who is actually going to fall for obama care

[H20nly]

Marx addressed all of this when he said "it jerst wurks, err mer gurd!"

[stringtapper]

The market only adds cost, adds paperwork, adds unnecessary complexity.

Indeed, if there's anything that government does well it's eliminating paperwork and overly complex systems.

[andydes]

Funken, first off, thanks for a bit of clarification on how democracy could work in industry

However, this bit is slightly dismissive of what I see as one the biggest challenges a true socialist system needs to address-

You make it sound complicated, but it would be simpler in a socialist economy because of more integration. Of course there would still be choice

"More integration" doesn't magically make it easy. You would be replacing a system where each company just does it's own thing according to supply and demand with one where you have to coordinate production of everything everywhere. How can that possibly be simpler?

I've looked around socialist websites and not found much better explainations. Eg

They were writing in the early 20th century and today the distribution of such goods could be achieved far more efficiently than they can be retailed in shops, especially given recent developments in IT. What could be simpler than ordering free, publicly provided goods on the internet? Demand and future production needs could be monitored continuously and fed into the planning process.

http://socialistpartyp.wordpress.com/wh ... look-like/

Yay! Free stuff for everyone from the internet! Surely that wouldn't create supply problems in a world dangerously running out of resources.

As for the phone vs rice sorting machine development example, I wasn't saying people were too stupid to want clean rice, I was saying people simply are not even aware of the existence of things like this. Mill managers/ workers know about them, of course, and demand for better machines comes from them. But in a panned ecconomy, somebody has to make the decision to allocate resources to devolop some things more than others. I could imagine requests for funding moving up several layers of representatives - rice production equipment, agricultural machinery, department of food and agticulture and finally overall budget. But that would of course mean at each stage, different requests competing for funding. These people may not be bureaucrats, but they'd be doing much the same thing and you'd need a lot more of them than we have now.

[andydes]

The market only adds cost, adds paperwork, adds unnecessary complexity.

Indeed, if there's anything that government does well it's eliminating paperwork and overly complex systems.

When I go to the eye hospital, I do not have to fill in forms. I do not have to pay. The only non-medical staff is the receptionist who books the appointments. There are no sales people, insurance people, nothing like that. A socialist NHS would be even more efficient than the NHS, which is already much more efficient than the American healthcare system. The admin costs in America are 6 times more than in the UK.

You don't have to fill in forms, but other people do. There is no shortage of form filling and box ticking in the NHS

[andydes]

You don't have to fill in forms, but other people do. There is no shortage of form filling and box ticking in the NHS

Of course the NHS could be improved. But the fact remains that the admin costs of healthcare in America are about 6 times greater per person than in the UK. American healthcare costs twice as much as the British, and admin is a third of all American health spending. Admin costs of healthcare in America are rising and are expected to go past $300 billion per year by 2018.

Fair enough on that one. Didn't know it was that much different. But I'd
never argue that the US system is better than nationalised anyway. Many things are clearly better under public ownership. That's one of them.

[andydes]

By the way, if I sounded dismissive I shouldn't have. It would be an enormous challenge for several decades.

No problem. I grill you on it because I'm interested.

Whenever I go looking for more information on the "planned economy", all I find is lots of criticism on how bad capitalism, but little detail on how the alternative would operate or how to manage the transition.

Have you got any good links for that side of things (preferably in a modern context, not 19th century)?

[andydes]

Not really. Marxists don't try to lay down a blueprint for a socialist economy because it would be utopian and unrealistic to try to so so. However Marx was right about globalisation and Trotsky was right about the Russian revolution. Try reading http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Soc_and_ ... ion_02.pdf.

Yeah but on the other hand, I'm not sure you should be allowed to call it a planned economy if you don't have a plan.

I think there needs to be one or more really detailed explainations of how it could work, covering the whole system- production, housing, tourism, entertainment, etc, etc. It wouldn't be like a constitution, more a feasibility study. If it has to change during implementation, due to grim reality, then so be it.

That's got to be better than trashing what we have and hoping for the best.

So far, the various versions of "market socialism"( kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist systems) are still winning it for me. Mainly because I can sort of visualise how they might be achieved.

[H20nly]

Whenever I go looking for more information on the "planned economy", all I find is lots of criticism on how bad capitalism, but little detail on how the alternative would operate or how to manage the transition.

this is because while they've been talking about how much better this planned economy would be for the last 200 years supply and demand (aka capitalism) has been running it's course in the foreground.

general consensus requires finding out what everyone wants... how do you do that? you vote.

what funken fails to realize is that the American health care system and the country that is resides in are all a part of an enormous communist project that has developed over time... into what we have now. the irony is that everyone was running around with the same ideas 400 years ago... and here is the sum total manifestation, now.

[TAINTLICK]

I'M GLAD MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ARE GIVING FREE HEALTHCARE TO LAZY MOTHERFUCKERS.

THAT'S A FACT.

[beats me]

I'M GLAD MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ARE GIVING FREE HEALTHCARE TO LAZY MOTHERFUCKERS.

THAT'S A FACT.

If you could choose where money is going from your taxes and there was a box next to military and another box next to crack head welfare recipient I would check off the box next to crack head welfare recipient without hesitation.

[cmcpress]

[murgatroid]

I'm signing up. As a small businessman self employed type I get to pay premium prices for health insurance otherwise.
Anyone who isn't making six figures or above and is against this already has health insurance through their company and/or is an idiot.
Foreigners with opinions on this can bit me.

The Republicans just shot themselves in the foot for the midterm elections, way to go egomaniacs.

yep. i've always been self employed and have paid through the nose to socialist insurance company that takes my money and gives it to their other socialist clients when they need it while i've gotten nothing in return.

hell yeah, i'm signing onto my states health exchange and will be able to get a top plan for less what i'm paying for just hospitalization.

ps... anyone who thinks obama, or any other president selected by corporate owned america, is a socialist is simply a plain dumb ignorant stupid fuck

[nathannn]

I'M GLAD MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ARE GIVING FREE HEALTHCARE TO LAZY MOTHERFUCKERS.

THAT'S A FACT.

Im glad also. Now I can sit on my ass, jerk off to porn and see a proper doctor to treat chafed cock.

[lowshelf]

I should add that there is an alternative to socialism when capitalism finally goes. The alternative is barbarism.

Cut hair, not taxes!

[Jarvisimon]

Our free healthcare in the UK is real by the way, not theory.

And also a nightmare.

I'll have to agree with Funk N Furter. We're incredibly proud of our National Health System here in the UK.

I think the real problem is that it's been run with largely inept management, probably in order to destroy it so the far worse private companies can take over and start denying the poorer UK population from receiving help.

It's already started to happen, so I imagine the health disparity between the rich and the poor will soon get far wider.

Nobody here is discussing the fact that millions more Americans will receive healthcare. Surely a healthy population is paramount?