US Features
Jun 16, 2009, 12:03 GMT
Communism is target of new online museum
And Also
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
The two reasons they fail is for the same that capitalism is a failure. It is pure, unadulterated human greed and thirst for power, that destroys them. It is not the system that is bad, but the f*cking rats that hijack the system. As was stated, there have never been any true communist states. They have all been state run capitalist systems. Ergo, by using your yardstick, it is capitalism that is the failure.
@truebrit,
I take your point, but market economies, whether of the more open American or European Social Market type are a million miles removed from the monolithic command economies of states which have referred to themselves as communist. To me 'State Capitalist' is an oxymoron.
Marxist philosophy is pure and high minded in its intent. I can think of no phrase that encapsulates one of the better aspects of human nature quite so well as 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.' Unfortunately, attempts at its practical application seem to invoke altogether darker human attributes.
In short, history indicates that it just doesn't turn out well in the real world, wherever and whenever it's been tried. A pity, perhaps, but there it is.
with heavy emphasis on the moron part of oxymoron. Whether under 'communism,' or capitalism, the name name matters not. A wage slave is a wage slave. Somewhere, there must/should be a system that is fair to the majority of people. Laws of the land are supposed to bring fairness to all, however, we know that lie quite well, don't we.
Then we have pontificating idiots like the Chocolatier from some forgotten backwater in Europe who believes he is the greatest thinker on this planet. Cripes Almighty, he deserves the EU and its interfering, blathering bureaucracy. He spews more bilge than a pump in a leaky ship's hold.
....Unfortunately, attempts at its practical application seem to invoke altogether darker human attributes....
Perhaps if there were a model in which political pluralism,open debates concerning major discussions involving all concerned,better education to allow those concerned to understand the implications of those decisions were to be invented that would be combined with a more egalitarian society ,we might profit .
The society we live in is democratic by name only .How else to explain the failure to implement a modern health care in the USA.
Lobbies are more powerful than voters .Just today a fine example illustrating the power of the media and lobbies in decision making has been has been revealed .It clearly indicates how insurance lobbies are invited by the Washington post in ventures that grants them acces to government officials in order to influence the process of decision making .
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/washington-post-selling-l_n_224658.ht ml
You get a hell of a lot from Huffintonpost, Tonny. Anyway, in answer to your previous effort:
“regarding Obama:I never said there is no corporate backing behind him,nowhere at all.Of course there are.”
Well done, Tonny. AND lobby groups: AND a slick, professional party machine.
“I have no clues yat about which ones so I have to make an educated guess that it is the medium to small enterprises that have a potential of profiting from modern technologies involved in fighting climate change .”
An educated guess or just wishful thinking?
“Let's name a few losers to start with:the high tech armament industry,aircraft industry,insurance industry,pharmaceuticals perhaps too,investment banks eventually”
If these are your “losers” then it’s a peculiar definition of the term you’re applying.
“That is not a small fish,considering the USA spends half of the entire world's budget on armament”
A bit disingenuous of you. It’s not even half on nominal exchange rate measures and you are conveniently forgetting about purchasing power parity under which it becomes far, far lower.
“The winners are still hiding in the shadow somewhere”
In a locked case, in a bank vault basement in a secure establishment whose existence is barely known with a big sign on it saying “Beware of toxic nuclear waste” would be nearer the truth.
“probably much smaller entities concentrating on products required…”
Aw, BLESS! Like cute little furry bunnies waiting for the evil old dinosaurs to die out from state financial asphyxia. You wish, Tonny, but where’s the evidence?
“…to implement the new rules that are to curb the worst effects of global warming”
Oooh, careful. You’re getting a tad prophetic and biblical, if I may say so.
“Obama's victory was an accident of history”
Gnomic utterance. Please to be explaining. I always put it down to the Yanks being fed up after 8 years of Dubya, the recession biting and folk blaming the incumbents, divisions over various foreign and military policy failures, the attractiveness of Barack’s candidacy, both as an African American per se, and because he wasn’t the expected Democrat nominee until quite late in the game and Yanks, like Brits, love plucky underdogs and successful outside bets. Folk climbing on bandwagons. Sudden worsening of the financial crisis during the campaign. In other words, all the bog standard reasons that have been repeated again and again throughout electoral history.
“it is a well established fact that the GOP always benefits more from the input of corporate gifts in a political campaign,”
Grant you that, Tonny. Much as the Tories did over here until comparatively recently: But the keyword is “more,” not exclusively.
“corporate goodwill towards the GOP was largely surpassed by grass root campaign contributions benefiting Obama”
Say private, individual, or merely “non corporate” rather than grassroots and you’d be closer. Some donations were of five and six figure sums. Hardly the oppressed masses selflessly donating their last dime to the child of light, saying “bless you, master, remember me when you come into your heavenly kingdom,” was it?
