There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government.
The corollary of that statement is also just as true; There will always be someone with power willing to take the money when the fat purses open.
There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation. If you have a very small and limited national government that has little power to do too much harm and/or affect the economy, society, or individual freedom, then corruption has little reason to exist as it's simply too much risk for far too little reward.
Many if not most of the nations' core domestic, economic, and even foreign problems are the result of the Federal Government abrogating State & individual rights and powers in clear violation of the Constitution, using them to grow out of control while seizing ever-more power and wealth from the nation and increasingly restricting individual freedoms including the right to disagree. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.
Maybe necessary to power the pumping station, but not at the home level...
Many, many homes even in relatively highly-developed areas don't have city/township/county water systems to every home.
I live in a house om a suburban block that's less than an eighth of a mile from a large mall and several shopping plazas just barely outside of city-downtown proper. All the houses (~20-30?) on my side of the street for several blocks have well water provided by an electric well pump and the other side has city water.
Anyways, the point is that electricity can and often is essential (well, there's the old farm hand-pump type well but that means no indoor plumbing as we know it...) for residential water.
The internet is growing as a phenomenon and as a part of more peoples' lives to an ever-increasing degree. I believe we are in an early rapid-development and rapid-expansion stage. At this point I do not believe that internet access is a "right".
In another 10 or 20 years, that could change depending on how the internet evolves over time. One thing that's sure to restrict the freedom and usefulness, and therefor the amount & speed of development, of the internet is over-regulation and corrupt/political regulation. The US government has a generally bad history when it comes to regulating many of the things that weren't traditional Federal regulatory areas that it has taken on in the last 4 or 5 decades.
I prefer, at this point in time, an internet with as little government involvement as possible. You can never get back the power you grant to a government, and the government would just be too tempted to abuse such a legislative opening to achieve immense power & control.
I would rather see providers taken through the civil legal system, have protesters in front of their offices, etc etc as opposed to giving the government brand new powers over an area which could/would be so essential to citizens' ability to change the government if the government forfeits its' right to govern by its' disregard for the Constitution, the Rights and will of its' people, and the best interests of the people and the country.
The more you believe the internet is an essential service and growing in importance, even approaching a right, the more cautious you should be in granting government any power over it because government power has always been subject to abuse and nearly-always grows in size & scope but never shrinks or goes away in any meaningful way.
Except that Glenn Beck works for Fox, and Fox is the mouthpiece of the Republican party
[Citation Needed]
you actually have to wonder whether NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN exists to push forward Democratic agenda or whether Democrats exist to push forward NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN's agenda.
I improved the "Truthiness(TM)" of that for you.
Everyone is aware these days that the "lame-stream media" is in the pockets of Progressive Democrats and this administration. To be any more in their pocket they'd need pom-poms and a donkey as a broadcast logo. The one major holdout is Fox. It's the only network that's not a cheering-section for Progressiveism, and so *must* be attacked and de-legitimized.
Why is it that most critical comments about people on the right like Glenn Beck seek to simply ridicule or dismiss the person, and rarely ever actually debate the facts and logical arguments and show how they are wrong? I'd wager few have actually watched more than a selected clip or two of the conservative show-host, yet they "know" all these "facts" to be able to form such an antagonistic attitude toward them so personally.
I disagree with Obama, but I wish the man no ill. I'm sure he's a brilliant man. He seems to be generally a nice guy personally as far as I can tell. But, I *will* do all in my power to fight the policies I disagree with (notice I specified "the policies I disagree with" and not simply "his policies") by whatever legal & legitimate means at my disposal. I have done the same under Republican leaders as well, as there's no lack of material to criticize there, either. That *includes* Reagan when I was in my 20s!
I guess what I'm saying here is don't buy the whole line from *either* side...they are, after all, politicians. I'll add that I'm truly saddened by and for the Democratic Party since the Progressives took charge, and particularly since the corrupt Chicago political machine edged-out the Clinton machine. It's no longer the party of JFK. It seems more and more these days, as opposed to ~30 or more years ago, that the Progressives have shifted the Democrats to a "the ends justify the means" mentality, of which no good ever comes even in "winning".
My take is that since the loss of State rights after the Civil War and subsequent steady gain of power over the States by the Federal Government, corruption (both financial and ideological) at the Federal level has both increased the payoff possible for corrupting a Federal official and can do the nation much more harm than if the Federal Government was much more limited in size, scope, and power.
Why lobby, bribe, blackmail, and otherwise pressure someone that doesn't have the power to accomplish what you want, or else holds that power only over a too-small local area?
It's a bit like the internet theory in a way; damage to one independent node is limited to that node, the damage is routed around, and affects neither the undamaged nodes' internal operations nor their ability to function as a network with others.
Now we have more of a "cloud-computing" national model model where everything valuable is in the Federal "cloud" and the "terminal" States receive nearly everything from the "cloud" which puts whomever is in charge of the cloud in a position of great power over the States & the people, as well as greatly increase the ability to do great damage to the whole country.
It also makes it much easier for a minority to seize power over the whole nation and make great changes to the entire fabric of the nation in spite of citizen opposition in a short time if they are ruthless.
Look at the bright side though: the best supporter Chavez can rustle up is Penn. I don't see his policies sweeping the free world any time soon.
Chavez has supporters right in the Obama administration. One is Obamas' "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd at the FCC. Talk about a scary scenario, having a guy like Lloyd in a position of power over the nations' communications!
Here's a quote from Mark Lloyd, speaking at the June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR)in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
Apparently Chavez' policies are already "sweeping the free world" in the form of the Obama administration, since this statement from Lloyd hasn't been disavowed by anyone in the administration.
Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act. You will be fined, taxed, audited, and they'll ultimately will shut you down & silence you if they can.
I mentioned neither Republicans nor Democrats. Progressivism, both big- and -small p versions, cuts across party lines: Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat.
Yes, both were Progressives. Yes, they are and have been in both major parties.
You need to stop getting your history from Glen Beck, friend. The Progressive Era -- big P -- was from the 1890s to the 1920s, it didn't come into being in the '20s.
Glenn who? Sorry, I don't watch TV or listen to talk radio...not sure which this guy is, TV or radio, but I'm assuming here it's one or the other. Sorry if my assumption is incorrect.
I was referring to the period when Progressiveism was discredited and switched labels and co-opted the term "Liberal" as that's when Progressiveism started to truly radicalize.
However, you're simply wrong about the major parties and the Civil Rights Act. Democrat LBJ pushed the 1964 Civil Rights act through Congress, after Democrat JFK introduced it, and a majority of both Democratic and Republican Representatives and Senators voted for it.
Although factually correct, that doesn't put it into context or give credit where credit is due.
During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what the Republican Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.
Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do "more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined". Though he shared Johnson's convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.
I just love the way that right-wing loons have started lumping communists and fascists together, despite the fact that one of the primary attributes of fascism was anti-communism -- fascism was the right's counter-move to the Russian Revolution.
Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressiveism are all on the extreme end of the scale ranging from anarchy at one extreme to total government control on the other. It's all government control, the exact flavor is relatively unimportant when discussing freedom vs government control.
It's almost as much fun as the way they complain about people talking about class warfare, while promoting the actual practice of that warfare.
Lolwut?
Using class warfare to empower themselves and sway voters has been a staple tactic of the Progressives and Democrats for decades. "Make those rich people PAY! It's not FAIR that they have money and you don't!", never minding that the rich person got that way by working hard, being smart, and oh yeah...along the way creating jobs, adding to GDP, paying taxes, etc. Meanwhile the poor saps that buy into that Progressive line of BS never actually *get* any of the things the Democrats and Progressives promise when they make promises of how it'll all be different when *they* get elected.
And if you think socialism necessarily implies a powerful central government, you need to read this. (And also have a look at this.) State socialism is not the only form of socialism.
Yeah, and? When you've got a working, successful example of a nation where that
You assume I'm pissed, rather than sadly amused, as watching Progressives scramble to defend the undefendable is like watching a monkey trying to get its' fist out of a jar without dropping the treat inside. It's funny and kind of sad at the same time, just like Progressives.
Yes, damn those Progressives, weakening individual rights by pressing for civil rights, women's rights
BZZZT! Fail!
Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act. Democrats were for continued segregation. Please insert another quarter and try again!
Here's a hint for you: one can be a progressive and still believe that "citizens are not limited in their freedoms but that government is limited in its powers & scope".
If you mean "progressive" (small "p") as in describing an individuals' attitude or outlook, then yes. If you mean Progressives, as in the movement that's been around since the '20s and counts Socialists and Communists as ideological brothers then you, sir, are incorrect.
The rest of your post is a class-warfare mini-rant along with the "social justice" and "economic justice" buzzwords that Progressives use as cover for the fact that what they propose is socialist/communist/fascist-style redistribution of wealth by a powerful central government. Which is a type of system that has been tried again and again throughout history without ever once being successful, and in every case has restricted/removed/impeded peoples' freedom.
As a progressive and a defender of the collective right to gun ownership
Logic fail.
A true Progressive wants guns (and power in general) only in the hands of government. The right to own guns is an individual, not collective, right.
Why is it that Progressives insist on attempting to change the most-free country into a centralized-authoritarian, Euro-Socialist government? I'd think you guys would have much better luck somewhere like China, where they're *almost* to the Progressive ideal of an all-powerful government that regulates every aspect of society, production, education, and to the extent possible, thought.
The Constitution doesn't work that way. It doesn't prohibit them asking for more information, and other clauses imply that so long as it isn't prohibited expressly or implicitly then there is no problem as long as it serves a legitimate government purpose.
No, the Constitution DOES work that way, regardless of what the Progressives have taught you in school. The *limited* powers granted to the government in the Constitution are just that; limited to what the Constitution says. The Rights of the people enumerated however are not limited, as it plainly states.
The difference in how governments' powers and citizens' rights are enumerated is to assure that citizens are not limited in their Freedoms, and that government *is* limited in its' powers & scope.
Although, more and more in recent decades, Progressives have attempted to reverse this so as to empower government and weaken individual rights. Progressives need a strong centralized government and a powerless citizenry to promote and enforce their Dystopian dreams.
Oh, and a pro-tip; if it's something that requires a third party like the government or another citizen to do something or pay something in order to exercise, it's not a "right".
Governments do not grant rights. Governments can only *at best* defend those rights with which every human is born.
God did not grant those rights in the Bill of Rights - men did, in a government.
No, the Bill Of Rights only recognizes what God has granted.
But let's take your theory farther, shall we? If healthcare is a right, then why shouldn't food, housing, and clothing be a right also? I mean, if you're living on the street without shelter, that's unhealthy, right? Same with clothing. Even more so with food.
Congratulations, you've arrived at a centralized & authoritarian government along the lines of Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. None of which have ever worked.
Life is unfair. That's just how it is as a human. No government can fix it.
Government can *only* restrict freedom through it's actions.
The best & *only proven way* to minimize unfairness and provide the most good to the most people is to allow them the most freedom possible while still maintaining the minimum functions required to operate a nation by keeping the size, scope, and powers of government as small as possible.
Progressives want fairness by enforcing the lowest common denominator, preventing anyone from making "too much money" or being "too successful". Conservatives believe that a rising tide lifts all ships.
If you want "social & economic justice", move to a communist or socialist country as that's one of their principles. Of course, unless you're high-up in that governments' power structure, good luck with actually receiving any of those social & economic benefits.
I, for one, do NOT welcome our new "town lottery to see which individual gets to see the government doctor this month" overlords.
So those 10 original amendments to the Constitution are not rights? Or do you mean "now that everything is the way I want it, no government can grant *any more* rights".
Government did not grant those rights. God granted those rights. If you'd bother reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it states clearly that all men are created equal, endowed *by their Creator* with certain *unalienable* rights, and *among these* are Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Healthcare is a universal right.
No, it is not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim such. If those who so strongly wish it to become a right, there's a process for that. It's amending the Constitution. There is no provision for universal healthcare in the Constitution and the government has no such powers.
The problem is, amending the Constitution requires a true majority of Americans to want the change, which is not the case with healthcare. Which is why we see what we have seen...a small number of Progressive Congresspeople and the President ramming this abomination through against the wishes of the majority of Americans using every trick they can think of to pass it.
Any developed nation with a healthcare system should be obligated to offer it to all of its citizens equally - anything else the creation of a subclass of citizens.
That's *your* opinion. That's NOT my opinion nor the opinion of most Americans which is what counts, not some minority of Progressives' with their centralized-government Utopian dreams.
You sound oddly frothy and alarmist - were you this bad when the extreme corruption of the Bush government was carving up the US and other states for their rich buddies?
Frothy and alarmist? Hmm. Coming from a Progressive I consider that a compliment. You sweet-talker, you! Does your Progressive boyfriend know you flirt with Conservative men on Slashdot?
To answer your implication, yes, I've railed against many, many things done by Bush and the Republicans too since long before Bush was President, as the Republicans have also been guilty of falling into the Progressive mindset and promoting Progressive legislation & policies. Progressives and their policies and tactics disgust me whether they have an R or a D by their name.
Worse, your defending of the totally corrupt politicians and process makes you a partisan hack of the worst sort as you're obviously intelligent enough to understand just how sleazy & corrupt both the HC bill and the politicians who voted for it are.
Government cannot grant rights. It can only interfere in their free exercise. We form governments and grant limited power to government so that we are not each alone as individuals in protecting those rights. A right is something you have whether there is a government or not. If it's something that takes a government to do something, pay something, or take some action in order for a citizen to exercise, then it is not a right. It is especially not a right when it means taking the fruits of other citizens' labor to give to another citizen under threat of deadly force.
The people will not let this stand. This HCR act will be repealed. There will be a bloodletting at the polls, and it will not be a single-cycle phenomenon. Enough Americans now understand what the Progressive movement is and what it stands for, and how it has co-opted the Democratic party and even made inroads among the Republicans.
