" Liberalness ... a mental disorder "

yeah.

rotten apples to oranges.

 

Yeah, I can see why rationing care would be rotten too.

 

Please explain this one?

 

You don't think rationing care is rotten? I do.

Most likely doesn't happen too often where you are from because your population is only 5 percent of ours. I know it happens in Denmark a few times and their population is 1 percent of the US.

What I'm merely trying to say is that rationing care sucks.

 

Denmark is not only a capitalist country, it is a racist one too, with very strict immigration controls, and it has a right wing government. The government is a coalition including conservatives and as far as I know the racist Dansk Folkeparti. They support the government anyway and have 25 seats, I dont think they have any actual ministers. The Prime Minister is a member of the right wing party Venstre, and the Social Democrats, the second largest party, are in opposition.

By the way, this test they make immigrants do, how hard is it? Do they expect all the immigrants to be qualified in law or something?

 

Crediting just about anything Michael Savage says is a mental disorder.

 

Wikipedia is good for something after all.

Having strict immigration laws doesn't make them racist. And they're not capitalist. And the Prime Mister is only part of one political party, not two. So, too bad it couldn't help you there.

Let's just say you most likely wouldn't pass it.

 

Japan has universal health care and their national debt is 194.87% of their GDP. How does that math add up? And their economy is probably 10 times Australia. Japan's is the 3rd largest economy in the world.
Japan is now on their SIXTH Prime Minister in just 5 years. The absolute model of stability,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,And their universal health care is a shambles.

 

With all due respect James, you have no idea what you are talking about and neither has your dictionary or encyclopaedia.

"Socialism promotes collective government ownership by Democratic means. Communism promotes collective government ownership by class revolution and violent means."

This is rubbish. Written by some clueless person.

Here is Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto:

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. "

Engels in Principles of Communism:

"What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat."

Lenin 1918:

"Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy..."

By 1917, Lenin and Trotsky used the word socialism to mean the stage between capitalism and communism. In fact there would be a transition of a generation or two before even socialism could be built, let alone communism. Lenin said they hadn't even built the foundations of a socialist economy.


You are wrong, there is no violence necessary. Two people died in the Russian revolution.

You are wrong, socialism and communism are the same thing, and they are far more democratic than capitalism, a million times more.

The Bolsheviks were part of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Their government was a democratic coalition. There was no democracy before the revolution.

They ended WW1 in which 3 million Russian had died.

They gave the land to the hungry peasants.

There was no need for violence, and in the first half of 1918, in a backward country in the middle of a world war and revolution, they executed less people than were executed in Texas under George Bush.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Try learning some facts.

This is an example of a stupid post including a stupid video, two good examples of stupidity.

 

rubbish, The CCP are not communists, China was never communist, it was never even intended to be, Mao wanted China to be capitalist. Did you know that?

"uninsurance is to blame for some 44,789 adult deaths across the U.S. every year, according to a new study published online today in the American Journal of Public Health. "

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17

Well there is always gonna be a degree of rationing. But if we nationalised the drugs companies the drugs would cost half as much so a lot of the financial strain would be removed. Also the British waste a lot of money on the PFI scam, private contractors building hospitals for the NHS at a lot more cost than the government could do it for.

The American healthcare is just rationed to the wealthy.

It says terminally ill people may be denied treatment.

This is one individual case.

No they dont. In this report America had longer waiting times than the UK

http://getbetterhealth.com/wait-times-for-medical-care-how-the-us-actually-measures-up/2010.02.02

I said turn off the thing that corrects mistakes, not spell-check itself.

Of course:

CANADA:
"Private property is well protected. The judiciary is independent, and judges and civil servants are generally honest. Foreign investors have full access to the legal system, and private property rights are limited only by the rights of governments to establish monopolies and expropriate for public purposes. Canada has yet to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Internet Treaties, which it signed in 1997. Enforcement against counterfeiting and piracy is reportedly cumbersome and ineffective." score 90.0
http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Canada#property-rights

Same source as one of yours actually, Health Affairs. Here's another then


"France best, US worst in preventable death ranking"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/us-deaths-rankings-idUSN0765165020080108

Me and the experts, in fact everyone except you eh?

Is English your first language?

Not the names most people would have trotted out. Anyway, neither was ever socialist. Mexico did have a left wing government right back around 1940.