“community based organisations”
Oh dear, the third and least assessable constituent part of the leftist trinity.
God the State welfare provider, God the oppressed minorities, and God the community based organisations. Words without end, amen!
“The internet was alive and buzzing with these new phenomena”
Good use of a new medium, and they certainly reached their target audiences. Yes, efficient, and more to the point, devastatingly effective, too. Well funded, slick, and professional!
”US health care is already the most expensive in the world ,without delivering much more than head aches to it's recipients”
Agreed. The US spends about 15% of GDP on a cumbersome system, although government spend amounts to only 45% of that total. We achieve roughly similar outcomes in Europe from spends of between 9% and 12%. Yet don’t overstate your case, Tonny. US medical facilities and technique are amongst the best. It is the lack of universal availability, and the creaking, corrupt system of health finance that lets Americans down. That does need reform, and I hope it is successfully undertaken.
As to your following points, I could wish that our NHS was as efficient as your Belgian system. In some respects our “free at the point of need” service is overly bureaucratic and unresponsive. Medical staff are buried in paperwork. Independent trusts are breeding grounds for jobsworths and third-rate political appointees. They are part of our Quangocracy, in fact. There are layers of useless administrators and managers who would not be missed if they were to suffer alien abduction. There is a complex system of outsourcing essential but non-medical services and an entirely faux market mechanism for awarding these publicly funded contracts. To top it all off, the system has been made subject to ludicrous target driven performance criteria that are frequently quite inappropriate.
And now I’m going to surprise you, Tonny. In my estimation, the problems date almost entirely from the Tories’ imposition of an ill conceived “internal market” and New Labour’s subsequent tinkering, target related initiatives, and placing of useless apparatchiks on unnecessary trust boards. The NHS is, and should be run as, a pure public service ethos based organisation. There are some services that are better run so from an empirical perspective. Health is one of them.
“You probably have no idea how lucky you are to live in Europe ,I guess you are a bit ignorant on matters pertaining to private health care.”
A sweeping statement, Tonny. I had no idea that you are telepathic. I’m quite content to be a European, thanks. I confess to some degree of ignorance about healthcare. I do not work in the industry, after all. I have worked in insurance, and know a bit about PMI: Individual, group, and company provision. Over here, only about 8% go private and then the cover is usually restricted to acute conditions and is of a specific and limited nature. Chronic ailments usually are referred back to the NHS.
Yet I see no problem with private provision as a supplement to publicly funded care. If someone, having already paid their tax to support the NHS chooses to then opt out, all well and good. They’re freeing up resources for other patients who may not have the wealth to exercise such a choice. Of course, things are not always so clear-cut, but even if private patients end up in NHS facilities, they are still bringing more cash into the system and, so long as priorities are still assessed upon medical need, no harm done.
“ Just consider that the insurances companies are out there to make maximum profits:that means raking in as much as possible whilst doling out the absolute minimum.”
I assume you are referring to the US system, again. Have you worked in insurance? I would not like to just guess that you are a bit ignorant on matters pertaining to it. Not without more evidence, anyway.
“Going back to Obama”
Must we?
“He is an idealist with brains”
That’s a novel combination. I hope you’re wrong for all our sakes. I’ve met the occasional idealist with brains and even the ones who could tie their own shoelaces were like small, unguided missiles. So I hope that Barack is a Machiavellian pragmatist, myself. There’s much evidence to suggest so, even though he is a bit green still.
“He knows the health carte situation both in Europe and the USA well,certainly much better than you truebrit,I'm certain of that”
Another divine revelation, perhaps? Actually, Tonny, I hope you’re right. After all, I can do nothing to affect it: FOR GOOD OR ILL
“internet sites on which US citizens debate on health care reform.”
My constant bedtime reading, I assure you, Tonny.
To close, Tonny, I’ve read this back before posting. I do wish that you would try to be a little more objective about Obama. Your overt enthusiasm is misplaced in one who is so obviously well informed and owns some critical sense. Even worse, it drives me to be perhaps unduly ironic and cynical in response. Nevertheless, let it stand. It may one day occur to you that I may be just as interested in other people’s welfare as yourself, but restrict my own expectations to what I believe to be practical and realisable in a very complex world. Still;
Chacun a son gout, eh, Tonny?
@Truebrit,
Again, I take your point. Yet do not believe that anyone can answer it convincingly. I like to think that my own philosophy is based upon empiricism and realism. A sort of bod about in the moderate centre because it offers the least worse solution and reduces, though can never eliminate human exploitation, oppression, want, etc. That implies, I suppose that I accept these things as part of the human condition.
