don't have a problem with paying taxes--it's obviously something that needs to be done for a government to run properly. I do, however, have a problem with some of the things our taxes are going towards, and if these programs weren't in place, we wouldn't be having to pay as many taxes. Social Security is a fraud and a scam, and is in need of some major reform. Many other spending programs need reform and cuts. That's one of the problems I have with Bush--I think The Redneck mentioned this in another topic, as well. He hasnt' vetoed a spending bill yet.

Some services can and should be provided through the private sector, for less money, better quality, or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Some services can and should be provided through the private sector, for less money, better quality, or both.

---

Like healthcare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Some services can and should be provided through the private sector, for less money, better quality, or both.

---

Like healthcare?

---

Precisely. Like healthcare. It's not the government's responsibility to provide healthcare for all of their citizens, not to mention that socialized medicine carries very low standards.

socialized health care in fact has saved my life and millions like me. it is not of a poor standard. it has allowed people no matter what their income to gain live saving treatment that they might not have had the chance to have. you only ned to look at the guys to the doctos when it was first created or to the qeues to nhs dentists opening up to see how many people to has helped and saved.

sasquatch a lorry is a truck.

sasquatch could you live quite happil without men to pick up your garbage? you need them. as much as they might one day need a brain surgeon or lawyer. but he is necessary in today's society and should be rewarded for that as an equal man doing an equal days work.

Socialized medicine is a giant government HMO.

And could I live happily without men that come pick up my garbage? Sure. Not as happy as I am now, but I guess it's not too much of an inconvenience to toss my garbage in the back of my truck and haul it off to dump it somewhere. Hell, I might even go around the block and say "Hey, if you give me a couple bucks a week, I'll toss your garbage in my truck too, so you don't have to." And then, what do you know, I'm a garbage man.

I highly doubt anybody needs garbage men as much as people need surgeons. It's not "an equal days work". There's a big difference in what it takes to be a ditch-digger and a neurosurgeon. And because of that, there's a big difference in what they're paid. Socialism isn't right, isn't fair, and doesn't work, get over it.

sorry for ignorance but what is HMO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...e_organization

They're private insurance groups that people join to get their health care.

HMOs are known for giving shoddy health care. As in, "We don't want to give this to you, we don't think it's worth it."

the NHS works like this. you go into your doctors, tell him your symptoms, he either diagnoses you or gives you a prescription, or he sends you to hospital for tests, you then wait for these tests and once you get the results you are then treated. at no point is your bank account checked, your membership of an organisation, no financial grounda are needed. if you need the brain surgery then you will get the brain sugery no matter if you need to pay for it or the cost.

Socialized medicine doesn't exactly work like that. I indirectly know a doctor from Detroit who says he's constantly treating Canadian patients who come over the border to get the medical care that the Canadian socialized medicine program won't allow for them. Thing's like the government saying "no, sorry, you're too old for that transplant, we're gonna keep that liver for a younger person because you've outlived your usefulness."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Socialized medicine doesn't exactly work like that. I indirectly know a doctor from Detroit who says he's constantly treating Canadian patients who come over the border to get the medical care that the Canadian socialized medicine program won't allow for them. Thing's like the government saying "no, sorry, you're too old for that transplant, we're gonna keep that liver for a younger person because you've outlived your usefulness."

---

That may be true, but its its still better to have free health care. I mean, in america, there are people who just cant afford the BASIC stuff. If socialized medicine was as bad as you make it out to be, millions of canadians and millions of people all around the world would be knocked down the boarders for our health care. For being the richest nation in the world, we could raise the standards on it. But we wont. Why? because america cares to much about money and not enough about the people. The majority of people dont want tax dollors paying for nobody elses. healthcare. Hell, we already fund social security and medicare for older people, god knows we dont want to really help people in need. specially homeless people, its their fault they are homeless and living in the street so they dont deserve the chance to accually have access to life saving health care :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2(heavy sarcasm). Therefore, we will never have free health care. No one cares enough.

That's right, I don't care about other people. Let them take care of themselves. That's their job. It's not the government's job to support its populace. There's a difference in people who really do need help, and people who have squandered their lives and have gotten themselves where they are. The people who need help because of something out of their control, I would love to help them. The people that screw their lives up, don't come whining to me.

It's not "free health care". It's terribly poor health care, at the cost of everybody who may or may not use it. As for people from all over the world coming in to America for its health care...that already happens.

Try this. Every time you say "the government should pay for ____", replace "the government" with "I". "I should pay for my neighbor's healthcare", "I should pay for my neighbor's education", "I should pay so that my neighbor makes as much money as I do". Because that's what's happening.

actually that is how socialized mediceine works. i've used it countless time and it's served me very well. and if you count saving millions of lives poor health care then i would like to see the good. and why shouldn't you help pay for it anyway? i's a wholey selfish view to say that because you have money you will only spend it on yourself and noone else no matter what the concequences. if you are poor and were found to have some horrible disease or cancer that requied lots of money to treat then what? you just let them die? for what? being poor or for getting sick? because if you are going to let a man die for being poor then i fond that a little bit selfish and immoral.

and at the same time i pay for my neighbours helth care and education i pay for my own and receieve equal care. i am an equal human being to a rich man and so i receive equal helth care and education. i am not left to die or be ignorant because of my financial status. that is why socialized medicine works. because people are equal when it comes to these basic requirements.

