Welfare

[wkmac]

The reason for the welfare state is to make up for what capitalism doesnt do. Capitalism creates a few winnners and a lot of losers. In s socialist state there is no need for this. In a capitalist state, welfare programs are needed. Reagan was just pandering to the knuckle draggers of the populace for votes. He too was clueless as to how the economy worked or didnt work.

804,

I'd like to propose to you a question to consider based on what you said above. I would hope that we can agree that in the last 100 years, our gov't (we'll call the State) today would be considered far more socialist than it was 100 years ago. Between welfare laws, labor laws, social security, medicare/medicaid, I hope you see my point.

At the same time, 100 years ago, corporations as we know them today did not have the scale of size, multi-national corporations being an example or were the various industries so dominated by so few players. Corporations also didn't enjoy such a large domination of the public commons as evidenced by the presence of "K" street in Washington nor were the terms lobbyist or think tank such a common occurrence in public discourse. But yet these corporations are seen as the pinnacle achievement of what we call today as free market capitialism.

So in both the case of socialism (the state) and in corp. capitalism (the free market), both have enjoyed healthy growth. The healthy being for them and not necessarily for the rest of us.

My question is, and for the sake of debate accepting gov't (the state) as the source of socialism and corporations as the source of unfettered capitalism, how is it then that over the last 100 years, both have grown in power, wealth and control almost in equal measure? How is it the leaders in capitalism come to achieve high positions in state authority (elected or appointed) and then returning once again to the levers of power in corp. capitalism? All the while both the state and corp. capitalism growing in power and in dominance.

And to those here who act as the boot lickers for the 1%, the defenders of the capitalist faith and opposers of all things socialist, how do you explain when your much loved capitalism has grown so powerful but that the socialist state has also grown equally powerful along side it?

Would it not stand to reason for growth to occur that a healthy environment must be present in the first place to achieve such ends?

It would therefore now beg the question, in order for one to grow, does it not need the other to do likewise and that in fact the state and corp. capitalism in truth have a symbiotic relationship with one another?

This being the case 804 and you oppose unfettered corp. capitalism, by demanding more state intervention and compelling the population to compliance under the nightwatchman of state authority, are you not equally feeding the very corp. power you oppose?

"OH PLEASE DON'T THROW ME IN THE BRIAR PATCH!" Hard part is figuring out which side is saying it the loudest!

And too the boot lickers of the 1%, by equally defending and feeding your capitialist masters, are you not also feeding equally the leviathan socialist state you continually rail against?

If in both cases, both are true and you hold to the principles you espouse, seems to me you both are putting the bullet in your own heads!

Abandon both and come to the darkside!

 

[804brown]

804,

I'd like to propose to you a question to consider based on what you said above. I would hope that we can agree that in the last 100 years, our gov't (we'll call the State) today would be considered far more socialist than it was 100 years ago. Between welfare laws, labor laws, social security, medicare/medicaid, I hope you see my point.

At the same time, 100 years ago, corporations as we know them today did not have the scale of size, multi-national corporations being an example or were the various industries so dominated by so few players. Corporations also didn't enjoy such a large domination of the public commons as evidenced by the presence of "K" street in Washington nor were the terms lobbyist or think tank such a common occurrence in public discourse. But yet these corporations are seen as the pinnacle achievement of what we call today as free market capitialism.

So in both the case of socialism (the state) and in corp. capitalism (the free market), both have enjoyed healthy growth. The healthy being for them and not necessarily for the rest of us.

My question is, and for the sake of debate accepting gov't (the state) as the source of socialism and corporations as the source of unfettered capitalism, how is it then that over the last 100 years, both have grown in power, wealth and control almost in equal measure? How is it the leaders in capitalism come to achieve high positions in state authority (elected or appointed) and then returning once again to the levers of power in corp. capitalism? All the while both the state and corp. capitalism growing in power and in dominance.

And to those here who act as the boot lickers for the 1%, the defenders of the capitalist faith and opposers of all things socialist, how do you explain when your much loved capitalism has grown so powerful but that the socialist state has also grown equally powerful along side it?

Would it not stand to reason for growth to occur that a healthy environment must be present in the first place to achieve such ends?

It would therefore now beg the question, in order for one to grow, does it not need the other to do likewise and that in fact the state and corp. capitalism in truth have a symbiotic relationship with one another?

This being the case 804 and you oppose unfettered corp. capitalism, by demanding more state intervention and compelling the population to compliance under the nightwatchman of state authority, are you not equally feeding the very corp. power you oppose?

"OH PLEASE DON'T THROW ME IN THE BRIAR PATCH!" Hard part is figuring out which side is saying it the loudest!

And too the boot lickers of the 1%, by equally defending and feeding your capitialist masters, are you not also feeding equally the leviathan socialist state you continually rail against?

