Socialism One and All!

[Frizzle Fry]

Do you recall what the issue was when it went to federally mandated auto insurance???

Unless there's federally mandated car ownership that's not an issue.

I have my qualms with the way things have been done, but it's really apples and oranges when you're comparing to healthcare.

[CatoRockwell]

Unless there's federally mandated car ownership that's not an issue.

I have my qualms with the way things have been done, but it's really apples and oranges when you're comparing to healthcare.

That is not a power delegated to the Federal government by the constitution, therefore it is reserved to the states and their respective judiciaries.

[busby]

a real Patriot

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,6040296,full.story

[CatoRockwell]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...296,full.story

Awesome!

[SCpoloRicker]

Awesome!

FTA:

Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is "trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation," Allen said.

"But this is pushing the limit," he said.

[chafnerjr]

I can't say that I agree with the doctor mentioned in that post. However, what he's doing might be stupid and professionally unwise, but not in any way illegal. Sometimes people forget that we have the RIGHT to make BAD or STUPID decisions as long as they don't affect someone else.

As for this issues of socialism I would like to ask one question to DRG and one to anyone else.

DRG: How do you define socialism?

EVERYONE ELSE: Please explain to me how you believe that we are NOT already a socialist country!

I only bring this up because this started as a thread stating that we are now essentially a socialist nation.

We could go back and forth back and forth here. Obviously some of us believe that the gov. is smarter than the people and need to save them from themselves. Some of us believe that the people are basically intelligent and can make decisions on their own.

[CatoRockwell]

As an individual you have an inherent right to be prejudiced, no matter how horrible your views are. It is your right to refuse services to anyone based off of anything. I don't care about the Civil Rights movement. As despicable as racism, etc... is, it is every man's right to run his business as he see's fit.

The law may be what it is, but the laws were supposed to defend our rights, not tell us who has special privileges because the color of their skin, or preferences. We should always encourage people to be good, but the government has no right to force it down everyone's throat.

If someone doesn't want to do business with a group of people for his own reasons, that is his business, his property, and his right.

Now he can't go out and violate another man's rights because of his beliefs, but he can refuse to associate with him if he so chooses.

I can't say that I agree with the doctor mentioned in that post. However, what he's doing might be stupid and professionally unwise, but not in any way illegal. Sometimes people forget that we have the RIGHT to make BAD or STUPID decisions as long as they don't affect someone else.

As for this issues of socialism I would like to ask one question to DRG and one to anyone else.

DRG: How do you define socialism?

EVERYONE ELSE: Please explain to me how you believe that we are NOT already a socialist country!

I only bring this up because this started as a thread stating that we are now essentially a socialist nation.

We could go back and forth back and forth here. Obviously some of us believe that the gov. is smarter than the people and need to save them from themselves. Some of us believe that the people are basically intelligent and can make decisions on their own.

We ARE already a Socialist Nation, FDR made sure of that in the 30's.

Thank you! someone else gets it!

[drg]

ummmm... economic war is what built this nation. It's called free trade for a reason. If everything is regulated and sanctioned to the extent that there is no change or value added by going elsewhere then what's the point? Nascar comes to mind.

Economic competition, not economic war. There's a pretty big difference.

I'm not sure what the NASCAR reference means. Are you suggesting that since NASCAR rules are so stringent and field-leveling that there's no point to NASCAR racing? I'd think that assertion is ridiculous on its face.

DRG: How do you define socialism?

I define it as the actual definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

As you can see by these definitions, healthcare reform was almost completely NOT socialist, while some of our most important and effective institutions are quite socialist.

[chafnerjr]

Sorry DRG... I could have checked the internet for the ideological definition. I would really have liked your particular definition. Many socialist countries don't belong in any of those definitions and hence I cannot accept them (consider this academic rather than a challenge). I'm just trying to figure out why you seem to blindly fall on the left of every argument no matter how serious, ludicrous or irrelevant. I hear that you're a cool guy in person so don't take this personally. However, there has been a lot offered up to the table on this. In the end it seems that you believe that the liberals know how to run peoples lives better than they do regardless of the situation (healthcare, voting rights, etc...). Is this the way you truly feel? Do you feel it is the right of you, your political party or anyone else to govern how I live?

