... It does not necessarily mean providing greater access to the services. Since we cannot accept inadequate access to services in the case of health care , the government must intervene (just as is has for decades in the cases of food, water, and housing).
You cannot accept "inadequate" access is simply another way of saying you cannot accept reality. You cannot help everybody (and you're not trying to, you're trying to make others pay for your health care, the rest is mere excuses).
All I've said is that there is something, call it X, that I think we have a moral duty to do. You disagree.
The problem is that "X" is "making pigs fly", or might as well be. It's totally outside of the realm of possibility.
Reckless nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that I and my liberal friends intend to lead some sort of pogrom to kill off health care reform opponents? If so, you really ought to have your head examined.
Not yet, but I would have said the same about the Bolsjeviks in 1920, probably until close to 1930. I would have said the same about Hitler until at least 1938 (possibly even up to 1945, without access to classified reports).
Do you honestly believe the Bolsjeviks started out in 1902 (I believe) with the mission to kill 100 million Russians ? They started out with the "moral duty" to make every Russian equal, providing food, shelter, healthcare, to create a fair system that would make everyone rich. First every Russian, then everyone worldwide. And they were at least not obviously wrong : nobody had really tried it before them, and the theory of economics had nowhere near the answers we have now for them. Even after the pogroms started these people did not even admit to themselves that they were capable of doing such.
Same thing with Hitler. Tell me, do you think he was conceived in a black mass in a union between some ugly witch and the devil ? Hitler started out, after the war, with ideas about salvaging the original vision of socialism from the disaster that was Bolsjevism. He had zero intentions of killing anyone, not the Jews, not the rich, not even his famous "rich Jewish arms merchants". The nazis were like the bolsjeviks : 99.9% of nazis, or more, could not admit to themselves that they, or their government was capable of anything resembling the holocaust, until at the very least the Nuremberg trials. The holocaust was a financial necessity. It was either the holocaust, or destroying their national health care. And they chose to not admit failure, they chose to exterminate the problem. Of course this was mainly because they chose not to admit guilt and being
And now you stand here stating that it is absurd to imply that you are capable or willing of murdering others. You're asking the wrong question.
Is this question a joke ? Of course you and I are capable of exterminating other people. It is our responsability to never, ever put ourselves in the situation that we have no choice.
Making people dependant on the government is one such situation that MUST never be created : at some point money will be tight, at some point there will be a crisis, or whatever... and there is but one choice : killing them, or stopping the government alltogether, which at that point will be argued will kill more people than a holocaust would (and of course, giving up government will kill the ones currently in power).
Not even the muslim invaders in India, known for the extreme amount of corpses they produced, killed for fun. Not even the Nazi camp guards, not even the Siberian gulag guards killed or caused famines for fun.
So let's get this straight : I'm not accusing you of wanting, trying, or otherwise enjoying killing others. I'm accusing you of creating a situation that could very, very easily lead to you not having a
Obviously deception is the only answer you have on a valid economical point - that if there truly was a better way to do health care, there would be no way to beat a company that brings that idea to market, except perhaps imitation.
There is also the simple point that whatever the free market cannot improve, the government sure as hell cannot improve. If such a better way for healthcare were tried - and failed due to losses, that there would be no way for the government to intervene, except in the extreme short term.
So let's see the "liberal" answer...
So, I have no doubt that the free market is the best way to ensure that health care is provisioned efficiently. The problem is that efficiency is not all we're concerned with in the
The problem is that if there is no efficient way to provide health care, that simply means there is NO way to provide health care for everybody (talk about a truism).
So what do "liberals" do ? Well you know how "liberal" they are : they'll just force people, through force, to provide that impossibility.
They will simply vote reality out.
So let's put this simple : you vote for halving gravity, so as to make transport that much cheaper. And if it actually happens, then I'll support your health care. If you prove first, of course, that you do indeed have the ability to change reality, to change the laws of nature, simply by legislating it.
Needless to say, those people being forced will fail to do so. So what then ? Well the nazi and communist answer was to shoot at them. At us.
You have to stop acting morally superior, because it's a truly irritating and obvious lie. Forcing people to do the impossible, through taxation and the direct force of arms to do the impossible does not only not work, it is also extremely cruel and selfish.
Tax spending on the military is necessary due to the absolute physical impossibility to let a market do it (and the US tries to let markets do large parts of it anyway, with great success). There is only a single state to defend, and no way to let the effects of external attacks only affect those who don't pay. There no way, for example, to have 5 9/11 building attacks with only anti-Iraq war "bush did it" "liberal" idiots inside those buildings.
This is the same reason we have other monopolies. In the case of electricity - and let's not forget electricity production is a market in the US, only distribution suffers from this problem - and water. It would perhaps not be entirely impossible to let this distribution happen in a market, but it's a practical impossibility. Both electricity and water distribution exhibit exactly the problems you'd expect from being run by the government. Another thing you'll start denying immediately (that's number 3, after evolution and basic economics) is that despite having these things run by government, not everyone is covered, which is of course the "main thing" you're supposedly trying to solve.
Another way to look at it is that these things, a military, a police force, an electricity distribution net and a water distribution net are necessary infrastructure to enable markets, like currency, which is the way many others like to look at it. Markets, in turn, allow people, with infinitely more flexibility than the best possible government, to solve their own problems - including health care.
Both of these arguments would obviously not justify destroying a market to enable liberals to steal - excuse me I mean "for liberal moral reasons"
Oh my. Such a kind and... honest man. Clearly forcing his beliefs on others through the power of the state is something he does purely out of the kindness of his heart, and I stand in awe for what a great sacrifice it is. Truly we must be ever grateful to this person for using the power of the state for forcing his ideas upon us.
I was totally unaware what a great sacrifice forcing your worldview on others is. You know I think I'm going to get that carpenter of that cross and hang you there instead.
And now for the non-sarcastic part of this post : I only ask that I actually am free to do as I please.
If you think you can improve health care, I find that a more than worthy goal to work for. I only ask that you be realistic about it, and that I am free to do as I please :
1) you do not force your policy on me, and 2) you do not force me to pay for it
Because, you see, either you can improve health care in a sustainable way, or you can't. Of course if you can do it sustainably, that means you can create a company that will succeed in the free market.
