TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Open Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-13-2009, 08:06 PM   #76
RedeemedChild
IndyFan
 
RedeemedChild's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey
Shortround, I'm not "For" Socialism by itself.

I AM for National Socialism.

I am certainly against Communism, which is NOT Socialism.

I am for the strong Nation State. Something that America used to be.

Anyway though, you seem to be a very patriotic person. I also think that perhaps your message may have been misunderstood here.

But also I think that you might be misunderstanding some of the other messages here.

What you call "Socialism", has actually been a part of the American system for quite a while.

Roosevelt indeed brought a LOT of Socialist policies to the American system. But Roosevelt is honored as one of the greatest Presidents.

Go figure.

What bothers me about some of the people who hold opinions similar to yours is that they miss the whole point of what it means to be "Conservative", and "Republican".

The George W. Bush Administration was perhaps THE most RADICAL Administration in the History of America.

George W. Bush was neither Republican, nor Conservative. In fact, he was quite the opposite of both.

His Foreign Policy was dictated by a Foreign Nation. His Domestic Policies were ...........insane. HUGE spending!!

to quote Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter".

Please do the research.

Rampant Capitalism is NOT good for America.......OBVIOUSLY.......ask anyone in Detroit.

For the Government to apply restrictions, Tariffs, Taxes, etc....for the good of the American people..is.........well.......maybe GOOD for the American People.

Ya think maybe???

I don't know, maybe it's a Tribal thing.

But I don't want to gang up on you.

Obviously you are patriotic and motivated. I only wish you would channel this in the RIGHT direction.

Kudo's to what you've said!

You have expressed the same sentiments that I've been trying to share with with Short Round and the others who share his views. I also tried to point out a time before that Roosevelt along with a few other American political/entertainment figures including even our present day Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Steven Spielberg, Helen Cheowitz and even at times Arnold Schwarzenegger and here recently Hillary Clinton has also been speaking some Socialistic ideas recently.

In fact I've heard some people and even the History Channel say that LBJ and Richard Nixon also held some Socialistic views and that the Democratic Party has been moving in the direction of Socialism for a very long time.

In fact Socialism is in no way a threat to Freedom and Religious Liberty and the American way of life as some of these Conservatives try make it out to be. Sadly people get Socialism confused with Communism and again sadly do not look into the difference between the two.
RedeemedChild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2009, 09:41 PM   #77
Short Round
IndyFan
 
Short Round's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Valley of the Crescent Moon
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedeemedChild
Kudo's to what you've said!

You have expressed the same sentiments that I've been trying to share with with Short Round and the others who share his views. I also tried to point out a time before that Roosevelt along with a few other American political/entertainment figures including even our present day Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Steven Spielberg, Helen Cheowitz and even at times Arnold Schwarzenegger and here recently Hillary Clinton has also been speaking some Socialistic ideas recently.

In fact I've heard some people and even the History Channel say that LBJ and Richard Nixon also held some Socialistic views and that the Democratic Party has been moving in the direction of Socialism for a very long time.

In fact Socialism is in no way a threat to Freedom and Religious Liberty and the American way of life as some of these Conservatives try make it out to be. Sadly people get Socialism confused with Communism and again sadly do not look into the difference between the two.

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about???

Spielberg??? What the hell does he have to do with anything? Geithner??? Duh! He's PART of the Obama administration. He's also known to be an idiot. Same with Clinton. You are just listing some random people. Why does it matter if these people are socialists? Are they the founders of America???

Oh! You've heard! Why don't you actually do some research instead of repeating something you think you've heard somewhere.
And uh, no. Nixon didn't hold socialist views.
So what if the democratic party has been moving towards socialism?????? What does that prove???? Your argument makes NO sense!

Oh, well thanks for telling us socialism isn't that bad. You explained why very well. By the way, you might want to try and back up your argument, even though you don't really have one.

Seriously, your post lacked an argument. Maybe you should learn more about the history of our country and what principles it was founded upon.
Short Round is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2009, 10:44 PM   #78
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedeemedChild
...Richard Nixon also held some Socialistic views and that the Democratic Party has been moving in the direction of Socialism for a very long time.
Nixon was a Republican.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 02:06 AM   #79
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Nixon was a Republican.
It doesn't, of course, make it wholly impossible for him to endorse a socialist idea or two...

Seriously though, no message in this thread over the last few pages has held much substance. What you people really should be discussing is how this thing is good or bad (take your pick) to the modern-day America, but all we have are people who seem either still star-struck by the current leader or live in 1775.