I sir am entitled (as are you) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness EVEN BEFORE we begin to consider our Constitution and Bill or Rights. Now we have laws to protect my rights from infringing upon yours as we should. After all, freedom at the expense of another is no freedom at all. Herein lies my problem. In order to provide health insurance of some others are being severely penalized.

Before you begin to go on about something not related to this argument at all think of this. Ben Franklin felt that one of the biggest threats to our country after it's founding was "A FEDERAL BANKING SYSTEM". This was due to the control it gave to the fed over peoples lives (loans and interest rates mostly). Ben Franklin was vehemently opposed to that level of government and you're OK with giving control over basic quality of life to this entity? Perhaps you trust the current president and congress but what about the next administration? How short sighted the liberals seem after screaming over what they'd call 8 years of rape?

To be fair the private banking system in Ben Franklin's the time was also very corrupt and just as bad. Does this mean that the solution MUST be one or the other? That's insane! The problem is that the gov isn't really interested in FIXING the problem of expensive health care. They've just chosen to temporarily hide the cost while gaining a HUGE amount of control over our every day lives. Now this isn't for evil intent. Those who voted for it believe it's the proper course WHICH IS WHY THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. The past several administrations (all the way back to Reagan) haven't understood that.

Neither the gov nor the insurance companies have any business running health care. WE THE PEOPLE should be allowed to make our own decisions for better or worse. Obviously the government (both federal and local) has a responsibility to regulate the basic safety of these products/services, to foster and environment that promotes both innovation and "the general welfare" of the people by carefully encouraging a free market to drive down the cost of these goods and services. There will always be a place for insurance, but it should be for catastrophic life events. The cost of basic goods and services to keep us healthy on a regular basis must be reduced to affordable levels.

You seem to believe that when some of us say: "The Federal Government should stay the heck out of healthcare" You think we're saying "I sure wish the big corporations or insurance companies ran it instead". Where did you miss the point that NEITHER is the solution and ALMOST NO ONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEES IT republican, democrat, or otherwise!

If I am on a side it's the AMERICAN side I just wish more Americans were as well. DRG, I'm glad that you stick up for your beliefs. I just wish I understood why your beliefs seem to be the democratic party line.

P.S. "RANT here"... What happened to the Kennedy Democrats? What happened to the old democratic line from a forgotten president that espoused "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." What happened to freedom of speech (take a look at hate laws). What happened to equal rights (NOT equal rewards). What happened to our people forgetting that we're not really from here, but came here for the freedom we're giving away! I'm against amnesty, but why is everyone against immigration as long as everyone is paying their taxes? What the heck happened to FREEDOM!

WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO CIVICS!

[DevilMan]

Well put Chaf!!!

I can agree with you 100%. I'm not against immigration. I'm against ILLEGAL immigration. Giving amnesty to millions, just because they are already here is no different than opening all of the doors of the prisons to let everyone out since they are overcrowded and well... the guys inside have already done their time..

I'm not against reform, I'm against government or any other mandated FORCED mandate of what we can and can not do.

These rules are being changed for a 4 year term... who knows what will happen after that. Will they stay on? Will they get overruled? Who knows? But how many billions of dollars are going to be spent in the mean time to try and make it work.

What do you think with government mandated healthcare the time limit will be until cigarettes, beer, whiskey, guns, and anything else can be regulated out of existence, on the premise that it's "safer for you, and we know what's best".

Freedom means just that folks. That's the bottom line. If they want healthcare reform, they need to figure out why you can buy a bottle of aspirin at the store for $2 but if they give you one in the hospital for your boo boo it's $4 for a single pill!!!!

