Brown 53%... Coakley 46%

[Thelona]

We are not a nation of "rugged individualists" anymore. Our economy, our society, our laws and just about every facet of life in the good ol' U.S.A. is one of interdependence. We're not exactly growing or hunting our own food, and few of us are living completely off the grid.

If we decide as a nation that we all need to work together to make sure families aren't going bankrupt because someone got cancer, I don't care if it's labeled "socialist." I'd rather be socialist than leave it to corporations who only exist to serve the bottom line and will gladly cut you loose when you get sick or if you have a pre-existing condition because the shareholders put profit over keeping people healthy as long as they don't have to see how what they do affects people.

We can do it if we want to badly enough. We're just not there yet.

right because a government bureaucracy will be SO much more compassionate, and look directly at the person, and never a dollar sign right?

 

[Raesvelg]

The one that gets me is that, when it is pointed out that the old and the poor already have access to government funded healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid respectively), many people immediately harp on how awful those services are, and how long it takes to get anything done with them, etc.

And I stare at those people, and wonder why it is that they think that another government agency would be any better?

Do I think we should have universal healthcare? After a fashion. If you are too poor (and have a damn good excuse for it), or are unable to work (for reasons of age/disability, etc) then yes, by all means, the rest of us should pick up your tab.

But.

Aside from that, it should be a matter of individual choice. You can find a health insurance plan for nearly any budget. It's not hard. As was pointed out earlier, if you're living particularly tight, you might have to give up cable television or similar luxuries. But that should be your choice.

I think that the insurance industry could absolutely do with some overhaul, and I think that tort law reform is fucking essential. But I do not think that the average American is too fucking stupid to understand that living without health insurance is risky.

I did it. For 10 years. During which the total of my expenditures on medical bills was something in the neighborhood of $2000, the majority of which was accrued in a single incident (dislocated shoulder). Was it a calculated risk on my part?

Yes. I was aware that, if I were to have been diagnosed with a sudden condition, or if I were to receive crippling injuries, that my medical bills would have quite literally beggared me. But I was also aware that I was in good health, had no diagnosed conditions, had no particularly bad habits, and that my car insurance would cover any non-crippling injuries that I might receive in an accident.

The fundamental nature of the socialist programs espoused and endorsed here, and in many other countries, is one of distrust. Distrust that the "lower classes" have the common sense to take care of themselves. That they're too stupid to set aside money for their own retirement, that they're too stupid to take steps to ensure their health, that they're too stupid to be trusted to vote the right way so they have to be led to the proper conclusion through whatever means are necessary.

The problem with this is that the chosen method of achieving these goals is government.

Why is this a problem? Fairly simple.

Governments don't need to profit. There's no real incentive to improve service, processes, or anything. They just chug along, typically grotesquely inefficiently, accumulating people who don't particularly give a shit about the purpose of their jobs.

You want universal healthcare? Pass a law making it illegal to go without health insurance.

Problem solved.

You'll have private providers lining up around the block to create health plans accessible to just about anybody, for lower cost-per-person than the government could ever provide.

You want to lower costs? Reform tort law to start. So much of the system we have here persists because to do anything less than the utmost can result in a lawsuit.

You go in with a mysterious stomach ache? Time for extensive tests, for conditions that are statistically unlikely to downright practically impossible, all in the name of avoiding an immense lawsuit.

Does this approach sometimes work better? Absolutely. My nephew lives in Switzerland, (wee tiny chap, just turned 2), and last year he had what the Swiss doctors said was a cold, no worries, he'll be fine. He (and his parents) flew out to visit me (and our parents) here in the States, and his condition worsened. They took him to the local children's hospital (one of the best in the world), he was promptly diagnosed with a serious condition, and spent a couple days there receiving treatment that may well have saved his life.

 

[Halifirien]

The fundamental nature of the socialist programs espoused and endorsed here, and in many other countries, is one of distrust. Distrust that the "lower classes" have the common sense to take care of themselves. That they're too stupid to set aside money for their own retirement, that they're too stupid to take steps to ensure their health, that they're too stupid to be trusted to vote the right way so they have to be led to the proper conclusion through whatever means are necessary.

You can flip that argument around and point out that the upper classes resent any attempt to put everyone on a relatively level playing field. It's the "I got mine, so screw you" attitude. Anyone who isn't rich enough or white enough or Christian enough or fill-in-whatever-group doesn't deserve to play with the same toys or have the same security. They have to be "kept in their place."

We do that with reproductive health all the time. The roadblocks thrown in front of women seeking abortion are roadblocks for poor women. Women who can afford to miss more than one day of work or travel great distances aren't as affected. It's just another way of telling poor people "Stop fucking" (i.e. Andre Brauer's idiotic "Don't feed them. They breed" comment).

