Raymond Lotta: Health Care Under Capitalism, Health Care Under Socialism
Posted by admin on Nov 4, 2009
Raymond Lotta talks about health care under capitalism vs. health care under socialism (part of a Revolution Books webcast on 9.29.09: “Behind the Economic Crisis: System Failure and the Need for Revolution.”)
Come to his speaking tour, “Everything you’ve been told about communism is wrong, capitalism is a failure, revolution is the solution!” UC Berkeley 10/8, NYU 10/26 & UCLA 10/29. Info at www.revcom.us
Duration : 0:8:9
The Zeitgeist …
The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project are the answer. Join today!
ALSO, illegals …
ALSO, illegals getting healthcare is a concern, because they don’t pay taxes, they are not us citizens. PROFIT is a good thing, it motivates the drug companies and insurance companies to serve you better, and it drives the very very advance technology we have here in the US versus all the other socialist countries. This advanced research and technology is the direct result of the profit motive. It’s PROFIT that gives you quality in any sector, because of competition.
the reason that …
the reason that people don’t want the government involved is because healthcare will become more scarce, and more expensive. For the cost of the public option, someone could go out and buy a better private insurance plan, so who is this helping.
you’re damned right …
you’re damned right you have to work to get healthcare. You’re not entitled to have someone work FOR you. Also, about just as many people die from in car accidents as the number of people you cited as dying from lack of healthcare. Maybe we should spend 900 billion dollars to make every car safe! additionally, ‘i don’t give a about anyone else’ isn’t a view held by right wingers.
I was speaking …
I was speaking hypotetically. Anyway, it can work in libertarian societies like Britain in WWII. They rationed food there and th nations healt improved. But tat is not the answere. I am against food ratioing.
Nike and Coca Cola …
Nike and Coca Cola don’t have much competition.
“in a socialist …
“in a socialist society poverty doesn’t exist”
I disagree because wealth must be produced, and few are willing to produce wealth only to have it taken from them. But that’s beside the point; you’re free to gather together with like-minded people and try to make it work. I only oppose attempt to impose it on the unwilling.
“fat people should have rationed food income so that the starving can eat.”
No, that would be aggressive. You’re free to give voluntary charity to those in need.
if health care is a …
if health care is a right that should be provided by the government then shouldn’t the first thing that they should take over be food production, oh thats right we tried that and millions of people starved to death
the kids are forced …
the kids are forced to work in sweat shops for cheap, because the companies use that countries governments monopoly on violence to make laws that keep competition out. I mean the question you should ask is if labour there is cheap then why are there not more companies competing for it and bringing the wages up? the first place you look when there is a problem is institutionalized violence ie; Government, not freedom
All I’m saying is …
All I’m saying is that in a socialist society poverty doesn’t exist. You don’t have to be rich but you can’t be poor. What I mean is, If mega rich people gave what they don’t need to people that do need stuff, then the world would be a better place. You dan’t need 3 TVs, so why not give one of your TVs to someone who doesn’t have a TV. Or, fat people should have rationed food income so that the starving can eat.
“a farm worker owns …
“a farm worker owns the land he works on not the guy who sits back and manages it all.”
That depends on whether the manager obtained the land legitimately (through the first-use principle).
Monasteries and …
Monasteries and kibbutzim are voluntary forms of communism. I have no problem with them. I have a problem with using force, as with through a state, to impose one’s will upon others.
If you are worried about power corrupting, then you should be worried about states, not businesses.
Cont: those kids …
Cont: those kids that are forced to work in sweatshops in India, Africa etc. Thats because those big companies can’t keep an eye out on what their branches are doing. I think that buisinesses shouldn’t get to big because power corrupts.
Again. You think …
Again. You think that all
Communists are aggressive. Here’s aggression, anyone who is involved with a very left party is not allowed to come into the USA. I’m not forcing my will on anyone, I am just correcting the missconeptions about communism. I am not a communist, I am a socialist. I beleve that a farm worker owns the land he works on not the guy who sits back and manages it all. I hate it when and multinational corporations start to abuse the land they Own. What I mean is, you know…
This man is making …
This man is making same mistake that many many many have made before him. He is envisioning a “perfect” society where everyone is driven by their love of the community and their fellow man. Although I wish society was like this, the reality is that man is always, first and foremost concerned about his own welfare- that is his drive to work, innovate and succeed: his own welfare- not the welfare of others. Capitalism produces wealth and innovation because it accepts this reality.
I’m perfectly fine …
I’m perfectly fine with people who want to practice voluntary communism. They just can’t aggressively force anyone to practice it along with them. Ghandhi practiced nonviolence; he didn’t impose his will on anyone, nor was he a government leader. People can be as rich as they like, so long as they obtained their wealth through nonviolent means, and no one has the right to take it away from them. That is evil. Nor is it the same thing as charity, which is, be definition, a voluntary act.
Ok, If Etheopia was …
Ok, If Etheopia was Socialist. The Greedy people at the top would have there money taken away and the people who actually did the labour would be rewarded alot more than a tiny bit above a penny. You don’t need to be mega rich. You can just aspire to (and If you work hard enough) be rich. That way. All the poor people will start to integrate back into Society. Giving to charity is a socialist act. Giving what you don’t need so that people can have what they need.
You have this fixed …
You have this fixed unmovable oppinion that all Communist/Socialist Leaders ore Authoratarian. Ghandi was very left but very liberal. The reason that socialism wouldn’t work on America is because the American people have got to used to a free market and beung selfish with money and spending. If America was Socialist, a whole lot of homeless people would be off the streets doing decent work and contributing to a new poverty free society. Where all races, Sexual preferences would be equal.
No, In between …
No, In between Capitalism and Communism is slap bang in the middle. Socialism is between The middle and Communism.
I’m not really …
I’m not really concerned with what “works,” only with what is just. I am absolutely convinced that aggression is always unjust regardless of the desired ends. People should be free to live however they want provided they don’t impose their wills on others. People who want to live in voluntary communist societies, voluntary socialist societies, or anything should have the freedom to do so, as long as they don’t force their wills on others. And if it “works,” more people will join voluntarily.
Thats communist …
Thats communist dictatrships. Hitler (a very right wing guy) forcibl closed down supermarkets and all non local buisinesses. Anyway. All of the dctatorships you were refering to were VERY communist. That sort of communism doesn’t work. Socialism works which is mild communism. Extreme capitalism doesn’t work. But mild right wing does.
I have no problem …
I have no problem if some individuals freely choose to pool their property, live on a commune, or whatever. That’s voluntary communism, and that’s fine. But as a voluntaryist, I oppose all aggression. I oppose attempts forcibly seize property (e.g. taxation) or interfere in the voluntary interactions of others (e.g. banning employment). Throughout history, communists have attempted to forcibly impose their ideas on other people through the government, and that’s wrong.
Do you really think …
Do you really think that all Communists/Socialists are tyrants?
cont: If people on …
cont: If people on communes are happier than everyone else, all you have to do is advocate individual liberty, and individuals will join the communes voluntarily out of their own self-interest. If you need a state with a law enforcing your agenda, that only demonstrates it’s not something people would choose freely.
Even assuming that …
Even assuming that communal societies were more prosperous then market societies, that still doesn’t justify aggression–infringing on each individual’s natural rights of self-ownership over his mind, body, and legitimately obtained property. And if you have a state backing up what you want to do, that’s aggressive, because states are inherently aggressive.