If it truly is better than the current system, the it cannot but dominate the market nearly completely after a few years.
If you claim it can't be done like this (like the whole of the "democratic" party) then you're undeniably admitting that your policy is unsustainable. The only good that will come of such a policy is in the extreme short term, in the long term it will either destroy the government, or it will destroy health care.
You're a thief. No doubt about it. I used to like thinking that "liberal" totalitarians were merely delusional, not malevolent, but that's just not a justifiable viewpoint anymore. Not when you're trying to legislate laws of nature out of existence.
I've gotten a few too many "but that's impossible because of X" responded to by "X doesn't exist". You have to deny evolution to justify your policy and you do so without giving it a second look. No doubt your response to my free market proposal above will constitute mainly a denial of established economic theory (and practice). No doubt it will be a very eloquent denial, like the "evolution = slavery, therefore humans do not evolve" argument you made 2 posts ago. It will, however, be equally stupid.
You can't save everybody. Not even Jesus tried to save everybody. At least his attempt did not end in total disaster like every attempt since, with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as recent "heights" in the "good" fight, and their casualties... oh I'm sure "they did not do it correctly" is the argument, right ?
The problem with growing organs is that in order to get cells to multiply you have to disable certain genes in those cells, or at least reset their counters. Which genes ? Well those that guard against cancer...
Our bodies go to great lengths to prevent cells from multiplying anywhere and it is only allowed by the human DNA in very specific cases : blood production in the bone marrow, when a woman becomes pregnant, and just before a woman gives birth. There are others, but those are major modifications of human cell's normal reproduction. The body goes to great lengths to prevent cell division in organs once a human being is born, instead choosing to do the bulk of the necessary divisions before birth and then letting those already-existing cells enlarge instead of divide to make a child grow. That's not to say there is no cell division involved in growing a child, but a lot less than you'd think from the size difference.
All 3 of those exceptions are also major causes of cancer : leukemia, endometrial cancer and breast cancer.
Getting stuff to grow is easy, just kill of the p70 gene. Getting stuff to grow safely is hard. Very very hard. Loads of research still need to be done before this can really be risked in a live human being.
This is not a choice, this is classic dualistic thinking, black or white. The fact is that we need leaders to handle some of our money (I won't call what we need a politician).
Fact is all these leaders are politicians... obviously.
What does reward virtue? You think the Communist Commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think, excuse me, if youâ(TM)ll pardon me, do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the bases of the virtue of the people appointed or on the bases of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?
You know, I think youâ(TM)re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels, who are going to organize society for us. I donâ(TM)t even trust you to do that.
We're not passive subjects to our own evolution.
Oh, funny how you're ready to drop scientific theories cold the second they are an inconvenience to your political viewpoints.
For every individual there is no better course of action than to play the evolution game.
You're right of course, that any individual can choose not to play. The problem is of course what the theory says happens next : death.
Whoever chooses "not to be a slave" (what a way to put the acts of having sex and children, what are you ? Britney Spears ?) simply dies off and gets replaced by someone who does play the game.
So to summarize:
We're not passive subjects to our own evolution.
Quite true, but we're not God either. Modifying the outcome requires being God. Can you please restrict yourself to policies that do not require omnipotence to achieve ?
No we don't agree, I'm afraid you are a thief. You see you do derive benefit, as is plain in your post. You get to call yourself morally right (which is the word you use, what you really mean is superior). And you pay your "morally superior actions" with other people's money. Such a thing is NOT "morally right" at all. No, sir, I daresay that anyone who's helped a stranger at a church or a soup kitchen even once is infinitely morally superior to you.
I wonder if you have done so ?
I advocate voluntary altruism. You claim that forcing altruism onto others is something you do with your "heart in the right place". This is degenerate. And yet you call this "liberal" policy. I've long since ceased understanding exactly what is liberal about "liberal policies".
Now for reality : "unfortunately" forced altruism is not altruism, that would be a contradiction. Forcing this idiocy onto others also isn't altruism, it's simply intolerance.
Perhaps, if altruism is impossible, deep in our psyches we do advocate what we advocate because we want to feel the satisfaction of living in a more just nation
And here you admit that indeed you "feel satisfaction" from stealing and spending other people's money.
Funny how you need absurdities like "altruism is impossible" to justify yourself. Why don't you go to church once and tell me if altruism is impossible ?
You are not morally superior at all, you are simply a thief. One who feels the need to lie about it, but most thieves do. Most thieves do actually have the decency not to claim their moral superiority for their stealing. They rightly feel ashamed for doing so.
Of course the end result will be the global equalization of factory running costs worldwide. Whether America has to go broke for it to admit that it's social services and associated debt (>2/3rd's of budget, predicted to rise spectacularly) just aren't sustainable. And especially deficit financing of social services is unsustainable.
Of course, the "president" is doing the diametrically opposite thing. The same is going on in Europe. But once global coverage is allowed, you will find the government forcing people to work using "non-monetary means" (which mostly means eviction currently), as is happening in large parts of Europe now (Holland and France mainly, with the Nordic countries not far behind).
Also, your car buying example is ridiculously off point. In your example, you get the money, and then spend it to benefit yourself. In my example, I never see the money or its benefits because I am neither poor nor the government.
Point 2:
For example, do you approve of taxation to provide for a minimal national defense? If so, then you don't believe that all taxation is stealing.
Would you consider minimal national defense a benefit ?
And, perhaps more to the point, do you really think social services are not considered a benefit by "bleeding heart" liberals ? Do you really think those people do that out of selflessness ?
Or would you consider that the answer to the liberal motivations is more along the lines of self-confirmation and feeling good about oneself, while spending other people's money doing it ?
I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just question the motivations of liberals. While I must admit I've met (quite) a few liberals that were genuinly people who went the extra mile for the people living around them, the vast majority of them does not do so. In fact, I'd easily contend that the people you see at churches, homeless shelters, free clinics,... are vastly more likely to be republicans. Especially amongst the younger volunteers the political orientation is nearly exclusively what you'd call right wing. Hell amongst the teenage volunteers there are more gun nuts than democrats most days.
I just think the greatest rewards should go to people who excel and contribute not people who lie, cheat and steal.
