My Health Care Rant

Good rant.

Agreed.

What amazes me is the power that one word can have have: Socialized.

How easy it was for those opposed to this bill to capitalize on the archaic propaganda left over from the Cold War where we were taught that Socialism was just Communism's slightly younger brother. The average Joe/Jane American only know (if they know at all) that the word Socialism was part of the country name for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The evil red bear.

It was ever so easy to bank on that one word.

Here here Jonathan!

We must take this furor to the streets!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F_9FEx7ymg

The very root of the word democracy, demos, means people, but it seems that the corporate entities of this country have more rights and privilege. Great rant.

Those opposed to this bill are not against health care reform. They are opposed to all the special interests that engineered ways to profit from the bill at the public's expense. The Republicans wanted a version with less of the health industry managed by the federal government, because we have seen how great a job the government does in direct management of an industry. However, the Republicans were effectively shut out of the process entirely. This was made possible by the large majority enjoyed by the Democratic Party after the end of the Bush Presidency, and was fully exploited by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and by President Obama. Obama, during his election campaign, promised to put an end to partisan politics -- right.

Despite the rhetoric of the Democrats, the Republicans do not wish to block health care reform. They only wish to kill this dinosaur of a bill.

One good rant deserves another, eh?

I disagree Cog. Not that the Democrats shut out the Republicans or that many believe the bill is full of pork and other unnecessary spending. That is true, in my eyes at least.

However, I have met many conservatives (not just Republicans mind you) who just flat out despise Obama, despise liberals and despise anything resembling what they call "Socialism." They have an irrational hatred of liberal, "socialist" policies and it seems as soon as some idiot such as Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly spouts off on how Obama is promoting the dreaded "Red" policies, they lose all capacity for thought and reason; therefore reverting back to enraged, partisan lines of thought,

I admit, liberals are also guilty of these sins. Many liberals I know are just as adamant and steadfast in their views as the conservatives I know. There is nothing wrong with being firm in your beliefs, but when it gets to the point of inflexibility, surely "steadfastness" has gone too far? I disgusts me how many conservatives WISH the current administration will fail, as if just to prove a point. In retrospect, it disgusts me how liberals said the same of Bush. We ALL live in the same nation, all of us (yeah, even Obama, despite what idiots may say about his citizenship) are Americans. We say the Pledge, we hear the Star-spangled Banner, we respect the military and support our servicemembers.

Even if you don't agree with the current administration, saying you want our leaders to fail and the government to fail alongside it because you think they're too "socialist" or "fascist" (both terms bandied about so much they have lost all their meaning. To me at least) is pure idiocy. America is OUR nation and dividing it because of political factionalism strays beyond stupidity's reach and into the realm of insanity.

The ones saying they want our leaders to fail are idiots like Rumbaugh and Beck. And yes, they have their single-digit-IQ followers.

I'm talking about Congress and the Presidency specifically. Instead of creating bills that cover the points everyone agrees on, like prohibiting insurance companies from refusing coverage due to pre-existing conditions, they push through a lump of crud huge enough to hide a ton of pork and everyone's sweetheart agendas.

Now I know the Republicans in Congress aren't above the same kind of shenanigans. Let either party have too much control, and you get this kind of runaway government.

The bottom line is that this particular health reform bill is a heap of crap with a few shiny things sticking out, and is being sold to the public as the Hope Diamond.

I see what you're saying Cog and basically, I agree with you.

I can't comment much on the health care bill. I have neither the time nor the energy to sift through its 1000+ pages, so I'm not at all qualified to speak on that.

My main issue is with the current political parties and how each side demonizes the other. They all lie, they all scheme, they all sabotage one another; it is just a matter of whether they wear red or blue.

I won't address this directly but I would like you to think about the root of my dissent for this and all tax funded projects from some of my past blog posts:


Here is an example. Mr. Jones down the street wins the lottery, but is a chintzy miser and the other 11 people on the block hate him for it. So they decide to use democracy to settle the issue. They will be fair and even let Mr. Jones vote on what they have in mind. The first issue they have is that Mr. Jones won’t share his private water park with them. Well they all vote, and lo and behold it’s 11 for and 1 against publicizing. The second issue is that he has all this money, but even on that block some families are having problems paying the rent. A vote is put forth and once again it’s 11 for and 1 against levying a twenty percent tax on Mr. Jones.

This, you say, is ridiculous. We have property rights. This country was founded on the principle that people could be secure in their possessions. Socialism has always failed because if people can’t keep what they produce they stop producing. Changing the numbers doesn’t change the facts, it could be the twelve people who live on that block or the 900 who live in your town, or the 1,000,000 who live in your state, but it’s still theft. Democracy is actually counterproductive to freedom.



Here it is: TAXATION IS THEFT

This isn’t an original thought to me. I believe Spooner was the first to publish this thought, but I could be wrong. A friend of mine who just joined the ranks of us Shruggers a la Atlas Shrugged just said it last week.

“How many men?” Is the strongest argument I’ve heard to support this. It goes something like this: A man stealing a car, is theft and as such most people would regard it as unethical. So a gang of five men steal the same car isn’t this also theft? How about ten men who take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it? A gang of twenty men who not only take votes but have specialization of labor? One hundred men who take the car and give the victim back a bicycle? Two hundred men who not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle as well? How about every one in your county votes to steal all cars worth more than $30,000 sell them and use the proceeds to give “free” health care to all people who make less than $12,000/year? How big does a group needs to be, and what characteristics does it need to have, before the immorality of theft becomes the alleged morality of taxation?

I think each of you need to give a defintion of democracy, because it seems you mean different things while using the same word.

Anarchy inevitably boils down to, "The bullies rule." It isn't a solution. It is the core problem.

Socialism sounds good in theory, and even appears to work for a while on a small scale. However, it fails to motivate progress. Socialist societies inevitably stagnate and decay.

Capitalism has its flaws. Those who gain power, by whatever means, do not readily relinquish it. Capitalism gives everyone a level playing field to begin with, but eventually a power bloc develops that can not be broken. However, as long as competition remains active, the economy thrives, and everyone benefits under it. Not equally, though.

What we currently have in America is not pure capitalism. There is a layer of Socialism as well, to prevent the least advantaged from being completely ground underfoot. The balance between Socialism and Capitalism shifts dynamically, and Democracy is one of the driving forces maintaining that balance. Too much Socialism, and the average standard of living begins to slide. Too much capitalism, and too large a portion of the population falls into the have-nots, but still has a vote.

There is no perfect system. This one works best of any thus far.

"Does evil even exist?"

I personally believe that it does.

Every person that I've ever met who's made the claim that it doesn't exist always goes right back on that statement the instant something bad or, 'evil' happens to them in this thing we call 'real life.'

Firstly I'm not an Objectivist. I refuse to be drawn into a point by point argument with you. However I will point out the major flaws in your comment. Socialism has always failed. Be it the anarcho-socialist communes of the hippies, or the huge Marxism-Leninism USSR.

Do you really think there were no fire companies or roads before the 16th amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913? Even today we still have poll roads.

Like Cogito said USA isn't a democracy nor is it socialist. The best description is corporatist. All the "fat-cat" scare tactics you site are only because this goverenmnt is set up that way. In a truly free market this "unfair corporation" BS wouldn't be possible if they didn't buy "our representatives" and use their influence through regulatory laws to stiffle any possible competition. Have you ever researched viking-age Iceland? You should. Anarco-capitalism has worked before and will again. I'm getting so pissed I'm not even going to edit this.