That is the problem! Why is one of the FIRST things they ask you when you go to get medical treatment is, "Do you have insurance?" NOT What is wrong with you?

THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! That just solidifies that they are wanting MONEY not to get you healed up!!!!!

DM

[CatoRockwell]

Well Stated. We aren't asking what should the government do, more: Should the government be involved at all?

[athomas]

Why is one of the FIRST things they ask you when you go to get medical treatment is, "Do you have insurance?" NOT What is wrong with you?

THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! That just solidifies that they are wanting MONEY not to get you healed up!!!!!

You are absolutely correct. Its about business. That is what private industry is all about. Its the same if any citizen owns a business and sells a product or service. Before that service is offered, the method of payment is negotiated. If you don't have any method of payment, you get denied the service. After all, why should any one person or business have to bear the burden of supporting what another person wants or needs?

On the other hand, in civilized society, we expect certain basic rights and freedoms. We want to be able to say or do anything we want without persecution. And we want to be able to own property without the fear that someone with a bigger gun will come alone and take it. Who protects that right? We have a police force for that. That ensures that lawful interaction and keeps anarchy at bay. The policing includes the military as well. Its not that we necessarily want to fight, but if there is none, there isn't any deterrent for others to stay away.

We also want a means to transport our goods and services easily. Otherwise we can't compete in the marketplace. We are stuck completing in our own small area and we are prevented from enjoying what others have to offer as well. But who maintains the roads? We have government transportation agencies that do that.

Our society doesn't advance if we don't have educated labour. If everyone is a basic labourer, who designs the complicated machinery and control systems that make our lives easier. It seems we need our population to be well educated, so a system of schools and education is a must.

Every person has a right to life as well. This is where the health care comes in. In most civilized societies, all health care gets covered by the government. The costs usually make up about 85% of the budget which is recovered through taxation.

Who pays for all these services? It all needs to be paid for by taxation, and since it has been determined that you do need a certain minimum amount of income to survive, the majority of the burden gets pushed to those who make a bit more money and you don't have a choice. Its mandated. It has to be, because no one would pay anything if it was based on each persons willingness to pay rather than the requirement to pay. If all services were a pay as you go service, there would be toll booths on every street, and anarchy would rule, because the individual cost to have the police respond, would not be within the budget of the average person. The cost for education would be very expensive, because you would have bear the burden of the education yourself. This would affect the workforce, so if you owned a business that required skilled labour, it would be much more expensive. So, the cost of all products would go up and the average middle income person would become low income. Only the really rich would have any spending power. It would be the same as before the middle class was developed and you were either the elite or the poor. As rich as some think they are, they would ultimately fall into the poor class when the middle class disappears.

All government agencies are huge bureaucratic operations that are very inefficient. That's the nature of the beast. But, it is also true that the government is the largest employer. As long as the government is employing people, that money is in circulation being spent on local goods and services, employing other people. Each time money changes hands, the government gets a piece of it back through taxation. Its when the government stops spending money that most economies come to a crashing halt. If we left all our essential services up the the more "efficient" private industries, and I say "efficient" very loosely, the costs would skyrocket. Why? Because you still need someone to watch over them, the same as in a government organization. If not, they get complacent and will cut corners everywhere they can get away with it. So, you still have to deal with bureaucracy, only with an added layer, and private industry information would not be as easy to get information about so more would be hidden from the people, just as it is now with the drug companies.


So, to summarize, how do we fix this problem? We mandate that you are forced to have coverage and you have to pay for it. Poor are subsidized by the more fortunate(less poor). It is a tax, its just that it is directly paid for up front instead of hidden in a sales tax or income tax. But it does need to be there, because everyone, rich or poor, has the basic right to survive.

[CatoRockwell]

So, to summarize, how do we fix this problem? We mandate that you are forced to have coverage and you have to pay for it. Poor are subsidized by the more fortunate(less poor). It is a tax, its just that it is directly paid for up front instead of hidden in a sales tax or income tax. But it does need to be there, because everyone, rich or poor, has the basic right to survive.

