quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine
My wife's nephew (nephew-in-law?) and his wife have a baby with an obscure genetic glitch (a mutation, apparently, neither parent has it) that means he can't eat properly. He gets most of his food through a valve straight into his stomach. Despite having nearly starved before they found a way to feed him, he seems to be developing normally now apart from being half the size he should be.
Since they live in Sweden, I wasn't surprised at the quality of care they'd had from the state hospitals, from the prenatalists who'd seen that the pregnacy was going wrong, to the geneticists who identified the problem and the surgeons who fitted a stent on a patient the size of a child's doll. I'd have expected as much from our own NHS. But what impressed my socks off is that, now that he's coming up to the age when all Swedish children are entitled to free daycare, the local nursery has arranged a special attendant for him, and a separate room where he can be introduced to normal children two or three at a time till they get used to having to treat him carefully. There, the UK is still way behind.
The thing is, this couple are not welfare scroungers. They bought a local business that was ticking over, and are working their tails off building it up till it's employing local labour and bringing trade to the area. They're exactly the kind of enterprising capitalists that conservative theory says can't exist in a "socialist" economy like Sweden's, but who in reality are the basis of Scandinavia's prosperity. And they can go on doing what they do, creating wealth and employment, because they have that kind of safety net when a personal crisis strikes.
Without that system, they'd have had to sell everything they own trying to pay for the baby's treatment, including the business. And then they would be welfare scroungers, and the state and the local area would be poorer for it. For that, they pay taxes at rates that would make most Americans reach for a gun. But Scandinavia's economy came through the storm in good shape (due to their old-fashioned belief that factories are more useful than banks,) so they can afford it.
When I read "Atlas Shrugged" I noticed that there are no children in it, no very old people, and nobody in the least bit sick. (There aren't even any doctors, except once when the plot absolutely demands it, and he's hustled away in two paragraphs.) Rand's "root, hog, or die" philosophy only works for the young and fit: so like most economic theorists, she rewrites reality to fit the theory.
There was once a large faction in conservatism that recognised that keeping everyone healthy, and raising educated civilised kids, was good for the country and good for business, and that it was smart business to leave jobs like that to the government so that money people could concentrate on making money. Nowadays, they'd be damned as socialists.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphin2

Yay! An argument from anecdotal example! Surely, you've convinced everyone that socialism is better just because you found one person who did OK!

Except of course for all of those who DID live in socialist countries and can give you 1000s of examples of how socialized medicine sucks. Or even those in UK/Canada who can give you such examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphin2

Yay! An argument from anecdotal example! Surely, you've convinced everyone that socialism is better just because you found one person who did OK!

Except of course for all of those who DID live in socialist countries and can give you 1000s of examples of how socialized medicine sucks. Or even those in UK/Canada who can give you such examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

I freely admit that what I only know about Sweden's benefits from what I have read. But, if what Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries do is considered socialism, let's have it. Health care is run as a public service there, not one more piggy bank like it is here. Even Scandinavian prisons, considered "soft" here, offer legitimate therapy to inmates who want or need it. Hell, a Swedish inmate gets better medical treatment than I do now. The difference to me appears to be that those countries practice socialism as it was probably intended, with a focus on the citizens, instead of socialism as a euphemism for dictatorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphin2
Or even those in UK/Canada who can give you such examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphin2
Or even those in UK/Canada who can give you such examples.

To be clear, while we might have criticisms of the NHS, you can count the number of Brits who would prefer the US system on one hand. Because whatever the issues (and the NHS is by no means perfect), at least we don't have vast numbers dying of preventable diseases because they can't afford healthcare.

This isn't even a left/right thing here. Outside from a few libertarians, nobody wants to replace the NHS with a fully private system. Because we've seen how it works for you. It's shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

Socialism could be good, but it is not a stable system long term. Most often it does not produce enough wealth to support the benefits, and in long run there is a big trouble. History clearly shows it. Do we ever learn from history? I do speculate socialism would be good for high oil or natural mineral deposits wealth countries. It rarely happens: robber barons take over by force.
The other negative aspect of socialism often occurring is its terror against an individual, forced collectivism, political correctness, and other forms of stupidity.
Small scale socialism example in the US would be a state university campus. The workers have good benefits and job security, productivity is low, it survives only because of wealth input from outside the system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

Socialism could be good, but it is not a stable system long term. Most often it does not produce enough wealth to support the benefits, and in long run there is a big trouble. History clearly shows it. Do we ever learn from history? I do speculate socialism would be good for high oil or natural mineral deposits wealth countries. It rarely happens: robber barons take over by force.
The other negative aspect of socialism often occurring is its terror against an individual, forced collectivism, political correctness, and other forms of stupidity.
Small scale socialism example in the US would be a state university campus. The workers have good benefits and job security, productivity is low, it survives only because of wealth input from outside the system.

Are you not aware that the scandinavian nations, all socialist, have a much lower debt level than the US?

Also you seem to have confused communism and socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

Socialism could be good, but it is not a stable system long term. Most often it does not produce enough wealth to support the benefits, and in long run there is a big trouble. History clearly shows it. Do we ever learn from history? I do speculate socialism would be good for high oil or natural mineral deposits wealth countries. It rarely happens: robber barons take over by force.
The other negative aspect of socialism often occurring is its terror against an individual, forced collectivism, political correctness, and other forms of stupidity.
Small scale socialism example in the US would be a state university campus. The workers have good benefits and job security, productivity is low, it survives only because of wealth input from outside the system.

Are you not aware that the scandinavian nations, all socialist, have a much lower debt level than the US?

Also you seem to have confused communism and socialism.

Scandinavian countries are stable only in the microcosm that we are looking at them now. They have extremely low birth rates, high immigration rates.

They are sheltered by being in a political union with other states that are significantly more capitalistic than they: germany, poland, the baltic states, etc.

They are sheltered militarily by the United States.

None of these conditions are long term sustainable.