Socialism and in particular socialized healthcare is inherently bad because there will be long lines

>socialism and in particular socialized healthcare is inherently bad because there will be long lines

>go into pharmacy in America, wait in line to get to the register to not be able to afford your medications

We can glean a few things from this anecdote.

a.) While a socialist state may have lines, those lines still exist in a capitalist state, albeit to a "lesser" extent.

b.) Any lack of lines that exist under capitalism are strictly benefiting from the inability to afford medication or goods, i.e. the only reason there aren't lines is because people cannot afford the goods necessary to care for themselves.

c.) If it is not a state's responsibility to serve and care for it's people, then what responsibility do people have to benefit the state and employers by working. There is more incentive to work under a socialist state because your quality of life is dependent on the work produced, as opposed to capitalism where you quality of life does not change much whether you are a good worker or not, however, no matter your quality of work, you employer and the business owners benefit ten fold.

d.) The only ethical economic system is socialism. Capitalism is barbaric and would rather have its subject die due to economic inequality, than provide egalitarian access to healthcare

And what incentives are there for deciding to be a hard worker or a poor worker under socialism? Why should I bust my ass while I watch Jim and Jane not giving a flying fuck?

why don't you move to commiefornia and secede from the US faggot

Pure capitalism and pure socialism are both retarded. A mixture of both is the best system, which is why that's how every modern industrialized nation is.

Because the incentive is progress. The incentive is to create the society which we want to live in.

On the other hand of the spectrum, where is the incentive in capitalism? One can be a proficient worker, and not be properly compensated for their work.

Socialism offers the opportunity to lift yourself and those around you up exponentially. Plus, have the freedom to pursue leisure activities and hobbies. For example, what would you want to do? You can be free to do that and offer that good to people, unlike capitalism where you have to work whatever job you begrudgingly fall into so you can afford your bills.

>Because the incentive is progress. The incentive is to create the society which we want to live in.
Doesn't work.
>On the other hand of the spectrum, where is the incentive in capitalism? One can be a proficient worker, and not be properly compensated for their work.
False, workers are properly compensated.

>Posts Communist Flag
>CommunismSocialism
>Communism is the common and societal ownership of everything.
>Socialism is the common and societal ownership of the means of production and natural resources.

[spoiler] Commie chic assholes like you are cancer. [/spoiler]

>Socialism offers the opportunity to lift yourself and those around you up exponentially.
It explicitly does not because it forces everyone to be equal for no reason. Competition can only happen through capitalism

That said, I support nationalised health systems as I believe that is one of the few areas (the others being law enforcement and defence) that the state should be responsible for

More like create the society you want to live in. I like the way things are just fine.

There is no logical mix between the two. As long as the two sides are in competition, there will always be someone disgruntled.

The only people who benefit from capitalism, or a mix of the two are the wealthiest business owners. There employees are left feeling the sting.

In fact, most Wal Mart employees are subsidized by social welfare programs. So the business owners will work their employees dry, and expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, all the while bemoaning that they want to pay less taxes.

There can be no mix between the two in an ethical state. The only ethical economic system is a socialist one.

Make your quotas at a 9 to 5 or make them in a gulag.

>False, workers are properly compensated.

They are not. They are paid slave wages which keep them stuck their economic rut. Welfare and credit lending is a trap. And the business owners keep their employees stuck in that trap.

Capitaism is nessessary and works for most things. However, some things just can't be done for the profit margin, and profiting off of other peoples misfortunes in their health is certainly one of them. We need socialized medicine.

>There is no logical mix between the two.
False. Use the right tool for the right job.
>As long as the two sides are in competition, there will always be someone disgruntled.
There will always be someone disgruntled no matter what you do. No system is perfect, only optimal.
>The only people who benefit from capitalism, or a mix of the two are the wealthiest business owners.
False, regular people benefit as well.
>There employees are left feeling the sting.
False.
>In fact, most Wal Mart employees are subsidized by social welfare programs.
True, which I don't approve of. This is regulatory failure rather than an argument for socialism / against capitalism however.
>There can be no mix between the two in an ethical state. The only ethical economic system is a socialist one.
False.

>So the business owners will work their employees dry, and expect the taxpayers to foot the bill
Are you suggesting that businesses somehow currently pay less tax than the floor sweeper? I feel like you're 14 and don't understand how tax and economy works, source: I was a retarded communist at 14 too

That depends entirely on the skill of their accountants.