Phew! Deep breath, but here goes. Yes, I must accept them because I can see no way to prevent them or even try to absolutely without risking a huge augmentation in them by doing so. Particularly via the imposition of preset political constructs claiming an almost formulaic provenance for the creation of a flawless society.
So I'm left f*ck*ng about in the middle of the political spectrum addressing issues that seem to be important as they become moot. Ameliorating symptoms, as it were, rather than trying to address the cause of each problem. I've no choice, because I firmly believe that the problems derive directly from our humanity, itself. They can't be addressed without depriving us of what defines us as members of our particular species.
That is why I think marxist societies are unattainable in the full sense of the term and why I oppose attempts to bring them about. I contend that hisorical evidence backs my claim overwhelmingly.
Be aware truebrit that my enthusiasm towards Obama is only based on comparing him with the previous president of the USA which was Cheney (not Bush as so many seem to think)Hence I am entitled to even hubris if ever I felt the need for that .
Abot health care again .
Indeed I have extensive experience with our own belgian system because my parents badly needed it until they died .It is cheap,fast,extensive,hardly burocratic and well organized.Both of them having been in hospitals frequently over the last years,sometimes for periods of one month,it might have cost me or them perhaps as little as 600 euros ,I didn't even bother to calculate the costs as there was no impact on living standards .We have a social security card with an electronic chip,it is used in hospitals,mutual health care insurance funds,pharmacy and lots of other instances,very handy as you don't have to fill in paperwork at all,your medical files are accessible easily and transferable when you use it .
Well applied informatics is a blessing for the entire society,cuts through the red tape,saves a lot of work for the pen pushers and speeds up the flow of information betwen the concerned organizations .Doctors perform house visits on demand,waiting times in most hospitals vary around one hour (depends on the medical disciplin involved and the season).
As for the technology I am well informed,here as much as in the USA we have the latest and best.I know that because some of my friends used towork in that branch,selling medical equipment to hospitals for big american companies .
Just another remark,irony and sarcasm are no valid attributes to be used in discussions when you want to score,they are only useful to ventilate your own opinion ,they might make you feel as the all knowing superior mind that doesn't have to get into the arena, to fight but give the thumbs up or down from the tribune to settle the result of the gladiator fight .
and I maintain: 'Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.'
Except, perchance, in Belgium?
doesn't count. It is merely a boil on the ^ss of the world. It should be lanced and drained.
'Just another remark,irony and sarcasm are no valid attributes to be used in discussions when you want to score,they are only useful to ventilate your own opinion ,they might make you feel as the all knowing superior mind that doesn't have to get into the arena, to fight but give the thumbs up or down from the tribune to settle the result of the gladiator fight .'
When have I ever failed to engage with issues, Tonny? Or when have I presented myself as an all knowing or superior mind? Take our latest exchanges on this page as an example. You initiated the discussion. I have responded to your points quite unselectively. I have, furthermore, refrained until now from drawing your attention to the fact that you have been much more selective in your responses to myself. I have allowed you to set the agenda, in fact, and have confined my responses to addressing the issues that you have chosen to raise.
As for irony and sarcasm; if you are going to post on English language sites then I'm afraid they are techniques that you are going to encounter: Quite often, I would say. Yet if you read back through the comments on this page, you will perhaps see that I have only resorted to them in order to illustrate what I believe to be the shortfalls in some of your less well substantiated assertions.
Regarding your claim about your support for Obama being relative or considered: The tenor of your previous posts here casts doubt upon it. I'm afraid that you present as a 'Groupie' when Barack is mentioned, Tonny.
I think you'll find it's the Netherlands that have been drained. Though I believe Belgium has seen quite a lot of lances. Napoleon showed them a good few.
Yes, we've heard the bolshevik propaganda of the socialist health miricle on the pages before from Tonny from Stalingrad. Yet he ignpores the glaring fact:
Amercians are far more likely to get a life saving procedure in time, even without health insurance, than their european and brit counterparts, in time to treat the disease.
American medicine is twice as likely, in cases of Cancer, to cure the individual and apply heart disease treatment sooner.
You see, the euro health care myth relies on the winners i.e. Switzerland, The Netherlands, etc., who really do not have socialist health care per se, to pump up the dismal performance of the rest of these states. Then, the stats are skewed by the fact that the untreated, and/or untimely treated who may die, are not counted in the treatment stats i.e. only the winners get counted.
We call this death therapy.
The sale being made is that it's 'fair' to deny care to one person, in favor of treating another. This is what Obama is pimping, instead of offering real care options to the uncovered (not the same as the uninsured), a group that shrinks dramtically once you shave off the illegal aliens, the uninsured who can buy insurance but refuse, etc.