It's a shame what's happened to the Democratic Party, really. My parents were Democrats as I was until the party lurched so strongly left at the hands of Progressives.
I *will* call Progressives unpatriotic and un-American, as their stated goal is to destroy the United States as we've known & loved it for over 200 years. Progressives believe in the rule of Man, not the rule of Law. That's why they desire to "progress" *past* the Constitution to implement their centralized-government Utopian dreams.
For 100 years now Progressives have taken the country ever-further down the path to a centralized government and it's now come down to the point where the country is on the verge of economic & political collapse from Progressive policies same as what is now happening in Greece, Spain, etc.
These extreme, unsustainable circumstances have alarmed and are now awakening the people to the threat Progressives pose to our freedom, the Constitution & rule of law, and our Republic. The Progressives had hoped to use the coming troubles to seize control, but too many people are now onto the game and will NOT allow that to happen.
I also think an "essential freedom" is the freedom to have access to healthcare at point of need, regardless of your financial or employment status. That is a freedom that millions of Americans (even hard working employed ones) do not have.
I disagree with most everything you just stated, as does approx. 73% of my fellow countrymen.
However, the part I've quoted above is what the root of the whole basic argument boils down to. Healthcare is NOT a right! It is NOT an "essential freedom", those are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Healthcare is a service provided by private citizens to other private citizens for profit. The reason the current healthcare system is so screwed up is because there *already* is too much government involvement in healthcare that has distorted the market.
Even if I were to concede every single point you've made in favor of universal healthcare, what just got passed is NOT it. It WILL NOT lower costs. It WILL NOT improve quality. It WILL NOT improve access or availability to poorer citizens. It WILL NOT reduce the deficit.
In fact it does the exact opposite of all those claims while giving the healthcare insurance industry a captive customer base enforced by the IRS/US Treasury Dept. and grants the Feds power over nearly every single facet of a persons' life from cradle to grave, as nearly everything has some effect on health in one form or another.
Thankfully, the depths of corruption and sleaze clearly & publicly demonstrated by those pushing Obamacare has so disgusted the nation that they will all lose their office next election, and then this abomination will be repealed. Americans will not tolerate this new healthcare entitlement. The Progressives in the Democratic Party have only succeeded in guaranteeing that Democrats won't be holding power again for the next half-century at a minimum, and possibly destroying the Democratic Party once and for all.
Its not the emergency part of the system thats broken, its the parts of the system that forces poor people to rely on emergency care. Which then make it even worse, someone who was only mildly sick, now has pnemonia, and needs to be taken to the hospital. if they had been able to afford to have a doctor look at the cold a week ago, they would not need emergency services.
If the availability of regular "doctors' office"-type care to poor people is the issue, why don't the Feds simply build clinics for the poor and under-served at a tiny fraction of the costs of the current plan? Heck, it'd be an ideal way for med-school students to intern and even knock off some med-school tuition debt.
The problem isn't that we're switching to a UK/European style socialized-entitlement system, although the loss of freedoms necessary to bring such a system about grants government whole new powers while removing citizen's freedom & choice.
It's that what's been passed will not improve anyone's care nor lower their costs. For all the hoopla that's been made about how the "evil" insurance companies are so bad and make such obscene profits, this plan guarantees every single person is their customer. A captive customer-base. If you're a greedy insurance company, how sweet is that?
There will also be sweet tax-swill in the government-contract trough for pharma too, as this huge new entitlement system will need medicine and other medical supplies. I mean, c'mon! What do you *think* Obama was telling those players in those closed WH meetings?
Meanwhile, the US is already in danger of losing our international 4-star credit rating which will drive the interest on the debt up to catastrophic levels, taking up most of our GDP or even more. The more-realistic cost without the budgeting tricks and things like spending money twice works out to about $660 billion a year for the first few years until the actual benefits start kicking in, then it goes within a couple years to well over a trillion dollars a year. That's money we don't have and can't afford. We may well find ourselves unable to even borrow it.
The CBO numbers are bunk, as they are forced to count things the Congress tells them to, like spending money twice and that they'll actually save a half-trillion by eliminating fraud & waste. Why not just save that half-trillion now and use it to pay for medical coverage for the poor and under-served?
They don't want to do that because healthcare isn't what this is about. This is a power-grab & set of political payoffs pure and simple. Healthcare is just the "emergency du-jour" they've decided is a good vehicle to dramatize to advance their agendas that come straight out of Cloward & Piven and "Rules For Radicals".
The government & select private-sector businesses and unions will gain by costing everyone more, reducing the amount & quality of care, gaining captive customers, and expanding government power over every aspect of peoples' lives and taking away essential freedoms.
Welcome to a world where the IRS makes sure you've paid the private insurance companies.
You mean the Apollo Alliance/Van Jones, SEIU's Andy Stern, and various other Progressives, Communists, and Socialists?
The reason it's been written in the way it has?
That's easy.
They're following the Cloward & Piven strategy using methods outlined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" to collapse the system and replace it with a socialist/communist system.
I just hope they're ready to reap the whirlwind of blood and death they've sown, because they'll be on the receiving end of it if they are not stopped.
If you're against this debacle of a "healthcare reform" bill, show up at the House of Representatives in D.C. tomorrow, Sat. March 20th, or at least show up at your local congress-critters' office. Block the hallways so nobody can get in to pass this power-grab.
Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers & business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.
It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.
I agree with everything else you said, but if you to be compensated for "pre-existing conditions" then you're looking for charity, not insurance. The purpose of insurance is to trade low-probability, high-cost risk for high-probability, low-cost premiums, and thus combat uncertainty. It's not meant to be a savings program or a handout. The efficiency of insurance is directly correlated with accurately assessing each client's risk and setting their premiums accordingly.
If you want to provide charity for those with pre-existing conditions that should be debated and operated as a separate program.
I have to agree. If I can buy health insurance after I've been diagnosed with some disease or condition to cover it/them, why can't I buy life insurance for my recently-deceased spouse?
Both make equal economic/actuarial sense.
This part of HCR was, IMHO, designed specifically to drive out/kill off private health insurance.
In the end it won't matter. The majority of people will simply refuse to cooperate with or obey the provisions of this HCR bill if it's passed despite ~70% of citizens wanting to start over.
It will be unenforceable unless they are willing to declare marshal law and start rounding up everyone into detainment camps at the point of a gun. That attempt will only result in a civil war with a very large portion of the all-volunteer military siding with the people.
SEIU & other union and "community organization" thugs may be an effective force to bully unarmed individual citizens at townhall meetings, but they won't last long against a company of Marine combat troops and local National Guard augmented with veterans among the civilians that are determined to protect & defend their families at any cost.
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it?
That statement is both false and disingenuous.
It's false because Republicans have proposed plans to solve healthcare concerns as they were stated by Democrats. They've been completely ignored, despite protestations by Democrats to the contrary.
