It's so easy to sloganize. But I can prove that the US is more socialist than the EU.
go on, prove it.
If you could, then why haven't you?
What's wrong with being socialist?
The US is Socialist alright, but I dunno about more Socialist (by more Socialist, I assume you mean farther from Capitalism and closer to Communism) than the EU. But then agian, I don't know a great deal about the EU...
more socialist than the EU, hope not for EU's sake .... I'd be interested in seeing the proof.
It seems this proof is not forthcoming....
Well the USA definately IS Socialist, the kicker is just that it's more Socialist than the EU.
Workers unions, progressive tax systems, welfare, medicare, social security, anti-trust laws etc. However, most EU nations have more extensive garunteed health care for everyone, more progressive tax rates, and more social programs,
Your quote should read -The average person in the EU receives more extensive, guaranteed mediocre health care compared to the average US citizen, higher tax rates for all, and more social programs.
Got me on the last.
That's Socialism for ya', everyone gets decent stuff, wheras in Capitalism, lots of people get nothing, lots of people get bad stuff, and lots of people get good stuff.
QUOTE=wasteofo2]That's Socialism for ya', everyone gets decent stuff, wheras in Capitalism, lots of people get nothing, lots of people get bad stuff, and lots of people get good stuff.[/QUOTE]
This enlightening statement makes me want to move to a EU nation where I could enjoy decent stuff while receiving mediocre health care. Of course I have to make my move quickly as lots of stuff is rapidly becoming lots less of stuff. Pyramid schemes tend to do that in the long term unless there’s a high birth rate. Of course the babies will eventually need a job, so they’ll have to move to the US, or China and India where more and more stuff is becoming available. Aw-shucks, I’ll just stay in the States where I, my family, my friends, everyone has access to the very beast health in the world. Every state in the Union provides free healthcare for those who cannot afford it; ask the nearest illegal alien suffering from nitroglycerin headaches.
In truth, Belgium does provide good health care (lots of private stuff there). Good enough to be an incentive for their tourist industry. The country attracts patients from other less fortunate EU countries. Get well then tour the country. Maybe we’ll see Belgium owned health care franchises in France, England, Germany… Probably not, the tourist lobby is quite powerful. But then again, the Belgium national debt is 102% of the nations GDP (vs. US 64%) so the country really could use the money.
Don't really know where you're picking your info, but the last time this was discussed the health care system of the US wasn't anything but a big mess compared to many "socialist" systems out there.
Coming from a guy in china.
The irony makes my sides ache, and my lungs beg for air.
No, the democrats are socialist.
Get it right already.
Discussions are nice but facts are better when dealing with the real world
Karen Hoehn is a health policy and systems analyst in Brussels
“…Leading health management trade newsletters in Europe now read much like comparable U.S. newsletters ten to 15 years ago, with articles focusing on healthcare outcomes and cost containment, re-integration of fragmented systems, introduction of capitation, Quality Adjusted Life Years, and so on. The Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs) recently established for hospital payment in Germany have been used by the U.S. federal Medicare program since the 1980s…”
“…Extensive studies of healthcare quality in the U.S. have found no significant evidence of overall declines in quality in the past two decades, despite anecdotal evidence often presented in the press. And, despite panicky news reports about Americans being lazy and fat, major health indicators have improved steadily over time. Infant mortality has dropped and life expectancy has increased. Use of preventive care, e.g., prenatal, mammograms for breast cancer screening, influenza immunization among the elderly, has increased. Cigarette smoking has almost disappeared, an accomplishment David Byrne, the European Commission's top guy for public health, must dream about…”
“…Whatever Europeans may think about the U.S. healthcare system, it has been an excellent laboratory for testing the best and worst ways to pay for, provide and manage health services. Smart Europeans will meet with leading U.S. healthcare companies, and the state and local policymakers that hired them, to learn what works and what does not…”
What makes you say that the quality of European health-care is mediocre, beside your being biased towards all things left wing/European?
You say that Belgium has a good heath care system. That is correct, if I remember correctly it even has the best in the word, according the a UN report. You once again show your bias, and jump to the conclusion that this because we have "lots of private stuff".
Belgium has one of the least privatised health-care systems in Europe, thanks to the Socialists party's almost continuesly being in the government for the last 50 years. Many hospitals, in particular the academic ones (almost free state-sponsored education, remember?) are excellent, and for most cases almost 90% of the cost is paid back BY THE STATE. In fact, in most professions you are required to be part of the so-called "mutuals" (be they socialist, catholic, liberal or free), who are state-paid and will pay back most of your medical costs.
And as for national debt, the Belgian national debt has been declining steadily for the last 15 years. Can you say the same about the US's?
Thank you all for helping me make my point. And that is: discussions like this one on socialism, or "more" socialism make no sense as long as the term is not even well defined. For some here, it would be communism if a government provides healthcare to people who cannot afford it and for others socialism is living together in a commune. are we talking about a political way to organize society or about the an economic system? So what does a "Socialist EU" really mean? Does it make any more sense than "Socialist US"? Isn't Bush a socialist when he wants to spread democracy all over the world? And why do people suddenly forget their own prejudice when they have to compare Chirac ( a right wing nationalist) to Blair ( a socialist). So whenever someone here comes up with the "socialist EU" or such here, I wish the reaction would be to define the issue that's being discussed first and for the ones that are unable to do that and for example cannjot even distinguish between Kerry, a socialist and a communist: go painting a wall or something.
Well people don't always get my irony, so thanks for your understanding. On the other hand, it is clear for all who live in China that China is much LESS socialist than the US. It is a dictatorship with a red flag as a symbol, purely by coincidence.
A few teasers: labour day, the sacred day for workers all over the world and one of the three official Chinese holidays, has it's origin in the US. (That is, if we are discussing "socialism" as a worker's movement)
In every company I worked for, the American branch ( I talk about three multinationals) was the least productive (revenue/manpower), had the highest labour and related social costs and the highest sickleave. (That is, if we are discussing "socialism" as a way to organize society)
And the same can be said in the other way. I think that good systems try to get organized in a way which is not based upon silly ideology (capitalist - socialist - communist - anarchist ...) but makes a mix of several possible ways of organizing things so that it is fair, provides security, tries to respect the choice of the individual, tries to provide the best quality and efficiency and all that for an acceptable cost. Parts of it will be left to private initiative, parts of it will have to be organized/financed by the state (because in order to be fair, some redistribution of ressources will be necessary) and some feedback mechanisms will be necessary in order to keep the costs to a reasonable level.
I have been labeled "liberal" here (by Americans, which means for them I guess "socialist" - it is funny how terminology is inverse in Europe: liberal is capitalist right wing in Europe). I can tell you that I recognize myself in neither because I think that to stick first to a principle, and then think about it is silly, and I think that there are things that are best solved by a "capitalist" approach, others by a more "socialist" approach, some probably by a artist approach and others by an "anarchist" approach :tongue: Maybe one day we will need a stalinist or a nazi approach.... and maybe some day we will have to think by ourselves !
Separate names with a comma.