Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

A big issue I have with certain forms of socialism

If you are born with a disability or condition, become injured in sport or war or develop something in old age through no fault of your own whilst being a productive, healthy member of society, I completely understand socialised healthcare for such people if they have paid into it.

However, I find something immoral about the idea of someone who has put a lot of money into exercise equipment/gym and healthy food, and time into exercising and preparing healthy meals, to then have to pay for the surgery of someone in their 40s who has just had heart failure as a direct result of going to mcdonalds every day and their only exercise being a couple minute walk to the cinema. Money that he could have put into the healthier man's children, or his hobbies, or into a business.
whowasthatmaskedman · 61-69, M
Universal Health care should be universal. What you see as inequity will always exist. But it should exist in the contributions the healthy man pays through his taxes if anything. We can make the same argument for people who suffer health issues from Drug abuse. The fact is treating them promptly and effectively is usually going to be overall cheaper for the community thatn waiting for it to get worse.
whowasthatmaskedman · 61-69, M
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] Actually we agree in principle. The world is not black and white. But sdaly some govt policy has to be to prevent exceptions being made both for and against. Or Bias creeps in. I places like refugee visas you can afford to go case by case. But when it comes to who gets treatment for what. It HAS to be equal for all..
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@621893,whowasthatmaskedman] Why does it? Then why not make everything else equal?
whowasthatmaskedman · 61-69, M
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] Because some things, like political or religious views are optional. Or choices of convenience. Getting sick or injured is not. Neither is race. And pretty much every civilised country has are least laws on the books to protect against discrimination on race, even if the enforcement needs work. So if I have a broken hip or need a kidney, my wealth, ability to pay, or the colour of my skin should not be a factor.
Keraunos · 31-35, M
This is rather like saying there's something immoral about the idea of someone who has put a lot of money into buying and meticulously maintaining an off-road-ready SUV to then have to pay for the regular upkeep of paved roads in his area.

The argument is sensible enough on its face, but unfortunately, different values and modes of reasoning are ultimately required for organizing individual and societal life. The most radical arch-capitalists tend to conceptually treat society as though it is simply an aggregate of individuals who have little to do with one another aside from moving money among themselves, while the most radical arch-socialists tend to conceptually treat individual people as little more than component cells in a containing society, for the sake of which they exist.

In this case, whatever indignation may arise from seeing the tutelary consequences of a life poorly lived subverted at taxpayer expense, a bloated and labyrinthine bureaucracy surrounding socialized healthcare which determines who is eligible for what services and why will ultimately produce worse results, and the inevitable cases in which people who have fallen into unpreventable health problems through no fault of their own are denied treatment and left to die on some technicality will produce far greater indignation for anyone who values people more than money.

Who is "taking" from who at the societal level proves to be partially subjective anyway, and one can frame things in nearly anyway they please depending on what is accepted as axiomatic to the socioeconomic arrangement and what is considered not-set-in-stone. For example, in the United States, where I live — is it the middle-aged fast-food grazer himself who has taken your tax money? Is it the Department of Health and Human Services, which has spectacularly neglected some fairly basic public health PR work — of the kind done in Finland, for example, where a two-decade PR campaign about the health hazards of excessive salt consumption was waged, leading to decreased overall national medical costs, lower average blood pressure among its citizens, reduction of strokes and heart disease by 80%, and an improvement on average life expectancy by nearly six years? Is it corporate lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce, who have managed to reduce the total corporate contribution to the U.S. tax pool from 23% to 7% over the last five decades, thus thrusting more of the financial burden of maintaining this person's onto individual taxpayers? Is it pharmaceutical lobbyists who have managed to raise the cost of this individual's treatment far beyond what is necessary to turn a good profit or what could be charged in other countries? Or is the U.S. Congress itself which goes about the business of implementing the agendas of these lobbyists — who are after all only rationally pursuing their own self-interest — at the expense of their constituents?

A creative enough person could distribute conceptual emphasis in such a way as to make a persuasive firebrand's argument for any of those and more being ultimately "to blame". A more important question might be: would socialized healthcare be less objectionable at the margins if it was implemented alongside serious plans to resolve the problems alluded to in the previous paragraph?
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@666713,Keraunos] I'm going to sound blunt (partly because it's getting late) but "public health PR work — of the kind done in Finland". it is not rocket science. I doubt there is any literate person past the age of 10 that does not know that fresh vegetables, real meat, water, fruit etc and decent exercise are needed to be healthy. And that Mcdonalds, energy drinks and biscuits are bad for your health. Does anybody ever think "ooh I put on a bit of weight, it must be the lettuce/running"? I dont think awareness is an issue at all. I think the issue is people caring enough in a world where we can just walk to the supermarket and get all the food we can eat, do a desk job that doesn't require a 100% healthy body, and plenty of people who pretend that being obese is fine.