It's disingenuous because there are plenty more than "a couple hundred Republicans" that oppose the bills proposed so far. Like the majority of the nation. Somewhere around ~70% want Congress to start over on healthcare. Pelosi and Reid can't even get their supermajority to pass healthcare, and they are now seriously considering using semantic sophistry to "deem" something into existence that is a fiction and seems clearly unconstitutional on its' face.
After this performance, I can understand Progressives and Democrats being angry and frustrated. Nobody wants what they're selling, and on top of it their leaderships' decision to double-down and do absolutely *anything* to pass this legislative bloatware against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans will nearly guarantee the Democrats won't be able to get a dog-catcher elected or re-elected for decades.
Make your points. Argue the topics, not who's "biased" about them. Who cares?
Everything you say is basically true. Everybody has biases. That's just part of the human condition.
However, when bias is used as a point of debate in a discussion as to the merits (typically to dismiss or destroy another individual's or group's point, perspective, or credibility) of the other side's argument, then it becomes a point insomuch as pointing out any actual bias or lack of on a particular fact or point referenced.
That's really the trick with many disingenuous claims of bias; in many cases, the fact or information referenced exists independent of anyone's biases as long as accuracy remains. The source of the particular item in question is irrelevant. This is the case here. Therefor, arguing "bias" to dismiss the report is an intellectually dishonest argument and so must be confronted and exposed.
When people use a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest argument I will call them on it. I think I'm not alone in this attitude. Whichever side of the discussion it falls on, and by whomever puts it forth. You don't *really* win an argument or discussion with such tactics, you just muddy the waters and lower the bar regarding the value of attempting to engage in earnest discussion and aggravate hostilities.
*Not* confronting & exposing such tactics in a discussion allows the discussions' value to be spoiled for everyone.
Socialism and Fascism are polar opposites: you can't be moving towards both at the same time!
No, they are two sides of a non-monarchy totalitarian government. The real scale runs from total anarchy to total government control. Socialism and Fascism are near the extreme of the scale towards "total government control". A very imprecise working definition could be; Socialism is where the government is in charge of business, and Fascism is where business is in charge of government. I know this is all very simplistic, but this is a/. post.
Then compare with Australia...or France...or Germany...or...what, there's not a single country in the world that you can learn from? The USA isn't *that* unique.
Most of Europe for most of history has been ruled by Monarchies, but in more recent times has teetered between Socialism and Fascism. All three types share the characteristic that the government grants rights to the people that in default state they don't have as the government has all power, and they may be rescinded.
In the US (theoretically) the people grant powers & surrender rights they naturally already posses to the government conditional on the government obeying the will of the people and may be rescinded by the people.
The difference in the direction of the granting of rights & powers is totally opposite of every other government on the planet. This why the US would have a very difficult time implementing a universal healthcare system, as such a system would necessarily require government to take powers for itself that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government.
This totally opposite framing of where rights originate and who grants powers to whom is why many solutions that other countries implement could not work here. At least not without a total transformation of our form of government.
Maybe some would favor a fundamental change in how the US government works, but I don't feel universal healthcare is worth scrapping large sections of the Constitution. Particularly when all the complaints about the current healthcare system can be addressed without it.
There have been a number of other solutions proposed to fix the problem areas, but Democrats controlled by the Progressives won't allow that. The healthcare bills proposed by the Democrats have nothing to do with lowering costs, improving health, or (ha!) reducing/slowing the national debt or even reducing taxes as every bill proposed so far would cause the exact opposite outcome from the claims made.
The goal of the healthcare bills proposed by the Progressive-controlled Democrat majority has been an expansion of the size, scope, invasiveness, and power of government over the people. Progressives want to "progress" *past* the Constitution and it's limits on government power to a utopia where the government takes care of people from cradle to grave, and so therefore has power over every aspect of life from cradle to grave. This I will not allow to happen in my country while I live, and I am not alone.
you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit,
There are many private health insurance companies operating in the UK, despite the existence of public healthcare.
I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.
Yet private healthcare in the UK is much cheaper than in the USA, so this is also clearly wrong.
The UK!==USA.
We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different societies and forms of government, as well as completely different economic structures. It's just not a valid comparison. Besides, the USA has the medical care the world comes to when they want the best.
There are problems, yes. These problems can be addressed without a complete restructuring and socialization of the entire system. This is but a stalking horse for moving the US closer to a socialistic/fascistic system of government, meanwhile lining the pockets of politicians and their masters at the cost of economic servitude for future generations as the nation is plunged even further into debt that dwarfs anything any nation has done to itself in all of history.
Even if one were to grant that a restructuring was needed, the bills proposed so far do not do the job. The bills proposed so far are nothing but political paybacks and payoffs with short shrift given to actually improving *care & cost*, meanwhile plunging the nation further down an unsustainable abyss of debt.
We as a nation are already on the verge of economic disaster & collapse. Spending a trillion-plus on a plan consisting mostly of payoffs, paybacks, political favors, and a raw government power-grab serves only those in power and those who wish to see the current capitalistic economic system and democratic representative republic governmental system replaced.
No.
Not even if I have to go hang the arrogant, corrupt, power-hungry SOBs myself from the tress along the Mall in D.C., and I won't be alone. It's about time for our government to return to fearing it's citizens as the founders intended, not the other way around.
The problem, as you allude to, lies in what would ultimately follow from trying to regulate speech on it's ethical merits (or lack thereof)
As I see it, your argument is a red herring, because the GP never suggested this.
I did not accuse him, either. I asked questions with the question-mark punctuation and everything. I was curious if he, as from his posts he seemingly shares a great many political and ideological beliefs with the Progressives who *do and have* advocated restricting speech with which they disagree, shared those views on speech also. I thought that in light of his post, they were reasonable questions.
Anyone has the legal right to say anything within the very minimal restrictions laid out by the SCOTUS. They may get sued if they create a tort in doing so, but that is civil between two private entities. I and most Americans, and it seems you as well, share a special disgust for those who would stifle opposing viewpoints for tactical & strategic political & ideological reasons.
I don't care who does it, what party, religion/no religion, or ideology they believe in. Suppression of speech...particularly religious, ideological, and political discourse...is wrong and against the freedoms this country was founded to protect for ourselves and future generations.
Freedom isn't free, neither in terms of battling foreign threats, nor the domestic battle of ideas against those who would take our rights and freedoms away to empower their political/ideological agendas. These ideas must be confronted and exposed to daylight rather than allowed to fester unopposed & undiscussed in the shadows. They must be confronted without fear whenever, wherever, and by whomever these ideas may surface.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance both without and within.
Slashdot Mirror
There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government.
The corollary of that statement is also just as true; There will always be someone with power willing to take the money when the fat purses open.
There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation. If you have a very small and limited national government that has little power to do too much harm and/or affect the economy, society, or individual freedom, then corruption has little reason to exist as it's simply too much risk for far too little reward.
Many if not most of the nations' core domestic, economic, and even foreign problems are the result of the Federal Government abrogating State & individual rights and powers in clear violation of the Constitution, using them to grow out of control while seizing ever-more power and wealth from the nation and increasingly restricting individual freedoms including the right to disagree. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.
