Obama Actually More Fascist?
As Europe continues to recognize socialism's failure and continues to runs from it, Americans harp about Obama's leap towards socialism with the bank bailout, auto bailout, etc. Given the relative small ownership to date of the means of production by the government as my buddy Mark pointed out in previous comments, it points out that Obama leans towards classical fascism with a small dose of socialism thrown in to stay tight with Hugo and Fidel. As Ol' BC sees it, the means of production in this country are still predominantly privately owned. The government is now, under Obama, dictating the direction, the products, etc to be produced by them in larger and larger measures. Kind of resembles Hilter and Mussolini doesn't it?
Granted, the steps have been smallish in the grand scheme of things. Some of these steps in the "wrong direction" may have actually had good intentions and short term success (the jury is still out on this one). But, in the long run this will probably be looked upon as the dark days of the United States, much as the Jimmy Carter era is today. The big difference now is that Obama has a cheering section in the main stream media and if a source tries to give both sides they are labeled right wing zealots and other colorful monikers (not that the labeling is one sided by any means, this one just gets significantly more air time.) Just wait until the socialized medicine comes into play. The door ajar may be swung a little farther open.
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 11:17 AM
33 comments
33 Comments:
Honestly, BC, why do you have to use these labels? It really isn't applicable, and you should know that. It is difficult to have honest dialogue with anyone who uses such terms. Conservatives have gone so far with this rhetoric that they now seem to confuse the terms Fascist and Socialist. Clearly they are using the terms to garner fear induced reactions.
It is not productive.
No. Obama is not Hitler or Mussolini, nor are his actions even comparable, except on the most incidental levels. You are going to have to do better than this, I think.
Dunno about that Mark.
Barack's actions since taking office are largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform.
He may not be using the same rhetoric, but it would be hard to deny that he has a similar socialist/fascist agenda.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Please show, with actual examples or facts or statistics just how Obama's actions are "largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform". Keep in mind also that most governments tend to be similar in many ways. Try not to use only examples that can be claimed by Monarchies, Socialists and Communists. Okay? I await your reply.
Mark,
We use labels so we can tell one thing from another. Duh! We call it communication.
Would you like to see a supermarket filled with rows of cans with no labels?
Your labels have become meaningless due to the fact that you have no understanding of their historical meaning or significance. We use labels to identify things, yes. However, it behooves us to use the RIGHT labels.
Perhaps this is a distinction that has escaped you. Look up Fascism and Socialism before you go making grossly inaccurate comparisons.
I say again, give me concrete examples why you apply the label. It is not a hard thing I ask, yet you are avoiding the task.
How is Obama like Hitler and Mussolini? And please don't answer in a way that could not describe any political leader. Use specific examples instead of tired rhetorical garbage.
Mark,
You used the term "label" in a way that suggested that BC shouldn't put a name on that to which he's referring. As if not to name it will make it less real.
We've all been pretty careless about defining our terms here, including myself. I tend to assume most intellectually inclined individuals know the definitions of these terms.
Obviously, our definitions don't always agree.
For the record, fascism means a socialist dictatorship (but I repeat myself) in which the dictator controls the nominally privately owned means of production.
Control means, in this context, to exercise authoritative or dominating influence.
Voters, mostly indoctrinated by the government childrens' prisons, vote without informed consideration, for the most charismatic individual, and both the choices for any office are essentially the same. Deliberately. They're nominated by their respective parties based on their extreme lust for power over others.
Thus, we find ourselves victimized by a fascist government in its earlier stages--one sure to get worse with each election.
I don't think the rightists are exaggerating when they talk about rationing of med care and detention of dissidents in the not too distant future.
The precedents have been set and the groundwork laid.
First of all, Fascism does not mean a Socialist dictatorship. Here is a definition of Fascism:
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
This is a definition of 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.
As you can see, the two terms are mutually exclusive. They do not necessarily go hand in hand.
