John Kerry is a Socialist! by Anarko

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

John Kerry is a Socialist!

POSTED BY: ANARKO
UPDATED: Thursday, October 28, 2004 13:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7923
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:00 PM

I found this on the VH1 message board for the show "Best Week Ever."

KERRY IS A SOCIALIST!!

Go look up his plans for healthcare and the economy and tell me if it doesn't fall under or close to this definition....
SOCIALISM:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Why do you Kerry supporters have to spead misinformation about BUSH all the time. Why don't you just sell your product which is more closer to a socialist ideology then a FREE MARKET ideology.

Who knows...maybe you'll get more followers to except WHO YOU ARE rather then to get those that come running to you b/c they are confused about BUSH because of all the misinformation put out there.

Greater then 50% of those that will be voting for Kerry come from the negative campaign against BUSH. HOWEVER, those same people truely don't know KERRY.

THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT WAS EVER A SUPER POWER AND A SOCIALIST SOCIETY WAS RUSSIA
And look what happened to it.It went bankrupt.

A big part of the reason why Russia's government failed,
was its not being able to afford its socialistic economic system
and its super power status AT THE SAME TIME.
Reagan's "Star War" policy pushed them over the edge
because they couldn't keep up with us.

In order for the USA to become socialistic,
we would have to give up our super power status..Its either one or the other.

Choosing Socialism could open us up to attacks from our enemies b/c they will see us weakened and use that to their advantage.

It would also leave a void in the world for other countries to fill.

The USA's role right now in the world is to defend Democrocy and freedom.

If we leave that role because we aren't a SUPER POWER anymore..other dangerous ideologies might just take over.

please think about that before you vote...ok.

http://www.vh1.com/interact/boards/main.jhtml/best_week_ever/ViewThrea
d?tID=644365&mID=3380631&offset=0&index=0

This I do to liberals......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:09 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

socialism is a lot like communism isn't it? I like that. I wish we had a perfect leader to run that communist state. When will Jesus come? He'd be the only good leader... really.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:14 PM

ERIN9277

While I respect your opinion, I think your comparision of socialism and communism is not accurate. Communism is a system of government that does not allow any private enterprise in economic and private sectors. Socialist governments allow private enterprise and capitalism but provide social programs and health care. For example, Sweden had an elected socialist government for years, but they never became or were known as a communist government. While I respect your opinion, I calling socialism communism is not accurate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:25 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Welcome to fireflyfans, Anarko (this being your first post and all). The Real World Event Discussions section is only a tiny fraction of what's goin on here.

I hope you enjoy your time here with fellow Browncoats.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:57 PM

SERGEANTX

I'm a Libertarian capitalist in all of my core political beliefs, which is about as close you can come to the true opposite of socialism. But under the current circumstances, Kerry could be a card carrying member of the communist party and he'd still get my vote. Not because I like him or his ideology. Fact is, I think he'll be a crummy president when it comes to the economy and domestic policy.

I'll vote for him because we have a rigged, two-party system which effectively limits our choice to one of two candidates. And because Bush has wiped his ass with the American flag and I'll never forgive him for it.

Bush passed up a golden opportunity to truly make the world a safer place. After 9/11 the world was ripe for a real, united stand against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Nation after nation expressed its eagerness to help us get the terrorists responsible. We could have rallied their support into something real.

Instead, he's alienated most of the globe and only encouraged more terrorism against the US. He's drug us along on a religious vendetta and I'll be damned if I let my sons die for that sunuvabitch's 'faith'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:07 PM

KIRIKOLI

Wow, that's...several kinds of inaccurate. I don't recall Kerry wanting the government to take over the means of production or equalize personal incomes and possessions. Oh wait...he wants people to have the same opportunities at health care and education...but that would be terrible! Then poor people could be healthy and smart! That is so like a socialist...

And I love how Kerry-supporters are lying about Bush. Even if this was true, wouldn't it be slightly more important to note that Bush is lying directly to you? How many times has he publically announced that we've won the war in Iraq? At least once. And how many times has he owned up to there being no WMDs? None that I recall. Don't get me wrong, I agreed with the war in Iraq in the beginning but try to honestly justify the ongoing events and Bush's portrayal of them.