I don't know how anyone can argue with a straight face that the poor deserve to die because they're poor, but it's a regular subext in these arguments. Private providers could cover every economic level now if they really wanted to, but that would eat into profits. If I were king for a day I'd remove the profit motive from the equation.

Again, moot point. Not going to happen until we decide to make it happen.

 

[Tristam Green]

Andre Brauer's idiotic "Don't feed them. They breed" comment

We're not too fond of him here (well, the sane ones aren't).

 

[Thelona]

You can flip that argument around and point out that the upper classes resent any attempt to put everyone on a relatively level playing field. It's the "I got mine, so screw you" attitude. Anyone who isn't rich enough or white enough or Christian enough or fill-in-whatever-group doesn't deserve to play with the same toys or have the same security. They have to be "kept in their place."

We do that with reproductive health all the time. The roadblocks thrown in front of women seeking abortion are roadblocks for poor women. Women who can afford to miss more than one day of work or travel great distances aren't as affected. It's just another way of telling poor people "Stop fucking" (i.e. Andre Brauer's idiotic "Don't feed them. They breed" comment).

I don't know how anyone can argue with a straight face that the poor deserve to die because they're poor, but it's a regular subext in these arguments. Private providers could cover every economic level now if they really wanted to, but that would eat into profits. If I were king for a day I'd remove the profit motive from the equation.

Again, moot point. Not going to happen until we decide to make it happen.

noone here is arguing that poor people deserve to die, your putting words in peoples mouth and its the same kinda bullshit i was talking about earlier how if your against the billl well you must hate poor people/minorities/ whatever. do you always fabricate a racial / classest "subtext" whenever someone doesn't agree with you?

and its no surprise that you'd remove profit from the equation, your a liberal, but anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could see how removing all profit from the equation could just, idk, fuck everything alltogether.

idk how you cant understand that the world isnt some magic place that runs off pixie dust and good intentions. you remove profit from the situation, suddenly noone gives a shit, people don't work for free, company's don't make investments for free, innovations don't come free, NOTHING comes free.

what you are talking about is exactly what Obama tried. makeout profit to be an evil motive, and then do away with private health insurance. and its the reason America is recoiling from Obama faster then even bush.

What about doctors? should they be making a profit off keeping people healthy? pharmaceutical companies? should we take their profits to?

the world would be great if it were like star-trek communism where there was just no such thing as money and everyone worked hard and did their job anyways and went home to their replicator to have whatever they want. but this is reality. people need profit to give 2 shits.

it may sound cliche, and some liberals will call it an outright lie. but profits drives innovation and progress, its been proven time and time again.

i mean, how the fuck are they not supposed to make a profit halif? Most people pay in money every month and rarley if ever actually go to the hostpital. then another guy pays in 30 bucks a month and goes to the hospital and racks up 100's of thousands in medical bills, where does that money come from halif? If they don't make a profit off the guy who's not getting sick how are they to stay in business when they're paying out millions for the ones who do?(and no dont reply with "they dont pay out" because i can see it coming and you know good and well they pay out a good deal of the time, more then medicaid and medicare atleast.)


I don't even know why Im trying, your a radical liberal, and anyone who's got their feet on the ground. can see right off the bat how removing profit could fuck things up.

and anyone with their feet on the ground can see that just because someone doesn't want this clusterfuck of a bill, it doesn't mean they are racist, or think poor people deserve to die.

your whole post reeks of that liberal idea i was talking about earlier, its not about the health care, its about the haves and have nots, some have the ability to afford better services and others don't, thus, in your eyes. Inequality. if you were king for the day you say you'd force that equality, but thankfully anyone whos not a radical liberal knows equality like that cant be forced. atleast not in a country that's not run by a tyrant.

 

[Halifirien]

idk how you cant understand that the world isnt some magic place that runs off pixie dust and good intentions. you remove profit from the situation, suddenly noone gives a shit, people don't work for free, company's don't make investments for free, innovations don't come free, NOTHING comes free.

There are countless people volunteering right now to help people in Haiti, and I don't think they're running on pixie dust. Capitalism is not the end-all be-all motivation for everything that happens in this world. That's why volunteers are called volunteers. There are plenty of industrialized nations who are operating their health systems wihout the profit motive to drive it.

And nowhere did Obama introduce a plan to do away with private health insurance. He was trying to set up a government-run insurance program to compete with the private plans. I wish we had a group of progressives who'd go down that route, but all the cries of socialism were off the mark from what was actually introduced.

 

[Raesvelg]

There are countless people volunteering right now to help people in Haiti, and I don't think they're running on pixie dust. Capitalism is not the end-all be-all motivation for everything that happens in this world. That's why volunteers are called volunteers. There are plenty of industrialized nations who are operating their health systems wihout the profit motive to drive it.