In fact, I'm getting pretty fed up with this thread. It's soon heading towards the same scrap heap as every other topical predecessor unless it somehow starts to developed some actual, preferably civilized discussion about the subject soon. Kudos to those who have at least attempted that. And the next time I heard the verb "found" and the sorry individual who typed it in is not talking about his or her lost kitten, I'm seriously starting to consider rigging the vacation lottery, if you get what I mean.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 04:18 AM   #80
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Nixon was a Republican.

You need to supplement those psych classes you're interested in with a few courses in American Government; they'll be invaluable to you as life progresses.

It's not surprising though, that the ideological Right would trumpet Jefferson's words; many of whom I seriously doubt have ever owned his collected writings, or a biography or three. American Sphinx and The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson are both good places to start.

But this is besides the point. The continued idea that nationalized health care is "socialism" is bunk; provisions were already written into the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause provides that

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article I, Section 8, Clause I, also known as the General Welfare Clause grants Congress the power

Quote:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, is the so-called Commerce Claus that allows Congress

Quote:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes
. This is generally amplified by the Necessary and Proper clause, but would grant Congress to set and regulate rates across all fifty states.

For those of you interested in reading the entire thing, Emory University has a great on-line version here. Article I deals with the enumerated powers of Congress, a lot of which are touched on in the Preamble.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 08-14-2009 at 04:28 AM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 05:35 AM   #81
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,923
Two further points:

1.) Hamilton and Adams (Madison, too) were diametrically opposed to Jefferson. The refinement of a representative democracy, as opposed to the mob rule of direct democracy, was a direct check on the sovereignty of the people.

Madison described the effects of "refinement" on the public views this way:

"The effect of the first difference [i.e., between direct democracy and a representative republic] is, on the one hand to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. (Federalist No. 10)

Generations of scholars and students either forgot this central point, or willfully neglected it. Fortunately more modern scholarship has remembered it.

Gordon Wood: "Madison did not expect public policy or the common good to emerge naturally from the give-and-take of hosts and competing interests. Instead Madison hoped that in an enlarged national republic these competing factions and interests would, like America's many religious denominations, neutralize themselves. This in turn would allow enlightened and rational men, men like himself, to promote the public good. Madison did not expect the new national government to be an integrator and harmonizer of the many different interests in the society; instead he wanted it to be a "disinterested and dispassionate umpire" in disputes among these different interests and parties."

2.) Madison also spoke about the need to pay attention to the judgments of
foreign countries. Especially were those were more rational than American attitudes:

"An attitude to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is, that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy: The second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world, may be the best guide that can be followed." (Federalist No. 63, emphasis added)

The Founding Fathers were not a homogeneous unit. They surrendered their personal interests to the greater good of the country.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 08-14-2009 at 05:53 AM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 09:08 AM   #82
monkey
Guest
 
monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
The Founding Fathers were not a homogeneous unit. They surrendered their personal interests to the greater good of the country.

Very Excellent Post Le Saboteur.

The above small quote represents the whole post.

Thanks for doing some great research!

On another note though, let's make sure we don't gang up on one individual here. His views are important to listen to because they are representative of a lot of people.

Don't alienate, ..... educate.

A few thoughts about "Socialism".

First of all, "Socialism" is NOT Communism. Communism is an artificial thing, that was conceived and realized by people who had an ulterior motive. They were NOT concerned with the welfare and benefit of the people.

Socialism IS concerned with the welfare and benefit of the people.

Second of all, "Socialism" has not only been part of the American system since the beginning of America, it is indeed intrinsic to almost any successful government throughout History.

Analogy:

Your Local Fire Department is an example of "Socialism" in action.

Money is taken ("Gasp") from the working person, and used to pay the salaries of the Firemen who put out fires, and save lives in the community.

So that is Socialism in action. The "Government" TAKES money from the citizen, in order to pay for services that benefit the citizen.

This might be a difficult concept for some, but in the end, when the citizen's house catches fire, the professional Fire Fighters come and put it out.

OK, let's look at this same situation, but with no Government involvement, and no (Evil) "Socialism".

Let's let "Good Old Fashioned Capitalism" loose.

Well, the common citizen must now shop around for "Affordable Fire Protection"........he finds the lowest price.......and it is a company that employs uneducated Mexican immigrants as the Fire Fighters, with the Supervisory positions outsourced to India.