Oh, well you type some fairly bizarre stuff then.

Yes, life is quite an important value.

Well, it's been entertaining. But now I need to crack on with my decorating. So you think that the UK is socialist. Even though England was the first capitalist country. Because there is no written clause in a constitution.

I dunno where tf you got this idea from, but after 30 years of being into politics (the Labour Party youth section used to meet in my house probably before you were even born) I've never come across this one before.

 

I'm not even going to entertain his nonsense. He was introduced to communism which he was inspired by the Soviet Union.

If that's what you want to believe. Anyone can buy health care in america either out of pocket or through insurance. 16.7 Percent of Americans are uninsured. That leaves about 47 Million uninsured (Do your own math).

http://www.antolin-davies.com/conventionalwisdom/uninsured.pdf

However people fail to understand that the amount of people who are uninsured have been stable. It has fluctuated between a low of 13 percent and a high of 16 percent during periods of recessions and whatnot. The only way we know the number of people who are uninsured is that the Census Bureau calls people up at random and ask if someone is insured or uninsured.

There is a small percentage of people who claim to be uninsured but actually aren't. Studies show that they misunderstand the question. Sometimes they take the question to mean, "Do you have 'private insurance as oppose to medicare or medicaid."

There is another percentage of people who are uninsured but are eligible for medicare or medicaid. They can sign up for it if they need a procedure done anytime they go to a clinic or hospital. These people can say that they have no insurance but they can get it whenever they want it.

The bottom line, people buy insurance whenever they want it. They don't because they choose to spend their money on other things.

It also says "explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill." While it may be common for countries with socialized health care to turn away people with terminal illnesses in America even the terminally ill get treatment if they want it. After all, they pay for it. If the state pays for it, they'll have to have to cap the cost at a certain amount so they'll have to turn away the terminally ill.

What sounds more human: Making someone's last moments on earth slightly more comfortable or turning them away making their last moments painful.

In America if someone is terminally ill they'll get treatment.

Individual case for someone dying after health care or the long waits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/02/nhs.health

It is certainly not an individual case. While there aren't too many stories of people dying after waiting for are there are plenty of stories of people having to wait for weeks and months without getting care.

In terms of what? Actually seeing a physician or actually getting treatment? According to your study it says that the US fared better when it comes to getting care on "nights, weekends, or holidays, without going to the emergency room." Which would make sense. You're more likely to see a nurse or doctor at sometime during the day or weekday then you are at anytime during the nights, weekends or holidays. Why would it be any different than it is in Canada or United Kingdom? I don't know.

However, the study did not conclude that US patients experience longer ways for everything else. Canadian and UK patients experience longer waits for diagnostic tests. Canadian and UK patients have waited 4 months or longer to see a specialist physician. Also Canadian and UK experience longer waits for elective surgery.

All around, Canadian and UK system doesn't hold a candle.

There is no such thing. I only have a spell checker.

I'm asking WHY example can you give which makes Canadian Property Rights better protected than American Property Rights. We have already established that Canada has no protection of Property Rights under their laws and Americans do.

Canada has been doing expropriations and regulatory takings all throughout their history. You can look up these court cases.

These things never happen in the USA because Property Rights are guaranteed by the Government. If you want to cling to the nonsense of Heritage website then be my guess. It wouldn't be the first time you've ignored the facts when they have been presented to you.

That's nice, but what exactly are these numbers based off of? It's suppose to be based off of 'preventable deaths due to treat able conditions.' The only way to know which types of conditions those are is to actually mention them, which the article did not.

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Full.pdf

This study compares the mortality rates of all the counties and the most infectiousness diseases with the most common non-infectiousness diseases.

• When it comes to Tuberculosis treatment success, the United States (64%) than Canada (57%) with no data given for the United Kingdom.
• When it comes to mortality rates due to cancer, the United states (133) has to lowest white Canada (135) and United Kingdom (150) has higher mortality rates.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

All and all, the United States just has been survival rates when it comes to Cancer, and that is among the most common disease when it comes to health care.

Also when it comes to the amount of procedures given like Coronary
bypass and Coronary angioplasty America trumps all other countries.