If in both cases, both are true and you hold to the principles you espouse, seems to me you both are putting the bullet in your own heads!

Abandon both and come to the darkside!

I believe that the govt from 1910 til 1980 was a progressive force to control the power of corporations, not socialistic. They never nationalized/socialized any private bunisness. From 1981 onward the govt has been a regressive force to control labor and workers.


I dont agree the state, our govt, is defined as socialistic at all. If anything our present govt is more fascistic in that it socializes the risk and privatizes the profit.

In truth I do not fear government per se. I fear a government dominated by the oligarchy of this country. I fear the big boot of the police state. I fear the reactionary culture police state coming into my house and telling me how to live my life. I dont fear a robust proactive govt empowering and protecting everyone equally. I do fear and will fight an ideology of the 1% and their apologists that glorify self-interest and greed and ignore what the common good of other americans . That hierarchic view of society where success is always deserved and lack of success is a moral failure.

It is true what you write of the leviathon that govt can become but i am not speaking of soviet russia or fascist germany/italy.(It is ironic how the right in this country actually think we are heading in the soviet russia mode when in truth we seem to be heading the other way).

A more common sense government that balances public and private demands such as norway or sweden or germany would be more ideal. What is this darkside stuff about Mr Vader??

 

[Catatonic]

The reason for the welfare state is to make up for what capitalism doesnt do. Capitalism creates a few winnners and a lot of losers. In s socialist state there is no need for this. In a capitalist state, welfare programs are needed. Reagan was just pandering to the knuckle draggers of the populace for votes. He too was clueless as to how the economy worked or didnt work.

In theory. I agree with you.
However, in the socialist society, the top ~80% are actually living at a lower standard of living. If there was actually a way for a socialist society to actually raise the standard of living for 80% VERSUS lowering the standard of living for 80%, I would be for it. Almost every Socialist society has failed or is failing with a few exceptions like Norway, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. which has adequate natural resources to have extensive social programs. The problem is that it simply doesn't work because people are not motivated and they see no reason to work harder if there is no reward.

 

[Catatonic]

Ontario governments spent more than $27.7 billion on corporate welfare

A 2007 study pegged the national corporate welfare bill at $15.6 billion a year, which led one journalist to suggest expenditures on corporate welfare are almost twice that of expenditures on social welfare.
And 'here's the kicker:' the corporate subsidies don't create jobs.

If that is the truth, then they should be stopped.

 

[804brown]

In theory. I agree with you.
However, in the socialist society, the top ~80% are actually living at a lower standard of living. If there was actually a way for a socialist society to actually raise the standard of living for 80% VERSUS lowering the standard of living for 80%, I would be for it. Almost every Socialist society has failed or is failing with a few exceptions like Norway, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. which has adequate natural resources to have extensive social programs. The problem is that it simply doesn't work because people are not motivated and they see no reason to work harder if there is no reward.

Saudia Arabia socialist?? LOL. Having social programs doesnt make a country socialist. They are capitalists who have social programs to prevent a revolution of the bottom 99% who are not of the royal family who own that country!!

 

[wkmac]

“All the definitions of our economic system are developed by the people in power,” Neuwirth says, channeling philosopher (and methodological anarchist) Paul Feyerabend.
Neuwirth argues that the informal economy offers a glimpse into a vibrant future unbounded by today’s methods of political order. People work in cooperatives, they barter, they swap using their own evolved currencies. They bring themselves electricity, trash collection, public transportation, welfare for the destitute and sick, even law and order. These markets are messy and not necessarily ‘rational’ from the perspective of an outsider or a State. But the tumultuous process is growing by leaps and bounds, spilling over international borders, and giving livelihoods to masses.
Yet they are off the map. They are not recognized by Nation-States and, tragically, they are often victims of predatory political forces at home and abroad.
By pointing out this absurdity, Neuwirth is reaching something truly fundamental. He has charted the limits of our reigning ‘social technology’ — the Nation-State system.
Today, only elites have the power to build large scale rule-creating institutions, to access modern networks of dispute resolution and arbitration, and to operate under good commercial law. We can see what this has done by looking at the informal sector: elites have shaped the rules and institutions to their benefit and marginalized the majority of humanity in the process.
The displacement, the invisibility that Neuwirth sees of half the world working outside ‘the System’ is a symptom of how the Nation-State has congealed into an outdated, unjust monopoly. Formal businesses, especially crony-capitalists in more corrupt States, enjoy the force of the Nation-State and its perceived legitimacy. Informal entrepreneurs — which is to say a growing majority of mankind — do not.

How to Radically Empower over 2/3rds of the World’s Population


GO AFRICA GO!!!!!! AWESOME!

[video=youtube;fDyE_6Excfw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDyE_6Excfw&feature=youtu.be&t=2m5s[/video]

Video above was linked in the story posted.