Russia was not the only socialist superpower. China was pretty far up there. We were certainly afraid of them enough to not go through with our plans in Vietnam. And I definitely would say that people like Stalin and his slaughter of 40 million of his own people, as well as the extremely poor peasant class of Russia had something to do with the failure of their economy. And who knows? If there hadn't been a Cold War, mebbe they would've had a chance to stablize themselves and their new economy.

When we vote, why don't we think about what's best for the country...not how we should be policing the world. I'm all for the spread of democracy...but that doesn't equate to the imposition of democracy on less powerful countries by superpowers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:10 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I'm a believer in peace and freedom. Some folks like to call those like me a liberal... I guess I fits the bill. I like liberty. Liberty. Liberal. You get the picture.

Yer right SeargX, I don't think Bush has it either. Not that Kerry does, but the lesser of two evil demons is usually a better choice. Bush's prolly gonna win, (as the more powerful demon) but regardless, you can tell by really listening to him, with the spirit of discernment, that he is not being fully truthful... which is more dangerous than someone fully outright lying. I like that too. I don't mean I like what he's doing. I like that I recognize what he's doing.

But anyway, back to my real point... Jesus. Communism and Socialism are close enough that the distinctions can only be substantially drawn when one can apply their results to the action or inaction of an imperfect leader... not Jesus. Did I mention I like Jesus?

OK... now who's gonna respond and say they don't like Jesus?

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:11 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

OK... now who's gonna respond and say they don't like Jesus?

*sigh*

OK, I guess I will.
Jesus, that fat bastard, was always eating. Made it hard to pick up harlots.
Jesus used to always wear those robes and sandals, then insist people wash his feet. If he wanted clean feet couldn't he have worn boots to cover his toes and blouse some trousers over them?
And the name-dropping?!? Forget about it. "My dad made the universe. My dad has a holy choir of angels. My dad is stronger than your dad."
Plus, he still owes me five bucks. I can't wait for the second coming, I need that money now!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:22 PM

CREVANREAVER

With all due respect to anyone who disagrees, I personally do believe that John Kerry is a near socialist. As a libertarian I'm absolutely disgusted with many of his policies and views.

On another thread someone suggested that Kerry is a libertarian and I mentioned various things about his politics that are the exact opposite of libertarianism.

Libertarians ideologically are opposed to any government intervention in abortion, Kerry wants the government heavily involved in funding abortions.

True libertarians love capitalism, Kerry has a strong anti-business voting record.

The majority of libertarians see the public school as a failure and realize the best solution is to completely privatize the education system, Kerry has a history of pro-public education votes.

Most libertarians want the government out of our health care, Kerry is all for socialized health care.

Libertarians want Social Security privatized, Kerry has been staunchly oppose to that.

Every genuine libertarian has the highest respect for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and unconditionally supports the right to bear arms, Kerry is for aggressive gun control.

He supported the Assault Weapons Band and the Brady Bill. He supports suing gun manufacturers for gun violence (showing he doesn't believe in personal responsibility). Overall Kerry has received a completely deserved F rating from the National Rifle Association due to his opposition to Americans' right to personal property.

The part about gun control is reason enough for me to not vote for Kerry. I consider the entire movement to restrict my rights to defend myself not only un-American, but flat out Anti-American.

And as to the issue with Social Security. Kerry has recently started ranting and raving that people shouldn't vote for President Bush because he'll privatize Social Security. That's a lie. The president will not privatize.

However Social Security SHOULD be privatized!

No matter what's done, eventually it will run out. It's not going to work, it was never going to work and a government bureaucracy only makes it worse. On top of that, the government shouldn't be in the charity business. If someone is dumb enough to not save up for themselves then that's their problem, not the tax payers.

Don't get me wrong, because of some of the authoritarian policies of the Bush Administration, I'm not going to vote for President Bush. I'll vote for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party on November 2nd.