When you listen to these "experts" you're not being feed knowledge. You're being feed talking points and propaganda. As for everyone, everyone to pretty much disagrees with me has never been to Canada and has no knowledge of their laws. Ask anyone who pretty much lives there and they will agree that it is a mixed economy, but it's far from a beacon of capitalism. Unless if they believe Capitalism is a form of double taxation, income distribution and Nationalized industries.

I do not see how what I've said was difficult to understand. There isn't a simpler way of putting it.

Ghana and Mexico were socialist countries. They just didn't follow the Marxist/Leninist rhetoric. Both countries had their own idea of what socialism should be. Like I said, just because a country isn't socialist the way you want it to be doesn't mean that it's not socialism. You think China was never Communist and Ghana/Mexico were never socialist because they never followed Marxist philosophy line by line. How many times do you want it to fail before you get the point?

 

an extra year is not a vast amount, until the grim reaper comes knocking and asks if you want another year. But America spends nearly 3 times as much on healthcare, so that should be giving a big increase in longevity. A decrease is pathetic. Cuba is level with America and America spends 25 times as much on healthcare. 25 times more money for no improvement, pathetic.



Americans, pouring their money down the capitalist drain.

 

Wow, the *****s aren't commies? That's news to me since I was fighting the Chi Coms over in Vietnam as they and their NVA (North Vietnam Army) were infiltrating down through the DMZ into South Vietnam where I met them head on. And all this time you were thinking that America was just fighting a disoriented ragtime NVA army who had none of the supplies and artillary from the chi coms. Yeah, it must have been those NVA troops that eventually won the war in 1975 without any help from Communist China. Got ya! Sure hope you're not a history teacher for the sake of the students.

 

You know (*)(*)(*)(*) well you weren't in Vietnam.

 

Perhaps you're right, that the life long PTSD disability I accrued along the way may very well have come from the time I shoved my liberal ex-wife out the door and not from a year of war combat. Let me do some thinking on that.

 

Lol! As if Stalin was interested in communism. Stalin supported the vicious, murdering KMT over the CCP right up to 1948. Stalin sabotaged the 1927 Chinese revolution (maybe not deliberately at the time), and he did his best to sabotage the one after WW2.

Anyway, here is Mao in 1945:

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions."

"China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism"

"What then do we propose? We propose the establishment, after the thorough defeat of the Japanese aggressors, of a state system which we call New Democracy, namely, a united-front democratic alliance based on the overwhelming majority of the people, under the leadership of the working class.

It is this kind of state system that truly meets the demands of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese population, because it can win and indeed has been winning the approval, first, of millions of industrial workers and tens of millions of handicraftsmen and farm labourers, second, of the peasantry, which constitutes 80 per cent of China's population, i.e., 360 million out of a population of 450 million, and third, of the large numbers of the urban petty bourgeoisie as well as the national bourgeoisie, the enlightened gentry and other patriots. "

Stalin's policy was to stop any socialist revolutions around the world, and to ensure that all countries went capitalist.

He even had Chiang Kai-shek on the Comintern leadership and over to Moscow. Kai-shek was leader of the murdering capitalist KMT. In 1945, Stalin wanted Mao to sumbit to the KMT, to disarm the Red Army and merge into the KMT. Mao knew that would mean most of the communists getting murdered, so he started a civil war on the KMT instead, not to establish socialism, to establish a form of capitalism under the control of his party. His plan failed. Among other reasons, during the civil war, which the Red Army won despite the fact that the KMT was armed by America, the masses of China rose up to support Mao, hoping for socialist revolution. Also, after he won, Mao found it impossible to get capitalism going and collaborate with the capitalists. This was the scenario in most of Eastern Europe after the war also, where Stalin was trying to ensure the survival of capitalism.

Another problem, similar again to Eastern Europe, was that much of the capitalist class had been collaborators with the enemy. Also there was the Korean war which worried Mao. Anyway, events forced him, just like in much of Eastern Europe, to abandon the idea of collaboration with capitalism. It was capitalism which failed.

By the way, when the CCP took Canton in 1949, the Soviet ambassador had fled there with the KMT!

After Mao won, Stalin promised him limited support on condition that he rewrite history, and say that Stalin had played a leading role, as opposed to the reality which was outright opposition to Mao.

I will answer the rest later.