Strat
Maybe necessary to power the pumping station, but not at the home level...
Many, many homes even in relatively highly-developed areas don't have city/township/county water systems to every home.
I live in a house om a suburban block that's less than an eighth of a mile from a large mall and several shopping plazas just barely outside of city-downtown proper. All the houses (~20-30?) on my side of the street for several blocks have well water provided by an electric well pump and the other side has city water.
Anyways, the point is that electricity can and often is essential (well, there's the old farm hand-pump type well but that means no indoor plumbing as we know it...) for residential water.
The internet is growing as a phenomenon and as a part of more peoples' lives to an ever-increasing degree. I believe we are in an early rapid-development and rapid-expansion stage. At this point I do not believe that internet access is a "right".
In another 10 or 20 years, that could change depending on how the internet evolves over time. One thing that's sure to restrict the freedom and usefulness, and therefor the amount & speed of development, of the internet is over-regulation and corrupt/political regulation. The US government has a generally bad history when it comes to regulating many of the things that weren't traditional Federal regulatory areas that it has taken on in the last 4 or 5 decades.
I prefer, at this point in time, an internet with as little government involvement as possible. You can never get back the power you grant to a government, and the government would just be too tempted to abuse such a legislative opening to achieve immense power & control.
I would rather see providers taken through the civil legal system, have protesters in front of their offices, etc etc as opposed to giving the government brand new powers over an area which could/would be so essential to citizens' ability to change the government if the government forfeits its' right to govern by its' disregard for the Constitution, the Rights and will of its' people, and the best interests of the people and the country.
The more you believe the internet is an essential service and growing in importance, even approaching a right, the more cautious you should be in granting government any power over it because government power has always been subject to abuse and nearly-always grows in size & scope but never shrinks or goes away in any meaningful way.
Strat
Except that Glenn Beck works for Fox, and Fox is the mouthpiece of the Republican party
[Citation Needed]
you actually have to wonder whether NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN exists to push forward Democratic agenda or whether Democrats exist to push forward NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN's agenda.
I improved the "Truthiness(TM)" of that for you.
Everyone is aware these days that the "lame-stream media" is in the pockets of Progressive Democrats and this administration. To be any more in their pocket they'd need pom-poms and a donkey as a broadcast logo. The one major holdout is Fox. It's the only network that's not a cheering-section for Progressiveism, and so *must* be attacked and de-legitimized.
Why is it that most critical comments about people on the right like Glenn Beck seek to simply ridicule or dismiss the person, and rarely ever actually debate the facts and logical arguments and show how they are wrong? I'd wager few have actually watched more than a selected clip or two of the conservative show-host, yet they "know" all these "facts" to be able to form such an antagonistic attitude toward them so personally.
I disagree with Obama, but I wish the man no ill. I'm sure he's a brilliant man. He seems to be generally a nice guy personally as far as I can tell. But, I *will* do all in my power to fight the policies I disagree with (notice I specified "the policies I disagree with" and not simply "his policies") by whatever legal & legitimate means at my disposal. I have done the same under Republican leaders as well, as there's no lack of material to criticize there, either. That *includes* Reagan when I was in my 20s!
I guess what I'm saying here is don't buy the whole line from *either* side...they are, after all, politicians. I'll add that I'm truly saddened by and for the Democratic Party since the Progressives took charge, and particularly since the corrupt Chicago political machine edged-out the Clinton machine. It's no longer the party of JFK. It seems more and more these days, as opposed to ~30 or more years ago, that the Progressives have shifted the Democrats to a "the ends justify the means" mentality, of which no good ever comes even in "winning".
My take is that since the loss of State rights after the Civil War and subsequent steady gain of power over the States by the Federal Government, corruption (both financial and ideological) at the Federal level has both increased the payoff possible for corrupting a Federal official and can do the nation much more harm than if the Federal Government was much more limited in size, scope, and power.
Why lobby, bribe, blackmail, and otherwise pressure someone that doesn't have the power to accomplish what you want, or else holds that power only over a too-small local area?
It's a bit like the internet theory in a way; damage to one independent node is limited to that node, the damage is routed around, and affects neither the undamaged nodes' internal operations nor their ability to function as a network with others.
Now we have more of a "cloud-computing" national model model where everything valuable is in the Federal "cloud" and the "terminal" States receive nearly everything from the "cloud" which puts whomever is in charge of the cloud in a position of great power over the States & the people, as well as greatly increase the ability to do great damage to the whole country.
It also makes it much easier for a minority to seize power over the whole nation and make great changes to the entire fabric of the nation in spite of citizen opposition in a short time if they are ruthless.
Strat
Look at the bright side though: the best supporter Chavez can rustle up is Penn. I don't see his policies sweeping the free world any time soon.
Chavez has supporters right in the Obama administration. One is Obamas' "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd at the FCC. Talk about a scary scenario, having a guy like Lloyd in a position of power over the nations' communications!
Here's a quote from Mark Lloyd, speaking at the June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR)in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
-And we've had complaints about this ever since."
You can see the video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg
Apparently Chavez' policies are already "sweeping the free world" in the form of the Obama administration, since this statement from Lloyd hasn't been disavowed by anyone in the administration.
Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act. You will be fined, taxed, audited, and they'll ultimately will shut you down & silence you if they can.
A Brave New World, indeed!
Strat
I mentioned neither Republicans nor Democrats. Progressivism, both big- and -small p versions, cuts across party lines: Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat.
Yes, both were Progressives. Yes, they are and have been in both major parties.
You need to stop getting your history from Glen Beck, friend. The Progressive Era -- big P -- was from the 1890s to the 1920s, it didn't come into being in the '20s.
Glenn who? Sorry, I don't watch TV or listen to talk radio...not sure which this guy is, TV or radio, but I'm assuming here it's one or the other. Sorry if my assumption is incorrect.
I was referring to the period when Progressiveism was discredited and switched labels and co-opted the term "Liberal" as that's when Progressiveism started to truly radicalize.
However, you're simply wrong about the major parties and the Civil Rights Act. Democrat LBJ pushed the 1964 Civil Rights act through Congress, after Democrat JFK introduced it, and a majority of both Democratic and Republican Representatives and Senators voted for it.
Although factually correct, that doesn't put it into context or give credit where credit is due.
During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what the Republican Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.
Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do "more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined". Though he shared Johnson's convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.
I just love the way that right-wing loons have started lumping communists and fascists together, despite the fact that one of the primary attributes of fascism was anti-communism -- fascism was the right's counter-move to the Russian Revolution.
Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressiveism are all on the extreme end of the scale ranging from anarchy at one extreme to total government control on the other. It's all government control, the exact flavor is relatively unimportant when discussing freedom vs government control.
It's almost as much fun as the way they complain about people talking about class warfare, while promoting the actual practice of that warfare.
Lolwut?