And yet you put this in a way that makes one think you do not mean entrepreneurs.
Of course rewards go either to entrepreneurs, who work for themselves, or they go to politicians. Those are unfortunate choices, but they're the only 2 choices available.
It seems that you'd like to pick the people who'd "lie, cheat and steal" less. Well given the choice between entrepreneurs and politicians, it seems pretty clear exactly which group that is.
But probably you're under the delusion that somehow there is a party of politicians that will distribute taxed money as you see fit. Do you honestly find that a defensible position ?
It seems to me, that most liberals prefer the delusion over the obviousness of the truth, no matter how many times the truth is shown to them.
At the same time you can't build a rational society when the streets are full of desperate people.
Tell me, do you believe in evolution ? Suppose the government sponsors those desperate people, making them slightly less desperate. Great. Well done. Nobel peace prize (can't wait to join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin and others now can we ?) !
So given that you believe evolution is true... what happens next ? "Population increase". Since these people depend on government that means more costs, 0 contribution to income. So what happens next ? Either the cycle repeats, because the government pays, or the system making those people a million times more desperate (and thus... violent) than they were when we started.
And how could I possibly be a thief if I'm not getting any of your money? And how could I possibly be a lyer when that isn't even a word? (Sorry...can't help myself. )
Okay... I'll just take your money and I'll buy my brother a car with it.
What ? Why are you calling me a thief ? I'm not getting any of your money...
Oh wait... you would consider that stealing, "spending other people's money". Of course that's exactly what you're doing, and yet you claim you're not a thief. So you won't mind if I spend you're money, right ? And if I use force to take your money, that's just peachy too, right ? Great.
You're also denying that the poor are taxed. Well I don't consider myself rich and I'm most certainly taxed, and taxed hard (when you lose more than half your income to various taxes, that's a lot). Yes I'm probably not all that poor either.
So you're a thief, because you spend other people's money as you see fit, against their will, and you're a lier for denying you do that to me.
You haven't travelled far. And to be honest, there are quite a few countries that are considered parts of the western world that are also of this "non-western" mindset. Even simply southern Europe already has no shortage of countries with essentially only ethnically centered parties.
You're probably a typical liberal. You either haven't travelled, or haven't left the hotel. After all, getting actual answers from people requires knowing the language, so at the very least very good french is required. And even with french you have to keep in mind that the more religious types outside of france will simply refuse to speak french, so you are basically only talking to secular-government minded people (which are fortunately over 80% even in the worst places I've ever visited)
The grandparent post is right that, barring tiny exceptions, all north-african political parties are ethnically AND religiously centered. I haven't visited Asia yet, so I don't know. I do doubt it's much different there. And quite frankly, even in Europe every last country has a sizeable ethnically centered party, and a sizeable religiously focused party, even if the religious aspect is currently mostly downplayed. At the very least one per country. They "are hated" they are "racist", but there isn't a single european country where ethnically-centered parties don't command at least 20% of the vote, and more typically 30-40%. If the religion-focused party would join with the ethnically focused party, which is a VERY unlikely prospect, they would command large majorities everywhere in Europe.
America is a special case because it's got only 2 parties. In reality the racists and ethnically centered idiots are divided amongst both parties. Those "own people first" idiots are overwhelmingly socialists, so they are somewhat deterred from the republican party even if that party is more America-centric than the democrats. And other loony racist groups cannot put themselves over the gun issue, and thus vote republican, probably not for reasons that actual republicans would like to know about.
So wait... you claim the liberals only tax voluntary... checking my pay slip... it seems to me I do not get exempted from the liberal's idiotic new taxes. Where do I opt-out of paying the liberal's taxes ?
Are you seriously claiming you did not know this, or are you a lyer and a thief ? Liberals tend to pride themselves on their supposed intelligence, so I'm going to go with you being a lyer and a thief.
Just about the entire middle east was under British control. Oh and "palestine" meant the Roman Province called "philistine", meaning Israel, Lebanon, most of Syria, and sizeable parts of Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
And IBM may have helped with the holocaust, but the project they signed on for was the administration of the national health care system of Nazi Germany. Of course that was the project that turned into the holocaust later. I know it's important for "tolerant socialists" to believe that Hitler was conceived in a black mass by 2 goats fucking eachother in hellfire, but in reality this was an unremarkable guy, who started out working hard and trying to help his country. Later he went into politics and pushed a form of centralized economy that used to be called "socialism" (as opposed to (bolsjevik) communism) and is today known as "fascism". The component of the ideology that lead to supremacism and the holocaust, eugenics, can be found in any history book under socialism.
Until late 1941, Hitler was known as the man who made socialism acceptable and possible in America, or more affectionately the "Champion of the poor". He was nominated for the Nobel peace prize, and was the recipient of numerous press prizes on promoting peace, fairness and, especially, equality.
You know reality just isn't going to work on these totalitarians (excuse me "democrats" is the name they seem to prefer, or alternatively "liberal". This is, of course, to emphasize that they are neither democratic nor in favor of liberty)
Mod parent up ! Slashdot moderations should be expanded : -1, Truth for democrats +1, Truth for republicans
This would make the political fights a thing of the past by allowing totalitarians ("liberals") to harden their cocoons while still providing actual information to people with actual brains.
I haven't quite worked out how to explain the fact that most of his redistribution so far has been from the poor to the rich (especially lots and lots of bankers), but I'm pretty sure that's somehow Marxist too.
Well, no, you have theoretical marxism : from the rich to the poor. Only it can't work, even theoretically. When tried, you always see :
Practical marxism : from the poor to the rich. See : Venezuela, North Korea, China,...
The problem is this little thing called reality : 50% of people is dumber than average, 50% of people is poorer than average, and so on. These are theoretical minima. These are the numbers a "perfectly equal" system (school system, economic system) would have, in countries with single ethnicities (for 50% figures you'd probably need clones). The ridiculousness of the fact is that where wealth/education/... is best distributed, people scream about the "unfairness" the hardest. Which is ironic since actually listening to those screeming liberals can in practice only lead to more unfairness.
it is the cheaper everything cost in China that has turned that country into America's manufacturing center.
I guess you haven't visited Africa recently. Or Europe. Or anywhere really.