If you want a proper article to read on China here is one that's not too long
http://www.socialismtoday.org/132/china60.html

Stalin's policies re all this were called Popular Frontism and Two Stage Theory or Stagism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front

"A popular front is a broad coalition of different political groupings, often made up of leftists and centrists. Being very broad, they can sometimes include centrist and liberal (or "bourgeois") forces as well as socialist and communist ("working-class") groups. Popular fronts are larger in scope than united fronts, which contain only working-class groups."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Stage_Theory

"Two Stage Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The two stage theory (or stagism) is the Stalinist political theory which argues that underdeveloped countries, such as Tsarist Russia, must first pass through a stage of bourgeois democracy before moving to a socialist stage.[1] The two stage theory was applied to countries worldwide which had not passed through the capitalist stage.

The discussion on stagism focuses on the Russian Revolution. However, Maoist theories, such as New Democracy, tend to apply a two-stage theory to struggles elsewhere. In the Soviet Union the two stage theory was opposed by the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution.
[edit] "


"Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic. "

nterview Between J. Stalin and
Roy Howard
(On March 1, 1936, Comrade Stalin granted an interview to
Roy Howard, President of Scripps-Howard Newspapers.)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

 

Yeah ,Mao ! What a great guy.Was a pervert who had sex numerous
times throughout the day,hardly ever bathed and was one of the biggest
mass murderer's in history.
Of course Mao's china was Communist.What a dopey thing to deny.
What do you think the term ....... Maoism
stood for. Fat Chinaman who liked sex and hated bathing.

 

Go easy on the guy for anyone calling himself a daft punk really has no clue to what he speaks.

 

There is no correlation between spending and life expectancy. Life expectancy is all calculated and anyone who doesn't understand applied mathematics would most likely would not understand. Life expectancy isn't factor by spending. It's factored in by the population, probability of dying, mortality rate at age, and the median age. Along with variables with the amount of years lived.

So to say that spending should give us three times an life expectancy is just dumb.

 

who cares if they have a minister? what is their function anyway?

 

Well, since the right-wing knows that it is useless to this country and nothing but a problem to the rest of the world, then of course thye're going to attack the left.

 

I really don't know how these quotes are suppose to show that he was always favor of capitalism. He doesn't use words which embraces capitalism. He doesn't even call himself a capitalist. Not to mention one of the quotes looks like you just cut it short so I'm not convinced yet.

There are plenty of quotes Mao made about Communism on the other hand:

"We Communists do not conceal our political views. Definitely and beyond all doubt, our future or maximum programme is to carry China forward to socialism and communism."

"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy."

"The socialist system will eventually replace the capitalist system; this is the objective law independent of man's will. However much the reactionaries try to hold back the wheel of history, sooner or later revolution will take place and will inevitably triumph."

There are more quotes like these. It doesn't sound like he intended China to be capitalist.

I'll just have to take your word for this one.

It was the nationalist and the communist. There were no capitalist.

That is a pretty interesting fairy tale.

I guess that's suppose to mean something.

Now I've seen everything.

I read half of that stuff and I have a very hard time taking it serious. It's not just the fact that it's not peer reviewed. It's totally anecdotal. To suggest that the Capitalist are trying to down play the inner struggle of the Chinese Revolution and to make it out into something which it is not? That's ridiculous.

 

How dumb does one have to be to not realize that power mad politicians LIE constantly? Stalin said this, Stalin said that! He was a lying ruthless murderer. A good assumption would be to assume that if he said it, it IS a lie.

 

You don't have to convince me.

 

In context, the communist calls for "more capitalism" are based on the idea that capitalism is a necessary step in the success of capitalism. Marx saw communism as the end of a deterministic evolutionary process (this is where he went wrong, really).

The idea is that capitalism comes naturally as the next step from feudalism due to fighting between the merchants and nobles.
Then the workers and capitalists fight, leading to communism.
China was still basically feudal when Mao took over (I think Maoism is built around this idea of treating peasants as proletariat). A purist Marxist would look at that and say that it was not happening in the right order.

Also keep in mind that the demonized "welfare state" is a weapon against communism.
Communists hate it because it shields the poor and the workers from the turbulence of capitalism and causes them to have stake in the system, thereby stalling the revolution.
The same is true for unions, programs to foster the middle class, and everything else conservatives call "communism" when they're feeling jaunty.
Of course, if it is communism, then Marx was right. It followed naturally from capitalism.
But more likely it's what proves Marx wrong, at least his theories of historical determinism.