Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Political Identity Crisis
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 153 (281562)
01-25-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Madfish
01-25-2006 1:36 AM


bottom line for me...
One clear historical message rings true from the 20th century, and that is the great murderer of the 20th century was the State in it's attempts at social engineering. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, the Apartheid architects, the Islamacists, etc,...all shared a common trait, empowerment of the State for the theoritical betterment of the people.
Imo, socialism is more often than not a disease and cancer on soceity. Go with your libertarian feelings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Madfish, posted 01-25-2006 1:36 AM Madfish has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 5:16 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 153 (281568)
01-25-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 5:16 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Nothing wrong, or maybe not nothing, but certainly volunteer socialism is qualitatively different than state coerced socialism. Heck, the family is socialist under the broader meaning of the term, but raising a family is not socialism in the context of politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 5:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 5:59 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 153 (281572)
01-25-2006 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 5:59 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Crash, I am not necessarily opposed to all government programs that help people, but at the same time, they can sometimes cause a ton of hurt for people as well and yet continue to enjoy support due to misguided backing.
Take for example, social security. Right now, imo, social security is a horribly repressive and regressive tax system on the lowest wage earners. Along with medicare, it's essentially a 15% tax on people's earning power for the first 80K or so people earn.
Now, take a low wage earner that would make, say, 20K per year in terms of cost to his employer. He is losing $3000 per year because some liberal democrats want to "help him." If you ask me, the liberals are royally screwing this guy over, but get away with it by claiming they are for the guy. It's a rip-off. If you want to help retirees, get the funding somewhere else besides the poorest wage earners in our soceity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 5:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 9:59 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 153 (281573)
01-25-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 5:59 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Also, take health-care costs. One of the main reasons health care costs rose so much is because of the insurance industry. What happened is there is now an extra layer of corporate beaurocracy that has to be paid, and extra paperwork, claims, etc,...and as this was laid on top of existing costs, the costs skyrocketed. The same level of health care now included a ton of more work and services and so the costs rose.
They also rose because insurance increased demand, and you may say, yea, that's good because more people could get health service, but often the demand is not really effective and necessary. I can't tell you as a parent how many parents rush to the doctor for every little cold their kid has "because, you know, it might be strep", but when they don't have insurance, they stay home unless it really is strep or something worse.
Are their children any better off rushing to the doctor because the insurance pays either way?
No, they are not. Plus the increased costs due to the insurance program has resulted in millions of middle class families doing without insurance, not because they are poor but because they are not poor and do noy qualify for free insurance (medicare).
Another harmful effect to the insurance system is that now doctors don't always make the best decision they would make for the patient because the insurance company (HMO) won't pay for it, and doctors that go ahead anyway are under pressure from the HMO or insurance program to change their treatment. It's a corrupting influence in the profession, making a profession a business.
So really, in the case of medicine, socialism as you put it, is all about transferring power to corporate and state interests and away from the professionals qualified to make the best decisions.
One last point, a lot of patients before insurance was widespread were treated for free, about 20%. That was just how doctors did it in many areas. My father and grandfather were both doctors in NC, and they treated people when they could not pay, and sometimes people gave them farm stuff like produce, or a ham, or even moonshine (though my Dad didn't drink it) or something like that, sometimes for years even in appreciation of their work. So it's not like in those times that people did not get care. The insurance system, overall imo, has not really served people better. There are still people outside the system, but the insurance companies aren't going to treat them for free, and the costs have risen dramatically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 5:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2006 8:53 PM randman has replied
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:10 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 153 (281629)
01-26-2006 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
01-25-2006 8:53 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
I don't get it. Insurance companies were non-profit in your book?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2006 8:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 153 (281630)
01-26-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 9:59 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
I didn't say I supported insurance for the record, and why should those least able to pay high taxes be slapped with such a high tax bill? You think private insurance and retirement plans would cost as much as 15% of one's earning power?
Gimme a break. It's a big rip-off of the American worker foisted on him by liberal democrats that suck up the retirement funds of poor people and spend it on government programs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 9:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:04 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 153 (281874)
01-26-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-26-2006 9:12 PM


Believe it or not, I usually come out very near the center on most of these things, and believe it or not, that is one reason I think they are bogus.
But hey, maybe I am the political center.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2006 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2006 9:41 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 35 of 153 (281877)
01-26-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:04 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
Care to prove your assertion?
Oh, I think they'd cost much, much more. In fact, it's proven that they would cost much, much more. Social Security is the most cost-effective way to provide what it provides.