Scratch "America's" try "the world's".
Of course the end result will be the global equalization of factory running costs worldwide. Whether America has to go broke for it to admit that it's social services (>2/3rd's of budget, predicted to rise spectacularly) just aren't sustainable. And especially deficit financing of social services is unsustainable.
Of course, the "president" is doing the diametrically opposite thing. The same is going on in Europe. But once global coverage is allowed, you will find the government forcing people to work using "non-monetary means" (which mostly means eviction currently), as is happening in large parts of Europe now (Holland and France mainly, with the Nordic countries not far behind).
Because it's very difficult to isolate and help only those who need it without changing the overall incentives in the economy.
You know, it's really not. Those who are deserving will find help, even if only in their neighbourhood, family,... The reverse, finding someone worthy of your help and deciding how much to give them is also not all that hard.
It's just REALLY hard to do so with law. In fact, I dare say it's impossible.
Now if anything about economics is right, that means that demand as 0$ is damn near close to infinite.
So can you please explain where Obama, who will not refuse any treatment according to you, will get those infinite resources.
If he can't get infinite resources, please tell me which treatments will be refused and why... since clearly you have a better source, else you wouldn't make this claim, right ?
largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services â" are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity.
Wait, wait, wait. Exactly HOW did Obama want to prevent cost overruns ? Because there's (of course) a catch. All snake oil salesmen have catches. Big catches. So what's the catch ?
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's "key" advisor for health care reform, writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing, which is fundamental to Obamacare goals "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
(you should read the lancet article, what this guy is proposing is allocation of medical care based on "how valuable you are to the government". You see, you're an investment. If there is no reason to protect said investment, because for example it's already been repaid (you're a pensioner in other words), there is no reason to give medical care. What's less obvious is the other place this guy intends to cut costs : you see "infants" have not yet had any significant investment, so they don't merit any health care, for there is no state investment to protect. Interpret however you wish. Oh and it also states that the "death panel" will be called CHORE (Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation)
Oh right... that's how... by denying medical care to the elderly. For, you see, they "already lived" (btw. I would really like a clarification of the Lancet article, for to me it seems a bunch of inconsistent blabbering, so I only quote examples he gave. I don't know how this "government calculation" affects a child that develops leukemia for example)
So if a "liberal" can please explain to me how denying medical care for ALL elderly is supposed to help people get older ? Because that's the solution they're proposing... ("liberals" being people AGAINST free choice, and FOR massive government intrusion in every aspect of our lives, including food, exercise, how you bathe (you'd think govt. interference in bathing habits would be a big no-no on slashdot), if you're overweight,...).
Now, throw in a healthy dose of Godwinian projection, and you have described the contemporary neoconservative leadership in the USA since about 1993.
The principle of "liberal" assesment of political opponents : "project" them to be the devil, and you can clearly see that they are indeed the devil.
In practice, of course, Bush did not force his views on the US. In fact, in several domains, he purposefully kept silent, forcing congress to make up it's own damn mind.
In practice, of course, the US has not changed into a theocratic dictatorship during 8 years of Bush rule.
If we believed your "projections" (ie. fantasies), 8 hours would have been too much.
But thinking like this would force to much reality in such a beautiful demonization, and liberals can't be bothered with either reality or balanced opinions, now can they ? You WILL accept health care, and government panels that decide if you get treatment or not, whether you call them death panels or not. "Liberals" WILL decide who gets to live and who gets to die, and whatever excuse gets them that power is pushed, and anyone pointing out ANY downside is a racist warmonger.
In America, "Liberals" make arguments that the taliban would consider heavy-handed. They do this publicly, and in open view, and think all resistance to their "goodness" is racist and evil. It just so hurts their egos.
Central control of the economy a. socialism : check b. fascism : check
"The state" is totalitarian : determines every action you take a. socialism : check b. fascism : check
Favors "nanny state", unemployment benefits that equal normal wage, national health insurance, refusing medical care to "non-productive" members of society (as does Obama's adviser btw*)... a. socialism : check b. fascism : check
When "saving" on medical expenses on the "less productive" members of society failed, these governments switched to direct execution of those deemed unproductive a. socialism : check b. fascism : check
Executed holocausts in historical governments, starting with political opponents, then sick and infirm (anyone not a "net gain" for the economy) and finally on a racist or religious basis : a. socialism : checkcheckcheck b. fascism : check
The basis of the ideology is that all individuals must "be made" equal, by the power of the state. In order to do this massive expansion of state power is advocated : a. socialism : check b. fascism : check
The systems call themselves "socialist" : a. socialism : check b. fascism : check (full name of "nazi" party = national socialist german worker's party)
Main difference : a. socialism : doesn't tolerate any non-party-members in any position of power (right down to the person that checks if the "do you want fries with that" jobbers arrive in time) b. fascism : is in favor of a system of temporarily handing state power into the hands of certain individuals. Only the top level of society is really thoroughly part of the party, it is possible in a fascist state for a non-party-member, even a Jew, to be in any position, except the top of the company, whether CEO or Chairman.
The definition of "far left" used to be simple : anything ideology that advocates central control of the economy. Obviously both fascism and socialism satisfy this criterium. Bush should have been considered "center", not especially rightist, not especially leftist, open to solutions on both sides.
I don't know where people get the idea that socialists somehow weren't racist even 20 years ago (the KKK for example, was a department of the democrat party of the united states, and was part of the "lefty loonies" section of the party, ie. left of the center of the party)
Tell me, at where exactly is the "polar" opposite between these two ?
* Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's "key" advisor for health care reform, writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing â" which is fundamental to Obamacare goals â" "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
Note that the democrat "death panel" already exists, it's been created as part of the stimulus bill. It's called "CHORE" (Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation). And yes, they will deny medical care to anyone on any form of government supported pension. That's one of the basisses they proclaim for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
... It does not necessarily mean providing greater access to the services. Since we cannot accept inadequate access to services in the case of health care , the government must intervene (just as is has for decades in the cases of food, water, and housing).
You cannot accept "inadequate" access is simply another way of saying you cannot accept reality. You cannot help everybody (and you're not trying to, you're trying to make others pay for your health care, the rest is mere excuses).