>paid
>slave
>wages
One of these things is not like the others

>They are not.
They are. They are paid what their labor is worth in the free market, down to the regulatory minimum. You have to keep in mind that the employee is not taking the economic risk that the employer is taking. Less risk, less reward.

Competition is not the only way for progress. Capitalism has forged a moral misconception that competition is the only way, but if our values change, so does our outlook.

It is capitalism that keeps you chasing the proverbial carrot that is materialism. It is a system of haves and have nots. It wants you to feel better about yourself at the expense of others. It is unethical and horribly flawed.

When you work on something for yourself, do you not do it passionately?

No it doesn't. There's plenty to avoid for sure and they all want to keep as much money as possible (like all of us), but big businesses still pay more in tax each week than the little guy pays in his entire life

Stay mad, kid

...

...

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world and yet because of socialism, there is a nationwide shortage of gasoline. Democratic socialism may sound good on paper (to lazy fucks) but it does not work in real life. It never has worked. National Socialism worked because it let people retain private property and sow the rewards of their work.

You're the one who said about lifting yourself up, hard to do that when you're scraping shit off potatoes to light lamps with because there's no energy provider

...

National Socialism "worked" by effectively mortgaging Germany to create the illusion of prosperity after a severe depression.

here is your you so desperately wanted

This is exactly what I am speaking about. Capitalism only works for the wealthy. The poor and middle class feel the sting of economic inequality. The middle class though fancies themselves as having upward social mobility, so they don't question the status quo, and they ignore just how bad that have it.

Socialism solves all the problems of capitalism. No more homelessness, no more hunger, no more debt. A clean slate to bring the state or the nation forward, hand in hand, in progress.

>what their labor is worth in the free market, down to the regulatory minimum

And without that minimum, which is a socialist convention mind you, the employer would pay them less. Less than a living wage. Do you need a reminder of the early industrial revolution? Children workers, meager pay, no days off. That is your precious free market at work. The only thing that makes the free marker viable are socialist interventions, and due to that, socialism is an economic system that will benefit all, not just a few.

Can you refute any of those points with insight?

Because socialism is the only optimal system for an ethical society. Nobody benefits except the wealthy. All others simply trudge along, living paycheck to paycheck.

Why would this happen? This happens in America. If people can't afford their electric bill, they get their power turned off.

Nobody will turn your power off if it is provided by the state.

In fact, you have less of a chance having your power turned off under socialism than you do under capitalism.

>And without that minimum, which is a socialist convention mind you
Hence why a mixed system is best.
>Can you refute any of those points with insight?
You haven't presented a case to be refuted, but it's simple enough. Capitalism results in innovation and efficiency, which improves the lives of everyone, not just the wealthy. The average poor person now is way better off than the average poor person from just a few centuries ago.

A lot of people here don't know the first thing about socialism or capitalism. Socialism is Democratic control over there means of production. Not whatever the government does.

>your rights end where my freedom begins
>the weak gets weeded out by the strong
>freedom of speech is unlimited
>the state is a ponzi scheme
these are the indisputable facts of reality

No, because capitalism is dragging the whole thing down.

Socialism is bring everyone up.

Hence why socialism is the superior system.

The state is not, by definition, a ponzi scheme. It collects revenue and provides valuable services.

I reject your assertions.

Credit lenders, rent, and interest rates are a racket in the strictest sense of the word.

The issue is not government, the issue is economics and business. The free market is the problem.

Pharmacy won't be bad. Just doctor visits. My friend in Canada has socialized health Care, and also paid for American health Care. When he really needs to go to a doctor, he drives about an hour and a half to Buffalo to see a doctor. In Canada it's about a 3 week wait

the state steals money, redistribute it through the welfare system to give the illusion and keeps a big chunk for itself as payment.

the more users of the welfare system, the more income the state gets and the grander the illusion of prosperity will be.

that's a ponzi scheme

No, they are not. Debt is an incredibly useful tool that, when used properly, dramatically grows an economy, benefiting everyone.

That's what I go through. I am a union worked. So we all get the same pay and overtime. Even though I work hard and some people don't. And some times I have to finish their work and they still get a check every week that matches mine.
UNIONS ARE A FORM OF SOCIALISM

That doesn't even follow.

I'm in that area, and I recently had an issue with my insurance. I have a $1400 bill from my dentist that I cannot afford, and I'm worried about my wisdom teeth.

I would much rather wait a couple weeks to see a doctor and not have to worry about if my bills are going to put me in the poor house than be told if you can't afford health care, you might as well risk dying.