Using class warfare to empower themselves and sway voters has been a staple tactic of the Progressives and Democrats for decades. "Make those rich people PAY! It's not FAIR that they have money and you don't!", never minding that the rich person got that way by working hard, being smart, and oh yeah...along the way creating jobs, adding to GDP, paying taxes, etc. Meanwhile the poor saps that buy into that Progressive line of BS never actually *get* any of the things the Democrats and Progressives promise when they make promises of how it'll all be different when *they* get elected.
And if you think socialism necessarily implies a powerful central government, you need to read this. (And also have a look at this.) State socialism is not the only form of socialism.
Yeah, and? When you've got a working, successful example of a nation where that
Just to piss off internet libertards like you.
You assume I'm pissed, rather than sadly amused, as watching Progressives scramble to defend the undefendable is like watching a monkey trying to get its' fist out of a jar without dropping the treat inside. It's funny and kind of sad at the same time, just like Progressives.
Strat
Yes, damn those Progressives, weakening individual rights by pressing for civil rights, women's rights
BZZZT! Fail!
Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act. Democrats were for continued segregation. Please insert another quarter and try again!
Here's a hint for you: one can be a progressive and still believe that "citizens are not limited in their freedoms but that government is limited in its powers & scope".
If you mean "progressive" (small "p") as in describing an individuals' attitude or outlook, then yes. If you mean Progressives, as in the movement that's been around since the '20s and counts Socialists and Communists as ideological brothers then you, sir, are incorrect.
The rest of your post is a class-warfare mini-rant along with the "social justice" and "economic justice" buzzwords that Progressives use as cover for the fact that what they propose is socialist/communist/fascist-style redistribution of wealth by a powerful central government. Which is a type of system that has been tried again and again throughout history without ever once being successful, and in every case has restricted/removed/impeded peoples' freedom.
Strat
As a progressive and a defender of the collective right to gun ownership
Logic fail.
A true Progressive wants guns (and power in general) only in the hands of government. The right to own guns is an individual, not collective, right.
Why is it that Progressives insist on attempting to change the most-free country into a centralized-authoritarian, Euro-Socialist government? I'd think you guys would have much better luck somewhere like China, where they're *almost* to the Progressive ideal of an all-powerful government that regulates every aspect of society, production, education, and to the extent possible, thought.
Strat
The Constitution doesn't work that way. It doesn't prohibit them asking for more information, and other clauses imply that so long as it isn't prohibited expressly or implicitly then there is no problem as long as it serves a legitimate government purpose.
No, the Constitution DOES work that way, regardless of what the Progressives have taught you in school. The *limited* powers granted to the government in the Constitution are just that; limited to what the Constitution says. The Rights of the people enumerated however are not limited, as it plainly states.
The difference in how governments' powers and citizens' rights are enumerated is to assure that citizens are not limited in their Freedoms, and that government *is* limited in its' powers & scope.
Although, more and more in recent decades, Progressives have attempted to reverse this so as to empower government and weaken individual rights. Progressives need a strong centralized government and a powerless citizenry to promote and enforce their Dystopian dreams.
Oh, and a pro-tip; if it's something that requires a third party like the government or another citizen to do something or pay something in order to exercise, it's not a "right".
Governments do not grant rights. Governments can only *at best* defend those rights with which every human is born.
"WHAAARGARBL"?
My lawn, off you will get!
Strat
God did not grant those rights in the Bill of Rights - men did, in a government.
No, the Bill Of Rights only recognizes what God has granted.
But let's take your theory farther, shall we? If healthcare is a right, then why shouldn't food, housing, and clothing be a right also? I mean, if you're living on the street without shelter, that's unhealthy, right? Same with clothing. Even more so with food.
Congratulations, you've arrived at a centralized & authoritarian government along the lines of Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. None of which have ever worked.
Life is unfair. That's just how it is as a human. No government can fix it.
Government can *only* restrict freedom through it's actions.
The best & *only proven way* to minimize unfairness and provide the most good to the most people is to allow them the most freedom possible while still maintaining the minimum functions required to operate a nation by keeping the size, scope, and powers of government as small as possible.
Progressives want fairness by enforcing the lowest common denominator, preventing anyone from making "too much money" or being "too successful". Conservatives believe that a rising tide lifts all ships.
If you want "social & economic justice", move to a communist or socialist country as that's one of their principles. Of course, unless you're high-up in that governments' power structure, good luck with actually receiving any of those social & economic benefits.
I, for one, do NOT welcome our new "town lottery to see which individual gets to see the government doctor this month" overlords.
Strat
So those 10 original amendments to the Constitution are not rights? Or do you mean "now that everything is the way I want it, no government can grant *any more* rights".
Government did not grant those rights. God granted those rights. If you'd bother reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it states clearly that all men are created equal, endowed *by their Creator* with certain *unalienable* rights, and *among these* are Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Healthcare is a universal right.
No, it is not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim such. If those who so strongly wish it to become a right, there's a process for that. It's amending the Constitution. There is no provision for universal healthcare in the Constitution and the government has no such powers.
The problem is, amending the Constitution requires a true majority of Americans to want the change, which is not the case with healthcare. Which is why we see what we have seen...a small number of Progressive Congresspeople and the President ramming this abomination through against the wishes of the majority of Americans using every trick they can think of to pass it.
Any developed nation with a healthcare system should be obligated to offer it to all of its citizens equally - anything else the creation of a subclass of citizens.
That's *your* opinion. That's NOT my opinion nor the opinion of most Americans which is what counts, not some minority of Progressives' with their centralized-government Utopian dreams.
You sound oddly frothy and alarmist - were you this bad when the extreme corruption of the Bush government was carving up the US and other states for their rich buddies?
Frothy and alarmist? Hmm. Coming from a Progressive I consider that a compliment. You sweet-talker, you! Does your Progressive boyfriend know you flirt with Conservative men on Slashdot?
To answer your implication, yes, I've railed against many, many things done by Bush and the Republicans too since long before Bush was President, as the Republicans have also been guilty of falling into the Progressive mindset and promoting Progressive legislation & policies. Progressives and their policies and tactics disgust me whether they have an R or a D by their name.
Strat
Healthcare is a right.
Anything you wrote past that is meaningless.
Worse, your defending of the totally corrupt politicians and process makes you a partisan hack of the worst sort as you're obviously intelligent enough to understand just how sleazy & corrupt both the HC bill and the politicians who voted for it are.
Government cannot grant rights. It can only interfere in their free exercise. We form governments and grant limited power to government so that we are not each alone as individuals in protecting those rights. A right is something you have whether there is a government or not. If it's something that takes a government to do something, pay something, or take some action in order for a citizen to exercise, then it is not a right. It is especially not a right when it means taking the fruits of other citizens' labor to give to another citizen under threat of deadly force.
The people will not let this stand. This HCR act will be repealed. There will be a bloodletting at the polls, and it will not be a single-cycle phenomenon. Enough Americans now understand what the Progressive movement is and what it stands for, and how it has co-opted the Democratic party and even made inroads among the Republicans.