All I've said is that there is something, call it X, that I think we have a moral duty to do. You disagree.
The problem is that "X" is "making pigs fly", or might as well be. It's totally outside of the realm of possibility.
Reckless nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that I and my liberal friends intend to lead some sort of pogrom to kill off health care reform opponents? If so, you really ought to have your head examined.
Not yet, but I would have said the same about the Bolsjeviks in 1920, probably until close to 1930. I would have said the same about Hitler until at least 1938 (possibly even up to 1945, without access to classified reports).
Do you honestly believe the Bolsjeviks started out in 1902 (I believe) with the mission to kill 100 million Russians ? They started out with the "moral duty" to make every Russian equal, providing food, shelter, healthcare, to create a fair system that would make everyone rich. First every Russian, then everyone worldwide. And they were at least not obviously wrong : nobody had really tried it before them, and the theory of economics had nowhere near the answers we have now for them. Even after the pogroms started these people did not even admit to themselves that they were capable of doing such.
Same thing with Hitler. Tell me, do you think he was conceived in a black mass in a union between some ugly witch and the devil ? Hitler started out, after the war, with ideas about salvaging the original vision of socialism from the disaster that was Bolsjevism. He had zero intentions of killing anyone, not the Jews, not the rich, not even his famous "rich Jewish arms merchants". The nazis were like the bolsjeviks : 99.9% of nazis, or more, could not admit to themselves that they, or their government was capable of anything resembling the holocaust, until at the very least the Nuremberg trials. The holocaust was a financial necessity. It was either the holocaust, or destroying their national health care. And they chose to not admit failure, they chose to exterminate the problem. Of course this was mainly because they chose not to admit guilt and being
And now you stand here stating that it is absurd to imply that you are capable or willing of murdering others. You're asking the wrong question.
Is this question a joke ? Of course you and I are capable of exterminating other people. It is our responsability to never, ever put ourselves in the situation that we have no choice.
Making people dependant on the government is one such situation that MUST never be created : at some point money will be tight, at some point there will be a crisis, or whatever ... and there is but one choice : killing them, or stopping the government alltogether, which at that point will be argued will kill more people than a holocaust would (and of course, giving up government will kill the ones currently in power).
Not even the muslim invaders in India, known for the extreme amount of corpses they produced, killed for fun. Not even the Nazi camp guards, not even the Siberian gulag guards killed or caused famines for fun.
So let's get this straight : I'm not accusing you of wanting, trying, or otherwise enjoying killing others. I'm accusing you of creating a situation that could very, very easily lead to you not having a
Obviously deception is the only answer you have on a valid economical point - that if there truly was a better way to do health care, there would be no way to beat a company that brings that idea to market, except perhaps imitation.
There is also the simple point that whatever the free market cannot improve, the government sure as hell cannot improve. If such a better way for healthcare were tried - and failed due to losses, that there would be no way for the government to intervene, except in the extreme short term.
So let's see the "liberal" answer ...
So, I have no doubt that the free market is the best way to ensure that health care is provisioned efficiently. The problem is that efficiency is not all we're concerned with in the
The problem is that if there is no efficient way to provide health care, that simply means there is NO way to provide health care for everybody (talk about a truism).
So what do "liberals" do ? Well you know how "liberal" they are : they'll just force people, through force, to provide that impossibility.
They will simply vote reality out.
So let's put this simple : you vote for halving gravity, so as to make transport that much cheaper. And if it actually happens, then I'll support your health care. If you prove first, of course, that you do indeed have the ability to change reality, to change the laws of nature, simply by legislating it.
Needless to say, those people being forced will fail to do so. So what then ? Well the nazi and communist answer was to shoot at them. At us.
You have to stop acting morally superior, because it's a truly irritating and obvious lie. Forcing people to do the impossible, through taxation and the direct force of arms to do the impossible does not only not work, it is also extremely cruel and selfish.
Tax spending on the military is necessary due to the absolute physical impossibility to let a market do it (and the US tries to let markets do large parts of it anyway, with great success). There is only a single state to defend, and no way to let the effects of external attacks only affect those who don't pay. There no way, for example, to have 5 9/11 building attacks with only anti-Iraq war "bush did it" "liberal" idiots inside those buildings.
This is the same reason we have other monopolies. In the case of electricity - and let's not forget electricity production is a market in the US, only distribution suffers from this problem - and water. It would perhaps not be entirely impossible to let this distribution happen in a market, but it's a practical impossibility. Both electricity and water distribution exhibit exactly the problems you'd expect from being run by the government. Another thing you'll start denying immediately (that's number 3, after evolution and basic economics) is that despite having these things run by government, not everyone is covered, which is of course the "main thing" you're supposedly trying to solve.
Another way to look at it is that these things, a military, a police force, an electricity distribution net and a water distribution net are necessary infrastructure to enable markets, like currency, which is the way many others like to look at it. Markets, in turn, allow people, with infinitely more flexibility than the best possible government, to solve their own problems - including health care.
Both of these arguments would obviously not justify destroying a market to enable liberals to steal - excuse me I mean "for liberal moral reasons"
Oh my. Such a kind and ... honest man. Clearly forcing his beliefs on others through the power of the state is something he does purely out of the kindness of his heart, and I stand in awe for what a great sacrifice it is. Truly we must be ever grateful to this person for using the power of the state for forcing his ideas upon us.
I was totally unaware what a great sacrifice forcing your worldview on others is. You know I think I'm going to get that carpenter of that cross and hang you there instead.
And now for the non-sarcastic part of this post : I only ask that I actually am free to do as I please.
If you think you can improve health care, I find that a more than worthy goal to work for. I only ask that you be realistic about it, and that I am free to do as I please :
1) you do not force your policy on me, and
2) you do not force me to pay for it
Because, you see, either you can improve health care in a sustainable way, or you can't. Of course if you can do it sustainably, that means you can create a company that will succeed in the free market.
If it truly is better than the current system, the it cannot but dominate the market nearly completely after a few years.
If you claim it can't be done like this (like the whole of the "democratic" party) then you're undeniably admitting that your policy is unsustainable. The only good that will come of such a policy is in the extreme short term, in the long term it will either destroy the government, or it will destroy health care.
