Why did not socialism take off in the United States?

[Skylon]

Indeed.
In the arguments I get in over national health care, a lot of people say 'that's socialist' as if that alone is enough to damn the idea.

There are valid arguments against national health care, but just saying 'it's socialist' isn't one of them.

Just a question for those north of the border or in the UK, or elsewhere, has anyone had any major problems with the "socialist" health care system of Canada? The anti-socialist argument in the US tends to rail about how National Health Care will equal more ineffective government, and that the systems of other countries are equally inefficient.

It's also part of the Right-Wing's stance of "NEVER RAISE TAXES EVER, EVEN WHEN IT MAKES SENSE", which a National Health Care system would entail.

[Darth Wong]

Just a question for those north of the border or in the UK, or elsewhere, has anyone had any major problems with the "socialist" health care system of Canada?

I've used it plenty of times and never had a problem. I hear people in remote areas have trouble finding doctors, but that's not exactly something that a private health-care system would necessarily solve, and a private health-care system would introduce all kinds of new problems, like greedy insurers fucking you over.

The anti-socialist argument in the US tends to rail about how National Health Care will equal more ineffective government, and that the systems of other countries are equally inefficient.

The numbers say otherwise. The US has the least efficient health-care system in the world. They spend twice as much per capita as anybody else, and their health outcomes aren't any better.

It's also part of the Right-Wing's stance of "NEVER RAISE TAXES EVER, EVEN WHEN IT MAKES SENSE", which a National Health Care system would entail.

Canada's health-care system costs less per capita than the US medicare system.

[Flagg]

It's also part of the Right-Wing's stance of "NEVER RAISE TAXES EVER, EVEN WHEN IT MAKES SENSE", which a National Health Care system would entail.

Canada's health-care system costs less per capita than the US medicare system.

Which the RW would also love to get rid of. If they had their way the only ones getting government handouts would be millionairs and failing corporations.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I do find it so interesting how progressives like Patrick and the fellow he quoted, and deeply traditionalist individuals like myself, can basically agree on one single principle thing: Woodrow Wilson is responsible for most of the major failings in modern American society.

[Stark]

I do find it so interesting how progressives like Patrick and the fellow he quoted, and deeply traditionalist individuals like myself, can basically agree on one single principle thing: Woodrow Wilson is responsible for most of the major failings in modern American society.

I've read only one thing about Wilson (the events leading to his entry into WWI, basically) and *I* think he's a tard. It's fascinating that in highschool - in Australia, no less - you're basically taught that he entered WWI (which was a good thing) and started the League of Nations (but didn't work but was... I dunno... a good idea) and is thus a Great Man.

[Howedar]

That's pretty much what I got in the US schools, too.

[Stormin]

Just a question for those north of the border or in the UK, or elsewhere, has anyone had any major problems with the "socialist" health care system of Canada?

Well because of the long waiting times my bosses wife would have died from her cancer if they had waited in the Canadian system rather than going to the States and buying fast diagnosis and treatment.
It probably has more to do with a massively overloaded system in many areas rather than being socialist though.

[Darth Wong]

The American-style system will always have shorter waiting lines because they took the simple step of kicking 50 million people out of the line. If Canada kicked one sixth of our population out of the system, our wait times would drop too. And if we then doubled our per-capita spending, our health-care system would be a fucking five-star luxury hotel. And yet, despite the fact that we cover 100% of the population and pay half as much per capita, American politicians seize on any measure of performance where they beat us and say "Aha! Universal health-care is a disaster!"

[PeZook]

I seem to remember an article in one of our more pro-capitalism journals praising American health care based on statistics like the amount of computer tomographs and other hi-tech diagnostic devices per capita. There is a major battle in Poland about what to do with our failing health care system, and it's quite amazing when you compare arguments of both sides: the right says the precise same things, word for word, as american conservatives.

I find it funny that no pro-privatization proponents try to compare actual, meaningful statistics, like average lifespans, prevalence of certain diseases in society, cost of health care per capita etc.

They harp on things like diagnostic devices without considering who has access to them, which is what health care is all about.

[Stark]

It's amazing to me that the US can have a good ratio of imagers/population, when diagnostic imaging is apparently quite expensive in the US. Do they sit around much of the time doing nothing? Are people with good health cover getting scanned for a laugh?