However, because of John Kerry's socialistic views, if I had to chose between Kerry and Bush, I'd go with President Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush is actually the lesser of two evils.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:03 PM

WHISPERING

Quote:
Originally posted by Anarko:
A big part of the reason why Russia's government failed,
was its not being able to afford its socialistic economic system
and its super power status AT THE SAME TIME.
Reagan's "Star War" policy pushed them over the edge
because they couldn't keep up with us.

Uhm, are you talking about Russia or Soviet Union?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:36 PM

ANARKO

Remember I didn't write the article. But I think its pretty obvious that the author clearly meant the Soviet Union.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:14 AM

WINTERFELL

it's sad that you believe that. what will you do when mister kerry is elected then?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:37 AM

CONSCIENCE

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
...when mister kerry is elected...

Kerry won't be elected!

http://www.peroutka2004.com/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ26038
http://www.instituteontheconstitution.com/
http://www.facethetruth.com/

http://www.kerrywrongformormons.com/
http://www.kerrywrongforcatholics.org/
http://www.kerrywrongforevangelicals.com/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:09 AM

NAKEDANDARTICULATE

well if someone posted this on vh1---i am going to believe it. anarko your mouth is moving you might want to look into that.

"Hamsters is nice."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:50 AM

WINTERFELL

Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience:
Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
...when mister kerry is elected...

Kerry won't be elected!

http://www.peroutka2004.com/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ26038
http://www.instituteontheconstitution.com/
http://www.facethetruth.com/

http://www.kerrywrongformormons.com/
http://www.kerrywrongforcatholics.org/
http://www.kerrywrongforevangelicals.com/

keep tellin yerself that and one day it might come true.. like in 2008....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You know, if we really lived in that wonderful economic situation called a "free market" where businesses actually competed against each other (as described in "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith... have you hear of it?) I might have more faith in capitalism. But seeing as businesses inevitably tend towards monopolies due to economies of scale and the might of money, I'll pick democratic socialism over monopolism. I wouldn't mind the USA being more like Sweden.

BTW, I found the defintion of "socialism" to be so broad as to be useless. I suggest an alternate defintion of socialism that defines it as an economy where production is capitalist but distribution of income is heavily influenced by the government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:18 AM

SHANNARA

"socialism bad"
"capitalism good"
"communism evil"

"Ideology is good. It prevents people from thinking too much." - me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:24 AM

UNCHARTEDOUTLAW

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
OK... now who's gonna respond and say they don't like Jesus?

*sigh*

OK, I guess I will.
Jesus, that fat bastard, was always eating. Made it hard to pick up harlots.
Jesus used to always wear those robes and sandals, then insist people wash his feet. If he wanted clean feet couldn't he have worn boots to cover his toes and blouse some trousers over them?
And the name-dropping?!? Forget about it. "My dad made the universe. My dad has a holy choir of angels. My dad is stronger than your dad."
Plus, he still owes me five bucks. I can't wait for the second coming, I need that money now!

ROFL! That's the kind of irreverence I like to see in response to crap like Anarko's (A NARC-O?). Anyway, has no one thought to point out the cutesy wittle narkie's source was VH-1?! Right, because VH-1 is the leading authority on socialism and all that fun stuff.

GAWD, can it be November 3rd already!?

-Taylor

Uncharted Outlaw!

Haulin' goods from one end of creation to th' other. Keepin' my nose clean 'round the Alliance. See my Firefly Store: http://www.cafepress.com/NorCalRiviera

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:00 AM

THELION

Don't feed the trolls, people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:03 AM

UNCHARTEDOUTLAW

But what else are we to do with Gummy Bear entrails?

-Taylor

Uncharted Outlaw!

Haulin' goods from one end of creation to th' other. Keepin' my nose clean 'round the Alliance. See my Firefly Store: http://www.cafepress.com/NorCalRiviera

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:25 AM

HJERMSTED

Your argument fails from the first word you type by presuming that socialism in and of itself is automatically a bad thing.

There are numerous socialist nations on this planet, some more successful at it than others. You can still buy a coca cola in all of them. There are still citizens wealthier than other citizens in these nations. They sell lotto tickets at their Quick-E Marts just like everywhere else. And, most importantly, citizens still vote in regular elections in the majority of them.