You're a thief. No doubt about it. I used to like thinking that "liberal" totalitarians were merely delusional, not malevolent, but that's just not a justifiable viewpoint anymore. Not when you're trying to legislate laws of nature out of existence.
I've gotten a few too many "but that's impossible because of X" responded to by "X doesn't exist". You have to deny evolution to justify your policy and you do so without giving it a second look. No doubt your response to my free market proposal above will constitute mainly a denial of established economic theory (and practice). No doubt it will be a very eloquent denial, like the "evolution = slavery, therefore humans do not evolve" argument you made 2 posts ago. It will, however, be equally stupid.
You can't save everybody. Not even Jesus tried to save everybody. At least his attempt did not end in total disaster like every attempt since, with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as recent "heights" in the "good" fight, and their casualties ... oh I'm sure "they did not do it correctly" is the argument, right ?
The problem with growing organs is that in order to get cells to multiply you have to disable certain genes in those cells, or at least reset their counters. Which genes ? Well those that guard against cancer ...
Our bodies go to great lengths to prevent cells from multiplying anywhere and it is only allowed by the human DNA in very specific cases : blood production in the bone marrow, when a woman becomes pregnant, and just before a woman gives birth. There are others, but those are major modifications of human cell's normal reproduction. The body goes to great lengths to prevent cell division in organs once a human being is born, instead choosing to do the bulk of the necessary divisions before birth and then letting those already-existing cells enlarge instead of divide to make a child grow. That's not to say there is no cell division involved in growing a child, but a lot less than you'd think from the size difference.
All 3 of those exceptions are also major causes of cancer : leukemia, endometrial cancer and breast cancer.
Getting stuff to grow is easy, just kill of the p70 gene. Getting stuff to grow safely is hard. Very very hard. Loads of research still need to be done before this can really be risked in a live human being.
Sorry to go all Milton Friedman on you but :
This is not a choice, this is classic dualistic thinking, black or white. The fact is that we need leaders to handle some of our money (I won't call what we need a politician).
Fact is all these leaders are politicians ... obviously.
What does reward virtue? You think the Communist Commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think, excuse me, if youâ(TM)ll pardon me, do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the bases of the virtue of the people appointed or on the bases of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?
You know, I think youâ(TM)re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels, who are going to organize society for us. I donâ(TM)t even trust you to do that.
We're not passive subjects to our own evolution.
Oh, funny how you're ready to drop scientific theories cold the second they are an inconvenience to your political viewpoints.
For every individual there is no better course of action than to play the evolution game.
You're right of course, that any individual can choose not to play. The problem is of course what the theory says happens next : death.
Whoever chooses "not to be a slave" (what a way to put the acts of having sex and children, what are you ? Britney Spears ?) simply dies off and gets replaced by someone who does play the game.
So to summarize :
We're not passive subjects to our own evolution.
Quite true, but we're not God either. Modifying the outcome requires being God. Can you please restrict yourself to policies that do not require omnipotence to achieve ?
No we don't agree, I'm afraid you are a thief. You see you do derive benefit, as is plain in your post. You get to call yourself morally right (which is the word you use, what you really mean is superior). And you pay your "morally superior actions" with other people's money. Such a thing is NOT "morally right" at all. No, sir, I daresay that anyone who's helped a stranger at a church or a soup kitchen even once is infinitely morally superior to you.
I wonder if you have done so ?
I advocate voluntary altruism. You claim that forcing altruism onto others is something you do with your "heart in the right place". This is degenerate. And yet you call this "liberal" policy. I've long since ceased understanding exactly what is liberal about "liberal policies".
Now for reality : "unfortunately" forced altruism is not altruism, that would be a contradiction. Forcing this idiocy onto others also isn't altruism, it's simply intolerance.
Perhaps, if altruism is impossible, deep in our psyches we do advocate what we advocate because we want to feel the satisfaction of living in a more just nation
And here you admit that indeed you "feel satisfaction" from stealing and spending other people's money.
Funny how you need absurdities like "altruism is impossible" to justify yourself. Why don't you go to church once and tell me if altruism is impossible ?
You are not morally superior at all, you are simply a thief. One who feels the need to lie about it, but most thieves do. Most thieves do actually have the decency not to claim their moral superiority for their stealing. They rightly feel ashamed for doing so.
Of course the end result will be the global equalization of factory running costs worldwide. Whether America has to go broke for it to admit that it's social services and associated debt (>2/3rd's of budget, predicted to rise spectacularly) just aren't sustainable. And especially deficit financing of social services is unsustainable.
Of course, the "president" is doing the diametrically opposite thing. The same is going on in Europe. But once global coverage is allowed, you will find the government forcing people to work using "non-monetary means" (which mostly means eviction currently), as is happening in large parts of Europe now (Holland and France mainly, with the Nordic countries not far behind).
You contradict yourself :
Point 1:
Also, your car buying example is ridiculously off point. In your example, you get the money, and then spend it to benefit yourself. In my example, I never see the money or its benefits because I am neither poor nor the government.
Point 2:
For example, do you approve of taxation to provide for a minimal national defense? If so, then you don't believe that all taxation is stealing.
Would you consider minimal national defense a benefit ?
And, perhaps more to the point, do you really think social services are not considered a benefit by "bleeding heart" liberals ? Do you really think those people do that out of selflessness ?
Or would you consider that the answer to the liberal motivations is more along the lines of self-confirmation and feeling good about oneself, while spending other people's money doing it ?
I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just question the motivations of liberals. While I must admit I've met (quite) a few liberals that were genuinly people who went the extra mile for the people living around them, the vast majority of them does not do so. In fact, I'd easily contend that the people you see at churches, homeless shelters, free clinics, ... are vastly more likely to be republicans. Especially amongst the younger volunteers the political orientation is nearly exclusively what you'd call right wing. Hell amongst the teenage volunteers there are more gun nuts than democrats most days.
I just think the greatest rewards should go to people who excel and contribute not people who lie, cheat and steal.
And yet you put this in a way that makes one think you do not mean entrepreneurs.
Of course rewards go either to entrepreneurs, who work for themselves, or they go to politicians. Those are unfortunate choices, but they're the only 2 choices available.
