Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

First off, in America children do not go without health care, if they want to be subsidized by the government. Let me give you a personal example. Awhile back, I was in job transition, and my COBRA payment would be over $900 per month, and that was obviously too much.I found out my kids qualified for free health insurance from the government. In fact, I found out that there were years I paid insurance when my kids could have had free insurance. I think the cut-off is something like $50,000 adjusted gross income per year, and with various business deductions, we could meet have met that, at least one year.So when I started my own business, we let the children be on this plan until we started making too much money to qualify.But it's interesting that my wife didn't like to use it, and sometimes still paid out of pocket.Years before when we were truly poor for awhile, I wanted her to take the kids to get free immunizations, as they were available, and free check-ups, and she did, although she hated it because the way she felt treated, as a welfare Mom or something. My attitude was, hey, it's free so why not.Both of us come from somewhat affluent backgrounds and the idea didn't sit too well with her, and the funny thing is even when we could still qualify, she wouldn't do it if we could afford to pay for it ourselves. I felt the government will get it all back and more. In fact, we would never have used it when I lost my job a few years back except my daughter had an on-going, extremely expensive treatment.My point is there is a ton of money to cover every child in America with health insurance if the parents want it.But it doesn't cover their parents, which indirectly does not cover the child's family, but the idea that poor children don't have insurance available for free is wrong.The folks that get squeezed are people making too much to qualify, but that don't want to fork over $500 per month for full family coverage.This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 12:30 PM

Because it's a far better bet that letting Congress spend that money on whatever project they want to.

Shraf, there is a lot cheap, plastic stuff that people do need, and that's where you are sort of missing the point.The truth is the quality of goods, food, services has overall greatly increased in my lifetime. I am not saying the quality of life has improved, and I think that is your point, but you fail to realize that it's not just we have more Walmarts but we also have more coffee bars, more quality restaurants, more quality technology such as the computer you are typing on, etc,...So it's not that we have more cheap stuff. We have a lot more quality stuff as well, and much higher quality health care and other services.The issue though is whether with more high quality material goods, the whole man is better off, and perhaps that's more of a spiritual issue than commercial one.

Lam, why don't you read over my posts and then pose the questions intelligently with an understanding of what I have already said on the subject.

What a totally ignorant and false statement! Please tell us where American children (citizens not migrant workers or something like that) are living in Third World conditions. Maybe you don't understand what Third World conditions are.Children in the United States have available free schools, free food if they cannot afford it, and free medical services and health insurance if they are poor.The children that don't have insurance are children to working families that have some money, but don't wish to or cannot afford paying for health insurance. My kids can get free health insurance if I make 50K a year or under, but once over that amount, they do not qualify. So we don't qualify. With less kids, the threshold is less.There have been times where we went without health insurance despite living in a very expensive area, driving an Expedition, having my own company, etc,...because all of the sudden the bills were very tight, and $500 or more a month was too expensive.So there are families living in homes, driving cars, eating well, etc,...hardly Third World conditions, making 30k-100K per year without health insurance because it is so expensive. That doesn't mean they don't get treatment as emergencies are treated even without insurance, and some pay out of pocket as it is cheaper than insurance.This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 12:52 PM

quote:

---

What a totally ignorant and false statement! Please tell us where American children (citizens not migrant workers or something like that) are living in Third World conditions. Maybe you don't understand what Third World conditions are.

---

Detroit, parts of New York City, every major city in the US for that matter, the numerous trailer parks and rural areas with poor infrastructure, New Oreleans is a good example. Pull your head out of your butt randman and travel a bit around the world instead of living in your little neo con fantasy land. Almost none of the G7 countries have such wealth discrepancies, numbers of people living in slums, poor public services, lousy primary schools systems or such spotty health care coverage. There are more children (and adults)living in poverty in the US than virtually any country in Europe with the exception of some of the former Soviet states..and even they are pulling ahead. The standard of living of Germany, any country in Scandanavia, Austria, you name it puts the US to shame..and they have less money!

quote:

---

Children in the United States have available free schools, free food if they cannot afford it, and free medical services and health insurance if they are poor.

​

The children that don't have insurance are children to working families that have some money, but don't wish to or cannot afford paying for health insurance.