Sure they're taxed a little higher but not by as much as you think... just add up all the taxes you pay (city, county/parish, state, federal, sales) and compare it to a socialist country that only pays federal and sales taxes.

There's nothing totalitarian about the socialist governments of nations such as Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway or Canada for example. But there IS a smaller gap between the rich and the poor (the US wealth gap is obscene by comparison... an embarassment). There IS guaranteed healthcare (hopefully you don't need to be reminded that the US does NOT have this). Some of these socialist nations even guarantee access to higher education and trade school to their citizens.

So, let's see... guaranteed healthcare and higher education as national priorities VS. priority given to protecting wealth addiction and bloated military spending... (forcing citizens to fight amongst themselves for the crumbs that come "trickling down")

Honestly... as long as democracy prevails in a socialist state what is there to fear? The real question becomes do you want to live in a fair society or not? Socialism at its core is PRO-society.

We can't hide in the hills with our guns fearing our neighbors and/or government forever, can we? We ARE our neighbors and we ARE our government.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:16 AM

WHISPERING

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Some of these socialist nations even guarantee access to higher education and trade school to their citizens.

Here (Finland) all schools are free. Also we have a Student Financial Aid and a guaranteed healthcare :)

http://www.minedu.fi/minedu/education/
http://www.stm.fi/Resource.phx/eng/subjt/healt/hinsu/index.htx

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:00 AM

MRSMACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
[Honestly... as long as democracy prevails in a socialist state what is there to fear? The real question becomes do you want to live in a fair society or not? Socialism at its core is PRO-society.
mattro

Two things about what you posted. The idea of fairness in any way shape or form in life is pretty much ludicrous. Nowhere, and at no time has life been a tad bit, even a touch, fair. And the push for fairness is morally ambitious, while being completely and utterly fruitless and impossible.

Second. If you really studied the sitituation of all these socialistic countries with their free health care, you will find that the system is ultimately flawed and will not work. Not unlike our Social Security system. The US has the best health care system period. When people need the best care they come here. It may not be Fair, it may mean that the rich have better health care than you or I, but it does also mean that we have the ability to get treatment. My dad recently got out of the hospital, and things were rough financially for a while, before everything insurancewize kicked in, but he got better, and I'm sure that had he lived anywhere else he'd be dead.

Sorry, I just can't see why it is even the federal governments business to step into the healthcare industry. I just want them to put a limit on Malpractice so that maybe my kids will have healthcare.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:12 AM

HARDWARE

You think that's bad, I found this definition of Fascism and damn if it doesn't sound like the USA I'm living in at this very moment.

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

Pretty soon Bush and Heinrich,...err, I mean Rumsfeld will have the masses Seig Heiling in front of the reflecting pool. Leni Riefenstahl eat your heart out!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:47 AM

SIGMANUNKI

@Anarko
You really need to look up the definitions of socialism and communism. They are *very* different.

And the main reason why the US "won" the cold war is because Russia didn't play anymore. Ergo, the US "won" by default. Russia couldn't support the massive military expenses require. < sarcasm > So, yay america for having a more resiliant economy than Russia did. < /sarcasm >

Your black and white mentality is quite telling. You are aware that there *are* shades of grey, right?

The rest of your comments don't even deserve the keystrokes it would require to respond.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nowhere, and at no time has life been a tad bit, even a touch, fair. And the push for fairness is morally ambitious, while being completely and utterly fruitless and impossible.

Now, that has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard! I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just have to get to it later!

Quote:
If you really studied the sitituation of all these socialistic countries with their free health care, you will find that the system is ultimately flawed and will not work. Not unlike our Social Security system. The US has the best health care system period. When people need the best care they come here.

My friend, since my daughter was born with a very rare neurological disorder, I've had more contact with the medical system here and abroad that I would ever wish on my worst enemy. I don't need to "study" the system, I've lived it.

As far a having the "best" health care system, I can point to many parents with disabled children who have NO health care, who struggle day in and day out just to care for and educate their kids, sacrificing houses, jobs, and any meaninful life because they have no support whatsoever. Our infant mortality is worse than Cuba's, for chrissake!

