Short rant OMIGOD Obamacare is a NIGHTMARE

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think it's hugely unfair to capitalism to call Obamacare capitalism. If that's what you're doing; I'm not quite sure. I hold capitalism in extremely high regard. But I am inclined to agree that it seems to be in its death throes, in the process of being subverted and replaced with something more sinister, which might sometimes call itself "capitalism" but it's naught but a disguise.

You hold capitalism in high regard because you've lived in a short period in time, in one of a few countries on Earth, being the dominant world power at the time, where people were living quite well. Workers dying in terrible conditions to build the Golden Gate, thousands of Chinese exploited to death for the transamerican railroad, child labourers in England's coal mines are also capitalism, just an earlier stage. Not to mention that even nowadays you need child labour in sweatshops in Cambogia and Bangladesh and workers toiling 14 hours per day in factories in China with suicide prevention nets below the windows (yep, it's a real thing) in order to have nice things.

Capitalism is predicated on growth but we live in a closed system with limited resources and permanent growth is impossible and ill advised, at some point it becomes a tumour. It also leads to concentration of capital and emergence of organisations which are more powerful than the government and gradually start controlling it and corrupting the whole system (what people are calling corporatism). This is also an inevitable outcome of capitalism in its later, well-developed stage.

So, yes, I don't think it's all that groovy. I realize people in USA and parts of Europe were having a good time for about 50 years after WW2 but that's actually just a small portion of the population in a short period of time from a historical standpoint.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Obamacare seems like a poor version of Germany's multipayer healthcare system, so I'd call it corporatism.

That´s about what i thought. Actually one of the comments above about Canada made me think, it´s probably much like here in Germany. Also dental care and vision are not fully paid by the insurances.

Here every Citizen MUST have a health insurance by law, but insurances which are not considered "private" have to accept you and almost every doctor must accept every insurance company.

Health taxes depend on the income; if you are unemployed the state (=the community) will pay for that.

This works fine, but it needs some control by the state or government. This might for some reason not be popular in the States, but the state consists of each one, so this is good for everyone on the long run. Corporatism or capitalism, in some cases "pure" private solutions don´t work well enough.

Forcing people to have a health insurance is not wrong, but you have to make sure they really get treatment. No one likes to be forced to spend money for nothing. More laws necessary here...

"

Bars wrote:

Capitalism is predicated on growth but we live in a closed system with limited resources and permanent growth is impossible and ill advised, at some point it becomes a tumour. It also leads to concentration of capital and emergence of organisations which are more powerful than the government and gradually start controlling it and corrupting the whole system (what people are calling corporatism). This is also an inevitable outcome of capitalism in its later, well-developed stage.

So, yes, I don't think it's all that groovy. I realize people in USA and parts of Europe were having a good time for about 50 years after WW2 but that's actually just a small portion of the population in a short period of time from a historical standpoint.

Predicated on growth? How?

Capitalism's defining element is the private ownership of property, to include the means of production in an economic system. By private we mean non-public and by non-public we mean non-government. A society is capitalist to the extent which its presiding government adheres to a principle of separation of state and trade (hence the phrase "laissez-faire capitalism") while enforcing the individual rights of its people, most importantly the right to property.

No government I'm aware of has ever been purely capitalist. Even the US Constitution has, in the fifth amendment, a means for government seizure of private property for the public good (although, in much more fairness than most governments, just compensation would be due in such an instance). Thus, rather than using the word to refer to pure capitalism, we tend to use it in a relative sense; those governments which meddle the least in trade have "capitalism," those with the most meddling don't.

I can see how growth is a common result of capitalism, because a free people will tend to manage better without government interference in trade, but I don't see how it is a requirement for capitalism, or a required result.

There is nothing fucking capitalistic about Obamacare.

Your other main point was that capitalism inevitably leads to individually powerful entities, and those entities then use that power to topple capitalism and turn the government towards their own ends. I'm not going to lie, that's a pretty strong criticism, and although I am very dubious about the whole "inevitable" part, it certainly seems to be the trend that a good government tends not to last long before it experiences gradual and ever-increasing corruption.

However, I'm not sure that's a comparative disadvantage for capitalism. That which is corrupted slowly is still superior to that which is corrupt from the outset.

I'm just a Marxist at heart. Don't want to go into a lengthy discussion where I just quote Marx at you.