 

[Babagounj]

gee whiz , if only proven citizens were allowed welfare status the federal budget would drop and not be an issue anymore.
The mass relocation of people not longer getting free handouts would first off boost the travel industry
and secondly increase the available public housing , then thirdly change the political makeup of every Congressional & Senatorial district .
And fourthly most hospitals could go back to being actually profitable establishments .

 

[klein]

And fourthly most hospitals could go back to being actually profitable establishments .

Yup, even hospitals should earn a huge profit in the USA.
It's all about profit.
Good Luck !

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Yup, even hospitals should earn a huge profit in the USA.
It's all about profit.
Good Luck !

I don't see anyone advocating hospitals earn huge profits but I also don't see anyone saying they should be charities. The sad reality is that medicine has become a business and like any other business they need profits to expand as the market dictates.

 

[trplnkl]

Yup, even hospitals should earn a huge profit in the USA.
It's all about profit.
Good Luck !

Once again you open your pie hole with out thinking. Why should hospitals make a profit? Because that is what keeps the doors open and their employees paid. Profit is not a dirty word.

 

[wkmac]

I don't see anyone advocating hospitals earn huge profits but I also don't see anyone saying they should be charities. The sad reality is that medicine has become a business and like any other business they need profits to expand as the market dictates.

I'm in my mid-50's and when I was a kid, many hospitals were community owned and were in that sense non-profit or at least some private company didn't own the hospital so profits weren't necessary to boost a stock price. There was no stock to begin with and profits were re-invested back into the hospital or returned to various community sources from other efforts to taxpayers. Some hospitals were operated by religious organizations as were some operated by fraternal organizations and both enjoyed a non-profit status and yet I never remember once anybody screaming this was wrong or some type of communist or socialist conspiracy. This was all seen as a natural operation of free market economics and it was so to speak. In fact, in that setting, non-profit nor the fact the hospital wasn't on the stock exchange seemed quite normal and as I remember it, community owned hospitals seemed openly accepted and quite the norm.

That said, there are still some community owned, non-profit hospitals around that do quite well and one example is in Munster Indiana at Community Hospital. There's also the rich history of St. Catherine's hospital in Chicago or St. Mary in northwest Indiana. Google community based non-profit hospital and you'll find many examples of this approach to healthcare and it's long, rich traditional approach. And let's not forget St. Jude Children's Hospital in Memphis which is also non-profit but it's tradition and legacy is known wide and far.

Another lost tradition in American culture when it comes to both health and welfare are the mutual aid societies. Mutual aid has a long, rich and successful tradition in the history of man but in the sense of mutual aid societies from religious and fraternal orders, the American tradition started in the 19th century but hit it's stride in the early 20th century. Much has been written over the years about the mutual aid of fraternal orders from a variety of sources and perspectives and the vast majority that I've read have all been positive in this broader approach. David Benito, assist. History Professor, University/Alabama has written a book, "From Mutual Aid to Welfare State, 1890' to 1967'" and he wrote a piece for the Heritage Foundation on the history of the Mutual Aid and it's a good starting point on the subject. In today's context, Mutual Aid efforts would have a hard uphill struggle as the intervention of behalf of the insurance industry have written laws that act as a protectionist barrier to the benefit of the insurance industry. BTW: I think mutual aid is a means in which the state of unionism in America could re-ignite itself and in fact begin to move beyond it's servitude status to both corp. and state interests but that's another thread.

A year or so back, I read a piece about a small local mutual aid society for healthcare to the poor in New York was closed down and state insurance law was the mechanism used. The law was so written that a mutual aid society was seen as a "for profit" insurance venture and being it had not compiled with entry insurance regulations, it was shutdown. Here was a possible private effort that to a local community of poor had the potential of not just granting good basic healthcare but to the greater good of the possibility that some or all of these folks might move off a public taxpayer based system and moved to a private and self sustained healthcare system. It also emerged afterwards in further study that had New York insurance law not done the trick, federal regulations would have and this includes the new Obama healthcare system. Those who think Obamacare is the great feelgood story better do a very serious rethink as Obamacare is nothing but another corp. welfare boondoggle and wealth re-distribution and it will be our wealth re-distributed up to the 1% if you will. Those who think Obamacare is some Marxist vision to end healthcare private business for all time better wake up to see the truth that Obamacare like Romneycare are both business centric legislation from top to bottom and like good fascist economics is about building an industry cartel in which a few privileged for profit business interests will, thanks to state intervention, dominate in an almost monopoly type environment while the consumer of such will be the loser. Some people here need to seriously study and rethink the root cause of winners and losers.