The National Socialists of Germany co-opted the name Fascism from the Italians under Mussolini. Thus, I can see your confusion about the terms, but Fascism has more to do with dictatorial rule coupled with aggressive nationalism and the strengthening of unity for the purposes of militancy.
Even if your own definition of Fascism was the correct one, you once again have skirted the issue. I asked you to give proof of your claim that Obama is a Fascist dictator. This you have not done. It would be nice if, for once, someone on this board would stick to the topic and answer a direct question.
Please indulge me.
Barack's actions since taking office are largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform. - RWR
Please show, with actual examples or facts or statistics just how Obama's actions are "largely aligned with the Nazi Party Platform". - Mark
Interesting, Ol' BC, how people forget what I have already demonstrated.
Anyway, here we go again, repeating what I've already shown.
Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race. - Pt. 4, Nazi Party Platform
Obama and his people are treating white men, particularly those with money, like Hitler treated Jews. This has been a pattern with liberals for a long time in this country. The only thing missing is the death camps. Listening to liberals, you'd think wealthy people and white men were the root of every problem in America, when it's the Left that is to blame.
We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. - Pt. 7, Nazi Party Platform
This is a classic description of what in this country is called the Welfare State.
The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. - Pt. 10, Nazi Party Platform
To each according to his need ... from each according to his ability. Classic Marxism and American Leftism.
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery. - Pt. 11, Nazi Party Platform
Attempting to equalize outcomes is advocated by Obama and liberals all over America. It's what Affirmative Action and Socialist Security are all about.
(continued ...)
...
personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. - Pt. 12, Nazi Party Platform
Obama and his minions were accusing Bush of this through the whole campaign, in case you forgot.
We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). - Pt. 13, Nazi Party Platform
Ever heard of General Motors?
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. - Pt. 14, Nazi Party Platform
GM, AIG, and every other redistributive ponzi scheme the Democrats will come up with with Obama's blessing.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. - Pt. 15, Nazi Party Platform
More Socialist Security ...
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. - Pt. 16, Nazi Party Platform
Controlling who does and does not have money, government taking over businesses (GM again ...) and pretending to be interested in a "healthy middle class".
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. - Pt. 17, Nazi Party Platform
Kelo v. New London was a liberal land-grab, in case you forgot, and Obama's people have their fingerprints all over it.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program - Pt. 20, Nazi Party Platform
Liberals love to indoctrinate kids through the public schools - yet another reason they shouls be abolished, yet Obama keeps kissing up to the NEA.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. - Pt. 21, Nazi Party Platform
Obamacare and the government telling people what they can and cannot do with regard their health.
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race - Pt. 24, Nazi Party Platform
It is undeniable that the recent DHS memo targeted at conservatives stinks terribly of this.
For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. - Pt. 25, Nazi Party Platform
Set up a big all-powerful government to force everyone to do as The One says.
All of this is taken DIRECTLY from the Nazi Party Platform and the actions of Barack Obama and other liberals in recent history.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
First of all, Fascism does not mean a Socialist dictatorship. Here is a definition of Fascism:
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
This is a definition of 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.
As you can see, the two terms are mutually exclusive. They do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Both are big government forcing the will of the government on the people pretending to be in favor of some downtrodden group, which is evil, wrong, and unlawful in the United States.
What difference does splitting hairs make with regard to the United States once that fact is established?
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Good grief. I can find similarities between a beaver and a giraffe, too, but that does not make a beaver a giraffe.
I am through arguing with you. For one, your "facts" are nothing more than slanted interpretations of actions.
You are a good example of someone who finds just what they are looking for. You may interpret my leaving as a defeat, but in truth it is just my realization that talking with any of you is utterly pointless.
I knew it would come to this, but I tried anyway! Silly me.
I am through arguing with you. For one, your "facts" are nothing more than slanted interpretations of actions.