It is corrupt and inhumane. There is no reason a developed country cannot provide care to its people.

It is great your friend can afford that, but what about the people who cannot? This is my issue, the system only benefits some, whereas we could have a system that benefits all. But the some think it is unfair for anyone who doesn't have the cash to be cared for.

>owing money and being in a debt cycle for your entire life benefits everyone.

I don't typically resort to Sup Forums levels of name calling, but you're retarded.

A Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme is a scam in which people are persuaded to invest through promises of unusually high returns, with early investors paid their returns out of money put in by later investors.

only difference is that with the government, you are forced to invest by taxation under the threat of violence

Not an argument. What you fail to realize is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and there's no reason that you have to be in a debt cycle for your entire life.

You know, somewhere there is someone sitting down with their family claiming they're a harder worker than you.

Would you prefer the alternative, to work 120 hours a week, Monday through Sunday with little to no safety regulations for 30 cents a month?

Because that is what Rockefeller would have wanted. Sorry someone unionized to give you fair pay.

Right, but the line "the more users of the welfare system, the more income the state gets and the grander the illusion of prosperity will be." does not follow. You are also ignoring the real services that government provides (e.g. criminal justice system). Your complaint is with welfare, not government in general.

Idiot Trumptards think don the con is going to make health care better and cheaper.

they are only paid "poorly" because their work is not valuable enough. If they want higher pay they ask for it, but if there is a worker who will do the same job for less pay, the employer will hire him. It is the basic principle of demand and supply.

And tax funded well fare just makes it worse because it causes inflation in the lower wages.

>And without that minimum, which is a socialist convention mind you, the employer would pay them less
what is demand?

Umm no. Go to skandinavia that used to have excellent healthcare, everything is getting downgraded and the lines are long. I live now in the US and have gotten better and quick healthcare here. Ofcourse I can afford insurance. But the notion that socialist healthcare is good or can be afforded in long run is ridiculous. Right now the systems are breaking because of the immigration all over Europe.

You've obviously never run a business or #4 wouldn't have ever crossed your mind as a serious thought

the more tax the state can steal, the more it can invest in various extensions of itself, distribute to citizens through various services and expand itself. the more tax, the more prosperous the state appears.

the state is basically a financial leech, that can't produce an income of it's own and thus parasites on other people's income by enforcing itself as a "force of good"

most services are unwanted & self-gratifying. the law & order is one such thing. the police's real job is enforcing the government rules and protect it when reality doesn't match the ideals.

law & order works best when it's enforced by the people, not the state. most people doesn't even agree with the large parts law, and yet they are forced to follow it.

i live in sweden. have you ever had a relative sick with cancer die, because the hospital was understaffed? i have. and i have several relatives & friends who suffer under sweden horrible health care

your uncle didnt die because the hospital was understaffed. He died because he had cancer.

That's a good thing, its evolution working.

Denmark disagrees

>the more tax the state can steal
First off, the state isn't "stealing" taxes, it's collecting the taxes that the people have empowered it to collect. Second, that isn't what you were saying. If you are using the welfare system, you are not going to contributing more income to the state.
>the state is basically a financial leech
Yes, it's supposed to be. It is not meant to be a for-profit enterprise.
>that can't produce an income of it's own and thus parasites on other people's income
Taxes are its income, to fund the services it provides.
>most services are unwanted & self-gratifying
If the services are truly unwanted, vote to change them.
> the law & order is one such thing
Law & order is very much wanted.
>the police's real job is enforcing the government rules
Which it created after being empowered by the people.
>law & order works best when it's enforced by the people
No, it doesn't. Mob justice doesn't work and privatized justice creates a mismatched incentive.
>most people doesn't even agree with the large parts law, and yet they are forced to follow it.
You are free to try to change the law. If you don't feel that you can, you are free to leave.

Blimey, what an idiot

wasn't an uncle, it was an aunt, and she died waiting in line for treatment, because there was no room in the hospital.

if i take money from you wallet against your will, is that not stealing?

Yes, it's supposed to be. It is not meant to be a for-profit enterprise.
>that's why it sucks. it can't be hold liable
Taxes are its income, to fund the services it provides.
>no taxes are theft to fund services the state needs to stay relevant
Law & order is very much wanted.
>real law yes. the state law is for it's protection
Which it created after being empowered by the people.
>nope. when people gets angry, the law protects the state
>Mob justice doesn't work and privatized justice creates a mismatched incentive.
>people have more incentive to care for a service they pay for
You are free to try to change the law.
>you can't you can only disobey it and get punished for it

...

