<p>The problem with pure socialism (as in communal-anarchy) is that it’s just not realistic. Without regulation, people will tend to look after their own interests, and you’ll just end up with pure capitalism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You certainly have an idealistic view of social mobility. Firstly, kids from poor backgrounds are often behind academically, because they get no support at home. This is not to mention that at the high school level, students from disadvantaged homes are often putting in 20+ hours at a job, much less their responsibilities at home. Even if they did get accepted to a local college, how would they pay? Loans are disastrous for low-income students because there is no safety net. And that’s assuming someone could even cosign loans for them (most low-income parents have very bad credit). Social mobility is certainly POSSIBLE, but it is extremely difficult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And in many families, that $320 wasn’t an option. That person doesn’t get any treatment at all, let alone wait two months to get it. What about that person? YOU may have money, but not all of us do.</p>
<p>It’s simple, without competition people aren’t motivated.If everyone gets equal amount of resources no matter what they do, then there is really nothing to strive for. Personally, I think every one should earn what he/she receives. Competition is something that keeps people motivated and is constantly improving society.</p>
<p>So do you believe people should die because they can’t afford health care? For example, should I cashier die of cancer simply because she didn’t “try harder” to become a lawyer instead?</p>
<p>Completely understand your side.</p>
<p>But waiting six months to get checked for free will get people killed even before the two month wait to get administered. </p>
<p>Like i said before, my USH teacher told me about that exact situation. The person died becuase of a physical trauma and had to wait for surgery.</p>
<p>What’s the point of ‘free’ (keep in mind it’s not really free becuase the people still pay) healthcare if it’s also going to cause delays that’ll eventually lead to the death of some people.</p>
<p>Socialism is detrimental to efficiency and innovation, and pure socialism isn’t in any way a realistic form of government.</p>
<p>I disagree and believe it is very easy for a kid to get out of the ghetto, or not as hard as you say. High School is free. Even “ghetto” high schools have some good teachers. (I go to one) It is not hard at all to graduate from high school and there is so much help available now. Community college is cheap and many students get federal/state aid. It can be done and it is not very hard to do so, even if you are not very smart. There are so many programs that motivate kids to go to college and I get disappointed when some kids ignore the help and do not care about their future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Socialism isn’t a political system, it’s an economic system.</p>
<p>Too bad a governing body is needed to regulate and maintain a socialist system.</p>
<p>There’s absolutely nothing wrong with socialism. It is just that we puny, flawed humans can’t adhere to its requirements. Some ambitious d-bag always comes along and seizes power.</p>
<p>^ lol</p>
<p>^^ No, i don’t think that’s the problem. If i do more work than you why should you earn the same as me? That’s the problem</p>
<p>When evaluating an economic organizing principle, one must take into account recent revelations in the discipline of [Behavioral</a> Economics](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics]Behavioral”>Behavioral economics - Wikipedia). </p>
<p>Not doing so turns a blind-eye to millions of years of evolution that influence basic human dynamics/interactions that have been honed by deep-seated concepts like fairness and reciprocity.</p>
<p>Some food for thought:</p>
<p>[ul][li][The</a> Marketplace of Perceptions](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/03/the-marketplace-of-perce.html]The”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/03/the-marketplace-of-perce.html): Behavioral economics explains why we procrastinate, buy, borrow, and grab chocolate on the spur of the moment.:[/li]
[li][A</a> Behavioral Laffer Curve: Emergence of a SocialNorm of Fairness in a Real Effort Experiment](<a href=“http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/04/59/PDF/Pre-print_Taxation_and_Laffer_JOEP_2008.pdf]A”>http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/04/59/PDF/Pre-print_Taxation_and_Laffer_JOEP_2008.pdf): a detailed research paper that may give some insight into the [‘Going</a> Galt’](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt]'Going”>John Galt - Wikipedia) phenonmenon.:[/li][quote]
This paper demonstrates, through a controlled experiment, that the “Laffer curve” phenomenon does not always reflect a conventional income - leisure trade-off. Whether out of reason or out of emotion, taxpayers may also be willing to punish intentionally unfair tax setters by working less than they would under the same exogenous circumstances…
[/quote]
[/ul]</p>
<p>lol at MeSsIaH as well… :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s the thing. The waits AREN’T six months. There are still emergency rooms and triage. Yes, the average wait is a few weeks ([Health</a> care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Healthcare in Canada - Wikipedia”>Healthcare in Canada - Wikipedia)). However, I don’t know about you, but wait times are about the same for treatment here. We’re not talking about doctor’s visits (where you’d get treatment for herpes, as per an earlier example), we’re talking about tests. My aunt, for example, just had a cancer relapse. Even though she is a top priority - and she is automatically triaged back whenever she goes to the ER - she had to wait two and a half weeks for a PET scan. AND it cost her $250 (on top of her health care costs). So how is Canada any different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, I would hope that no one would really think socialized health care is free. It is, however, more cost effective. Right now, we pay taxes, health insurance, AND copays and premiums. With socialized health care, we just pay (higher) taxes.</p>
<p>You might benefit from this counter-argument:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I’m not trying to say that wait times are ideal or are even something we should tolerate. But here are the facts. Right now, wealthy people either don’t wait or only wait a few weeks. Poor people don’t get health care at all. Why would it be so bad to expand wait times by a week just to cover everyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is where we differ. It certainly can be done. Having lived it - and not in an awful situation - it’s difficult. Living in a home below the poverty line means working to support oneself in addition to the family. For my low-income family, even the cost of community college was prohibitive. It’s not easy for everyone. I wouldn’t even consider it easy for most people. If it seems easy to you, then please, consider yourself lucky. I do.</p>
<p>screw canadian healthcare. quality over quantity, *****es.</p>
<p>^ I’m assuming you mean that they are quality (Canada) since we have one of the lowest ranked health care systems in the industrialized world.</p>
<p>I remember when I was in London over the summer how ****ed everyone was that Republicans were badmouthing NHS.</p>
<p>Applicannot: Obviously, six months is not an ‘across the board number’ but some waits do run for more a couple of weeks. And to my knowledge, the waits for both treatment, checkups AND doctor visits are longer in Canada than the U.S. </p>
<p>Scans, Special doctors and Surgery’s will give you an average of at least a month’s wait with 85% of people waiting 3 months or less???</p>
<p>Surgery/Scans…months?</p>
<p>I’ve been through a couple of scans (for my leg after Varsity Soccer) and none had to wait. None. Maybe it’s just New York but all the people i know who’ve required surgery/scans haven’t waited for it.</p>
<p>And yeah, to the ignorant: Healthcare in Canada isn’t free!..However, it’s very more cost effective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol. XD. lolcake approves.</p>