Fact: Obama supports, as did the Nazis:
1. Government takeover of land
2. Enslaving the poor through welfare
3. Redistribution of wealth
4. Attempts to equalize economic outcomes
5. Government takeover of industries and businesses
6. Enslaving the elderly through Socialist Security
7. Empty promises to the middle class
8. Indoctrination of children through government control of schools
9. Government control of doctors and patients through government "healthcare"
10. Using the power of government to silence those who disagree
and 11. A big out-of-control government to enforce all of the above.
Obama has advocated all of these things. I didn't tell him to. I didn't "slant" anything. Are you trying to say Obama wants to dismantle welfare, socialist security, government schools, government healthcare, government involvement in industry and business, punitive taxation, and big government? Or are you trying to say the Nazis didn't advocate these things?
After all, I merely quoted their platform.
Mark, I've already had this argument and won several times over. You aren't leaving because we are being unreasonable, you are leaving because you can't win arguments with people who have the facts and the intelligence to use them. You aren't the first liberal I've buried with this. Liberals match the Nazis on 17 out of the 25 points of the Nazi Party Platform. Conservatives only 3. That's very damning for your side, especially given that at the time I wrote my infamous post (September, 2005), I was actually defending conservatives against those who would call us Nazis, which was the liberals' big thing at the time.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, though, the facts are the same. Libs haven't turned around and started advocating the dismantling of the socialist/fascist empire the US has become, and real conservatives haven't turned around and started advocating building it up.
The way I see it, you guys made your bed, and now that you have one of these jerks in office by your vote, you can now lie in it.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
How is Obama like Hitler and Mussolini? And please don't answer in a way that could not describe any political leader. Use specific examples instead of tired rhetorical garbage.
How do you like that? I give the guy what he wants and he struts out with his panties in a wad.
So much for spirited debate - MUAHAHAHA.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I am happy that you think you won the debate. However, as I have asked you to do: Please do not use examples that could not refer to dozens of other governments and leaders. This you have not done.
Of course leaders of countries will share traits of Mussolini and Hitler. Just as a beaver shares traits with a giraffe. However, this does not make Obama any more a Fascist than it makes a beaver a giraffe.
Your argument is not an argument. This is how you won. By your reasoning, 90% of the leaders of the free world are Fascists.
I am leaving this site, not with my panties in a wad, but with a sense of utter disdain for you and your idiocy. I leave because it is completely pointless to attempt to talk reasonably to a chimpanzee. I leave because you deny even the evidence of global warming, which is utterly asinine, whatever the causes. I leave because, frankly, I would rather discuss issues with people whose minds are not made up before they open their mouths.
I appreciate BC's willingness to show evidence of his argument of late. You, however, don't even approach this sort of reasoning. I appreciate that BC can probably at least entertain the notion that he doesn't know everything, like me, and like you.
However, you are not BC. You are not a thinker. You are incapable of reasonable and rational debate. I know you think you are, but therein lies the problem. You are not. You rely to heavily on "self evidence", as if because you know it to be true, everyone else must see it too or they are stupid.
I have tried hard not to debate in this style. I have given evidence and asked for evidence. I have admitted uncertainty about many things. Let's face it, truly the more a man knows and the wiser he becomes, the more he must admit that he doesn't really know. However, you are all too certain about things that are far beyond your domain and jurisdiction. This is not wisdom. It is folly. And it is men like you who, ironically, ultimately become the pawns of political movements.
Good day.
However, as I have asked you to do: Please do not use examples that could not refer to dozens of other governments and leaders. This you have not done.
This didn't have anything to do with "dozens of other governments and leaders". It had to do with Barack Obama and the Nazi Party Platform. Other governments and leaders are irrelevant. If Obama is doing it, and it's part of the Nazi Platform, it's FAIR GAME.
Of course leaders of countries will share traits of Mussolini and Hitler.
What you are saying here is that there are things that the Nazis advocated that were good. In fact there were, such as their somewhat pro-life stance, but a typical American liberal stands by the bad things in the Nazi platform like Socialist Security and government healthcare. Liberals in America match on seventeen of the twenty-five points of the Nazi platform, where conservatives match on three.