His/Her house catches fire, they call the "Fire Department". They are put on hold while they wait for a "Bank One Fire Solutions" representative to come on the line. Then, after figuring out the foreign accent of the "Bank One Fire Solutions" representative on the other end of the line, the citizen is told that they need to contact the "Fire Operations" department, whose working hours are 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Time.

Then they are thanked for utilizing "Bank One Fire Solutions", the "First Choice in Fire Safety".

Meanwhile, the "Bank One Fire Solutions" Executive who cut costs and increased profits by outsourcing all the jobs to illegal aliens and overseas Indians, is given a HUGE bonus by "Bank One Fire Solutions" the "First Choice in Fire Safety".

And the citizen who's house has caught fire? Well, he was recently laid off by the Fire Department when they 'downsized', and were "bought out" by "Bank One".

Oh yes, ........and his house burned down.

His daughter is in the US Marines, currently serving in Iraq, and his son is in the US Army, currently serving in Afghanistan.

He is Un-American, because he believes that Socialism might be a good thing.
monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 10:45 AM   #83
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,727
If you see a fire, put it out; especially if you started it. That's accountability. That's my stance. It's truly libertarian.

Though, I applaud you monkey and le saboteur, well said arguments, regardless to the stance or passion behind them.

For me, though Socialists and Capitalist have one thing in common: Under capitalism man exploits man; under Socialism the reverse is true.

It's a global problem now. Imperialism has gone the way of the dodo. Best anyone can hope for is self reliance and self accountability. Stop relying on others to derive happiness in yourself.

If I get sick, I rely on my money that I earned, to find a doctor I trust so that I can pay him a negotiated price for him/her to make me better. If I make honest money I can spend it where I need to for my happiness.

That's 8 references to me and the responsibility I have to myself. If I didn't work hard enough or I wasn't resourceful enough to make more money or to find a more reasonable health care facility, I have to accept the consequence of paying for lesser care. Shame on me. Doesn't matter what politics are behind it.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 11:05 AM   #84
monkey
Guest
 
monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
If you see a fire, put it out; especially if you started it. That's accountability. That's my stance. It's truly libertarian.

Though, I applaud you monkey and le saboteur, well said arguments, regardless to the stance or passion behind them.

For me, though Socialists and Capitalist have one thing in common: Under capitalism man exploits man; under Socialism the reverse is true.

It's a global problem now. Imperialism has gone the way of the dodo. Best anyone can hope for is self reliance and self accountability. Stop relying on others to derive happiness in yourself.

If I get sick, I rely on my money that I earned, to find a doctor I trust so that I can pay him a negotiated price for him/her to make me better. If I make honest money I can spend it where I need to for my happiness.

That's 8 references to me and the responsibility I have to myself. If I didn't work hard enough or I wasn't resourceful enough to make more money or to find a more reasonable health care facility, I have to accept the consequence of paying for lesser care. Shame on me. Doesn't matter what politics are behind it.

But Palehorse, I detect a certain cynicism in your post.

Perhaps this is exactly what we are talking about.

If you are a member of the "tribe" then you will be taken care of in your old age. If you have no "Tribe", then you will not be taken care of.........even if you have lots of $$$$.

I think in the end, it is all about Tribalism.

We used to have the AMERICAN TRIBE. I don't think we have it anymore, and that is the problem.

TOO MUCH DIVERSITY!!

Former Vice President Dan Quale (an Idiot) Once said "Diversity is our Strength".

He was wrong.

Diversity is DIVIDING America.

UNITY is what we need.

NO more Hyphenated American Holidays please, or Hyphenated Amercan MONTHS!

We are either ONE PEOPLE, or we are DIVERSE.

I personally believe in UNITY over DIVERSITY.

If some people want to continue to CELEBRATE DIVERSITY, then they can go and celebrate, but they are NOT Americans, they are hyphenated Americans.

I WILL NOT Celebrate with them, Nor will I consider them my fellow Americans.
monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 12:05 PM   #85
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey
Communism is an artificial thing, that was conceived and realized by people who had an ulterior motive. They were NOT concerned with the welfare and benefit of the people.
Karl Marx would disagree with you on that... Lenin and Stalin, not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey
Money is taken ("Gasp") from the working person, and used to pay the salaries of the Firemen who put out fires, and save lives in the community.
Police is another institution that is upheld by the same socialistic agenda and even... *gasp* ...the military so intent to keep their country's people safe.