Your right to "survive" does not exist beyond the idea that no one can take your life, but your right to survive does not give you the right to have government sponsored robbery.

So if you are sick, you can come over to my house and rob me at gunpoint to get the money for your operation? Is that ok?

If it isn't then you cannot allow your government to do the same acting on your behalf.

[athomas]

Your right to "survive" does not exist beyond the idea that no one can take your life, but your right to survive does not give you the right to have government sponsored robbery.

So if you are sick, you can come over to my house and rob me at gunpoint to get the money for your operation? Is that ok?

If it isn't then you cannot allow your government to do the same acting on your behalf.

No, but civilized society does not let the less fortunate die because they don't have the money to afford to live.

We have law enforcement to protect you from being robbed at gunpoint from those less fortunate than you. But who protects the less fortunate from hard times. If you are sick, quite often you don't have the means to work to pay for medical.

When those less fortunate have nothing left to live for or do not get equal treatment because of financial status, society breaks down. It causes an increase in crime. If those less fortunate have no means to earn what they need to live, they will take it, because it is survival. We are quick to spend money on policing and jails, but if we spent more on education and health, there wouldn't be near as much crime to start with, and everyone would be much happier and safer.

If everyone felt that they didn't want to pay for something everyone else uses but they didn't, then there wouldn't be any infrastructure at all. You wouldn't have the nice paved roads, or an education system, or law enforcement, or a health infrastructure.

We might as well go back 1000 years when every little group had their own little fort in the woods, but no taxes. At least even then, they took care of their sick and dying.

[CatoRockwell]

No, but civilized society does not let the less fortunate die because they don't have the money to afford to live.

We have law enforcement to protect you from being robbed at gunpoint from those less fortunate than you. But who protects the less fortunate from hard times. If you are sick, quite often you don't have the means to work to pay for medical.

When those less fortunate have nothing left to live for or do not get equal treatment because of financial status, society breaks down. It causes an increase in crime. If those less fortunate have no means to earn what they need to live, they will take it, because it is survival. We are quick to spend money on policing and jails, but if we spent more on education and health, there wouldn't be near as much crime to start with, and everyone would be much happier and safer.

If everyone felt that they didn't want to pay for something everyone else uses but they didn't, then there wouldn't be any infrastructure at all. You wouldn't have the nice paved roads, or an education system, or law enforcement, or a health infrastructure.

We might as well go back 1000 years when every little group had their own little fort in the woods, but no taxes. At least even then, they took care of their sick and dying.

Two words: Private Charity.

Private Charity is still vastly more helpful to the poor and needy. I donate money regularly and will always give cash I have available to the homeless.

Society does not give you the right to rob me. Government was built to defend our freedoms, not to provide equality. Not only is it morally flawed to force charity on someone, but it is also impractical. Our Welfare system absorbs 60% of the money that goes into it. That means that only 40% of the money meant to reach the needy does. Any charity running in such a fashion would quickly lose it's donors. Government should always be considered the last resort when it comes to any problem. Government is inefficient, full of incompetency, and self perpetuating. They will never cease to find more ways to spend more money, bureaucracy will never willingly shrink, it only seeks to grow.

Trust me, I don't rely on law enforcement to protect me, and you are crazy if you do. They are a response to crime, not a prevention. There is no way for the government to prevent crime look at the most government controlled/monitored cities in the world like Tokyo and London, they still have horrible crime issues. Thats why I have several firearms, and my family does what it can to protect themselves.

That argument aside, paying taxes for law enforcement, is not a violation of our social compact. As it is a power I personally possess, I have the right to protect myself from those who would violate my rights to Life, Liberty, Property. You do not have the individual right to go into another man's home and steal from him no matter your need. Therefore you cannot delegate that power to government. Government cannot possess any rights that you do not individually possess.

Not only is government healthcare, impractical & inefficient as anything can be, but it is also a violation of our social contract.