I dont think the SUV analogy quite fits. Imagine there was socialised fuel, but rather than measure each person's share by litres of fuel, it was just however much it took to fill your car, and you get refills as soon as the fuel is over. Now imagine some people decided to drive in the most fuel inefficient way possible, and then still demand the same share as the more careful drivers.

" Is it corporate lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce, who have managed to reduce the total corporate contribution to the U.S. tax pool from 23% to 7%" That's only because when you tax someone who makes their money producing a product or service they will cover that tax by upping their price.

To me, it is not so much an issue of who specifically took that money, more that the money was taken against that person's consent. If said person does not agree to have a certain portion of his labour seized, he will be physically forced into a small cell for an extended time. Yet this person has not infringed on the safety or property of any other person. And socialism and government is just an idea, government does not actually produce anything. It takes from the labour and property of individuals. Individuals require their own labour and property to be able to contribute to society. The less they have, the less they can contribute. Eventually it collapses, I believe. Everything becomes expensive to cover the cost funding the different services, covering the records of all the taxes, all the regulations, and the tax gatherings. The productive then become less independent and then require more social services, which require more taxes and after a while everyone gets dragged down to the same low level.

And even that aside, the attitude I get when I talk to socialists. The attitude is always "I dont understand money, i cant be bothered to, and I dont want to take risks so ill get the government to do money things for me. But that also means they have to do the money things for other people who might want to learn how to manage their own money". And this subcontracting of their thinking quickly moves to other areas.There are so many socialists I know where you can't really have an interesting conversation about anything. And I mean anything. Any kind of thought about some science idea? "leave it to the experts", any thought on films? "leave it to the experts", everything just becomes a contracting of all thoughts to some authority. In every thing. Literally all you can discuss is "the weather is nice, I enjoyed that burger" or things directly related to their job. I swear some socialists dont even think through what you've told me, they are just socialists because they want someone else to do their thinking.
Penny · F
one could say the unhealthy eater was a victim of societal norms or poor upbringing, mental or emotional problems, etc. though. just as if say he had a heart attack from overexerting himself exercising and became disabled or something, the healthcare would still cover him. the poor in society are often the worst eaters. do you want to penalize people for not being able to afford healthier foods? one man who makes himself a glutton of his own volition should not affect everyone else. to begrudge everyone else because of the few seems selfish to me if you want my opinion. no matter how healthy a person is they never know when they might suffer setbacks or catastrophes. the safety net is for everyone. the lucky who never need it should consider themselves fortunate and in an ideal world be gracious to share that good fortune if say for one by their ability to work. not all have that luxury. his money is going to the security of his children in a roundabout way. it's a sacrifice for the greater good.
Penny · F
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] well, honestly, without being treated in a proactive manner, I think the subject is pretty pointless and can be quite offensive. Obesity can be genetic or a disease or disorder as well as something that people succumb to solely because of poor choices. To fight obesity would mean to fight the large food corporations too. Who is willing to do that? A survival of the fittest approach would surely be their downfall. Besides, some people can live on junk food and be perfectly healthy where others cant too. So its not that simple. And poor financial habits too is a terrible subject to think about from my viewpoint. I find a lot of people just don't care at all. To make them be responsible? Hard job. (Not saying I'm not occasionally guilty of excessive spending.) And no one wants to hear about "culling the weak" That stuff is probably better off left in secret societies and such lol. I am an observer and supplicant in this life. I can only offer my thoughts and I offer them very casually.
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@533101,Penny] I could not care less what is offensive. I'd be open to someone suggesting to to me why people with my own condition should be done away with. "I'm offended" is not an argument.
I dont think the food corps should be fought. They aren't forcing anyone to eat their food. As soon as you give people that excuse, even if we did somehow end fast food companies, the obese would invent a new excuse.
There is a simple solution to both the financially stupid and the obese. End the state support. Simple. It's like someone who still lives with their parents in their 20s in which they dont contribute rent and so feel their min wage job gives them plenty of money so they don't strive for more. Cut that support off. Let natural selection, natural law, do its job. natural selection culls without prejudice.
Penny · F
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] see the post i just made under everyoneknows comment
everyoneknows · 31-35, T
ever heard of emotional eating? its caused by depression and other things which some ignorant shallow sociopaths fail to understand. not saying its the case
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@533101,Penny] "I dont want to generalise, also it's easier for you because you have a penis, forget your physical disability"
Penny · F
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] exercise isnt necessary for weight loss
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@533101,Penny] Ah, indeed. Because being able to both eat healthy and exercise burning off calories does not make it easier to lose weight than just eating healthy. Whilst yes it is more about what you eat, it sure as heck helps! And to be honest I dont want to have this conversation any more. You claim to not generalise then immediately make a judgement about how easy something is for me because I'm a man and then brush off the difficulties I've had with my health due to my physical limitations.
Joker2019 · 26-30, M
Yeah this is why socialism doesn't work and never will. Also we all know where socialism leads to. Leads to communism. People from Cuba and Venezuela fled their own countries and came here for a reason, to get away from that. Now these people expect people like them that fled their own failing countries to go through all that again and us as well? It's not realistic for feasible.
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@1202007,everyoneknows] Who are propagandists?
everyoneknows · 31-35, T
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] leftist ones. theres tons of them everywhere spreading leftistt ideas religiously
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@1202007,everyoneknows] Well, we agree somewhat, there.
BlueVeins · 22-25
I generally agree that that's an issue; the best way to address it is to issue a pigouvian tax on unhealthy foods that would compensate for the increased medical expenses that result from eating them.
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@4199,BlueVeins] Whilst I am often for smaller government, I'd be in favour of something like that.
fun4us2b · M
If a person is not taught they cannot change.