So yeah, it seems that every other public service branch is already being taken care of by the taxpayer in almost every civilized western country, why shouldn't healthcare? I mean, especially when there still would likely be private clinics for those who don't wish to employ the services of their local public health station.

Okay, somebody complained that Obama's healthcare plan would cover everyone residing on the US soil, even the illegal aliens. Yeah, I can understand why some might not wish to pay for their healthcare. However, if an abandoned warehouse that is used as makeshift housing for illegal immigrants catches fire, the FD will come and douse the fire all the same. And if a body is found and during the course of the investigation the police will find out that the victim was illegally in the country, they still will attempt to find out who killed him.

So please, go ahead and start complaining about those as well...
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 12:44 PM   #86
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
So please, go ahead and start complaining about those as well...

Well, I wish my resources were better itemized in that respect. I'd sleep better at night knowing that .0387% of my 'taxes' were being used to offset the cost of STUPIDITY, then the PC term 'protect and serve'. At least we would be properly accounting for such.

If some idiot is sleeping in a warehouse that burns down, and it's not my warehouse, nor did I start the fire, a pox on him. Should I be accountable for his welfare...I don't know. My gut says no.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 02:17 PM   #87
Kevin
IndyFan
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Okay, somebody complained that Obama's healthcare plan would cover everyone residing on the US soil, even the illegal aliens. Yeah, I can understand why some might not wish to pay for their healthcare. However, if an abandoned warehouse that is used as makeshift housing for illegal immigrants catches fire, the FD will come and douse the fire all the same. And if a body is found and during the course of the investigation the police will find out that the victim was illegally in the country, they still will attempt to find out who killed him.

So please, go ahead and start complaining about those as well...

Here's the difference: that warehouse, empty or not, is owned by somebody. That somebody is paying property taxes, which help pay for the fire department, police, etc. Illegal immigrants pay no income or property taxes, because their income is under the table more often than not.

Also, with the fire example, or when discussing emergency room care, we are talking about situations where time is of the essence, and it makes little sense to check the person's immigration status before helping them. Indeed, I would rather have a system where a few illegals recieve emergency medical care, as opposed to a system where I might potentially die on the operating table while the docs verify my social security information.

However, when talking about health insurance, meaning paying for major surgery, routine doctor or dentist visits, or filling prescriptions, we are not usually talking about emergency situations. I don't want my tax dollars funding an illegal alien's cavity filling or eye exam, and with proper procedures in place, this need not happen.

With regard to a murder, we are talking about a crime being broken. The offense is against the state, not the person, so the state's agents (the police) will investigate the crime, regardless of the vicitm's legal status, and rightly so.

For example, if someone hits me on the head with a baseball bat, the police arrest him because he has violated the state's law prohibiting assault. I don't press charges, the state does. When the perp is convicted, he is convicted of breaking the state's law. If I want recompense for my bashed head, I sue him in civil court. Hence the difference between tort law and criminal law (see O.J. Simpson's two trials, one for murder, one for wrongful death).

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey
His/Her house catches fire, they call the "Fire Department". They are put on hold while they wait for a "Bank One Fire Solutions" representative to come on the line. Then, after figuring out the foreign accent of the "Bank One Fire Solutions" representative on the other end of the line, the citizen is told that they need to contact the "Fire Operations" department, whose working hours are 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Time.

What you are describing sounds more like a visit to the local department of motor vehicles or social security office. Do you really want heath care run like that? Do you want federal flunkies deciding where you can treat, and what kind of treatment you can receive? At least with private enterprise you have competition, which motivates companies to do a better job, because they know an unsatisfied customer can always take their business down the street.

In fact, I was listening to one of Obama's recent speeches on the radio (I think it was at a town hall meeting), and he was addressing the complaint that private heath insurance companies cannot hope to compete with a government-run insurance program. He compared his proposed system (private insurance companies operating in tandem and in competition with the government system) to FedEx and UPS competing with the US Postal Service. He then mentioned that the Post Office usually had the problems! I couldn't believe he said that, because he basically admitted that in a situation where a government-run entity and private entities offer the same services, the private companies are the better bet.

Of course, his comparison completely omits the fact that FedEx and UPS set their own prices, allowing them to stay competitive. Under the proposed legislation, private insurance companies will be told how much they can charge, and this will effectively price them out of the market, leading to the single-payer system that Obama wants.

Last edited by Moedred : 08-14-2009 at 06:49 PM. Reason: merged 2 posts
Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 05:53 PM   #88
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Karl Marx would disagree with you on that... Lenin and Stalin, not so much.