Normal health insurance isn't so expensive that only rich people can afford it. A working person can afford insurance, it's pretty simple.

As for poor people having to deal with their health problems, it would depend on what made them poor, and what caused the problems. Sure, everybody deserves a boost when they need it, but some people live off this. If they got poor because they got knocked up or on drugs and didn't finish high school, didn't do anything to better their lives or their income, then their decisions led them to their situation. (Not that they deserve to die, of course, but it is their fault they're in that predicament.) If they are poor because of some type of disabling accident, there are plenty of ways to still make money without working, especially from the government.

How would you like it if you turned 60 and needed a transplant, but the government decided it wasn't a good investment and instead let you die? (Because this is what happens.) How is that any "better" than letting a poor person die, as you would put it, because he can't afford it?

Quote:

---

Try this. Every time you say "the government should pay for ____", replace "the government" with "I". "I should pay for my neighbor's healthcare", "I should pay for my neighbor's education", "I should pay so that my neighbor makes as much money as I do". Because that's what's happening.

---

But that isn't whats happening. "I" am paying for a part of my neighbors healthcare, just as my neighbor pays part of my healthcare. If said neighbor gets cancer, I don't pay the entire bill. The entire nation pays into a system that is designed to pick each and every one of us up when we fall. I'll gladly pay into this system. I don't know why people have problems with it.

sasquatch if a 7 year old poor kid and a 90 year old man rich kid need a liver transplant. who do you give it to first? the one who can pay most for it? give it to the highest bidder? or give it to the person who has most to live for? isn't going to keel over in a few years anyway. of course you give it to the poor kid there should be no doubt about that. you can't auction off life and death to the highest bidder.

disease and health is a lottery. it doesn't just affect the rish or poor. it can affect everyone. so the money should be pooled to be for the benefit of everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

sasquatch if a 7 year old poor kid and a 90 year old man rich kid need a liver transplant. who do you give it to first? the one who can pay most for it? give it to the highest bidder? or give it to the person who has most to live for? isn't going to keel over in a few years anyway. of course you give it to the poor kid there should be no doubt about that. you can't auction off life and death to the highest bidder.

disease and health is a lottery. it doesn't just affect the rish or poor. it can affect everyone. so the money should be pooled to be for the benefit of everyone.

---

But the old man isn't any less deserving of a chance at a longer life than the child. You are correct that we shouldn't place a price tag on such a chance at life, but at the same time, both the old man and the child are of equal worth. Your "worthiness for life" should not be determined by the age of the person or whether or not they can produce something for the society.

I could see the first come first served idea being much more fair, because it doesn't look at the individual's "worthiness".

AkiraMarie--
Actually, we do provide health care for people who can't afford it, including the homeless (who, in the vast majority of cases, are in the position they're in because of the decisions they made). It's called indigent care, and I know for a fact it works because my roommate is a hopeless loser who would rather use his paycheck to buy weed than health insurance for his kid. Go to the county hospital, tell 'em you can't afford it, and you get it anyway.

A few years ago, there was a big flap over Jessica Santiago, who had cardiovascular problems (can't remember what it was, or whether it was in her heart or lungs, but it was a big'un.). She snuck across the border into the US from Mexico and checked into a hospital in South Carolina. Not only did she not have the money, but she had never in her life paid taxes in America--but not only did she get care worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but because of her condition she was put near the top of the organ-donor list and got a new heart and lung(s) (I dunno if they gave her just one, or both). Moreover, her body rejected them, and they gave her another set, which angered many people who had been following the rules and should have gotten those organs instead. And to add insult to injury, her family refused to donate any of her organs--including the ones that we'd put in her.

nik0tine--Partly, because whenever government manages a system, it screws things up and wastes money. You'd never put your money voluntarily into an investment that gives you 1.5% return on your investment, but with Social Security you got no choice, so there it is. You'd never give your money to a charity that only gets 28 cents on the dollar to people that need it, but that's welfare in a nutshell. Likewise, no one would voluntarily put their money (and their health) in a system as abysmal as nationalized health-care. If you want to help people who have cancer, or liver problems, or AIDS, or whatever you think is the worst health problem facing us today, or in all of them, then the answer is to find a charity that will do this and donate to them--not to have the government take money away from you by force, waste a good chunk of it, and spend what's left on someone's health care.

I will agree that the government wastes an exponential amount of money. That is why I feel that our government should instate a "Department of Governmental Efficiency" or something like that. I haven't thought of how it would work yet, but ideally it would dramatically reduce needless and haphazard spending. If we were to get the full mileage (sp?)out of our dollar more things could get done. The way I see it, it would increase efficiency, save money, and possibly even reduce taxes. Problem is, I have to figure out a way for it to work first.