Your relative died from cancer and you're mad, but being mad at cancer is stupid so you shift the blame to the hospital.

...

>if i take money from you wallet against your will, is that not stealing?
If I have an agreement with you that you're going to give me money, it isn't stealing when I demand that you give it to me.
>that's why it sucks. it can't be hold liable
It's held liable every election.
>no taxes are theft to fund services the state needs to stay relevant
Not theft, and the people have declared that they want the services by continuing to support them.
>nope. when people gets angry, the law protects the state
The law protects the people. The state represents the people.
>people have more incentive to care for a service they pay for
Privatized criminal justice systems are incentivized to convict as many people as they can and hold them for as long as they can. This isn't a hypothetical either, there are real world examples of this occurring.
>you can't you can only disobey it and get punished for it
False.

Risk:reward. The owners take the greater risk, therefore the owners get a greater reward. Employees are not liable if the company goes under.

You have c. all wrong. In a Socialist system you have exactly the same quality of life. Exactly what the government says you can have. You can't move up because there is no up. Capitalism on the other hand, the harder you work the more you make.

Demand is the worker's demand to provide food and shelter to his family.
Without regulations like minimum wage he'd be paid just enough to keep him alive and able for a maybe a few years.

After a few years he'll be worn down and replaced by fresh meat, like the commodity he is. Without regulations there's always more fresh meat looking for an opportunity to work themselves into an early grave for a meagre living.

you're arguing semantics right off the bat

>lines = lines no matter what you still have humans not being treated instantaneously.

poor start to a poor thread. get it? cause socialist countries are poor.

Neither are the fucking owners. What is the 2008 financial crisis? Companies will always lay employees off before letting their stock price take a hit. It's how capitalism works, businesses are not in business for the general welfare of people. They want to make a fucking dollar.

so you're saying we can all pursue our collective dream of being art teachers and all sell that service? lol ok guy, I'm sure no one will ever be forced to work a job they have no passion for under socialist regime

The problem with Socialism is there are many dissatisfied people because it does not take into account human nature. Competition is part of life, that is why people brag about having the prettiest wife or nicest house. People don't want all the same.

>Neither are the fucking owners.
The owners are liable though, at the very least for the amount invested.
>Companies will always lay employees off before letting their stock price take a hit.
Yes, but all the employees lose is the job. They have no greater exposure to the financial conditions of the company than that unless they purposefully exposed themselves (by becoming part-owners). The stock holders are the ones risking their money.
>It's how capitalism works, businesses are not in business for the general welfare of people. They want to make a fucking dollar.
Yes, and this is a good thing.

Equality is a lie. It's the search for the lowest common denominator. It destroys every great thing it comes in contact with.

Do you even know what the fucking bailout was? None of those guys lost money, even though they were committing fraud and should have been jailed. AIG was giving its execs bonuses and stock options when it just received billions of dollars from the government.

You are disconnected from reality if you think that paycheck to paycheck workers had less exposure than the CEO's. Do you even know what economies of scale are? A dollar is worth a whole lot more to someone who makes 1000 dollars month vs someone who makes 10000000 a month. This system doesn't even help our economic growth either, it makes no sense to have a vast underclass of people who can't buy things. 1 rich person buys far fewer goods and services than 10,000 middle class people.

>Do you even know what the fucking bailout was?
Yes, I do. You'll also note that bailouts are a result of socialism, not capitalism.
>AIG was giving its execs bonuses and stock options when it just received billions of dollars from the government.
Executives are employees. Again, note that "from the government" part.
>You are disconnected from reality if you think that paycheck to paycheck workers had less exposure than the CEO's.
All I'm doing is stating facts. Uninvested workers only risked their jobs, nothing more.
>Do you even know what economies of scale are?
Sure, but that is literally irrelevant to what we are currently discussing.
>This system doesn't even help our economic growth either
Actually, yes, it does.

Your defence of the state is odd, as states are a class formation of the bourgeoisie. The modern state was born in order to ensure the reproduction of capitalism.

'socialism = the state doing stuff' is to believe in state capitalism. The state merely takes on the role of the bourgeoisie. The soviet union, for all of its good and bad, being an example.

Marx's socialism is qualitatively different to capitalism in that it is about worker ownership of the means of production. Not private ownership or state ownership - worker ownership.

Empowering the state is to empower an enemy of the working class.

Ever noticed how most people who claim to speak for the workers don't even work at all? Also they come from upper middle class families and never share their wealth with the poor.