I have always found Marx & Lenin to be more ideologically aligned, than Lenin & Stalin. Stalin was a mid-level bureaucrat in Moscow who managed to build himself up to prominence during the wars, and turned communism into a dictatorship.

After a war, once you have one person telling you what to do, you've already managed to cock-up the idea of communism; nobody is "supreme" in a communist society. But that's the wonder of the US propaganda machine: Americans believe that Soviet Russia was actually "communist."

My point, however, is that there are several aspects of modern-life in a democracy that should not be profit making enterprises. Journalism and education are two, healthcare is another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Of course, his comparison completely omits the fact that FedEx and UPS set their own prices, allowing them to stay competitive.

I have always found this to be a poor analogy. UPS & FedEx are allowed to cherry pick the really profitable endeavors (i.e., next day air), leaving the USPS the unglamourous task -- and they have to because it is a public entity -- of mailing all those third and fourth class mailers you get every week, and the continued decline in the mailing of letters. Once FedEx and UPS deign to do such mundane tasks, then the comparison would apt.

And, think about it for a moment, I can mail a letter here for about .90 cents, and in approximately five days have it at Finn's doorstep in the Netherlands. That's pretty damn impressive no matter how you slice it.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 06:16 PM   #89
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
I have always found Marx & Lenin to be more ideologically aligned, than Lenin & Stalin. Stalin was a mid-level bureaucrat in Moscow who managed to build himself up to prominence during the wars, and turned communism into a dictatorship.
You're right. Lenin and Stalin were nothing alike, the former actually was afraid of what might happen to his newly found "worker's paradise" if latter ever got ahold of it. Still, Lenin did develop his own version of Marx's theory which never contained any official leadership which is what meant with my comment. History indicates that Marx never wished to harbor any power, he simply created the theory and genuinely meant well with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
But that's the wonder of the US propaganda machine: Americans believe that Soviet Russia was actually "communist."
Well, had you asked the Russians, they would have told you the same...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
And, think about it for a moment, I can mail a letter here for about .90 cents, and in approximately five days have it at Finn's doorstep in the Netherlands. That's pretty damn impressive no matter how you slice it.
Now that would be REALLY damn impressive indeed.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 08:06 PM   #90
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
there are several aspects of modern-life in a democracy that should not be profit making enterprises. Journalism and education are two, healthcare is another.
Tell that to the NEA… or to a pre-med student facing 10 rough, expensive years before he reaches profitability. Even then, the costs of cosmetic procedures like lasik plummet because they’re not a “right” (yet). That’s free enterprise for ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
UPS & FedEx are allowed to cherry pick the really profitable endeavors (i.e., next day air), leaving the USPS the unglamourous task -- and they have to because it is a public entity -- of mailing all those third and fourth class mailers you get every week
USPS is closing branches and may drop Saturday delivery. It won’t be missed. NASA’s purpose is also transferring to unsubsidized enterprises. Of course private policing and firefighting and sewer-piping won’t catch on. Public services have no relation to health care, except for sidewalk-pouring. Sidewalks are our universal preventative health care system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
The continued idea that nationalized health care is "socialism" is bunk; provisions were already written into the US Constitution.
I dunno, “we the people… promote the general welfare” sounds like it was written by insurance salesmen. “Welfare” didn’t mean a check in the mail until 50 years ago. To the founders it meant happiness and prosperity, which brings us back to taxation.
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 10:23 PM   #91
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Now that would be REALLY damn impressive indeed.

Yes it would, considering that you live in Finland. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "the Netherlands". You have my apologies, Finn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moedred
I dunno, “we the people… promote the general welfare” sounds like it was written by insurance salesmen. “Welfare” didn’t mean a check in the mail until 50 years ago. To the founders it meant happiness and prosperity, which brings us back to taxation.

Taxation is only relevant at this stage in the argument if you're willing to concede the fact that health care should not be tied to employment. If you're conceding that, then taxation can be discussed.

As previously mentioned, however, there is the roughly $100-billion being wasted in Iraq War Redux. Fractional amounts of that would easily pay for a system of nationalized care with (probably) zero adjustment in the current tax codes. Times all that, of course, by the amount of time we've spent in our desert misadventures.

The following text is from the landmark 1918 case McCulloh v. Maryland; originally argued about whether or not the Federal Government had the authority to establish a Bank of the United States. Once again, there is (again) legal precedent for establishment of a system of national health care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McCulloch v. Maryland
The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

Full text of the decision can be found here through Cornell University.

