thats a shame that you want to exclude so many people who want to debate too
I just don't like debating with people who get insulted whenever I say something about socialism. I can see why so many of my friends quit posting here so much.
I just don't like debating with people who get insulted whenever I say something about socialism. I can see why so many of my friends quit posting here so much.
as long as it is not a rule that people get the feeling of being insulted, its ok. and you can always simply ignore them
If someone gets insulted because I think that socialism is better than capitalism then I don't want to debate with them. End of story.
then debate with the rest of the people which accept your opinion and simply want to have a debate with someone who is having an opposing opinion. i mean how boring are debates where everyone agrees.
do not get dicouraged only because there are people(and i do not even know who you really mean) who cannot follow the most simple debating rules. would be a pity if there was noone left to argue capitalism in here
Do you know how many messages I get from people calling me a troll and telling me to stop talking about socialism? This entire web site's debating room is dead. I was here in the old day's where everyone would debate for fun. It's changed now for the worse, and I don't want to have any part in it.
its very uncool to hear that. i wish i could have enjoyed the old days you are reffering to and make up my mind about that. hope you stay here and if not, maybe you let me know to which platform you have taken your debates
I would say that both systems would benefit in application by using principles from the other.
For example, in a socialist system there is universal healthcare, all funded and provided by the government. It would take a lot of weight off government spending by also having private sector healthcare for people who want it - it would also improve quality of life. That reciprocates. In a capitalist system, it would increase government spending, yet improve quality of life to have a government option for healthcare, instead of just private sector healthcare.
Both systems are flawed in critical ways at their purest, and both of them have solutions to the other's problems. Therefore, I can't name one as better.
Flag I would say that both systems would benefit in application by using principles from the other. For example, in a socialist system there is universal healthcare, all funded and provided by the government. It would take a lot of weight off government spending by also having private sector healthcare for people who want it - it would also improve quality of life. That reciprocates. In a capitalist system, it would increase government spending, yet improve quality of life to have a government option for healthcare, instead of just private sector healthcare. Both systems are flawed in critical ways at their purest, and both of them have solutions to the other's problems. Therefore, I can't name one as better.
I generally agree, that way you can't say you're at the mercy of a corrupt government or a corrupt private insurance company. Unless of course both are hopelessly corrupt.
But then again, why would the insurance companies make any money if there is now the option to have government run insurance that takes care of everything? Wouldn't these private health care companies just fail before mighty people's health care? I say they all should be nationalized. Maybe you could have more than one government healthcare program that comes at an extra cost. Society's more fortunate would not only get the expensive health care they want but that surplus in money goes to government spending! Think of how much better our libraries and public schools would be!
Wouldn't these private health care companies just fail before mighty people's health care?
No. Just like welfare is a bare minimum amount of cash as opposed to a paying job, a government plan most likely wouldn't be able to hold a candle to some private-sector plans. That way, there would be a bare minimum for everyone, but higher quality care for people who can afford it and want better protection for themselves and their family.
No. Just like welfare is a bare minimum amount of cash as opposed to a paying job, a government plan most likely wouldn't be able to hold a candle to some private-sector plans. That way, there would be a bare minimum for everyone, but higher quality care for people who can afford it and want better protection for themselves and their family.
Why can't that be done.... only with the government controlling that? The government has done lots of things for its own profit, like war bonds. That money paid for the better insurance can be distributed evenly throughout other sectors of the economy.
i truely believe in universal healthcare. what better way to keep care of your citizens than by supporting insurance companies who hire tons of people who's job is to find any tiny way to deny your claim, or supporting the doctors who are so rich because they can charge whatever they really want, because eventually your gonna have to pay it.