[PeZook]

It's amazing to me that the US can have a good ratio of imagers/population, when diagnostic imaging is apparently quite expensive in the US. Do they sit around much of the time doing nothing? Are people with good health cover getting scanned for a laugh?

IIRC, it's because of the pay system for docs. I'm not exactly sure how it works (duh. I don't even live there ) But I read somewhere that docs are paid per test, and face a crippling threat of litigation if they do something wrong, so they schedule a shitload of tests (many times, completely unncecessary) just to be sure (and get more buck). Therefore, a lot of unnecessary tests are performed, and even with a good ration of imagers/population the supply still doesn't quite meet demand.

[Starglider]

It's amazing to me that the US can have a good ratio of imagers/population, when diagnostic imaging is apparently quite expensive in the US. Do they sit around much of the time doing nothing? Are people with good health cover getting scanned for a laugh?

A bit of both; the scanning machine sales reps are (presumably) great at convincing hospital governing board to keep splashing out on them, doctors that they need to use them whenever possible and patients that they're not getting proper treatment unless they're scanned before diagnosis.

Fortunately this particular money pit is likely to go away due to scanners eventually getting much cheaper, but I'm sure the health services industry will have moved on to other cash cows.

[Darth Wong]

It's amazing to me that the US can have a good ratio of imagers/population, when diagnostic imaging is apparently quite expensive in the US. Do they sit around much of the time doing nothing? Are people with good health cover getting scanned for a laugh?

It's actually a side-effect of the for-profit model. Tests are expensive, you can easily convince someone that he needs all of them, and you can bill them to the insurance company for big bucks.

The fact is that in a perfect world, everybody could get any test he wanted whenever he wanted, for free, if only to forestall the remote possibility that he has a problem. But that would cost an unlimited amount of money in reality, so it's a ridiculous solution. Instead, doctors try to decide who should be tested for what. In the American consumer-driven system, patients with enough money and coverage demand tests and get them at will (charging the insurance companies and driving up costs), while the tens of millions of people with neither can simply hope for the best.

[Starglider]

The fact is that in a perfect world, everybody could get any test he wanted whenever he wanted, for free, if only to forestall the remote possibility that he has a problem. But that would cost an unlimited amount of money in reality, so it's a ridiculous solution.

Testing is actually the most promising area for cost cutting. Between non-superconducting imaging, mass-produced lab-on-chip technology, various nanotech-based hyper-sensitive-and-specific chemical tests and dirt cheap processing power, there's a lot of scope for cost reduction (and putting med techs out of work). Eventually we probably will start implanting people (at least at-risk ones) with a minature health monitoring sensor suite as a matter of course - the first steps have already been taken. Unfortunately however you still need an expensive doctor or specialist to absorb all that information and do something with it - progress in AI may be able to help with that but it has serious liability issues.

[PeZook]

Testing is actually the most promising area for cost cutting. Between non-superconducting imaging, mass-produced lab-on-chip technology, various nanotech-based hyper-sensitive-and-specific chemical tests and dirt cheap processing power, there's a lot of scope for cost reduction (and putting med techs out of work). Eventually we probably will start implanting people (at least at-risk ones) with a minature health monitoring sensor suite as a matter of course - the first steps have already been taken. Unfortunately however you still need an expensive doctor or specialist to absorb all that information and do something with it - progress in AI may be able to help with that but it has serious liability issues.

Also, more efficient testing saves costs (both human and $$$) on treatment later, which is a big boon to everyone involved in health care. Unfortunately, until we move to a post-scarcity economy (which probably will never happen...), any amount of expense still won't be able to provide all tests for everyone, anywhere on demand.

[MKSheppard]

In this essay, which originally was a chapter in his book The Politics Of War, historian Walter Karp describes in grisly detail the lasting damage Wilsonianism inflicted on the American republic

I love this part especially:

In a searing civil conflict that threatened the very survival of the republic, Americans, under Lincoln, enjoyed every liberty that could possibly be spared. In a war safely fought three thousand miles from our shores, Americans, under Wilson, lost every liberty they could possibly be deprived of.



He needs to read some history, especially of the Maryland area, and Baltimore.