In this system, the care assets never match the need. One only has to look at the waitng lists in Canada to verify this fact, and the clinics across the borders in America treating Canadians.
It is, in essence, the equality argument that drives this farce. All the talk about Neocons, the GOP, the corporate monster, boogyman, etc., that seems to disappear when you're a libnazi i.e. Countrywide, Boeing, General Motors and the rest of the corporate welfare, libnazi-style that make Halliburton look like an egg stand, only seem to be part of the argument when the right is in office.
That being the case, looking to the left for equality and personal rights, in the face of Obama greenlighting every Bush antiterror point, search without warrant, indefinite dentention, to white firemen in Conneticut just reinforces the pig now wearing the farmers clothes, why would health care be any different?
Are you a bit sloshed, SP?
The problem with SP4 is that he prefers to believe Rush Limbaugh,I rather trust statistics .I'll be happy to provide tham,what about yours SP4.Sources please !
idiot sp4 ...Obama greenlighting every Bush antiterror point...
Didn't dawn on you yet that Bush never really was the president ?
And tat everything else you say is just wishful thinking from a neocon republican without any clues.
'I rather trust statistics'
Then try supplying some occasionally. Your posts above are full of unsubstantiated assertions. I am beginning to think that the only authority you really endorse is Obama's press office.
A bit odd, don't you think, Tonny, that Barackaios (Soter, Epiphanes) should have to resort to such mundane measures to obscure the fact that he's adopted Bush (OR Cheney)'s policies on everything from Iraq to indefinite detention without trial?
Surely a negligent wave of the godly hand and a casual 'let it be so' should have sufficed for general consumption. It seems to have worked on you and ACLU anyway, Tonny!
Statistics, Tonny? Your posts on this page are full of unsubstantiated assertions. I'm beginning to think the only source you refer to is Obama's press office.
I'd have thought that they would have their hands full just explaining his adoption of every policy of the previous administration from indefinite detention without trial to bombing Afghans.
truebrit,before I give you statitical figures comparing health care in the USA and Europe ,or even the entire world,I'like to ask you,what do you build your case on ?If not statistics or as you claim I do Obama's press office (wrong of course and plain silly affirmation).
I think, tonny, that if you look at the posts above, you will find that I am not really referring primarily to 'Health.' I am sure that SP4, you, and myself could merrily throw health statistics at each other until hell freezes over.
I am talking about all the other unsubstantiated assertions you have made. How about a little quantitative back-up for your remarks about GOP and Democrat sources of election funding. Some evidence to support your contention about 'winners' and 'losers' from Obama's election. Evidence of US insurance company malpractice. Or US defence expenditure as a percentage of total world spend, to name but a few examples.
As to my remark about Basileus Barack (Soter, Epiphanes)'s press office, it should be clear enough. As previously stated, you present unswervingly as an Obama groupie. Your remarks could hardly be less critical if you worked IN his press office. On any issue, at any time, you can be relied upon to parrot a pro-Obama line even when you have previously decried identical policy decisions implemented by the previous incumbent.
You may recall when I pursued you through several pages on one article, (Gitmo closure if I remember correctly) asking you repeatedly what your stance would be if the present administration returned to a policy of indefinite detention without trial. After three sheets or so of unadulterated goo and drivel in which you employed every technique known to man to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question, you finally made a gnomic declaration, tucked snugly into the middle of a long, opaque, rambling post, that boiled down to;
'I trust Obama unconditionally.'
Well I don't, Tonny! I trust no politician as far as I could throw them. As I pointed out to SP4 on another thread, Euro and UK leftists have been clucking over Barack like a hen with a cute, downy new chick ever since he was elected. 'We all know why' I said. Tonny, I continued, has reached the uncritical half way house stage between reasoned criticism and unthinking partisanship. Looks like I underestimated your capacity for outright bias.
Well, Tonny, the question is no longer conditional or hypothetical, is it? That's why I asked you about it again on this page, and was ignored again. Obama HAS returned to a policy of indefinite detention without trial.
I know it.
You know it.
SP4 knows it.
The other person who is still visiting this page, and who sees so far through you that he invariably refers to you as 'Tonny from Bilge-um' knows it too.
All three of us have, I suspect, widely differing views on the matter but at least, from the evidence of our previous posts, none of us lack consistency or are afraid to state and debate them.
I'll summarise my own thoughts for you here, Tonny.
1) This policy was wrong when practiced by the previous incumbent,
2) It remains wrong now,
3) Attempts to justify it NOW by persons or organisations that decried it THEN smack of sophistry and hypocrisy and undermine their credibility as commentors with any claim to objectivity.
Tonny, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THE REINTRODUCTION BY MEANS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, 44th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OF THE POLICY OF INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL.
Your Talkback on this Story