And you can rest assured that if they're volunteering to help out in Haiti, they can afford to do so.

As for those health systems who operate without profit... There's something else you can say about them as well. They're inefficient. Wasteful. Typically move quite slowly. Operate parasitically. Etc.

 

[Halifirien]

As for those health systems who operate without profit... There's something else you can say about them as well. They're inefficient. Wasteful. Typically move quite slowly. Operate parasitically. Etc.

In other words, much like the U.S. health care system?

 

[Thelona]

There are countless people volunteering right now to help people in Haiti, and I don't think they're running on pixie dust. Capitalism is not the end-all be-all motivation for everything that happens in this world. That's why volunteers are called volunteers. There are plenty of industrialized nations who are operating their health systems wihout the profit motive to drive it.

And nowhere did Obama introduce a plan to do away with private health insurance. He was trying to set up a government-run insurance program to compete with the private plans. I wish we had a group of progressives who'd go down that route, but all the cries of socialism were off the mark from what was actually introduced.

ok well when the "volunteer" health insurance company comes out you get your insurance from them, we are talking about a nationwide business here not people volunteering to aid after a natural disaster. I dont know why you'd even try to make that argument. theres not even a parallel to connect.

and if you really believe that bill was written so that private health insurance could compete with the government plan your drinking way to much koolaid. it was written specifically to make it impossible for a private insurance company to compete, one version of the bill even had the sale private health insurance outright OUTLAWED in 2012.

 

[Halifirien]

ok well when the "volunteer" health insurance company comes out you get your insurance from them, we are talking about a nationwide business here not people volunteering to aid after a natural disaster. I dont know why you'd even try to make that argument. theres not even a parallel to connect.

I make the argument because when millions of people donate time and money to take care of the sick and injured, we call it charity. When millions of people cast their vote to pool their tax money to take care of the sick and injured, we call it socialism.

 

[Miros]

There's a difference between willingly doing it and being forced to do it. I do not want to have to pay for people like the Octo moms healthcare for her children and herself.

 

[Thelona]

I make the argument because when millions of people donate time and money to take care of the sick and injured, we call it charity. When millions of people cast their vote to pool their tax money to take care of the sick and injured, we call it socialism.

exactly, people donating money and time to take care of the sick, injured, poor, is charity.

FORCING everyone to donate is socialism.


and where the fuck did this millions of people casting their vote part come from? the presidential election? what we all signed up for socialism when we voted him in?

 

[Halifirien]

and where the fuck did this millions of people casting their vote part come from? the presidential election? what we all signed up for socialism when we voted him in?

I'm not talking about the current political climate. I've pointed out ad nauseum in this thread that we're not at the point where universal healthcare is possible or even likely. Obama was never going to be the guy to deliver that golden egg, but I knew that when I voted for him. I'm talking about working toward the goal where enough people decide they want it and then we make it happen through our elected officials. We've got a long way to go before it ever becomes a reality.

 

[Celvantes]

And I knew that when I voted against him. We've got a long way to go before it ever becomes a reality, and I think that's a good thing, because down that road lies a country of which I don't want to be a part.

Raesvelg just made (last page) the argument I was going to make... I'm not going to restate his words again. I will add, however, that there is no sliding scale on socialism. It's rare in government where you can choose between absolutes but this is one of the few places where you can.

Let me illustrate.

Either you as a society believe that it is the individual's responsibility to look after his own welfare or that it is the government's. There is no middle ground.

If you believe that it is the individual's responsibility (that concept of rugged individualism on which we were founded), then you make government as small as possible. This is to ensure that the people keep the majority of their own money so that they *can* fend for themselves. Government only takes on the roles and responsibilities that an individual cannot.

If you believe that it is the government's responsibility, then you have to make government as large as you can, so that government has the resources to take care of *everyone.* As proved by Europe, this can require a tax rate as high as 70% for almost all tax payers. The upside is that each individual has (most) of their needs taken care of by the government. The downside is that they only get to decide how to spend a small chunk of the money they earn.

You cannot have both, especially not with a population as large as ours.

America is a republic (not a democracy) and as such can decide, through its elected representatives, who bears the responsibility for their own well being. As much as I love this country, the day we decide that government is responsible for each individual's welfare is the day I renounce my citizenship. Personal freedom and a lack of governmental interference in my life are very important to me, and they are the reasons my family immigrated here after WWII. I cannot in good conscience support a country that believes otherwise.

 

[Tristam Green]

Either you as a society believe that it is the individual's responsibility to look after his own welfare or that it is the government's. There is no middle ground.

There always exists one middle ground. There is only one exception.

If you believe that it is the individual's responsibility (that concept of rugged individualism on which we were founded), then you make government as small as possible. This is to ensure that the people keep the majority of their own money so that they *can* fend for themselves. Government only takes on the roles and responsibilities that an individual cannot.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'd say health and well-being falls under "general welfare"

If you believe that it is the government's responsibility, then you have to make government as large as you can, so that government has the resources to take care of *everyone.* As proved by Europe, this can require a tax rate as high as 70% for almost all tax payers. The upside is that each individual has (most) of their needs taken care of by the government. The downside is that they only get to decide how to spend a small chunk of the money they earn.

You cannot have both, especially not with a population as large as ours.

As it stands, the common man doesn't get to decide where most of his so-called hard-earned money is spent. Most of it goes to utilities, rent or mortgages, and healthcare, while the rest is being begged away by various "charitable organizations" (few really exist), political committees, or religious affiliations (It's great you're giving 10% to the church! Give more and feel better about yourself).

America is a republic (not a democracy) and as such can decide, through its elected representatives, who bears the responsibility for their own well being. As much as I love this country, the day we decide that government is responsible for each individual's welfare is the day I renounce my citizenship. Personal freedom and a lack of governmental interference in my life are very important to me, and they are the reasons my family immigrated here after WWII. I cannot in good conscience support a country that believes otherwise.

The United States of America (note: Unifed entities, sum of its parts) is a democratic republic.

 

[alanon]

I make the argument because when millions of people donate time and money to take care of the sick and injured, we call it charity. When millions of people cast their vote to pool their tax money to take care of the sick and injured, we call it socialism.

I won't reiterate what was already stated by Cel and Raes, but I want to comment on this. How many of those people that donated time and money to Haiti would have done so if it had meant a lifetime commitment?

Spend some time with those that live off of welfare and really watch. A vast majority have absolutely no drive to do anything, to improve themselves or their situations, and just sit around and wait for what they feel the government owes them. The way the reliance on the government has grown sickens me, and it is slowly grinding this country down.

Before the argument is made and stories told about such and such a person that just had some bad luck and is really trying to turn themselves around, I realize those people exist, but unfortunately they are the exception. How many have been on welfare, WIC, foodstamps for YEARS then have their children pass right on into the program?

 

[Halifirien]

I will add, however, that there is no sliding scale on socialism.

Then we're a socialist country now, because we have Social Security and Medicare. Be sure to send me a postcard from wherever you land, Celv. I hope they have Internet so we can continue these debates.

 

[Celvantes]

Then we're a socialist country now, because we have Social Security and Medicare. Be sure to send me a postcard from wherever you land, Celv. I hope they have Internet so we can continue these debates.

Social Security, as it was designed, is not even close to socialism. Back when the law was created, the age of reception was set two years beyond the average lifespan. Social Security was nothing more than that... a security blanket to get people to stop hoarding their money in their mattresses and get the economy going again after the Great Depression. In practice, it was a lottery... if you lived long enough to collect it, you were one of the lucky few who did. However, as lifespan increased, the reception age was not raised until much later, making it the (semi) socialist practice it is now. It is not fully socialist because at least on the surface, you must contribute to the program to receive money from it. There are exceptions to this, but the general principle remains. I would consider it a socialist program if *anyone* could receive money from it without ever putting money in. Some can, wives of workers, for instance after the worker dies, but someone can't just come to the country and demand social security.

Medicare and Medicaid are not even close to universal. I view them more as an alternative form of welfare. The medical system isn't controlled by the government, rather the government simply writes the checks. A socialist medical system would be like that of the USSR prior to its fall, or the current system in the UK and Canada.

So no, I'll be staying here for the time being.

 

[Halifirien]

Social Security, as it was designed, is not even close to socialism. ... Medicare and Medicaid are not even close to universal. I view them more as an alternative form of welfare.

Conservatives at the time of passage would heartily disagree with you. The sainted Ronald Reagan recorded a message slamming Medicare programs as socialism getting universal healthcare's foot in the door. When you say there's no "sliding scale on socialism," I have to wonder what happened to the to-the-right-of-Ghengis-Khan Celvantes we've grown to know and love?

 

[Celvantes]

Conservatives at the time of passage would heartily disagree with you. The sainted Ronald Reagan recorded a message slamming Medicare programs as socialism getting universal healthcare's foot in the door. When you say there's no "sliding scale on socialism," I have to wonder what happened to the to-the-right-of-Ghengis-Khan Celvantes we've grown to know and love?

To me, I define socialism as "everyone." I believe a social welfare programs such as welfare and medicare are, like St. Reagan said, socialist in nature and indeed serve as the vanguard for universal healthcare. However, I don't think they push us over the notch (not sliding scale) to full socialism because they only apply to folks below a certain income level.