It's a shame what's happened to the Democratic Party, really. My parents were Democrats as I was until the party lurched so strongly left at the hands of Progressives.
I *will* call Progressives unpatriotic and un-American, as their stated goal is to destroy the United States as we've known & loved it for over 200 years. Progressives believe in the rule of Man, not the rule of Law. That's why they desire to "progress" *past* the Constitution to implement their centralized-government Utopian dreams.
For 100 years now Progressives have taken the country ever-further down the path to a centralized government and it's now come down to the point where the country is on the verge of economic & political collapse from Progressive policies same as what is now happening in Greece, Spain, etc.
These extreme, unsustainable circumstances have alarmed and are now awakening the people to the threat Progressives pose to our freedom, the Constitution & rule of law, and our Republic. The Progressives had hoped to use the coming troubles to seize control, but too many people are now onto the game and will NOT allow that to happen.
Strat
I also think an "essential freedom" is the freedom to have access to healthcare at point of need, regardless of your financial or employment status. That is a freedom that millions of Americans (even hard working employed ones) do not have.
I disagree with most everything you just stated, as does approx. 73% of my fellow countrymen.
However, the part I've quoted above is what the root of the whole basic argument boils down to. Healthcare is NOT a right! It is NOT an "essential freedom", those are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Healthcare is a service provided by private citizens to other private citizens for profit. The reason the current healthcare system is so screwed up is because there *already* is too much government involvement in healthcare that has distorted the market.
Even if I were to concede every single point you've made in favor of universal healthcare, what just got passed is NOT it. It WILL NOT lower costs. It WILL NOT improve quality. It WILL NOT improve access or availability to poorer citizens. It WILL NOT reduce the deficit.
In fact it does the exact opposite of all those claims while giving the healthcare insurance industry a captive customer base enforced by the IRS/US Treasury Dept. and grants the Feds power over nearly every single facet of a persons' life from cradle to grave, as nearly everything has some effect on health in one form or another.
Thankfully, the depths of corruption and sleaze clearly & publicly demonstrated by those pushing Obamacare has so disgusted the nation that they will all lose their office next election, and then this abomination will be repealed. Americans will not tolerate this new healthcare entitlement. The Progressives in the Democratic Party have only succeeded in guaranteeing that Democrats won't be holding power again for the next half-century at a minimum, and possibly destroying the Democratic Party once and for all.
Strat
Its not the emergency part of the system thats broken, its the parts of the system that forces poor people to rely on emergency care. Which then make it even worse, someone who was only mildly sick, now has pnemonia, and needs to be taken to the hospital. if they had been able to afford to have a doctor look at the cold a week ago, they would not need emergency services.
If the availability of regular "doctors' office"-type care to poor people is the issue, why don't the Feds simply build clinics for the poor and under-served at a tiny fraction of the costs of the current plan? Heck, it'd be an ideal way for med-school students to intern and even knock off some med-school tuition debt.
The problem isn't that we're switching to a UK/European style socialized-entitlement system, although the loss of freedoms necessary to bring such a system about grants government whole new powers while removing citizen's freedom & choice.
It's that what's been passed will not improve anyone's care nor lower their costs. For all the hoopla that's been made about how the "evil" insurance companies are so bad and make such obscene profits, this plan guarantees every single person is their customer. A captive customer-base. If you're a greedy insurance company, how sweet is that?
There will also be sweet tax-swill in the government-contract trough for pharma too, as this huge new entitlement system will need medicine and other medical supplies. I mean, c'mon! What do you *think* Obama was telling those players in those closed WH meetings?
Meanwhile, the US is already in danger of losing our international 4-star credit rating which will drive the interest on the debt up to catastrophic levels, taking up most of our GDP or even more. The more-realistic cost without the budgeting tricks and things like spending money twice works out to about $660 billion a year for the first few years until the actual benefits start kicking in, then it goes within a couple years to well over a trillion dollars a year. That's money we don't have and can't afford. We may well find ourselves unable to even borrow it.
The CBO numbers are bunk, as they are forced to count things the Congress tells them to, like spending money twice and that they'll actually save a half-trillion by eliminating fraud & waste. Why not just save that half-trillion now and use it to pay for medical coverage for the poor and under-served?
They don't want to do that because healthcare isn't what this is about. This is a power-grab & set of political payoffs pure and simple. Healthcare is just the "emergency du-jour" they've decided is a good vehicle to dramatize to advance their agendas that come straight out of Cloward & Piven and "Rules For Radicals".
The government & select private-sector businesses and unions will gain by costing everyone more, reducing the amount & quality of care, gaining captive customers, and expanding government power over every aspect of peoples' lives and taking away essential freedoms.
Welcome to a world where the IRS makes sure you've paid the private insurance companies.
Strat
why not ask the guy who wrote it?
You mean the Apollo Alliance/Van Jones, SEIU's Andy Stern, and various other Progressives, Communists, and Socialists?
The reason it's been written in the way it has?
That's easy.
They're following the Cloward & Piven strategy using methods outlined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" to collapse the system and replace it with a socialist/communist system.
I just hope they're ready to reap the whirlwind of blood and death they've sown, because they'll be on the receiving end of it if they are not stopped.
If you're against this debacle of a "healthcare reform" bill, show up at the House of Representatives in D.C. tomorrow, Sat. March 20th, or at least show up at your local congress-critters' office. Block the hallways so nobody can get in to pass this power-grab.
Strat
Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers & business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.
It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.
Strat
No pre-existing conditions
I agree with everything else you said, but if you to be compensated for "pre-existing conditions" then you're looking for charity, not insurance. The purpose of insurance is to trade low-probability, high-cost risk for high-probability, low-cost premiums, and thus combat uncertainty. It's not meant to be a savings program or a handout. The efficiency of insurance is directly correlated with accurately assessing each client's risk and setting their premiums accordingly.
If you want to provide charity for those with pre-existing conditions that should be debated and operated as a separate program.
I have to agree. If I can buy health insurance after I've been diagnosed with some disease or condition to cover it/them, why can't I buy life insurance for my recently-deceased spouse?
Both make equal economic/actuarial sense.
This part of HCR was, IMHO, designed specifically to drive out/kill off private health insurance.
In the end it won't matter. The majority of people will simply refuse to cooperate with or obey the provisions of this HCR bill if it's passed despite ~70% of citizens wanting to start over.
It will be unenforceable unless they are willing to declare marshal law and start rounding up everyone into detainment camps at the point of a gun. That attempt will only result in a civil war with a very large portion of the all-volunteer military siding with the people.
SEIU & other union and "community organization" thugs may be an effective force to bully unarmed individual citizens at townhall meetings, but they won't last long against a company of Marine combat troops and local National Guard augmented with veterans among the civilians that are determined to protect & defend their families at any cost.
Strat
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it?
That statement is both false and disingenuous.
It's false because Republicans have proposed plans to solve healthcare concerns as they were stated by Democrats. They've been completely ignored, despite protestations by Democrats to the contrary.