[salm]

How long can these waiting times in Canada actually be? I´ve been to the hospital for several injuries of different degrees now and have never had to wait for anything over here, nor have i ever heard of anybody having to wait for treatment.
Perhaps i´m just badly informed and have always been lucky, though, since i don´t really know much about this topic.

[PeZook]

How long can these waiting times in Canada actually be? I´ve been to the hospital for several injuries of different degrees now and have never had to wait for anything over here, nor have i ever heard of anybody having to wait for treatment.
Perhaps i´m just badly informed and have always been lucky, though, since i don´t really know much about this topic.

There's always gonna be sob stories of people who died while in the waiting line. It may sound callous to say, but that's irrelevant - what counts are statistics. When somebody tries to use the argument "But the waiting times in Canada are too long!" then you can retaliate swiftly by asking "How long, exactly? Do you know the averages?"

Yes, people will die because they lack access to treatments. It's unfortunate, but that's life. Resources have to be managed, and they are limited. It's the age-old question: Do we treat one child with a horrible, debilitating, slow-killing disease with an extremely expensive operation, or do we help a hundred other children with crippling-but-not-quite as horrible diseases that are easily treated?

[K. A. Pital]

Using more resources on general national health measures, such as total vaccinatin, local clinics, baby care results in a higher life expectancy which, in practice, means less dead chilren, babies and elderly.

Whereas spending shitloads of money for an expensive treatment for some rich guy in a private clinic doesn't improve national health. It only improves the health of this individual, and at a massive cost to the whole society.

Of course, libertopia morons will scream about "punishing success".

[PeZook]

Of course, libertopia morons will scream about "punishing success".

I prefer to think about this as "Allowing other people to succeed, too, rather than letting them die in the gutter."

[Keevan_Colton]

Of course, libertopia morons will scream about "punishing success".

I prefer to think about this as "Allowing other people to succeed, too, rather than letting them die in the gutter."

This is why Ebeneezer Scrooge would be the ideal libertarian candidate for President. He's very much of the "Pick a gutter, any gutter" mold.

[MKSheppard]

There's another more serious reason why socialism never worked; or class warfare never really took off -- American history is just too full of people who made it big from nothing; it's what we get taught in skuel -- Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, the Wrights, Abe Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, hell, Clinton too.

[PeZook]

There's another more serious reason why socialism never worked; or class warfare never really took off -- American history is just too full of people who made it big from nothing; it's what we get taught in skuel -- Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, the Wrights, Abe Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, hell, Clinton too.

Another factor is that you didn't have an indentured servant class for circa 1,500 years who spent all this time working the fields and resenting their lords. This is the reason Europe had a strong socialist movement form at the start of the XXth century: the peasants of Europe have started realizing their political power, and the rise of nationalism enabled them to form an identity as those who "Defend and feed" (that's one popular slogan from the time of the Kosciuszko insurrections in Poland).

In Russia, their horrible lot in life and resentment for nobility caused the Revolution ; In other countries of Europe it went more peacefully, with socialist/peasant parties forming and gradually wrestling some of the power away from established nobility. Obviously, they felt the state should help the common man more than it did, and so they started various social programs. Of course, it was somewhat more complicated, and a lot of prominent socialist politicians were noblemen themselves. And, even more obviously, the way socialist trends developed differed tremendously from country to country.

America, on the other hand, started anew without all that baggage. On yet another hand, this process may still lay ahead of you

[Darth Wong]

There's another more serious reason why socialism never worked; or class warfare never really took off -- American history is just too full of people who made it big from nothing; it's what we get taught in skuel -- Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, the Wrights, Abe Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, hell, Clinton too.

So? There are plenty of entrepreneurs elsewhere who made big money too. Canada has plenty of homegrown billionaires. The biggest problem is the American Calvinist mindset. How else to explain the utter lack of sympathy for the poor? The fact that there are billionaires? None of them ever start from poverty; the typical big-money mogul started from an upper middle-class background. The "rags to riches" story generally happens only at the lottery.

[Paradox244]

The fact that there are billionaires? None of them ever start from poverty; the typical big-money mogul started from an upper middle-class background. The "rags to riches" story generally happens only at the lottery.

To be fair, that's not entirely true. I know that Oprah came from a very poor background, although she's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. To be frank, I'm still on the fence on the whole issue.