What you mean is that FOR THOSE WHO CAN PAY we offer the most advanced treatment. Well, FYI the most advanced treatment and the best research that I've found for my daughter's condition comes from Singapore, Italy, and France.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

I WAS going to reply, but you said it best.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:47 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

AMERICANS ARE SOCIALISTS

Yes we are, don't deny it or you'll look foolish.
Just because certain circles consider the term derogatory doesn't mean we aren't socialists. Look at our actions and institutions, not the rhetoric.
BTW, if you check you'll find that fictitious persons are by far the largest recipients of our socialist largesse.
How we personally describe it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 3:34 AM

MRSMACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Now, that has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard! I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just have to get to it later!

My friend, since my daughter was born with a very rare neurological disorder, I've had more contact with the medical system here and abroad that I would ever wish on my worst enemy. I don't need to "study" the system, I've lived it.

Our infant mortality is worse than Cuba's, for chrissake!

First, I won't argue the first part, as we have vastly different ideas on that scope from my take of you in your other posts. Not saying you are wrong or right, just that we can agree to disagree.

Second, I'm sorry about your daughter, and I hope all is as well as it can be.

Last, I checked out what you said about Cuba and I can see that the numbers they post are better than ours. Of course, then I went and checked deeper, i.e.. read about 6 articles on it and did some other fact checking and this one summed it up the best. There is a reason that Cuba has us beat on Infant Mortality and it is stated below. The web site is

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/000019.html

and here is some of what they write.

Ahh, heck here is all of it.

Recently released statistics on the infant mortality rate in the Western hemisphere yielded an odd conclusions -- Cuba's infant mortality rate, 16 6.0 per 1,000, is now lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate, at 7.2 per 1,000. Given Cuba's poverty level, its 6.0 rate is very impressive, but is it accurate to say that Cuba now has an infant mortality rate lower than the United States? No.

The problem is that international statistics on infant mortality are helpful in revealing large differences, but when it comes to small differences such as that between Cuba and the United States, often other factors are really behind the numbers.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight -- less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births -- i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.

It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba's infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States', but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

This does not diminish in any way Cuba's progress on infant mortality, which is one of the few long term improvements that the Cuban state has made, but infant mortality statistics that are that close to one another are often extremely difficult to compare cross-culturally.

Something to ponder at the very least. We try, and whether we succeed in making the world a better place is, and always will be in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks for your time.
Derek

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 5:59 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by MrSmack:

Two things about what you posted. The idea of fairness in any way shape or form in life is pretty much ludicrous. Nowhere, and at no time has life been a tad bit, even a touch, fair. And the push for fairness is morally ambitious, while being completely and utterly fruitless and impossible.

It is called justice. By your logic why have laws, courts or governments at all? We punish a thief because it is not fair, even though he took the stolen item through his own skill and cunning or through the incompetence of the victim. We punish the muderer because it is not fair, even though he defeated his victim through his own strength and skill.

People live in community with one another, there needs to be a way to resolve disputes and allocate limited resources and again to resolve the disputes over the allocation of those same resources. Governments as the arbitrators of the disputes of its citizenry must take

Quote:
Second. If you really studied the sitituation of all these socialistic countries with their free health care, you will find that the system is ultimately flawed and will not work. Not unlike our Social Security system. The US has the best health care system period. When people need the best care they come here. It may not be Fair, it may mean that the rich have better health care than you or I, but it does also mean that we have the ability to get treatment. My dad recently got out of the hospital, and things were rough financially for a while, before everything insurancewize kicked in, but he got better, and I'm sure that had he lived anywhere else he'd be dead.

Must be nice to have insurance, an awful lot of us don't and the number is growing every year. Am glad your dad made out ok though, mine just had a cardiac close call so I can empathize.

I find it odd that the majority of the industrialized world uses a similar health care system, a similar education system and has a similar parliamentary government rather than the 'superior' American system. They must all be stupid or really stubborn.

Quote:
Sorry, I just can't see why it is even the federal governments business to step into the healthcare industry. I just want them to put a limit on Malpractice so that maybe my kids will have healthcare.

