Re: You must admit.........



"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:18:43 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos wrote:

On 2011-12-04 16:52:14 +0000, Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Regardless of how people react to the words, would I be correct to say
that Canada's health care is *NOT* universal, but that it *IS*
socialized?

What do you think the distinction is?

"Universal" means that it's everywhere, available to all, always.
While this is how Canadian health care is advertised, it is not the
reality of it (we've been over this!)

"Socialized" means that society pays; it's a system based on socialism
or social democracy.

Although, oddly enough, its application is highly selective.
Even though society pays (and payment is enforced), we'd be
hard-pressed to find anyone ranting about socialised domestic
security and crime deterrent (police), socialised national
self-defence (armed forces) or socialised personal transport
(roads).

These are proper applications of taxpayer money. These are large-scale
infrastructure items that benefit the nation as a whole. Medical care
is a personal, individual item. The State is not responsible for my
doctor visits, my house or my food.




(The fact that some people get a charge out of the word socialism, btw,
doesn't mean that it doesn't apply. I'm not a fan of Socialism, but
that doesn't mean that socialistic practices are somehow magically
something else!)

What it does, however, is polarise and stereotype. Use the
label, and any sort of reasoned debate becomes all but impossible
because as sure as Pavlov's dogs started to drool at the sound of
the bell, part of the audience will shut off the moment the
s-word is uttered.

As it should in any person who is not leeching off of the productive
members of a society.
.