Your argument is not an argument. This is how you won. By your reasoning, 90% of the leaders of the free world are Fascists.
So in pointing out specifically which points of the Nazi platform your guy matches up with (which happened to be my argument), my argument is not an argument. With the free world becoming less free every day, these leaders have to be called something. This stuff has to be stopped. When the Russians get to lecturing Americans about the dangers of socialism, you know it's way out of control. If 90% of the leaders of the free world subscribe to some kind of big government fascism/socialism/communism, does it then make sense that we follow, when we've seen the damage it's done to THEM?
I am leaving this site, not with my panties in a wad, but with a sense of utter disdain for you and your idiocy.
In other words, you are leaving with your panties in a wad. I provide you with wisdom, and you brush it off as being foolish or, as in the case of your global warming hoax, "asinine".
I leave because it is completely pointless to attempt to talk reasonably to a chimpanzee.
Thanks for finally getting that message and leaving us to talk to actual adult humans.
(continued ...)
I leave because you deny even the evidence of global warming, which is utterly asinine, whatever the causes.
Changes in climate are caused by the sun, regardless of which direction. Even if your side is right, one degree over a hundred years is NOT going to hurt anyone (and it would arguably help in many ways), and since there's nothing you or I or anyone else could do about it even if it were happening, I suggest that YOUR position is asinine. After all, I HAVE looked at both sides, and made up my mind - before opening my mouth to talk to you indeed.
I appreciate BC's willingness to show evidence of his argument of late. You, however, don't even approach this sort of reasoning.
Again, I have made this point repeatedly, with evidence. Liberals love to dismiss it because it doesn't come from their beloved big-government funded sources, but the sources are far more credible than anything you have shown. Heck, the people on my side of the issue use actual weather instruments to record their data instead of computer models rigged to support their position. Can't have that now, can we?
However, you are not BC. You are not a thinker. You are incapable of reasonable and rational debate. I know you think you are, but therein lies the problem. You are not. You rely to heavily on "self evidence", as if because you know it to be true, everyone else must see it too or they are stupid.
I think our esteemed host would disagree with you, and I would posit that creaming you in debate, as I just did, proves me capable, and more so than you.
The only things that I have posited as being "self-evident" are that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, etc. You know what I'm talking about, that "government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one"? Stuff like that. These things being self-evident form the basis of what is SUPPOSED to be going on in this country, and sadly, that's been thrown to the dogs by liberals like Bush and Obama and just about every president this past century, and the congresses and courts that accompanied them.
I have tried hard not to debate in this style. I have given evidence and asked for evidence.
You haven't given evidence. You have simply dismissed evidence - nay, proof - of things Obama has in common with the Nazi party by saying they are true about others as well. That doesn't refute a damned thing when the problem is the governments themselves, including the ones you speak of. The more government is involved, the less free the people are. You seem to fail to see that.
However, you are all too certain about things that are far beyond your domain and jurisdiction. This is not wisdom. It is folly. And it is men like you who, ironically, ultimately become the pawns of political movements.
You have been fooled by the so-called "progressive movement", and are nothing less than a pawn in it. I doubt that anyone who knows my positions on matters and how they were derived would say that those opinions are "beyond my domain or jurisdiction". As an American, every issue on which I have commented is fully within my domain and jurisdiction, as the people are the final arbiters of all issues in this country (or are supposed to be).
Anyway, I wish you all the best for a happy life, even as Americans come to their senses and dismantle your beloved intrusive government. You can take solace in the fact that it will take a long time to tear down 100-plus years of government growth, and it won't be finished in your lifetime.
Cheers!
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
You seem, strangely to misunderstand every point I have made. You put words in my mouth and then argue against them. This is not argument. This is setting up a straw man.
You are destined to be right if you argue only with yourself, which, essentially, is what you are doing when you continue to misunderstand me and put words in my mouth.
I never said that certain aspects of what Hitler did were good. I simply said that many leaders and governments do just what you are saying, so it is really quite pointless to single Obama out!