Who are we to judge where a person came from and then condemn them to their predetermined destinies?

Society cannot improve under this kind of thinking.
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@64578,fun4us2b] I am glad you are proud of your achievements,I wish for every one to be. But I feel like there are a lot of purposely damaging ideas going around, based on something that seems nice, and disguised as empathy. Like, it is good to accept yourself for who you are, but then it morphs into "any constructive criticism is hate because i cant be bothered to develop my musical skills", "I should love myself for who i am which means I should stay morbidly obese". And I've never seen this pushed by anyone the left dislikes.

No, you can't lift 5000lbs, but you are making an excuse for yourself. Who has ever said you should be able to lift 5000lbs immediately? When I started rowing, i could only manage 20 minutes, now I could literally go on all day. When I started the piano, I had to have the letters written on the pages for ages, but now I'm an amazing sight reader. Every great feat can be achieved by working toward it inch by inch. If you could just do something immediately, it would not be something that people praise.

Oh thank you, I play bits of everything from Chopin to Owl City
fun4us2b · M
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] That's like me, I run the musical gamut also - it's great for the brain and soul.

I agree that the hyperbole around the whole thing actually hurts the people that need the help. We have to somehow ignore the hype and the media bigmouths and do what we can to help the ones that really need and can accept our help...it takes work, it's not a short quick fix.
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@64578,fun4us2b] I actually don't think it can be fixed. I've tried changing people's minds on the smallest things. You can take months trying to convince your friend, with them insulting you the whole way for daring to challenge established thought, and if you ever get a confession that you are right, five minutes later they are back to acting as if you are wrong.

I think powerful people are taking advantage of the growing lack of self control, the increased hedonism, increased narcissism, decreased reading in society, and throwing us down a path of ruin whilst convincing people that they are doing good and that those who speak out against it have bad intent.

I bring up books that I thought was common reading, or facts that I thought were common knowledge and to many they have no idea what I am talking about. There is always some dismissive label. Absolutely everything is called a "conspiracy theory" nowadays, complete scientific and historic facts are called "conspiracy theories" by many. And if that label fails, just call anyone you disagree with a troll.For every one fact you may convince someone of, the media has convinced that person of 100 lies.
ozgirl512 · 26-30, F
True, but there should be incentives to keep yourself reasonably fit and healthy
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@516864,ozgirl512] Wouldn't the incentive be that you get the healthcare that you paying for? As I'd still tax the obese. I find here in the UK almost all obese people love socialism.
ozgirl512 · 26-30, F
[@321829,pianoplayingsteve] that's all well and good in theory, but let's be honest... How many Americans who are on minimal wages can afford it?
pianoplayingsteve · 26-30, M
[@516864,ozgirl512] I've lived below minimum wage and still ate properly.
JohnnySpot · 51-55, M
The monster is sick, there is something wrong with the monster
curiosi · 56-60, F

 
Post Comment
 
11643 people following
Politics
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Groups Category Members