Oh, and your first argument is specious. Free enterprise? You should include the notion of "fair trade" into your thought process.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 08-14-2009 at 10:39 PM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 10:49 PM   #92
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
It doesn't, of course, make it wholly impossible for him to endorse a socialist idea or two...
Of course not, nor did I say that he didn't.

In fact, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, giving Nixon power to set wages and prices, believing that he would not use the power. Though he claimed to be opposed to permanent wage and price controls, Nixon did impose the controls temporarily in a 90-day wage and price freeze. Surely in modern-day America, this would be derided as socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
You need to supplement those psych classes you're interested in with a few courses in American Government; they'll be invaluable to you as life progresses.
And, Ms. Saboteur, I made a five on the AP Government exam, thank you very much.

But RedeemedChild had seemingly grouped LBJ and Nixon both into the Democratic Party, and given his past indifference to history, it would not have been surprising for him to have no idea that Nixon was not a Democrat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Seriously though, no message in this thread over the last few pages has held much substance.
I still await a reply to my second-to-last post, because, as I have said before, my stance on this issue is not set in stone. I'm still looking for answers, and none have been provided for the question I posed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
So yeah, it seems that every other public service branch is already being taken care of by the taxpayer in almost every civilized western country, why shouldn't healthcare?
Some statistics:
-America is currently facing a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion for nine months since the start of the budget year last October. Only 2 of our 50 states are not facing deficits this year. My state, which is Tennessee, has a deficit of $543 million, and it's projected that we'll have a deficit of $712 million next year.
-In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, Americans were told it would cost a total of $10 billion in 25 years, but by 1990, the cost was $107 billion: more than 10 times as much. This year it will be $500 billion. As we speak, America's Medicare program has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. In 2015, chances are it will be broke. Nonetheless, this program is unsustainable.
-Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more than 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible each day for Social Security and other government benefits for the next 20 years.
-According to a Rasmussen poll last week, more than 7 in 10 Americans rated their current health care as good or excellent.
-And, not surprisingly, even though 63 percent of voters said it should be a priority to give “every single American quality affordable health care,” only 28 percent say they are willing to pay higher taxes to make it possible.
-Finally, 91 percent of Americans have insurance, and 84 percent claim that they are satisfied with it.

The problem, as far as I can see, lies in the fact that from 2003 to 2007, the number of adults who were insured all year but were under-insured increased by 60 percent, and the insurance companies themselves take advantage of their clients.

So, if anything, legislation should be passed to protected the insured, and instead of increasing taxes for all of us, lower the tax burden of the uninsured. Meanwhile, Medicare is in need of an overhaul, and even President Obama has acknowledged this, and hopefully he will be successful in doing so. According to Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Medicare’s expenses could be slashed by 30 percent by eliminating various inefficiencies in administration and unnecessary medical procedures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Police is another institution that is upheld by the same socialistic agenda and even... *gasp* ...the military so intent to keep their country's people safe.
And emergency medical care is available for those unable to pay. It's generally the preventative care that the uninsured do not have access to.

And furthermore, the federal medical care that military families recieve leaves a lot to be desired. A friend of mine, the daughter of a Sergeant, was checked into the hospital for the flu, and she was advised the second day by other patients in the ward to get out at first opportunity. They had gotten sicker and came down with new illnesses while in the care of the hospital. Meanwhile, she spoke from experience that the lines were long and a single trip to the doctor took an entire day.

Of course, on a large scale, a comparable program would certainly be socialism, and Obama has indicated that such a system is not one which he wants to set up. The point of the anecdote, then, is to illustrate the results of such a system, as some on the extreme left advocate.

Last edited by Moedred : 08-16-2009 at 03:45 AM. Reason: merged 2
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 01:49 AM   #93
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Yes it would, considering that you live in Finland. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "the Netherlands". You have my apologies, Finn.
No worries. Unless you meant this, which would make it extremely impressive. Not to mention an assault against my personal privacy. Thank god for mailboxes.

And to the rest:
Couple of my last messages to this thread might have been oversimplifying. I'm not nearly as stupid not to acknowledge the several problems lying within this proposition and am willing to agree that some of them are really good reasons for folks out there to oppose it. I was simply not happy with the fact that they were getting lost into some kind McCarthyan nightmare over the last few pages.