It seems that you'd like to pick the people who'd "lie, cheat and steal" less. Well given the choice between entrepreneurs and politicians, it seems pretty clear exactly which group that is.
But probably you're under the delusion that somehow there is a party of politicians that will distribute taxed money as you see fit. Do you honestly find that a defensible position ?
It seems to me, that most liberals prefer the delusion over the obviousness of the truth, no matter how many times the truth is shown to them.
At the same time you can't build a rational society when the streets are full of desperate people.
Tell me, do you believe in evolution ? Suppose the government sponsors those desperate people, making them slightly less desperate. Great. Well done. Nobel peace prize (can't wait to join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin and others now can we ?) !
So given that you believe evolution is true ... what happens next ? "Population increase". Since these people depend on government that means more costs, 0 contribution to income. So what happens next ? Either the cycle repeats, because the government pays, or the system making those people a million times more desperate (and thus ... violent) than they were when we started.
And how could I possibly be a thief if I'm not getting any of your money? And how could I possibly be a lyer when that isn't even a word? (Sorry...can't help myself. )
Okay ... I'll just take your money and I'll buy my brother a car with it.
What ? Why are you calling me a thief ? I'm not getting any of your money ...
Oh wait ... you would consider that stealing, "spending other people's money". Of course that's exactly what you're doing, and yet you claim you're not a thief. So you won't mind if I spend you're money, right ? And if I use force to take your money, that's just peachy too, right ? Great.
You're also denying that the poor are taxed. Well I don't consider myself rich and I'm most certainly taxed, and taxed hard (when you lose more than half your income to various taxes, that's a lot). Yes I'm probably not all that poor either.
So you're a thief, because you spend other people's money as you see fit, against their will, and you're a lier for denying you do that to me.
You haven't travelled far. And to be honest, there are quite a few countries that are considered parts of the western world that are also of this "non-western" mindset. Even simply southern Europe already has no shortage of countries with essentially only ethnically centered parties.
You're probably a typical liberal. You either haven't travelled, or haven't left the hotel. After all, getting actual answers from people requires knowing the language, so at the very least very good french is required. And even with french you have to keep in mind that the more religious types outside of france will simply refuse to speak french, so you are basically only talking to secular-government minded people (which are fortunately over 80% even in the worst places I've ever visited)
The grandparent post is right that, barring tiny exceptions, all north-african political parties are ethnically AND religiously centered. I haven't visited Asia yet, so I don't know. I do doubt it's much different there. And quite frankly, even in Europe every last country has a sizeable ethnically centered party, and a sizeable religiously focused party, even if the religious aspect is currently mostly downplayed. At the very least one per country. They "are hated" they are "racist", but there isn't a single european country where ethnically-centered parties don't command at least 20% of the vote, and more typically 30-40%. If the religion-focused party would join with the ethnically focused party, which is a VERY unlikely prospect, they would command large majorities everywhere in Europe.
America is a special case because it's got only 2 parties. In reality the racists and ethnically centered idiots are divided amongst both parties. Those "own people first" idiots are overwhelmingly socialists, so they are somewhat deterred from the republican party even if that party is more America-centric than the democrats. And other loony racist groups cannot put themselves over the gun issue, and thus vote republican, probably not for reasons that actual republicans would like to know about.
So wait ... you claim the liberals only tax voluntary ... checking my pay slip ... it seems to me I do not get exempted from the liberal's idiotic new taxes. Where do I opt-out of paying the liberal's taxes ?
Are you seriously claiming you did not know this, or are you a lyer and a thief ? Liberals tend to pride themselves on their supposed intelligence, so I'm going to go with you being a lyer and a thief.
Palestine was under British control,
Just about the entire middle east was under British control. Oh and "palestine" meant the Roman Province called "philistine", meaning Israel, Lebanon, most of Syria, and sizeable parts of Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
And IBM may have helped with the holocaust, but the project they signed on for was the administration of the national health care system of Nazi Germany. Of course that was the project that turned into the holocaust later. I know it's important for "tolerant socialists" to believe that Hitler was conceived in a black mass by 2 goats fucking eachother in hellfire, but in reality this was an unremarkable guy, who started out working hard and trying to help his country. Later he went into politics and pushed a form of centralized economy that used to be called "socialism" (as opposed to (bolsjevik) communism) and is today known as "fascism". The component of the ideology that lead to supremacism and the holocaust, eugenics, can be found in any history book under socialism.
Until late 1941, Hitler was known as the man who made socialism acceptable and possible in America, or more affectionately the "Champion of the poor". He was nominated for the Nobel peace prize, and was the recipient of numerous press prizes on promoting peace, fairness and, especially, equality.
You know reality just isn't going to work on these totalitarians (excuse me "democrats" is the name they seem to prefer, or alternatively "liberal". This is, of course, to emphasize that they are neither democratic nor in favor of liberty)
Mod parent up ! Slashdot moderations should be expanded :
-1, Truth for democrats
+1, Truth for republicans
This would make the political fights a thing of the past by allowing totalitarians ("liberals") to harden their cocoons while still providing actual information to people with actual brains.
Heh, if you're against capitalism then isn't a low balance a good thing ? After all, as you so eloquently say, money's the problem.
Why do you want more "problems" ?
Or could it be that your actions do not match your words ? Somehow that seems a bit more likely.
I haven't quite worked out how to explain the fact that most of his redistribution so far has been from the poor to the rich (especially lots and lots of bankers), but I'm pretty sure that's somehow Marxist too.
Well, no, you have theoretical marxism : from the rich to the poor. Only it can't work, even theoretically. When tried, you always see :
Practical marxism : from the poor to the rich. See : Venezuela, North Korea, China, ...
The problem is this little thing called reality : 50% of people is dumber than average, 50% of people is poorer than average, and so on. These are theoretical minima. These are the numbers a "perfectly equal" system (school system, economic system) would have, in countries with single ethnicities (for 50% figures you'd probably need clones). The ridiculousness of the fact is that where wealth/education/... is best distributed, people scream about the "unfairness" the hardest. Which is ironic since actually listening to those screeming liberals can in practice only lead to more unfairness.
it is the cheaper everything cost in China that has turned that country into America's manufacturing center.