Ok, run the numbers on someone donating 12.5% of their income into IRAs starting at the age they begin work, say, 20 years old into they are 65, and use compound interest, say, at 7.5%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 153 (281880)
01-26-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
Studies prove that the more often people see the doctor early on - something they can only afford to do if they're insulated from the health care costs - the cheaper health care becomes for all the rest of it.
Let's see those studies, and to make them relevant to my example, show them for pediatrics. You may save some money by offering free health screenings, but you are off in many other ways.
More people going to the doctor actually drives costs down, not up. It's a lot cheaper to treat a heart attack by preventing it with medication than by a 6-hour laproscopic surgery.
So all those millions of Americans that have health insurance take better care of themselves, and so with the increase of health insurance, we should see less obesity, less diabetes, etc,....
Wonder why that isn't happening, crash?
But hey, since you rule out increased demand as the reason for the rise in health care costs, and insurance company overhead, please tell us what you think the reasons are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 10:10 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 153 (281882)
01-26-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
[qs] Canada has universal health care; as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 153 (281970)
01-27-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
01-27-2006 10:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
Because less and less Americans are being adequately covered by health insurance. More and more Americans are shouldering health care burdens that insurance used to cover, and as a result, they're going to the doctor less.
You really think that's what's causing obesity in America and diabetes? That people don't have health care?
Do I even need to argue with such an obvious wrong point?
Btw, you gonna back up any of the claims I asked you to back up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 10:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 1:17 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 153 (281973)
01-27-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-27-2006 10:23 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
Personal health care savings accounts are a joke that won't help anyone except those who can already afford health insurance.
It's still an improvement and helps some. One thing you guys keep ignoring is putting the government in charge of something has negative side effects. Moroever, just because you have insurance doesn't mean the doctor you want to use will be on the program. We paid out of pocket for an MD but who also is a homeopathic doctor because we felt her treatments would be better for our daughter's allaergies than shots, and we were correct.
Would government-funded insurance cover that?
Probably not, but maybe....I don't trust putting the government in charge myself.
As far as people dying because they don't have health insurance.....I'd like to see how you prove that. Not saying some don't die, but at the same time, it seems more like something someone just made-up and never verified.
Imo, what the government could do is determine which sorts of check-ups and tests work to detect serious illnesses early, and pay for everyone or provide to everyone those check-ups and diagnostic tests for free. Maybe give people a voucher to use every couple of years, or just open public health centers for that. But if it lowers costs, then it makes sense, but I am not sure a single-payer system will work that great in such a large nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-27-2006 10:23 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-30-2006 4:12 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 153 (282032)
01-27-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
01-27-2006 1:57 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
But the vast majority of this "Americans are fat and lazy" meme is an attempt by the right to shift the burden of worsening American health from the people actually responsible to the victims themselves.
Victims? Good grief man. Now, overweight people are victims of the religious and extreme right, eh? Those Repukies just stuffing food down everyone's throat; denying them the right to walk around and exercise and such....you know it's true cuz crash seys so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 1:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 10:22 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 153 (282099)
01-28-2006 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
01-27-2006 7:22 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Crash, you think the French only became healthier due to socialism? You are way off the deep end here. The French smoke, yea, but they eat better quality food and walk more. Plus, there is probably a genetic component to heart disease that the French lack generally. The automobile and developing towns where everyone drives is a far more significant factor than differences in the health care systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 7:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 01-28-2006 5:51 AM randman has not replied
 Message 55 by Tusko, posted 01-28-2006 6:04 AM randman has not replied
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 9:20 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 153 (282100)
01-28-2006 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
01-27-2006 10:22 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
My goodness shraf. You ever consider that during this time our society went through the changes you deplore that liberals ran the government. Liberals ran the government for 40 years or so, and they gave the tax breaks to large corporations. They favored large corporations, especially if they were unionized such as auto makers, and not small business people, who really are the backbone of job creation and more likely to be conservative Republicans.
Let me give you an example. Take the coal companies. Ever wonder why West Virginia was dominated so long by both the coal companies and democrats?
You think the democrats were against the auto makers with all their union employees? What party was in power, who controlled Congress specifically, when America went on the suburbia spree?
This message has been edited by randman, 01-28-2006 03:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 10:22 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 01-28-2006 12:53 PM randman has not replied
 Message 78 by Lithodid-Man, posted 01-29-2006 4:06 AM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024