You seem to have nothing more than a great big chip on your shoulder, and I have to wonder why. Anyway, I am done. You creamed me. What can I say?
You are certainly the master of debate. I bow to your abilities.
I didn't put words into your mouth. I said that Obama has engaged in actions that are largely aligned with the Nazi Party platform. You asked for evidence of such, and I gave it to you, only to be told that the very facts I was using (the Nazi platform and Obama's actions - the only things relevant to the discussion) were "nothing more than slanted interpretations of actions".
Nothing Obama's actions and the Nazi platform point that is relevant to it is now a "slanted interpretation"? Good grief, indeed.
You didn't even try to argue on the merit of the actions, or say that on those particular things, the Nazis were good or right. You didn't refute my charges by saying Obama hasn't tried to nationalize healthcare of take over GM. You didn't do those things because you can't. Government healthcare was wrong in Nazi Germany, and it's wrong here in America, as is a whole slew of other things that this pretender has been doing and/or trying to do.
In other words, I showed you cold hard facts and you dismissed them as slanted interpretations. THAT is foolish folly, and if you can't see that, then you have no business engaging in a debate with ANYONE.
Take care.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Very well. Rather than argue about fifteen points at the same time, which wearies me, let's talk about nationalized health care.
Why do you feel it is wrong? May we start from a simple dialogical position? Tell me why you think it is wrong.
Thanks,
Mark
Very well. Rather than argue about fifteen points at the same time, which wearies
me, let's talk about nationalized health care.
Why do you feel it is wrong? May we start from a simple dialogical position? Tell me why you think it is wrong.
Here are five reasons:
1. Government is evil.
Governments are good at two things. Killing people and breaking things. That's why we put them in charge of the military, and with civilian leadership and a robust Second Amendment to make sure that American civilians aren't the target of such.
Governments are, by their very nature, evil. Thomas Paine was absolutely correct when he said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Just look at history for your proof. Consistently, the more government there has been in a situation, the worse things have been. That's why the American philosophy seeks to minimize government's presence and influence. To quote a comment that was left on another blog, "Only an idiot would place [his] health care into Congress's hands." Truer words were ne'er spake.
2. Lower standards in quality of care
Liberals have told us how wonderful the Cuban hospitals are, but only show us pictures from the hospitals that the government folks use. The ones the average guy has to go to are infested with cockroaches, have live wires exposed throughout, and are in a condition that no American would consider "healthy".
They tell us Canada's hospitals are wonderful, but there are more MRI machines in the state of New York than there are in the whole of Canada, and when Canadian doctors need treatment (along with some of the wealthier Canadians), they come to the US. No long wait periods, even with the inappropriate government intrusion we already have.
Frankly, as "broken" as our healthcare system happens to be, it's still better than the models Barack and his minions are looking to emulate. In England, if you're too old (by their standard), you don't get help, and even if you are young enough, you still wind up waiting for months when you need a specialist, even if your condition is critical.
On the American side, there were a few issues brought on by the government-created HMO I was insured with, but when my ankle needed attention, I went from initial doctor's visit to the specialist to the surgeon to the operating table and finished recovery in
less time than the aforementioned Brit takes to get to the first visit with the specialist. This could have been quicker had the aforementioned HMO not contributed to higher prices for these services and added unneccessary procedures into the mix.
3. Higher cost
There is absolutely no way injecting even more layers of bureaucracy into the health system can be done without driving up the cost. Whether a medical bill is paid by the patient or the insurer, the bill still must be paid, and the bureaucrats' fee is no small matter, either.
There are only three ways the government could try to get the money to do anything in this area:
a. Cut taxes - A Republican would cut taxes, which would increase receipts, but with all the debt this country already has from this same sort of intrusion into poverty, old age welfare, and the like, it's highly unlikely enough money could be raised even it it were a good idea.
b. Raise taxes - A Democrat would raise taxes, which would cause receipts to fall, and the debt to increase even further - and not a new dime available to pay for this venture. Transferring the cost from the doctor's office to the IRS doesn't to a thing to save anyone money. It only changes whom it gets paid to, and how many people need their cut.
c. Charging fees - This would simply be another form of tax increase.
continued ...