I guess you haven't visited Africa recently. Or Europe. Or anywhere really.
Scratch "America's" try "the world's".
Of course the end result will be the global equalization of factory running costs worldwide. Whether America has to go broke for it to admit that it's social services (>2/3rd's of budget, predicted to rise spectacularly) just aren't sustainable. And especially deficit financing of social services is unsustainable.
Of course, the "president" is doing the diametrically opposite thing. The same is going on in Europe. But once global coverage is allowed, you will find the government forcing people to work using "non-monetary means" (which mostly means eviction currently), as is happening in large parts of Europe now (Holland and France mainly, with the Nordic countries not far behind).
Because it's very difficult to isolate and help only those who need it without changing the overall incentives in the economy.
You know, it's really not. Those who are deserving will find help, even if only in their neighbourhood, family, ... The reverse, finding someone worthy of your help and deciding how much to give them is also not all that hard.
It's just REALLY hard to do so with law. In fact, I dare say it's impossible.
Well every liberal thinks he's unique and everyone else is a machine, unthinking, polluting, racist and uncaring.
That's why they're so very opposed to reality. You see in reality they are ... machines, unthinking, polluting, racist and uncaring.
Now if anything about economics is right, that means that demand as 0$ is damn near close to infinite.
So can you please explain where Obama, who will not refuse any treatment according to you, will get those infinite resources.
If he can't get infinite resources, please tell me which treatments will be refused and why ... since clearly you have a better source, else you wouldn't make this claim, right ?
Except, of course, today you get to choose which insurance company covers you.
So they have to be nice, or face a customer exodus. Obama's plan does not have to be nice, and if all past plans are any indication, they won't be.
Also let's not forget
largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services â" are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity.
Wait, wait, wait. Exactly HOW did Obama want to prevent cost overruns ? Because there's (of course) a catch. All snake oil salesmen have catches. Big catches. So what's the catch ?
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's "key" advisor for health care reform, writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing, which is fundamental to Obamacare goals "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
(you should read the lancet article, what this guy is proposing is allocation of medical care based on "how valuable you are to the government". You see, you're an investment. If there is no reason to protect said investment, because for example it's already been repaid (you're a pensioner in other words), there is no reason to give medical care. What's less obvious is the other place this guy intends to cut costs : you see "infants" have not yet had any significant investment, so they don't merit any health care, for there is no state investment to protect. Interpret however you wish. Oh and it also states that the "death panel" will be called CHORE (Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation)
Oh right ... that's how ... by denying medical care to the elderly. For, you see, they "already lived" (btw. I would really like a clarification of the Lancet article, for to me it seems a bunch of inconsistent blabbering, so I only quote examples he gave. I don't know how this "government calculation" affects a child that develops leukemia for example)
So if a "liberal" can please explain to me how denying medical care for ALL elderly is supposed to help people get older ? Because that's the solution they're proposing ... ("liberals" being people AGAINST free choice, and FOR massive government intrusion in every aspect of our lives, including food, exercise, how you bathe (you'd think govt. interference in bathing habits would be a big no-no on slashdot), if you're overweight, ...).
Now, throw in a healthy dose of Godwinian projection, and you have described the contemporary neoconservative leadership in the USA since about 1993.
The principle of "liberal" assesment of political opponents : "project" them to be the devil, and you can clearly see that they are indeed the devil.
In practice, of course, Bush did not force his views on the US. In fact, in several domains, he purposefully kept silent, forcing congress to make up it's own damn mind.
In practice, of course, the US has not changed into a theocratic dictatorship during 8 years of Bush rule.
If we believed your "projections" (ie. fantasies), 8 hours would have been too much.
But thinking like this would force to much reality in such a beautiful demonization, and liberals can't be bothered with either reality or balanced opinions, now can they ? You WILL accept health care, and government panels that decide if you get treatment or not, whether you call them death panels or not. "Liberals" WILL decide who gets to live and who gets to die, and whatever excuse gets them that power is pushed, and anyone pointing out ANY downside is a racist warmonger.
In America, "Liberals" make arguments that the taliban would consider heavy-handed. They do this publicly, and in open view, and think all resistance to their "goodness" is racist and evil. It just so hurts their egos.
Polar opposites ?
Central control of the economy
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check
"The state" is totalitarian : determines every action you take
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check
Favors "nanny state", unemployment benefits that equal normal wage, national health insurance, refusing medical care to "non-productive" members of society (as does Obama's adviser btw*) ...
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check
When "saving" on medical expenses on the "less productive" members of society failed, these governments switched to direct execution of those deemed unproductive
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check
Executed holocausts in historical governments, starting with political opponents, then sick and infirm (anyone not a "net gain" for the economy) and finally on a racist or religious basis :
a. socialism : check check check
b. fascism : check
The basis of the ideology is that all individuals must "be made" equal, by the power of the state. In order to do this massive expansion of state power is advocated :
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check
The systems call themselves "socialist" :
a. socialism : check
b. fascism : check (full name of "nazi" party = national socialist german worker's party)
Main difference :
a. socialism : doesn't tolerate any non-party-members in any position of power (right down to the person that checks if the "do you want fries with that" jobbers arrive in time)
b. fascism : is in favor of a system of temporarily handing state power into the hands of certain individuals. Only the top level of society is really thoroughly part of the party, it is possible in a fascist state for a non-party-member, even a Jew, to be in any position, except the top of the company, whether CEO or Chairman.
The definition of "far left" used to be simple : anything ideology that advocates central control of the economy. Obviously both fascism and socialism satisfy this criterium. Bush should have been considered "center", not especially rightist, not especially leftist, open to solutions on both sides.
I don't know where people get the idea that socialists somehow weren't racist even 20 years ago (the KKK for example, was a department of the democrat party of the united states, and was part of the "lefty loonies" section of the party, ie. left of the center of the party)
Tell me, at where exactly is the "polar" opposite between these two ?
* Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's "key" advisor for health care reform, writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing â" which is fundamental to Obamacare goals â" "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
Note that the democrat "death panel" already exists, it's been created as part of the stimulus bill. It's called "CHORE" (Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation). And yes, they will deny medical care to anyone on any form of government supported pension. That's one of the basisses they proclaim for themselves.