Huge disclaimer: all the failed so-called socialist experiments we've observed were actually not Marxist at all as one of his main points is that history is deterministic and follows strict laws, one of which is that you have a gradual transition from one system of organisation of ownership to another, and you can't force it. The theory is that communism come after capitalism but for it to be feasible you first have to go through all stages of development of capitalism. The idea of trying to build communism in a backwards country with barely developing capitalism is doomed from the start.

I'll just say that everything that's been happening up until now has been predicted 100% accurately by Marx, so I have no reason to expect this to change in the future.

About capitalism and growth, the entire market in a capitalist system has to grow or it dies. That's the most simplistic way to put it and I don't want to go into details, not to mention that I lack the economic background to explain it truly well. I just like to dabble in social philosophy from time to time.

The guy who says history follows strict laws predicts that something which had never historically worked will come to be. Doesn't seem logical to me.

You know where I've seen working socialism? Star Trek: TNG. It seems that everything is hunky-dory under single-government control in future earth. I'm not even sure if humans use money anymore in the series.

It's a pleasant fiction. And a pipe dream.

The way to prevent government corruption is checks and balances. The framers of the US Constitution knew a lot more about what a good government would look like than Marx ever did. Granted, they weren't perfect either, but at least they understood that any one entity in control of government power inevitably leads to the death of liberty.

Really, preventing corruption is not a viable strategy. It will happen. Good systems disperse power, limit its concentration, such that the corruption of any one segment can be fought off before it spreads to other segments. It's why you (should) have separate passwords for all your accounts.

Capitalism is really about the limiting of government power, and about preserving the ability for anyone to become powerful through the preservation of individual rights.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

I agree Nero, as I already stated the thing was mainly drafted by the healthcare industry so it is a fair assessment to call it corporatism. The problem in the US is people are, by and large, very much OK with droves of people not having access to healthcare.

Capitalism has not been practiced in the US for some time, not in its true form, I think most would agree. Bars was talking about death throes for a reason. It might be in death throes now but it sure wasn't a sudden death!

Hiya Political gurus of Wraeclast...

I'm not exactly the brightest light bulb when it comes to the technicalities of political systems...I will, however, say that the statement bolded above is not true.


We aren't OK with people not having health care. My personal opinion is that at this point, the corporate and political cronyism has shut the American Public out.

The U.S. (by and large) has been run by an oligarchical relationship between corporations and the government. The government writes a bill/law...Companies that the law affects negatively effectively pay the government through contributions and lobbyist organizations...and suddenly the bill/law is watered down until the company is no longer affected.

The American people have long been "cut out" of the decision making process as it relates to day-to-day issues like healthcare. Hell even our retirements are now based on "legalized gambling" via 401K "retirements" that rely heavily on market speculation. We use to have pensions and actual retirements, but the government allowed companies to call a 401K a retirement plan. So the companies did it and effectively ended all "guaranteed" retirement plans such as pensions.

Either our government is very blind and stupid as to how corporations are manipulating them to maximize their profits OR our government is knowingly selling the well-being of their populous to these companies for profit. Neither of which would indicate a health country.

Either way it's looking Grim for Americans in the next 10 years. With China, Russia, and even India emerging as world powers, it's only a matter of time before somebody calls the U.S. out as a big "bluff"...and chances are they would be calling a spade, a spade anyway.

Our "democratic process" pretty much ends with electing officials and getting to vote on small inconsequential things. Big ass movements like Obamacare get forced down our throats...and the only ones really profiting here are Insurance companies, as the OP's post proves.

Insurance companies are one of the biggest rackets in the U.S.

1) We are forced to have insurance or get penalized by law (via fines)
2) Insurance companies ARE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE whether they cover a particular case or not.

So... should we NOT pay for health insurance and pay a fine or should we pay for health insurance, not incur fine, AND receive NO healthcare benefits on top of it?

"

Insurance companies are one of the biggest rackets in the U.S.

Can't argue with that.

@Bars @ScrotieMcB: Give me a good Marxist vs. Libertarian fight, entertain me, :P

By the way, by corporatist I didn't mean controlled by corporations, but rather, it's a system made by the negotiation between many organizations that represent bussinesses, physicians, etc. and the government doing some arbitrage. It should be evident that corruption can easily ruin such implementation, yet it seems to work in Germany (Schmodderhengst, tell me if I got something wrong about this, that's what I've read somewhere).

Nah, not gonna fight about it. I think we're both reasonable enough to respectfully disagree :) I'm not big on lengthy internet discussions.

I wasn't serious (see the :P). Long life to being reasonable!