4. Yet another liberal failure in the making
Liberals told us that we could, with a small income tax, provide supplemental income to the elderly and care for the poor. Today, that very taxation is out of control, and even with a skyrocketing national debt and proof that cutting taxes would bring in more money, more tax increases are on the table.
In addition, the programs that were set up to take care of the poor and elderly are dismal failures, along with programs for education, school lunches, disaster relief, farmers, foreign aid, housing, and more. There is no evidence that this new federal government program will be any more successful. I'm sure you don't mean to tell me that any of the above were huge successes, or that somehow putting a government with such a dismal track record on all of the above things that it never should have gotten into in the first place is going to somehow succeed in this venture AND pay off the financial obligations is got itself into by engaging in the above.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Einstein
5. Outside the legitimate and legal function of the federal government
The legitimate role of government in America is to secure for Americans the unalienable rights with which they are endowed by their Creator. In the philosophy that we are SUPPOSED to be working under here, this is held to be a self-evident truth. The Constitution sets forth who gets to do what in each branch of government, and the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the States and the People are secured all powers not
specifically set forth for the fed in the Constitution, thereby guaranteeing that the People and the States are always more powerful than the federal government.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government, in any branch, authorized to do this. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and does not make allowances for this kind of intrusion into the powers of the States and People, then the whole idea is unconstitutional, therefore making it illegal for the federal government to embark on such a measure. Having engaged in such activity in the past doesn't make it legal either.
Here are five very solid reasons I thing nationalized healthcare is wrong. Government should not be trusted with such things, standards of care would be lowered as has happened everywhere else this has been tried, costs would increase, it would fail from the beginning, and there's nothing authorizing the federal government to to this in the first place.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the plan to simply give people who normally can't afford insurance an option? I don't think we are really talking about government interference on a scale that you seem to suggest.
It was my undestanding that we aren't really talking about socialized medicine. We are simply talking about changing a few things so that the poor and sick have an option besides bankruptcy.
I will admit to being rather clueless about it all. The engines driving health care are far more complex than I can fathom. Likewise, I doubt you fathom them either. Once again, I will keep an open mind and try to make an informed decision when I see the actual proposals.
So far, what I have heard is this: If you have health care, you can keep it. If you don't, here is an option. Somehow this doesn't seem so bad. Of course, there are many other things to consider... but like I said, I am far from being an expert.
Mark, it would be far better to move in the other direction for various reasons:
1. Getting the government out of the way opens the door for more Americans to become wealthy through their creativity with regard to providing this stuff, and puts the power back in the hands of the people where it belongs.
2. When the people do things independent of the government, the quality increases. There would be better quality of service, and with market forces playing their proper role, costs would drop even as doctors and other healthcare professionals would prosper.
3. With costs coming down, fewer people would need insurance to pay for their medical expenses, forcing insurance rates down as well.
4. The government does not provide "options". What they are telling you is that if you don't have insurance, you will be required to go on the government plan. Furthermore, the chances that this would not grow out of control are slim to none, and slim left town years ago when they told us something similar about Socialist Security. There's no evidence that the "slippery slope" concept will not apply here.
On top of that, you have Obama saying that his plan will simply "compete" with private insurers. What is to stop him from using it to put the private insurers out of business? Would the government plan be subject to the same regulations?
Even if it is, you can bet the government will write the regulations to favor their plan over private insurers, and use that to move more people to their plan, eventually bringing everyone over until the only health insurance in the country is theirs.
This is why only a fool would trust something as important as his health to something as evil as a government.
5. Getting the federal government out of the healthcare business moves that aspect of its existence to within its Constitutional limits. That can only be a good thing. Imagine a government that actually obeys the laws it is required to function under!
The engines driving health care are far more complex than I can fathom. Likewise, I doubt you fathom them either.