Glad to see the thread getting back on track.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 03:11 AM   #94
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
And, Ms. Saboteur, I made a five on the AP Government exam, thank you very much.

But RedeemedChild had seemingly grouped LBJ and Nixon both into the Democratic Party, and given his past indifference to history,

Your grade is grossly inflated.

But this isn't about what I think of your grades. Government isn't conducted in sound bites, and you should have included your response to Finn in your original response to RC. One-sentence responses don't cut it in a debate/dialogue/whatever.



Quote:
Some statistics:

I was going through your statistics, and while they're definitely debatable, I wasn't initially going to go through them with a fine-tooth comb -- that is, until I saw your numbers on those citizens with health insurance. There's a whiff of bull ish in the air about them.

For example, how can 91% of Americans have health coverage when the official numbers (those released by the government) indicate that nearly 18% of Americans below the age of 65 are uninsured? Out of approximately 300,000,000 citizens, that's between 46 & 47-million people. These are the numbers that are typically mentioned on the nightly news and in the paper.

You'll also note my emphasis on "below the age of 65"; once you reach that magic number, Medicare kicks in and, voila!, you have health insurance. Including the elderly in this particular instance is little more than padding stats to prove your point.

Please include links in future posts so that they can be critiqued and otherwise assessed. I wonder about your polls, too. Who are these groups calling and soliciting opinions from?

People Without Health Insurance Coverage By Selected Characteristics: 2006-2007

Hold tight. The Show is not over. In other words, I need to finish writing the second half of this post. Stay tuned, please.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 11:55 AM   #95
Kevin
IndyFan
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
I have always found this to be a poor analogy. UPS & FedEx are allowed to cherry pick the really profitable endeavors (i.e., next day air), leaving the USPS the unglamourous task -- and they have to because it is a public entity -- of mailing all those third and fourth class mailers you get every week, and the continued decline in the mailing of letters. Once FedEx and UPS deign to do such mundane tasks, then the comparison would apt.

Well, I didn't make the analogy, Obama did, and I only brought it up because of his comment that the Post Office has more problems, it seemed to deflate his entire argument. Also, regardless of how poor the analogy is, it doesn't change the fact that under this proposed legislation, there will be no "competition" between private and public health insurance because prices will be dictated by the government.
Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 10:36 PM   #96
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Your grade is grossly inflated.
How interesting that you are so quick to judge me. How many of my posts on politics have you read? Three, four? And what have you found in them that is so objectionable, excepting what you mentioned in your last post.

In fact, as of 2007, the test that test-takers scored the lowest on by percentage was the AP United States Government and Politics exam. And what did I make? I made a 5, ma'am, the highest possible score. Don't be so quick to judge.

I should find it surprising that you are so judgmental and insulting, but there's hardly a reason to given your previous posts on this very thread. Your opinion is not the only valid opinion on the matter, and as soon as you recognize this, people who do have shut minds will be much more open to your words.

In the meantime, don't shut out people with open minds, such as myself. Never have I presented a myopic view of health care, and not once in this thread have I given you reason to question my intelligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Government isn't conducted in sound bites, and you should have included your response to Finn in your original response to RC. One-sentence responses don't cut it in a debate/dialogue/whatever.
First, I can't really say that we are conducting government, and second, your invective against my posting behavior is really rather petty. Rather than splitting hairs, let's go back to looking at the big picture...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
I was going through your statistics, and while they're definitely debatable, I wasn't initially going to go through them with a fine-tooth comb -- that is, until I saw your numbers on those citizens with health insurance. ...how can 91% of Americans have health coverage when the official numbers (those released by the government) indicate that nearly 18% of Americans below the age of 65 are uninsured? Out of approximately 300,000,000 citizens, that's between 46 & 47-million people.
...
You'll also note my emphasis on "below the age of 65"; once you reach that magic number, Medicare kicks in and, voila!, you have health insurance. Including the elderly in this particular instance is little more than padding stats to prove your point.
I believe I used the word Americans, didn't I? I suppose I should have clarified that I meant American citizens, but that's beside the point. Those citizens above the age of 65 are Americans, are they not? The point was that the vast majority of Americans have insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
These are the numbers that are typically mentioned on the nightly news and in the paper.

Yeah, no sh!t. Do you really find it necessary to be condescending? Perhaps a class on Rogerian debate would do you well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Please include links in future posts so that they can be critiqued and otherwise assessed. I wonder about your polls, too. Who are these groups calling and soliciting opinions from?