Doing things local will almost become impossible from both an entry point perspective or from the case of established non-profits, the pressures to change will grow and may become to powerful to resist or overcome. No wonder so many local non-profit community hospitals from an earlier era have caved in and more will follow suit. The pressures to maintain an upward profits curve for Wall Street will push current for profits to chew up non profits while also needed an ever increasing patient base of unhealthy patients from which to profit. This also leads to industry consolidation where the choosen few grow to mega size. Opps, am I suggesting something about the current structure of healthcare industry to find causes and cure disease in people for all time?


While the so-called left or the statist of a democrat flavor need to rethink the state at the national level as it's friend, the so-called right or the statist of republican flavor need to rethink mega corporations and monolith business structures as it's friend. Both are working together as partners and we are the commodity they are buying and selling at will.

 

[klein]

Once again you open your pie hole with out thinking. Why should hospitals make a profit? Because that is what keeps the doors open and their employees paid. Profit is not a dirty word.

Yeah, in the USA, not in other 180 countries around the world.
For us, that would mean public schools should also profit.

I hope you think hospitals , even in the US, are built for the public usage, and not just for a certain elite group.

 

[wkmac]

Yeah, in the USA, not in other 180 countries around the world.
For us, that would mean public schools should also profit.

I hope you think hospitals , even in the US, are built for the public usage, and not just for a certain elite group.

So Klein, you seem pretty knowledgeable about Canada's healthcare system, so from what you are saying there are no private owned/for profit hospitals in Canada so can you explain how your healthcare system is so successful?

 

[804brown]

Talk about welfare:FOCUS: Bailout Total: $29.616 Trillion Dollars

 

[klein]

So Klein, you seem pretty knowledgeable about Canada's healthcare system, so from what you are saying there are no private owned/for profit hospitals in Canada so can you explain how your healthcare system is so successful?

It's not just Canada.
Japan actually has the most successful healthcare system.

It's a public service, paid by the general public.
Simple as that.
That's why they are non per profit.

 

[wkmac]

It's not just Canada.
Japan actually has the most successful healthcare system.

It's a public service, paid by the general public.
Simple as that.
That's why they are non per profit.

So Canada has no corporate owned, for profit hospitals? Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Lue C Fur]

Japan actually has the most successful healthcare system.

Im calling BS. Where are you pulling that out of? I lived in Japan for many years and have relatives living there and using the Japanese healthcare system. It takes forever to get an appointment (like Canada) and they are really overcrowded. Just do a search on all the deaths from hospitols not accepting patients at emergency rooms because they turn people away. The Japanese healthcare system is over taxed and over whelmed because of the longevity of the people. One of my relatives was diagnosed with Leukemia and was told he had only 6 months to live. He was 65 and they said he was to old for any type of treatment and turned him away. He lived for 14 months. If he was here in America they might have been able to do something.

 

[klein]

So Canada has no corporate owned, for profit hospitals? Am I understanding this correctly?

Sofar, basically, yes, even though some provinces have allowed certain private clinics to operate, like knee surgery (non emergency surgeries).
Our healthcare act basically states everyone should be treated equally, have nots and those that have (money).

 

[klein]

Im calling BS. Where are you pulling that out of? I lived in Japan for many years and have relatives living there and using the Japanese healthcare system. It takes forever to get an appointment (like Canada) and they are really overcrowded. Just do a search on all the deaths from hospitols not accepting patients at emergency rooms because they turn people away. The Japanese healthcare system is over taxed and over whelmed because of the longevity of the people. One of my relatives was diagnosed with Leukemia and was told he had only 6 months to live. He was 65 and they said he was to old for any type of treatment and turned him away. He lived for 14 months. If he was here in America they might have been able to do something.

Why don't you call up a Canadian doctor (easy enough to find online) and book an appointment, just for the hell of it ?
You could be there by the afternoon, if you called in the morning, and if you can't wait that long, just go to a walk in clinic.
I was treated within a minute with the dog bite.

 

[wkmac]

Sofar, basically, yes, even though some provinces have allowed certain private clinics to operate, like knee surgery (non emergency surgeries).
Our healthcare act basically states everyone should be treated equally, have nots and those that have (money).

OK, but can you for example tell us about Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation in Hamilton Ontario which owns the following hospitals:
Hamilton General
McMaster University Medical Center
McMaster Children's Hospital
Chedoke Hospital
St. Peter's Hospital
Juravinski Hospital
Juravinski Cancer Center

To say that Canada doesn't have healthcare corporations that run hospitals might be stretching it a bit. Now the otherside of this for those who scream up and down that Canada's healthcare is some kind of Marxist utopianism, the fact that Canada's healthcare system does have corporations fully integrated may present a problem in holding that narrative but then it raises doubt about the American system being as "free market" as some might want to allege!

Be interesting to look at other so-called "socialist" healthcare systems to see if we also find corp. footprints there as well.