The engines driving healthcare wouldn't be so complex if market forces would simply be allowed to to their job. Instead, we have doctors being told how much to charge for their services by HMOs and patients being told that they can only go to the specialist their own doctor recommends. If I can choose my own specialist, and I decide to let price be a factor, that alone will force costs down. It's simple economics, which you don't have to be an expert to understand.
Most things in life are quite easy to fathom. All you have to do is be willing to learn.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
As for the poor and sick, I happen to be poor (at least poor enough to not be able to afford a hospital visit), and I do know from personal experience that we have options.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Well, despite your well thought out post, I still think there is no easy solution, else we would have come to it long ago. My honest opinion is that the free market will not lower costs as long as health care is held in the strangle hold of two major groups: insurance and lawyers.
If you ask me, the radical solution is to do away with insurance completely! Basically, it is legalized thievery, just like taxes!
Unlike taxes, I believe it has outgrown its usefulness.
Though your claim is that these things are easy to fathom, I nevertheless do not fathom it, and I doubt that you do either, at least fully. Else it would seem that the problem would have long ago been fixed.
There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers.
We came to these simple answers here in America during our great history. The evils of socialism were exposed here long before the word was coined. Only when the socialists got a foothold did things really get screwed up.
Lawyers are a big problem, but they also serve an important function when it comes to protecting the rights of the individual. Still, pulling the government from the mix will remove one of the evils from the equation, and that can't be a bad thing.
As for doing away with insurance, that would be fine if there weren't a market for it, and states requiring that it be purchased (as in the case here in NJ with auto insurance). The only way to legitimately do away with insurance is to convince people to stop buying it, thus removing the demand for it without doing so artificially. As long as people want insurance and are willing to pay for it, it both will and should be available. There is also another benefit to that, even if all you did was reduce the number of people buying insurance - the price would drop, and significantly. I doubt that will happen, though, since the trend today is to try to find more insurance for more people, which will cause prices to skyrocket even more. Which then brings me to the question, Mark, that if you would advocate doing away with insurance altogether, why in the world are you so defending a guy who wants to expand that very thing, and in a way that includes expanding government, which is the absolute worst way to do it?
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
(OMG - my word verification is "undies" - sheesh!)
"As long as people want insurance and are willing to pay for it, it both will and should be available."
Let's start here. The same argument could be made for crack cocaine. Just because people want it is not a justification for supplying it.
Now, to answer your question: "why in the world are you so defending a guy who wants to expand that very thing?"
I am not defending him. I just do not think, realistically, that insurance is going to go away. Therefore, something must be done to allow the poor and people with pre-existing conditions access to good and affordable health care.
So far, you have only really given one alternative, which is the same solution every right winger seems to think will fix every problem: Let the free market work it out. I simply don't believe that this will work in a system wherein insurance is entrenched.
Where we disagree here Mark is on the effectiveness of the free market. Most liberals don't believe in the free market, and are often willing to allow the government to break the law and intervene.
The legality and availability of crack cocaine is a discussion for another day, but while I don't advocate "supplying it", I also don't advocate denying it to people who have the means and desire to acquire it. Again, it's government acting outside its legal restraints. If there's going to be a ban of any kind on that sort of thing, it should be done at the state level.
That brings me to another idea that you have overlooked. Not that I think it's a particularly good idea, but why not let the states exercise their own powers guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment and let them do what their state constitutions will allow?
Still, in my opinion, there isn't anything that is going to give EVERYONE access to affordable health care, and the free market is the ONLY thing that has a fighting chance to get the best results. A very good reason indeed that we right wingers want to use it so much - it works, and it works a whole lot better than the big government foolishness the other side seems to think will fix every problem. As a very wise man once said, "Capitalism is absolutely the worst economic system in the world - except for all the others."
In America, people fix their own problems. They don't count on the government to fix things for them. That's what being free is all about.