It's disingenuous because there are plenty more than "a couple hundred Republicans" that oppose the bills proposed so far. Like the majority of the nation. Somewhere around ~70% want Congress to start over on healthcare. Pelosi and Reid can't even get their supermajority to pass healthcare, and they are now seriously considering using semantic sophistry to "deem" something into existence that is a fiction and seems clearly unconstitutional on its' face.
After this performance, I can understand Progressives and Democrats being angry and frustrated. Nobody wants what they're selling, and on top of it their leaderships' decision to double-down and do absolutely *anything* to pass this legislative bloatware against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans will nearly guarantee the Democrats won't be able to get a dog-catcher elected or re-elected for decades.
Strat
Make your points. Argue the topics, not who's "biased" about them. Who cares?
Everything you say is basically true. Everybody has biases. That's just part of the human condition.
However, when bias is used as a point of debate in a discussion as to the merits (typically to dismiss or destroy another individual's or group's point, perspective, or credibility) of the other side's argument, then it becomes a point insomuch as pointing out any actual bias or lack of on a particular fact or point referenced.
That's really the trick with many disingenuous claims of bias; in many cases, the fact or information referenced exists independent of anyone's biases as long as accuracy remains. The source of the particular item in question is irrelevant. This is the case here. Therefor, arguing "bias" to dismiss the report is an intellectually dishonest argument and so must be confronted and exposed.
When people use a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest argument I will call them on it. I think I'm not alone in this attitude. Whichever side of the discussion it falls on, and by whomever puts it forth. You don't *really* win an argument or discussion with such tactics, you just muddy the waters and lower the bar regarding the value of attempting to engage in earnest discussion and aggravate hostilities.
*Not* confronting & exposing such tactics in a discussion allows the discussions' value to be spoiled for everyone.
Strat
*pat pat*
how cute
Gosh, I hope the Democrats' healthcare plan will pay for a prosthetic replacement for that missing limb.
Are you really claiming that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart? Odd.
Well, *I* would never in a million claim that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart.
The NYT exceeds the level of bias at Breitbart by orders of magnitude.
Strat
Socialism and Fascism are polar opposites: you can't be moving towards both at the same time!
No, they are two sides of a non-monarchy totalitarian government. The real scale runs from total anarchy to total government control. Socialism and Fascism are near the extreme of the scale towards "total government control". A very imprecise working definition could be; Socialism is where the government is in charge of business, and Fascism is where business is in charge of government. I know this is all very simplistic, but this is a /. post.
Then compare with Australia...or France...or Germany...or...what, there's not a single country in the world that you can learn from? The USA isn't *that* unique.
Most of Europe for most of history has been ruled by Monarchies, but in more recent times has teetered between Socialism and Fascism. All three types share the characteristic that the government grants rights to the people that in default state they don't have as the government has all power, and they may be rescinded.
In the US (theoretically) the people grant powers & surrender rights they naturally already posses to the government conditional on the government obeying the will of the people and may be rescinded by the people.
The difference in the direction of the granting of rights & powers is totally opposite of every other government on the planet. This why the US would have a very difficult time implementing a universal healthcare system, as such a system would necessarily require government to take powers for itself that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government.
This totally opposite framing of where rights originate and who grants powers to whom is why many solutions that other countries implement could not work here. At least not without a total transformation of our form of government.
Maybe some would favor a fundamental change in how the US government works, but I don't feel universal healthcare is worth scrapping large sections of the Constitution. Particularly when all the complaints about the current healthcare system can be addressed without it.
There have been a number of other solutions proposed to fix the problem areas, but Democrats controlled by the Progressives won't allow that. The healthcare bills proposed by the Democrats have nothing to do with lowering costs, improving health, or (ha!) reducing/slowing the national debt or even reducing taxes as every bill proposed so far would cause the exact opposite outcome from the claims made.
The goal of the healthcare bills proposed by the Progressive-controlled Democrat majority has been an expansion of the size, scope, invasiveness, and power of government over the people. Progressives want to "progress" *past* the Constitution and it's limits on government power to a utopia where the government takes care of people from cradle to grave, and so therefore has power over every aspect of life from cradle to grave. This I will not allow to happen in my country while I live, and I am not alone.
Strat
from the tress along the Mall in D.C.
Gah! *Trees*!
I even previewed too. :-|
you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit,
There are many private health insurance companies operating in the UK, despite the existence of public healthcare.
I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.
Yet private healthcare in the UK is much cheaper than in the USA, so this is also clearly wrong.
The UK!==USA.
We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different societies and forms of government, as well as completely different economic structures. It's just not a valid comparison. Besides, the USA has the medical care the world comes to when they want the best.
There are problems, yes. These problems can be addressed without a complete restructuring and socialization of the entire system. This is but a stalking horse for moving the US closer to a socialistic/fascistic system of government, meanwhile lining the pockets of politicians and their masters at the cost of economic servitude for future generations as the nation is plunged even further into debt that dwarfs anything any nation has done to itself in all of history.
Even if one were to grant that a restructuring was needed, the bills proposed so far do not do the job. The bills proposed so far are nothing but political paybacks and payoffs with short shrift given to actually improving *care & cost*, meanwhile plunging the nation further down an unsustainable abyss of debt.
We as a nation are already on the verge of economic disaster & collapse. Spending a trillion-plus on a plan consisting mostly of payoffs, paybacks, political favors, and a raw government power-grab serves only those in power and those who wish to see the current capitalistic economic system and democratic representative republic governmental system replaced.
No.
Not even if I have to go hang the arrogant, corrupt, power-hungry SOBs myself from the tress along the Mall in D.C., and I won't be alone. It's about time for our government to return to fearing it's citizens as the founders intended, not the other way around.
Strat
The problem, as you allude to, lies in what would ultimately follow from trying to regulate speech on it's ethical merits (or lack thereof)
As I see it, your argument is a red herring, because the GP never suggested this.
I did not accuse him, either. I asked questions with the question-mark punctuation and everything. I was curious if he, as from his posts he seemingly shares a great many political and ideological beliefs with the Progressives who *do and have* advocated restricting speech with which they disagree, shared those views on speech also. I thought that in light of his post, they were reasonable questions.
Anyone has the legal right to say anything within the very minimal restrictions laid out by the SCOTUS. They may get sued if they create a tort in doing so, but that is civil between two private entities. I and most Americans, and it seems you as well, share a special disgust for those who would stifle opposing viewpoints for tactical & strategic political & ideological reasons.
I don't care who does it, what party, religion/no religion, or ideology they believe in. Suppression of speech...particularly religious, ideological, and political discourse...is wrong and against the freedoms this country was founded to protect for ourselves and future generations.
Freedom isn't free, neither in terms of battling foreign threats, nor the domestic battle of ideas against those who would take our rights and freedoms away to empower their political/ideological agendas. These ideas must be confronted and exposed to daylight rather than allowed to fester unopposed & undiscussed in the shadows. They must be confronted without fear whenever, wherever, and by whomever these ideas may surface.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance both without and within.
Strat