Gladly. Each statistic gave a source except for the last two. My apologies on neglecting to cite my sources for those two. I will correct that now.

The 63% for all Americans having health care and 28% for paying more taxes to make it a reality were from Rasmussen polls.

And, believe it or not, the last statistic was acquired from a Media Matters article, which is not quite what I would call a bastion of conservative thought. Note that in the article the statistic is refuted. Media Matters skirts the issue and says that millions of Americans are uninsured, which is never denied by any of the conservatives mentioned.

Back to the statistics, well let's look at the facts. From Media Matters: "According to Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of The Commonwealth Fund, in 2007 'an estimated 25 million adults under age 65 were underinsured.'"

Now, there are about 200 million American citizens under the age of 65.

25 million divided by 200 million = 0.125.

That's 12.5 percent of the population that is underinsured. Therefore, with a little arithmetic, we come to the conclusion that *GASP* 87.5 percent of Americans are insured. And that's an estimate, an estimate that is extremely close to the statistic I provided.

Now, Fox News and Media Matters are polar opposites, you know? So let's think. Republican Boehner says 93% and MM says 87.5%, so if we take the average of the two, we'll get 90.25% of Americans under 65 are insured.

And, again, this is all estimation. Guesses. The accuracy is disputable, regardless of your source.

So, please tell me now, where I was wrong. Media Matters is a liberal watch-dog organization, and even their statistics support my point that the vast majority of Americans are insured.

And most Americans are pleased with their health care. This is an insurance problem, not a health care problem.

And so, what was my main point again? It's been kind of muddled in the past few paragraphs. It is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
The problem, as far as I can see, lies in the fact that from 2003 to 2007, the number of adults who were insured all year but were under-insured increased by 60 percent, and the insurance companies themselves take advantage of their clients.
The first statistic can once more be found in the Media Matters article, as can this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Media Matters
Currently, insurance companies deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen wrote in a May 14 CNN.com article, "According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21 percent of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, charged a higher price or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition."
BUT...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Media Matters
Congressional bills prohibit the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage. According to a Ways and Means Committee staff description of the House bill, Section 111 "[p]rohibits the application of pre-existing condition exclusions," and Section 112 "[r]equires guaranteed issue (no one can be denied health insurance)." The Senate HELP bill similarly prohibits "discrimination based on health status," stating that a "group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on [a number of] health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual."
So, it seems to me that instead of passing this major health care bill that has the potential to further sink our country in debt, we should instead enforce the laws we already have and crack down on predatory insurance practices. Meanwhile, for Christ's sake, instead of raising taxes for us all, give a tax break to those poor uninsured Americans.

Got a more pragmatic idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
In other words, I need to finish writing the second half of this post. Stay tuned, please.
Hours later, you still have not finished writing that post?

My apologies, I forgot to return to your 18% statistic. Even according to this, 82% of Americans under 65 have insurance: still a vast majority.

But, once more, these are all estimates, cooked by people with their own agendas.

Last edited by Moedred : 08-16-2009 at 03:55 AM. Reason: merged 2
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2009, 01:46 AM   #97
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Hours later, you still have not finished writing that post?

Nope. It's the weekend; there's baseball to be watched and played, and there are other things going on. Plus, there is some editing I need to do.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 09:49 PM   #98
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Plus, there is some editing I need to do.
Been quite a while... Are you writing a book, Madame Saboteur?
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 06:59 AM   #99
indy34
IndyFan
 
indy34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 771
Sorry I haven't been following this thread, but whats wrong with government health insurance? we have it here in Australia its called Medicare although it doesn't cover all the cost it does cover most of the cost
indy34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 08:16 AM   #100
monkey
Guest
 
monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy34
Sorry I haven't been following this thread, but whats wrong with government health insurance? we have it here in Australia its called Medicare although it doesn't cover all the cost it does cover most of the cost

I34, don't worry that you haven't followed this thread, you can just join in. There's been a lot of flatulence on this thread thus far, ....you haven't missed much, and......welcome to the conversation.

Yes, you are right, there really isn't much wrong with Government Health Insurance, provided you have a Government that has the welfare of its people as a priority.

That's the problem in America. The people can no longer trust the Government, ..and with good reason.

The Criminal Traitor to America, George W. Bush, has a lot to do with that.

Obama? I support him, I want to believe in him, but I have doubts too.

So perhaps that's the difference between the US and Australia.

Perhaps you can trust your leaders, and we can not.
monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.