RWr
www.rightwingrocker.com
"In America, people fix their own problems. They don't count on the government to fix things for them. That's what being free is all about."
I still like to believe that in American the people are the government, however naive this might be. Therefore, your distinction between government and the people is meaningless to me.
Freedom has nothing to do with fixing our own problems. Freedom is about not being made to do things against your will. So, being that the people are the government in a democratic society, we must conclude that the people are fixing their own problems. They are demanding a better health care system. They have voted democratically for people who will hopefully do this.
There is nothing socialistic about a people democratically choosing to address a problem, though the solutions may appear socialistic in nature.
And liberals distrust the free market to some degree because it is unwise to put absolute faith in the free market. It is not a miracle working system. It is a system operated at its core by greed. Greed is not good.
I still like to believe that in American the people are the government, however naive this might be. Therefore, your distinction between government and the people is meaningless to me.
The Founding Fathers placed limitations on the government precisely because the government is NOT the people. It is corrupt and evil by its own very nature.
Freedom has everything to do with fixing our own problems. Once you bring the government into it, you are stuck with the (understood as evil) government telling you how you are to do it, especially these one-size-fits-all excuses for "solutions" they present.
Asking the government to provide anything to the people outside of its constitutional restraints IS socialistic. The government providing for you and trying to equalize it for everyone is the whole point of socialism.
Absolute faith in the free market has always succeeded in making a number of people wealthy. LEt Bill Clinton tell you greed is not good if you want to, but I don't buy into that idea (Clinton's own greed and that of his wife come immediately to mind). Good people's greed brings them economic success, and that success affords them the opportunity to help others. All inserting government into the equation does is force that equation to slant into their own pockets - meaning that indeed all systems are operated by greed. I will certainly put more faith in a wealthy boss's greed before an evil government's.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
What a joke. A wealthy boss's greed is likely to cut you more than any government employ could. Greedy bosses do not see you as a person. You are means to and end. As such, if you think you will be treated humanely and be given a fair wage, you are sorely mistaken. History has proven this. Just look at the working conditions and wages of any early industrialized society.
And you are being extremely naive if you think that the free market is going to provide you with roads, stop signs, police officers, military, and a clean earth. Greedy men will grind every last man into the dust pursuing their desire to become rich. Face it, RWR, not everyone is rich for one simple reason. It is not possible. Simple economics dictates that only a few will become rich. And by that same token, in a Capitalistic framework only the rich will continue to get richer. Greed only creates corruption, nothing more.
But I get tired of this debate. It is ultimately pointless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What a joke. A wealthy boss's greed is likely to cut you more than any government employ could.
I've lived this. I know what I said to be true. EVERY wealthy person I've come to know has been far more generous than the government has, AND it's been done with their own money, not other people's.
You also forget that in a capitalistic framework, not only to the rich get richer, but so do the poor. In the 1980's there was an increase of capitalism in America, and there were more people that moved from the poorest fifth of the population to the wealthiest fifth than there were that remained in the poorest fifth. That's some powerful stuff.
Greedy men will grind every last man into the dust pursuing their desire to become rich.
And you think Obama and his minions have something different in mind? Do you really trust that their thirst for money and power isn't foisteed upon you with the engine of government that they are now driving? At least the non-government rich get that way using their own money and resources to do so. The only way for a government to get there is to suck it from YOUR pocket and mine.
And you are being extremely naive if you think that the free market is going to provide you with roads, stop signs, police officers, military, and a clean earth.
The federal government isn't going to do much about most of that, either. Police officers are the responsibility of the local and state governments, as are stop signs and most roads. The free market has a far better chance of maintaining the long history of a clean nation that continues today than any government ever will. In fact, if the government would simply stop subsidizing junk science, there may even be a reasonable debate on the matter, and the global warming hoax finally recognized even by its proponents for the farce that it is. The government is not to be trusted, as it is evil by nature. The people must even be prepared to defend themselves against the very military our Constitution authorizes to protect them, as it is the arm of a corrupt entity.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Post a Comment
<< Home