You don't want the federal government involved in healthcare but then you want them involved to cap malpractice. This is one of the double standards that drove me from the Republican party, you can't have small government and big government at the same time. You can't reduce bureaucracy by requiring more paperwork. I don't like large civil suits but I fail to see any industry reform without them, especially if want to avoid overregulation.

The reality is that the government is invovled in health care, they have to be. They set standards for pharmaceuticals, medical care and waste disposal, they supply grants for research and subsidies to hospitals and medical schools (supplied by taxpayers), they influence pricing via medicare and patent laws.

Those of us Americans who see the value in a national healh care system, see the value in a healthy community. A healthy community is preferrable to one where only the wealthy can afford to healthy. It is not dissimilar to the education system, the belief is that an educated community is preferable to an uneducated one. This is why even people that don't have children pay taxes towards schools.

Is it perfect, absolutely not! Utopia is not a destination, it is a direction. Anybody can say that perfection is impossible and decide to stop wherever they are. It is not like the current situation is some limit of human achievement. We might as well have stopped at any point in human history.

I guess I will leave with a quote which sums up so clearly why I choose to be a liberal and maybe why I don't get along so much with my fellow liberals.

We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave as they are. But you do not. If you leave a white post alone you will soon have a black post. If you particularly want it to be a white post you must always be painting it again; that is you must always be having a revolution. Briefly, if you want an old white post you must have a new white post.

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 10:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
First, I won't argue the first part, as we have vastly different ideas on that scope from my take of you in your other posts

Hmmm... you've read my other posts then???
(*runs and hides*)

Re: infant mortality. It should be possible to re-cast USA infant mortality rate into the WHO model by deleting the <1000 g births from our stats. Unfortunately, I won't have the time to do this in the near future but then we would be able to compare USA to Scandinavian countries (which have developed socialist economies) to Cuba (which has an under-developed socialist economy).

BTW, I'm not blind to the problems of other healthcare systems. I hear a LOT about those UK waiting lists! But the problem is that Britain underfunds medicine terribly on a per capita basis. (Culturally, British docs also seem to have a tremendous god complex!).

I hear a LOT of complaints from the USA too. Some people get MAXIMAL care (child has a central line and is on total parentral nutrition, a trache, in and out of ICU for years mainlining antibiotics bc of mitochondrial disorder) while some people have NONE (similar case, child was sent home w/o even oxygen support or sufficient morphine to make the last few months more bearable).

You might say that if SOME people can afford maximal and alternate treatments, then clincial progress can be made in a "researchy" fashion. My experience has been mixed, but I think that oddly, parents comparing notes on the internet have advanced medicine farther than money.

-------------------------------
Getting back to the issue of "fairness". "Fair" isn't a term that I apply to nature for obvious and personal reasons. But there are processes in nature that smack of "fairness" and they are tied to (of all things) species survival.

If every individual animal were to compete with others of its own species strictly on the basis of might, the species would die out. There is a rough form of "justice" that says that if a species doesn't have enough inhibitions against killing its own vulnerable members (encumbered females and young) it terminates. This is especially true among social species, which have developed all kinds of non-lethal negotiations to resolve issues of status, protection, resources, cooperation, sex, friendship, hierarchy and so forth. The negotiations are flexible, they result in a non-instinctive culture.

In fact, there was a recent report of a baboon culture that did a complete 180 after their more aggressive male members died out from tuberculosis, and this culture has maintained itself despite the fact that new male baboons joined the tribe.

http://tigger.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/NYT,%20Baboon%20culture,%
204-13-04.doc

Now, if baboons can demonstrate behavioral flexibilty, what does this say about humans?

The point is that human behavior isn't driven by primal forces over which we have no control.

And oh drats, my lunch break is up!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 2:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Or, to continue... our primal forces are not as one-sided (towards aggression and competition) as most people think they are. On balance, humans seem to be capable of a LOT of behaviors, and instituting "fairness" is one of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:37 PM

VILAVON

I'm still flying in 2021. How about you?

Jeez! None of this means anything until Ghoulman processes it. Where are you, Ghoul?

Vilavon AKA Claude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE