Ted Kennedy to be succeeded by a toolbag

[Guest Speed Racer]

I think many conservatives and others are against growing the government in the name of the "common good" (ie, socialism) because we believe that, in reality, those in charge will always take more than their fair share. Doesn't matter if it's Communist Party leaders in USSR or China or Wall Street bankers in America.

 

As far as I'm concerned, those in charge have never needed the excuse of the "common good" to do that, so frankly, I would rather more people have access to healthcare while the leaders are skimming off the top. I think that's probably something they can manage.

[uncool2pillow]

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]

 

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential[4] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

That's a great definition for socialism. It's one that I know. I just don't think it can truly work without those in charge taking more than their fair share.

[MattZ]

That's a great definition for socialism. It's one that I know. I just don't think it can truly work without those in charge taking more than their fair share.

 

Yes, but uncool2pillow, my point is that this is exactly what is happening with capitalism. Wall Street bailout, Health Care bill w/o public option, etc. Wealth continues to be concentrated at the top, and it is being funded by the people (ie, taxpayers). This is being branded as socialism. It isn't socialism.

[Guest Speed Racer]

That's a great definition for socialism. It's one that I know. I just don't think it can truly work without those in charge taking more than their fair share.

 

But if people in charge are taking more than their fair share regardless of whether everyone else has greater access to more resources, then wouldn't that be better than now?

[ikol]

And that, by the way, is the main reason we need healthcare reform. What you have described here is Socialism, the big-S version that was instituted in regimes where people didn't get to vote; socialism is the one where people in Switzerland and Canada get to spend QT with their doctor when they need it.

 

Except that in my example, the government (and one in which people do get to vote) is the problem. They refuse to increase Medicare reimbursements and in fact constantly advocate Medicare cuts (as they do in currently proposed healthcare reform legislation). So whatever your opinion is on how healthcare should be reformed, the proposed legislation will not result in more QT with physicians. In fact, it will likely result in many physicians retiring early, thus making the problem worse.

[ikol]

Yes, but uncool2pillow, my point is that this is exactly what is happening with capitalism. Wall Street bailout, Health Care bill w/o public option, etc. Wealth continues to be concentrated at the top, and it is being funded by the people (ie, taxpayers). This is being branded as socialism. It isn't socialism.

 

While we're getting our terminology straight, can we agree that the Wall Street bailout is not free market capitalism?

[MattZ]

Except that in my example, the government (and one in which people do get to vote) is the problem. They refuse to increase Medicare reimbursements and in fact constantly advocate Medicare cuts (as they do in currently proposed healthcare reform legislation). So whatever your opinion is on how healthcare should be reformed, the proposed legislation will not result in more QT with physicians. In fact, it will likely result in many physicians retiring early, thus making the problem worse.

 

So you are against Medicare in principle, but even moreso, against Medicare cuts?

 

While we're getting our terminology straight, can we agree that the Wall Street bailout is not free market capitalism?

 

Of course. It's just garden-variety capitalism. Free-market capitalism is a fiction. It doesn't exist.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Except that in my example, the government (and one in which people do get to vote) is the problem. They refuse to increase Medicare reimbursements and in fact constantly advocate Medicare cuts (as they do in currently proposed healthcare reform legislation). So whatever your opinion is on how healthcare should be reformed, the proposed legislation will not result in more QT with physicians. In fact, it will likely result in many physicians retiring early, thus making the problem worse.

 

I never said I was satisfied with the reform as put forth by the government, did I? All I said was that our system is in need of healthcare reform, and that Canada and Switzerland (neither one of which is in the U.S.) have decent systems.

[uncool2pillow]

Yes, but uncool2pillow, my point is that this is exactly what is happening with capitalism. Wall Street bailout, Health Care bill w/o public option, etc. Wealth continues to be concentrated at the top, and it is being funded by the people (ie, taxpayers). This is being branded as socialism. It isn't socialism.

When the justification is the common good (we can't let AIG fail for the good of the economy) it may be, but you are right, Matt, with that example. True fiscal conservatives hate to see all of this taxpayer money thrown around for any reason.

[Good Old Neon]

Of course. It's just garden-variety capitalism. Free-market capitalism is a fiction. It doesn't exist.

 

True - perhaps "publically subsidized capitalism" would be more accurate?

[uncool2pillow]

While we're getting our terminology straight, can we agree that the Wall Street bailout is not free market capitalism?

Plutocracy? Oligarchy?

[Guest Speed Racer]

For the same reason that when attempting to correct a problem, we usually try to find its root cause. When my car breaks down, in order to fix it, I have to know the problem. If I bring it to the garage, and my mechanic takes a look and says, yep, it’s the starter, we can fix that – however, if he looks at it and says, looks like gremlins and ghosts have put a hex on your engine, well, it will never get fixed.

 

But that's not what's happening. They're using the wrong label, but they are still listing all of the symptoms of the disease. If I go to the doctor and say I have malaria, but describe an isolated, sharp pain in my abdomen, it's likely I'll leave without an appendix, despite the fact that I was mislabeling my malady. These people are saying, "Damn Obama and his socialism! He keeps ____, _____, and _____." They're voting based on whether they think a candidate will fix the items listed in the second sentence, not the malady they list in the first sentence.

[ikol]

So you are against Medicare in principle, but even moreso, against Medicare cuts?

 

I am against Medicare in principle but recognize the reality that it exists and thus think it should reimburse fairly to the extent that it can. I would love to see Medicare abolished and replaced by private healthcare and charity, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. If it's going to be paying for a large percentage of healthcare, then it should pay physicians a fair price for their services. Doctors should not be overbooking their clinics just to stay open because Medicare arbitrarily tells them that their service is worth less than it actually is.

[Sparky speaks]

Yes, but uncool2pillow, my point is that this is exactly what is happening with capitalism. Wall Street bailout, Health Care bill w/o public option, etc. Wealth continues to be concentrated at the top, and it is being funded by the people (ie, taxpayers). This is being branded as socialism. It isn't socialism.

 

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Get rid of all of the incumbents. They are all bought and owned by the power brokers. Democrat? Republican? They are all the same. Until we all realize this nothing will change. The health care bill as it exists will only burden the middle class and the poor with more fees and taxes. Get the government out of the health business. Allow competition. I'm voting for this guy in CT......

 

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9523

 

From Joseph Stiglitz.....

 

"What we should have done is identified the banking institutions that are lending, we should have given them more money and given them money on the condition that they lend.

 

When we had our welfare reform of 1996 [when Stiglitz was in the Clinton administration], we made welfare conditional. That is to say, you got welfare payments but you had to go to training and look for a job.

 

We put the banks on welfare, but we didn't put any conditions. We said, "You can spend the money you gave them on a Florida vacation." It's ironic that we were more "strict" with our poor than our banks."

 

Whole article from the usually crappy Obama ass kissing Huffington Post....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/joseph-stiglitz-interview_n_429437.html

[MattZ]

I am against Medicare in principle but recognize the reality that it exists and thus think it should reimburse fairly to the extent that it can. I would love to see Medicare abolished and replaced by private healthcare and charity, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. If it's going to be paying for a large percentage of healthcare, then it should pay physicians a fair price for their services. Doctors should not be overbooking their clinics just to stay open because Medicare arbitrarily tells them that their service is worth less than it actually is.

 

Plenty of doctors don't accept insurance. If you are anti-Medicare, can't you simply refuse to accept insuance? (I realize this doesnt apply to someone coming to you in an emergency).

 

I am out of my league a bit here because I am far from an expert on these topics, but this seems like an intriguing paradox. Rail against government provided healthcare while insisting that you get paid more from it? What am I missing?

[Good Old Neon]

But that's not what's happening. They're using the wrong label, but they are still listing all of the symptoms of the disease. If I go to the doctor and say I have malaria, but describe an isolated, sharp pain in my abdomen, it's likely I'll leave without an appendix, despite the fact that I was mislabeling my malady. These people are saying, "Damn Obama and his socialism! He keeps ____, _____, and _____." They're voting based on whether they think a candidate will fix the items listed in the second sentence, not the malady they list in the first sentence.

 

But the Republicans are no longer interested in accurately diagnosing and/or fixing problems, they’re in the misinformation business, and their use of “communism” is purely cynical. It’s no coincidence that the public came to associate healthcare reform with communism, nor is the bill nearly as messy and poorly thought out as we’ve been led to believe. The negativity surrounding this bill was deliberately and cynically manufactured. Unfortunately, the White House has done a poor job selling it, whereas the GOP has been tremendously successful at spreading misinformation. I don’t buy for a second that the Republican leadership truly believes Obama has a communist or socialist agenda, they’re simply being obstructionist – they have no interest in any sort of compromise. They’ve become so deranged in their quest for ideological purity, that they no longer tolerate any dissention, i.e. – independent thought, even within their own ranks. This strategy is great for winning elections, but disastrous once in house – and it virtually guarantees that very little of substance will get accomplished. They have so little respect for their own base, that they’re willing to create fantastic works of fiction to keep them perpetually frightened, and thereby loyal – hence the use of communism, socialism, death panels, etc.

[Atticus]

you mean that's your opinion, right?

[Good Old Neon]

you mean that's your opinion, right?

 

Actually, it’s Bob in accountings opinion, I’m just acting as a cipher.

[Atticus]

I sometimes think you and sullivan assign a little too sinister an intent to some of these people. I'm not sure their plans are even that well thought-out.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Do you really believe that Democrats have motivations all that different from Republicans? What I don't understand about this (or rather, what I DO understand and disagree with you about on account of how hypocritical it is) is that you seem to think it's okay when the party you agree with (most of the time) is it doing the exact same thing - and yet when they do it, it doesn't make them dumb.

[Good Old Neon]

Do you really believe that Democrats have motivations all that different from Republicans? What I don't understand about this (or rather, what I DO understand and disagree with you about on account of how hypocritical it is) is that you seem to think it's okay when the party you agree with (most of the time) is it doing the exact same thing - and yet when they do it, it doesn't make them dumb.

 

Until fairly recently, no – if you recall, I was the guy who believed there was no substantive difference between the parties, however, recent events have helped shaped my opinion to the contrary. I was also one of the few posters who regularly punched holes in Obama’s over-inflated balloon, aggressively. With that said, the GOP, with help from their talking head cable surrogates, have gone mad, and though the democrats have their issues, many of them large enough that, barring something really special, I will never consider myself a member of their party, they retain a smidgen of integrity. The right, however, has sold its soul, and in return, Satan has stripped them of their sanity.

 

True story.

[Atticus]

The right, however, has sold its soul, and in return, Satan has stripped them of their sanity.

 

IT'S PAT ROBERTSON!!!!!

[Good Old Neon]

I sometimes think you and sullivan assign a little too sinister an intent to some of these people. I'm not sure their plans are even that well thought-out.

 

Well, this is the party that brought us a manufactured war and institutionalized torture, among a hundred other things, so, in that respect, they’ve earned sinister.

[Guest Speed Racer]

In questioning their sanity because you disagree with them, not to mention calling them stupid and accusing them of believing in hexes, goblins and fairy tales when you frankly haven't a clue regarding the specific nature of their beliefs, I'd go ahead and say you really are ignoring the plank in your own eye - not to mention the planks in the eyes of the opponents of the GOP.

[Good Old Neon]

In questioning their sanity because you disagree with them, not to mention calling them stupid and accusing them of believing in hexes, goblins and fairy tales when you frankly haven't a clue regarding the specific nature of their beliefs, I'd go ahead and say you really are ignoring the plank in your own eye - not to mention the planks in the eyes of the opponents of the GOP.

 

Wow - if that's what you took away from that post, then I've done a really poor job of communicating effectively.