---

So children have health care unless they come from a family that cannot afford healthcare? Jeez, you contradicted yourself in two sentences.

quote:

---

So there are families living in homes, driving cars, eating well, etc,...hardly Third World conditions, making 30k-100K per year without health insurance because it is so expensive. That doesn't mean they don't get treatment as emergencies are treated even without insurance, and some pay out of pocket as it is cheaper than insurance.

---

Now who is ignorant? This would be great if nobody ever got sick or just needed their teeth cleaned...but you tell a single working parent or a couple at the lower income level who cannot afford insurance (43 million of them) that paying for cancer treatments, a car accident, heart disease a hospital stay is something you can just pay out of pocket with no insurance....since you prefer personal anecdotes to actual relevant data, I'll give an example of the US health care service..a friend and I were on a trip to New York last year and she ended up in the hospital sick for two nights....cost her $3,000! They gave her the wrong treatment so she ended up in the hospital again, but back in Germany..she got the right treatment..it cost 10 Euros....and the German health care paid her stupid bills from the US.Oh yeah, and with the exception of the US, nobody in any of the G7 countries has to even worry about losing their health care and being faced with catastrophic bills after treatment without insurance...they are all covered, and so are their children.

None of those places absent a natural disaster constitute Third World standards. I've been in those places, and lived for a brief period by choice in a slum neighborhood with my family.There is clean water and electricity in every one of those "slums." Many if not most have phones, and working pay phones are accessible usually. Most have TVs, and free broadcasting. Some have cable. When we fed hungry kids that had gone without, every time it was the result of their Moms selling their foodstamps. Food was available, but crack addicted parents didn't care to take proper care of their kids.The principal problem in those areas is not a lack if infrastructure or government programs. The real problem is moral and social, things like addiction, a culture of violence and bullying or establishing the pecking order, etc,....As far as getting by, the poor in those areas have housing, electricity, food, water, etc,...That's not the problem, as you are claiming.So quit overstating the case. Those areas are not Third World conditions, not even close!

My point is that poor children do have health coverage here in the US. What you stated was wrong, and really a lie.The children that are going without are from middle class families.So start being honest. You want to advocate a change in the health-care system? Fine. Quit overstating the situation and pretending American children are subject to Third World conditions.

That there is any health care for the very, very poor is thanks to Socialism.That there is no health care for the middle class is thanks to Capitalism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That there is such thing as modern medicine at all is also due to capitalism.

Is that why there are more Pharmaceutical Companies per capita in Germany or England than in the US? Or don't people get sick in Socialist societies?Is that why the US had to rely on foriegn suppliers for our Flu Vaccines last year?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, did it occur to you the fact that such companies exist is an indication of capitalism, not socialism? Corporations are a capitalist invention.

Companies randman, I said Companies. Now is there some reason there cannot be a company in a Socialist Society?And let's quite changing what people say and playing your game of move the goal posts.My original statement was:"That there is any health care for the very, very poor is thanks to Socialism.That there is no health care for the middle class is thanks to Capitalism."Let's deal with those two statements.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think my statement is fair. Capitalism produced modern medicine, not socialism.Let me give you a micro-example. My grandfather was being honored at Duke University which has an excellent med school. He graduated the med school first in his class, but has passed on now.One of the ways the Duke med school was able to attract doctors to do research was to allow them to have their own private, for-profit clinic so they could make more money treating patients. Even though some time would be taken away from research, Duke has proven the model works.At neighboring UNC, which also has an excellent med school, of which my father graduated from, the model is different because the State pays the salaries of the doctors and all employees including professors of the university. Neither is right or wrong, and you could argue that somehow UNC is more socialist, but really they are generally training doctors to work in private practice, as capitalists.My point here is that the simple fact modern medicine was produced and largely is maintained by the capitalist system.I do think as salaries lower, and there us more red-tape and more control by lawyers, beaurocrats either government or insurance companies, that we'll see more and more less of the best and brightest attracted to the medical profession with long-term consequences of declining innovation, but in the short-term the momentum of the past 100 years is so strong that coupled with technical advancements, that we will see a steady increase in health care solutions and quality of care for the next 50-60 years at least.

You're not addressing the questions once again. I'll blow your modern medicine argument away at a later date.My original statement was:"That there is any health care for the very, very poor is thanks to Socialism.That there is no health care for the middle class is thanks to Capitalism."Let's deal with those two statements.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion